Thursday, 28 November 1985 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hamer) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. 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 65 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: This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year For Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That human embryos deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilization. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Michael Baume (from 171 citizens), Mason (from 1,210 citizens), Morris (from 339 citizens) and Sibraa (from 294 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 the Veterans' Entitlements Bill dated May 1985 is taking a fair ``earned service'' from the men and women of Australia who kept this country free so that Governments of today could have the freedom to be able to Govern fairly. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in the Parliament assembled ensure that the previous legislation in respect of Servicemen and Women and their dependants' entitlements be restored. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 11 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 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 unnecesary 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 ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 38 citizens). 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 Archer (from 10 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 the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Michael Baume (from 316 citizens) and Childs (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in parliament. We the undersigned express our concern over the sale of the Belconnen Mall due to the likely detrimental effect on the provision of community facilities presently existing in the Belconnen Mall. 1. In particular we seek guarantees that the present Child Care Centre and Community Facilities be retained by incorporating the same into the conditions of sale of the Belconnen Mall and that the services will receive the same real level of funding and support currently provided by the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. 2. That a financial commitment to the Building of Stage 4 of the Belconnen Mall listed under Section 14C in the Ordinance of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority be undertaken. Stage 4 to consist of Community Facilities such as community hall, large glassed enclosed community park, exhibition space, health and fitness club, ice rink, amusement centre and office accomodation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this petition be considered. by Senator Vigor (from 58 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, unless otherwise ordered- (a) The hours of meeting of the Senate on Tuesday, 3 December 1985, be- 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; and (b) the Order of Business for that day be as follows: (i) Petitions (ii) Notices of Motion (iii) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (iv) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (v) Business as set down on the Notice Paper (vi) at 2 p.m., Questions (vii) any proposal pursuant to standing order 64 (viii) consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order, and (ix) further consideration of Business as set down on the Notice Paper. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole, and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order from the reading of the Bills. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. First Readings Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Bills be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill presented by Senator Sanders, and read a first time. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(10.06) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to prohibit the granting of a mining lease or permit over any part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is a World Heritage area. It is comprised of an extremely delicate and complex ecosystem. Mining operations are clearly inconsistent with the protection of that ecosystem, a fact already recognised by S.38 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, which this Bill amends. The present S.38 prohibits operations for the recovery of minerals within the marine part except where such operations are carried out by or with the approval of the Marine Park Authority for the purposes of scientific research, or for the establishment, care and development of the marine park. This Bill extends the protection provided by S.38. First, it provides that no lease, licence, or permit granted for the purpose of, or purposes including, the carrying out of operations for the recovery of minerals, or for any purpose ancillary to such operations, shall have any forces within the marine park. Secondly, mining operations carried out for the purposes of scientific research, or for the establishment, care and development of the marine park, are permitted but only after the approval of the Minister and both Houses of Parliament. The maximum penalty for offences under the section is increased from $50,000 to $100,000. The proposals in this Bill stem from recent developments in the far northern section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. A consortium including Toyomenko, one of Japan's leading glass manufacturers, has applied for a mining lease over a National Estate Area onshore at Shelburne Bay on Cape York Peninsula. The lease application includes approximately 50 hectares of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. In 1984 a zoning plan for the far northern section of the marine park, which includes Shelburne Bay, was released for public comment. The area of Toyomenko's lease which lies within the marine park, and on which Toyomenko plans to construct a loading jetty 500 metres into the reef, was zoned Marine Park B. Marine Park B is the classification which provides the highest protection. When the final zoning plan was recently placed before the Parliament, the zoning of the area covered by the Toyomenko lease had been changed to General Use A, a low protection classification. Why was the classification changed? The Round Point and Rodney Island area covered by the lease have fringing reef. There are sea grass beds in the area on which dugong feed. There is some dispute as to whether the area is prime dugong habitat, but that dispute is unlikely to have been decisive in changing the zoning if it were not for one fact-the representations which Toyomenko had been making for over 18 months to have the area zoned in such a way as to advance their project. The Government may reply that the zoning is irrelevant to Toyomenko's project, as a jetty theoretically can be constructed within any zone of the Marine Park. If that is the case, why did the Minister on 19 September 1985, write that the zoning had been changed `to enable the operation of the proposed ship loading facility'? The final zoning plan reflects a blatant effort to re-design part of the Marine Park Zoning Plan to accommodate an overseas company's wishes to mine an area of the National Estate. What is at stake? The reef area extending from Shelburne Bay is the largest reef transect zoned for high protection in the entire Marine Park. The Mining project poses the following dangers indentified by the Marine Park Authority. 1. effect of accidental spillage into reef from jetty; 2. introduction of exotic species into reef waters by release of ship ballast water; 3. effect of jetty on sand movement; 4. effect of pylons drilled through the fringing reef on the fringing reef itself. 5. effect of anti-corrosive and anti-fouling materials to be used on the ship loading facility. An internal file note of the Marine Park Authority of 30 May 1984 noted that Toyomenko `did not wish to be bound into a highly expensive environmental impact statement'. The note continues: (the Authority) expressed the view that the essential issues of environmental risk need not require a major time consuming and expensive exercise'. Toyomenko, in their initial environmental advice required under the Queensland Mines Act stated that the Shelburne Bay area dunefields, including the areas which are to be mined, contained `no features of particular scenic or historic interest. All aboriginal sites have been mapped. There were no plants or animals which are found only on the lease area'. The consortium's leading Australian representative referred to the area as nothing but scrub. The facts are that the area is on the National Estate. A botanical team sent by the consortium to the site for just a few days discovered two previously undiscovered plant species. The consortium's own ecologist stated of the Round Point, Rodney Island area, to be used for port facilities; `none of the Marine community types found in and around the study area of the Shelburne Bay are rare but the combination of all of these in a relatively confined area has produced a unique system of high conservation value.' The closed vine forest on Rodney Island, half of which was destroyed by Toyomenko's survey team is, according to Toyomenko's own ecologist of `considerable significance-one of only two recorded examples of their community on Cape York'. Thirteen hectares of open eucalypt forest which will be destroyed is of significance because, as Toyomenko's ecologist states this forest is, `of interest botanically as it appears to contain an unusual assemblage of species and some undescribed plants'. A total of 170 hectares (or 420 acres) in a scientifically sigificant area is to be demolished. And this is only the beginning. What is in it for Australia? 25 cents a tonne royalties, and permanent jobs for 15 workers. I urge all those Senators who value the Great Barrier Reef, and who believe the national estate is worth more than 25 cents a tonne, to join with the Australian Democrats in support of this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Referral Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I seek leave to move a motion to refer the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1985 to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Leave not granted. Motion (by Senator Cooney) agreed to: That, Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 2, standing in my name for this day of sitting for disallowance of the New South Wales Acts Application Ordinance 1985 be postponed until a later hour this day. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I seek leave to postpone until a later hour this day Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 6, standing in my name for this day of sitting, for disallowance of the New South Wales Acts Applications Ordinance 1985. Leave granted. Senator VIGOR —I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave not granted. Debate resumed from 27 November, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bills be now read a second time. upon which Senator Lewis had moved by way of amendment: At end of motion, add `, but the Senate- (a) expresses its concern in relation to: (i) the reimposition of the Government's assets test in respect of veterans' service pensions because of its iniquitous impact, (ii) the removal of repatriation cover for members of the Defence Force enlisting after the date of commencement of the legislation without a new military compensation Act being in place, (iii) the creation of different levels of entitlement, and categories, in respect of allied veterans and war widows and, (iv) the degree of anomaly associated with the restrospectivity implicit in various aspects of the proposed changes; and (b) calls on the Government to monitor closely the operation of the new legislation because of the significance of the changes and the many new definitions and provisions it introduces into the administration of veterans' affairs'. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.10) —As I was saying last evening when we were debating the Veterans' Entitlements Bill and its associated Bill, I wish to raise very briefly with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) the entitlement to the General Service Medal of members of the 12/40 Battalion, which served in the Java-Sumatra area and also in French Indo-China at the conclusion of the Second World War. I ask the Minister to review the entitlement to the medal for the service of members of the battalion, which, although after the conclusion of the war, saw what amounted to active service. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(10.11) —I want to speak for a few minutes on the legislation because I regard it as quite important. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill is designed to clean up a string of Acts that have evolved over nearly 70 years as the Commonwealth has been struggling to repay in some way the sacrifices of those citizens who volunteered or were required to fight for Australia in a series of wars. I am disappointed that the new Bill does nothing to clean up the anomalies, the inconsistencies, of the five pieces of legislation it is meant to rationalise. In fact, the new Bill is a recipe for litigation, and that litigation will be not so much about the compensation the ex-serviceman is entitled to as whether or not the ex-serviceman is entitled to anything at all. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) has an unenviable record in this repect. He is the first Minister for Veterans' Affairs to have lost the confidence of the ex-service community. I know he is an ex-serviceman, but I think his own general political alignment tends to make him hostile to those who have fought for Australia. Some of these matters need to be examined in the light of comments made by the veterans' associations. I have a letter from the Regular Defence Force Welfare Association, which draws attention to a number of outstanding issues. I believe it would be appropriate to have those comments incorporated in Hansard, in the interests of saving time, and I seek leave accordingly. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Dear Senator Jessop, VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS BILL 1985 On 23 July 1985, I wrote to you and your colleagues in the House of Representatives and the Senate about the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 (VEB)-in the light of the changes in Repatriation made in the mini-budget in May and introduced in the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs took exception to the attitudes expressed in this letter and I understand sent you a copy of his reply to me dated 27 August. I do not accept the Minister's criticism. The RDFWA together with other ex-service organisations was concerned about the trend of events. It was our intention to alert all Senators and Members about this unease and encourage their interest in the VEB. The fact that nearly every Senator and Member took the trouble to send a considered reply, the number of petitions which were signed and the number of letters sent by individuals to their elected representatives indicate our aim was achieved. The present position is: (a) a good measure of consultation between ex-service organisations and the Minister and his Department has occurred and is continuing, (b) certain amendments suggested by ex-service organisations have been accepted and embodied in the Bill, (c) the Bill is now with the Senate, (d) some issues have not been resolved to the satisfaction of the ex-service community. For your information I attach a list of these outstanding issues and urge your careful consideration of, and support for them in the forthcoming Senate debate on the VEB. Yours sincerely, J. Whitelaw, National President. 21 November 1985. THE VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS BILL 1985 OUTSTANDING ISSUES Item 1 Exceptionally disabled persons who have retired from remunerative activity and are not now eligible for a special rate of pension, must be covered by intermediate and special rates of pension without age being a factor. To deal with this problem it is suggested an amendment to the VEB include a new Clause 24A: ``24A. Exceptional Disability Allowance Where the Commission is satisfied that a war caused injury or disease has deteriorated after a veteran has ceased undertaking remunerative work, an exceptional disability allowance may be paid where the incapacity will be assessed according to the degree of disability but will not exceed the amount of special rate of pension.'' Item 2 The standard of proof provisions contained in Section 47 (2) of the Repatriation Act prior to 6 June 1985 should apply to undetermined applications or appeals in the Repatriation Determining System as at 6 June 1985. The report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills referred to the retrospective nature of the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1985. There are two elements to be considered under this heading: (a) Claims and appeals in the Repatriation Determining System pipeline before 14 May 1985 should be dealt with under the legislation which was in force at that time. (b) Where applications or appeals were determined but not assessed before 14 May 1985, dependants' allowances should be payable on assessment under the conditions that applied prior to 14 May 1985. This problem of retrospectivity could be overcome by inserting the following amendment in the VEB: ``4A. Nothing in this Act shall apply to claims or appeals lodged prior to 14 May 1985. Such claims shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Repatriation Act 1920 (as amended).'' Item 3 There should be cover for all full time members of the Australian Defence Force under the Bill. An amendment to the VEB is suggested as follows: ``That Clauses 68 (1) (a) (i) and 69 (1) (a) be amended by deletion of the words `and before the commencement of this Act'.'' There is an error in drafting the VEB in the omission from Clause 69 which does not declare serving members of the Defence Force who are allotted for hazardous service, to be members of the Defence Force. This also applies to Clause 68. This anomaly has been drawn to the attention of the Government and we understand it is their intention to resolve this by amendment in the Autumn 1986 session of Parliament back dated to enactment of the VEB. We understand this intention on the part of the Government is to avoid the possibility that such an amendment may delay enactment of the VEB by 5 December 1985. We remain of the view that this evident drafting ommission should be corrected now. Item 4 There is an anomaly between the Minister's Second Reading Speech in the House of Representatives on 16 October and Clause 119 (3) of the VEB. The former on page 13, second last line uses the phrase ``satisfied beyond reasonable doubt'' while the VEB in Clause 119 (3) line 10 used the phrase ``of the opinion''. The following amendment to the VEB is suggested. ``That Clause 119 (3) line 10 be amended by deletion `of the opinion' and substitution of `satisfied beyond reasonable doubt'.'' This amendment is important on the grounds of consistency in interpretation in the area of onus of proof where contention has centred. Item 5 There is a rigidity in the provisions of Clause 19 (4) which does not allow discretion in the refusal of claims when claimants, for valid reasons, may be unable to comply with requirements for medical examinations, on the grounds of their ill health or other genuine reasons. To overcome this it is suggested that the following amendment be made: ``That Clause 19 (4) lines 4 and 5 be amended by the deletion of `shall by force of this sub-section, be deemed to have been' and substitution of `may be'.'' Item 6 The application of the new Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veterans' Pensions is likely to result in many veterans receiving a disability pension substantially less than under the existing Guide. Clause 29 of the VEB states the new Guide will have no force or effect unless and until approved by the Minister. The new Guide was made available on 16 October to ex-service organisations and is now under examination by them. We believe the Minister should not approve this Guide until he has considered comments by the ex-service community. It is suggested this be borne in mind during examination of Clause 29 of the VEB. Item 7 Dependants' allowances should continue and be reinstated for new cases but with the option for those presently entitled to receive a commutation equal to five years' pension. The ex-service community is unanimous that the provision of commutation on a 78 month basis as included in the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 is inadequate and inappropriate. It is suggested this Bill should be amended in Clause 6 (4) (b) line by deletion of `78' and substitution of `110'. Conclusion We want to ensure that all aspects of the Bills be clarified before enactment. Our position is as indicated above. Delay in enactment of these Bills would cause confusion in the ex-service community and the Department and its agencies. A thorough examination of these Bills in the Senate in the Committee stage will ensure that anomalies and inconsistencies are fully exposed and recorded in Hansard for later attention by the Minister. Senator JESSOP —I feel that more needs to be done to clean up the entitlements Bill. The Minister should have regard to the comments made by the Regular Defence Force Welfare Association because they highlight anomalies that need to be addressed. If the Minister examines them very carefully he may well find that that will assist in dealing with the problem in a more effective way. I believe that the Minister and his advisers-this has been mentioned before-did not consult adequately or early enough with the organisations concerned with this Bill. Their handling of the whole thing has been quite disgraceful and that is why I was anxious to draw to the Minister's attention the suggestions put forward by the Regular Defence Force Welfare Association. I hope the Minister will examine the matter carefully and attempt to do something about it in the future. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —Mr Deputy President, I have already spoken in the debate, but I seek leave to move an amendment to the second reading amendment moved by the Opposition. I do not propose to speak to my amendment. Leave granted. Senator MACKLIN —I move: Leave out sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a). Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.16) —The debate on the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 is the culmination of some three years of preparation, consolidation and simplification of the very many Acts that come under the general heading of repatriation. It is also the culmination of extensive consultation over that period with the veteran community. I remind the Senate that the Government in good faith continued the process that was begun by Senator Messner in establishing an advisory committee when it became apparent to him that the various Acts had become so cumbersome and no longer relevant in the new circumstances of service of veterans to their country, that there was a need for modernising and consolidating the legislation. From the Government's point of view-and, indeed, from that of the Opposition, when it was in government-the emphasis has always been on consultation with the veteran community. During the debates on the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, honourable members have claimed that the Opposition had compelled the Government to consult the veteran community on this Bill by forcing the inclusion of a sunset clause in the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985. This is an attempt by the Opposition to claim credit where credit is not due. Consultation with the veteran community on the Veteran's Entitlements Bill began long before the enactment of the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985, which was carried in the autumn session this year following the economic statement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in May. In fact, it was the Opposition when in government in 1982 which began the consultative process to which I have referred when it announced the establishment of the Advisory Committee on the Repatriation Legislation Review. This Government readily acknowledges the efforts of Senator Messner who was then the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. When the Labor Government came into office in March 1983 I announced that the program of review of the repatriation legislation by the Advisory Committee would continue. The Advisory Committee was chaired by Sir William Keys and comprised representatives of the major ex-service organisations. I took the additional step of inviting the Australian Veterans' and Defence Services Council to be co-opted on to the Committee so that we would have a broader imput from the veteran community. In November 1983 the Advisory Committee submitted its report to the Government. As I have stated on a number of occasions, the Veterans' Entitlement Bill has been based upon the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. In fact, 95 per cent of the Committee's 292 recommendations have been incorporated in the Bill. I remind the Senate that there are some 20 improvements in respect of entitlements for veterans arising out of this piece of legislation. Judging by the publicity and comments made by Opposition members in the House of Representatives and the Senate, one would believe that this is not a good Bill. In fact it is a good Bill. As was pointed out by Senator Messner when he established the Advisory Committee in 1982, it was not to be regarded as part of the jurisdiction of that Committee to take on board all the ambit claims that have been around in the veteran community in the post-war years. Nevertheless, the Government has maintained the generous provisions of the repatriation Acts over the years and this has continued in this legislation. The Advisory Committee was the major channel in the consultations with the veteran community in the early period of the development of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill and I had many discussions with members of the Committee as well as with representatives of the veteran community. Copies of the Committee's report were widely distributed in the ex-service community and comments were invited from interested persons. I doubt whether any other piece of legislation has received such wide public interest and discussion. In February 1984 a preliminary draft of the Bill was made available to members of the Advisory Committee for their comment. Constructive comments were received and those comments were taken into account in the subsequent drafting. The Opposition did not force that consultation; that was part of the whole process in the preparation of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. Early in March 1985, well before the introduction of the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985, the national Secretary of the Returned Services League requested that officers of my Department be made available to discuss and explain the provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, when the exposure draft of that Bill was tabled in Parliament, and this request was agreed to. The Oppositiuon obviously did not force that consultation. Honourable senators will be aware that following the tabling of the exposure draft of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill on 30 May this year, consultation with the veterans' community was intensified. Material explaining the Veterans' Entitlements Bill was produced and circulated widely to the veteran community by officers of my Department, who then conducted information seminars for members of the veterans' community; not just for the leaders of the community but for the ordinary veterans in the community. Over 80 such seminars were conducted throughout Australia and about 10,000 interested persons attended those seminars. Further seminars were held for specific groups in the community when requested. Separate briefings were held for the leaders of the ex-service community in each State, as indeed they were for members of parliament. There has also been publicity in the newspapers and on television and radio. Some ex-service groups were also involved in meetings with me and I have received and responded to well over 1,000 letters on matters relating to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. I stress that this consultation has been genuine and has been part of the whole preplanned process. Members of the Opposition have intimated that the Government has been forced to back down on some of its proposals that were contained in the exposure draft of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill of May this year. They have referred specifically to the 40-year rule and other aspects of the standard of proof provision. Those opposite obviously do not appreciate the meaning of the word `consultation'. Consultation involves seeking the views of people and having regard to their advice. This is just what the Government has done. It has engaged in dialogue with the veterans' community, noted its concerns and reacted to those concerns. I was involved, even as late as a few weeks before the Bill was presented to the Parliament, in discussions with national leaders of the veteran community about the precise rewording of clause 119. The redraft of clause 119 is the result of such extensive discussions with veterans' leaders. After at least 10 or 12 different drafts, some provided by the legal advocates of the veterans' movement and others provided by my Department, finally a form of words was agreed to and became the substance of the legislation. If there are any defects-we concede that there are some defects in the drafting of the legislation-they are because of those changes that were agreed to in the final period of the discussions. Of course, they will have some counter effects, or flow-on effects, which we have acknowledged exist and which will be rectified in the autumn session. I particularly acknowledge the assistance given by Judge Paul Toose in this regard in respect of the reframing of clause 119. The Bill now before the Senate is the outcome of one of the most extensive and thorough processes of consultation that has been undertaken by any government. Senator Reid will acknowledge that in her presence and my presence, Sir William Keys admitted only a week or 10 days ago that this had been the most extensive consultation ever with the veteran community by any government in respect of a piece of legislation. The Government acknowledges that not all of the demands of the ex-service community have been met in this Bill. Realistically, the veteran community does not expect that all of its demand will be met, and the veterans' leaders have acknowledged responsibly that the O'Brien decision went too far in terms of pension entitlements. Within its overall economic strategy, the Government has attempted to accommodate concerns and priorities indicated by veterans. I refer to what Senator Boswell said in the debate. He asked me what the Government had done in respect of the $116m saving involved in the assets test. The $116m saving was for the Government generally and not for veterans' affairs. It included the amount that was saved in the social security area. Our savings approximated $30m. As Senator Boswell has raised this matter, I draw his attention to the statement I issued in the Budget period this year to show that the increases in my Department's spending from last Budget to this Budget exceeded $267m. Whatever savings have been made in respect of my Department have been spent in other sections of my Department. In fact, we have made no contribution in net terms to the reduction in the Commonwealth deficit. We have spent considerable sums in upgrading the repatriation hospitals which everybody in the veteran community accepts is an essential step to take. The Bill is the Government's positive response to the consultative processes that have taken place over the entire period of this Government's term. Questions have been asked of me in respect of clause 119. I am happy to give an assurance that the operation of clause 119 will be closely monitored. Some issues were raised in the House of Representatives debate in relation to the standard of proof. In particular, the opinion of Mr McInnes, QC, was referred to as suggesting that there were problems in the drafting of clause 119. In my view this opinion is not worth the paper it is written on. I am happy to make available an opinion I have received on this matter. Having discussed the matter with Senator Lewis, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the legal opinion of Mr Bennett, QC, dealing specifically with the matter raised by Mr McInnes. Leave granted. The document read as follows- MINISTER FOR VETERANS' AFFAIRS RE VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS BILL 1985-CLAUSE 119 Opinion 1. Our instructing solicitor acts for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The Minister seeks advice in relation to the Memorandum of Mr McInnes QC dated 8 November, 1985 (``the Memorandum'') which concerns the effect of clause 119 of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 (``the Bill''). 2. The Memorandum proceeds upon the basis that sub-clause 119(3) of the Bill will require the Commission ``to look at the whole of the evidence before it and determine if that evidence raises a reasonable hypothesis'' (see the Memorandum at page 4). The Memorandum then expresses the view that clause 119 is at least open to the construction that a reasonable hypothesis is that which the Commission considers most likely so that where there are several hypotheses the Commission will determine which is the most likely and determine that to be the reasonable one. 3. In our opinion, this view is based upon a fundamental misconception of the provision. Sub-clause (3) will require the Commission to make a determination which will result in the refusal of the claim if it is of the opinion that the material before it does not raise a relevant reasonable hypothesis. Mr McInnes considers it to be arguable that the words ``reasonable hypothesis'' mean ``the most likely hypothesis'', so that, if the most likely hypothesis is against the claimant, the Commission will be of the view that the material does not raise that hypothesis and be bound to apply sub-clause (3) so as to make an adverse determination. This is simply not what the words ``reasonable hypothesis'' mean in the sub-clause and we consider, with respect, that the contrary is not reasonably arguable. We express this view for the following reasons: (a) The sub-clause refers to the material not raising ``a'' reasonable hypothesis of the relevant kind. The indefinite article ``a'', when preceded by the adverb ``not'', means ``any''. To say that there is not a lion in sight is to say that there is not any lion in sight. It does not mean that a particular lion is not in sight although other lions may be. Applying this to the present context, an opinion that material does not raise ``a'' reasonable hypothesis means an opinion that the material does not raise any reasonable hypothesis; in other words an opinion that there is no relevant reasonable hypothesis at all raised by the material. It does not mean an opinion that one particular relevant reasonable hypothesis is not raised although others may be. (b) There is no way in which one can read the words ``a reasonable hypothesis'' to mean ``the most likely of a number of hypotheses.'' The English words simply do not bear that meaning. (c) Even if, contrary to our very firm views, the words ``reasonable hypothesis'' were given this meaning, the literal language of the sub-clause would not support the contention. The sub-clause would then provide that the Commission would be bound to make the relevant adverse finding if it were of the opinion that the material before it did not raise what the Commission considered to be the most likely hypothesis. This is internally inconsistent. (d) The timing of the amendment in relation to O'Brien's case, the reference to that case in the Explanatory Memorandum and the general context of the provision make the view expressed by Mr McInnes quite untenable. Apart from anything else, it would have the effect of reversing the policy expressed in the Explanatory Memorandum and the Second Reading Speech. 4. The difference is not one of mere semantic nicety. If after considering the whole of the material before it the Commission is of the opinion that there are a number of reasonable hypotheses either for or against a war-service relationship or of both kinds, no question of choosing between them will arise. This is because any one reasonable hypothesis in favour of a war-service relationship which remains will have the result that the Commission could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was no sufficient ground for determining the connection. 5. It follows that comparative likelihood of different reasonable hypotheses is not an issue under this clause. It is sufficient if the Commission is of the opinion that there is one reasonable hypothesis. 6. In our view the misconstruction which we have set out in paragraph 2 above vitiates the conclusions of the Memorandum. As we have said, there will be no occasion for the Commission to choose between reasonable hypotheses found to remain at the completion of the Commission's consideration of all the material before it. 7. There remain to mention two further matters. 8. First, it is said in the Memorandum that there is an evidentiary burden placed upon an applicant. This conclusion is closely associated with what we regard as the error in relation to competing reasonable hypotheses. Nevertheless we repeat that it is the duty of the Secretary of the Department to investigate a claim and of the Commission to satisfy itself with respect to or determine all matters relevant to the determination of a claim or application. 9. Finally, we advert to that part of the Memorandum which concludes that a reasonable hypothesis ``would be determined on the usual civil standard''. This conclusion is said to follow from sub-clause 119 (3) of the Bill. What this fails to recognise is the relation between the opinion that the material does not raise a reasonable hypothesis and the requirement that the Commission shall determine that the injury, disease or death was war-caused or defence-caused unless satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there is not sufficient ground for making that determination. 10. The error in the Memorandum is that an extra step is inserted in the process which overlooks the fact that the notion of ``reasonable hypothesis'' stems from the criminal law and contains within it the ``beyond reasonable doubt'' standard. The true position therefore is that the opinion as to whether a reasonable hypothesis remains or does not remain constitutes the satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt. That this is so is clear from the words ``the Commission shall be satisfied'' in sub-clause 119 (3) of the Bill. It follows that no question of the civil standard of proof arises in relation to the sub-clause. 11. We advise accordingly. DAVID BENNETT ALAN ROBERTSON Chambers 25 November 1985 Senator GIETZELT —It has been claimed that the eligibility criteria for totally and permanent incapacitated pensions discriminate against those veterans whose service-related incapacity increases following their retirement from work. The Returned Services League has proposed that these veterans should receive an exceptional disability allowance if they do not qualify for a TPI pension. It could be said that the introduction of such an allowance for veterans whose service-related incapacities did not cause economic loss is a TPI pension by another name. Therefore, it is a concept that needs comprehensive study. The need for and the cost of the proposal should be fully examined. No responsible government could introduce such a scheme without full knowledge of its implications. That knowledge is not available at present. I thank Senator Lewis for his comments on this matter. He accepted the argument and noted that this is a matter that will have to be considered in the overall budgetary context. That is the view the Government takes. If the RSL or other veterans' organisations consider this as a priority area for repatriation expenditure, no doubt the matter will be raised with the Government and examined along with other competing priorities in the context of new policy proposals. The Government does not close the door to such a proposal; rather it views it in the perspective of a policy proposal to be considered in some future budgetary context. It must be noted, however, that any expenditure in this area may need to be offset by savings in another area. There has been a lot of debate about members of the regular defence forces. I stress to the Senate that the responsibility for repatriation for the regular defence forces occurs substantially as a result of a decision made by the Whitlam Government in the latter part of 1972. Prior to that, members of the regular defence forces had very little association with repatriation benefits. Notice has been given that amendments to clauses 68 and 69 of the Bill will be moved in the Senate. The effects of these amendments would be to provide that future enlistees or appointees to the regular Defence Force would be eligible for repatriation cover. Honourable senators will be aware that it is the Government's intention that repatriation cover will be extended only to those persons who enlist or who are appointed to the regular defence forces after the commencement of the Veterans' Entitlements Act where they undertake hazardous service or are designated by the Minister for Defence for peacekeeping service. I acknowledge that there are drafting errors in the hazardous service provision and these will be rectified with retrospective effect. At this stage it might be relevant if I were to refer to a letter that has been given to me by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) on this very important issue of providing for members of the regular Defence Force and the military compensation aspects involved. I am doing this because it has been suggested to me that if the Government were to introduce a military compensation scheme, some of the Opposition's concerns about the Veterans' Entitlements Bill may not be pressed. In a letter sent to me yesterday, Mr Beazley said: My Dear Minister, The Government has agreed that there should be an examination of the need for a military compensation scheme to meet the special circumstances of Defence Force service in peacetime. I will be shortly setting that examination in train, with the direction that the report to the Government is to be available next year within a time table such that, should cabinet endorse the scheme, the necessary legislation will be able to be enacted in 1987. I must point out with regard to the suggestion that new enlistees should remain under the Repatriation Act that they do not become eligible for repatriation benefits until such time as they have had three years service. No existing beneficiary in the defence services or any person who is currently eligible for repatriation benefits will be affected by the legislation. Only the new enlistees will be affected. As there are three years to go before that exigency arises-that is, before they are eligible to become beneficiaries under the repatriation legislation-I think that the Government's commitment has clearly been expressed in Mr Beazley's comments in the House of Representatives and in the letter he has given to me to confirm the Government's intention to introduce a military compensation scheme. Honourable senators will be aware that it is the Government's intention that the repatriation cover will be extended only to those persons who enlist or are appointed to the regular Defence Force after the commencement of the Veterans' Entitlements Act where they undertake hazardous service or are designated by the Minister for Defence for peacekeeping service. I suggest that the Repatriation Act is primarily directed towards providing compensation for veterans and the dependants of deceased veterans who served in wars or war-like operations. It must be remembered that members of the regular Defence Force, unlike veterans, are undertaking an occupation of choice, albeit a very important occupation and one that involves an element of danger. Generous compensation for any personal injury suffered is available to the Defence Force members under the Compen- sation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act of 1971. If I draw attention, briefly, to the entitlements that are available under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act some of the concerns that have been expressed will be dissipated. Members of the Defence Force are eligible to receive compensation under that Act in respect of an injury arising out of or in the course of defence service, or any disease to which the defence service was a contributing factor. During the first 26 weeks of incapacity, compensation will be paid at the member's full pay rate. Weekly payments for total incapacity after that 26-week period will be $164 for a Defence Force member, $43.20 for the spouse and $20.50 for any dependent child. Full medical treatment is also available for compensable injuries or disease. An allowance is also payable, where required, for constant help and attendance, and where the death of a Defence Force member is related to service a dependant is eligible to receive a lump sum of $51,290. Having regard to the availability of these compensation entitlements and the Bill's continuation of repatriation coverage in respect of hazardous and peacekeeping service, it can scarcely be argued that future Defence Force enlistees will be seriously disadvantaged by removal of the repatriation cover for general peacetime service. I should point out to honourable senators that members of the regular defence forces who were serving immediately before the commencement date of the Bill and who continue to render such service will retain their eligibility for repatriation benefits in respect of both past and future service. There has been a suggestion that repatriation cover should continue for future enlistees until military compensation is introduced. I do not consider it would be wise to take that course of action. In any event, new enlistees will not be disadvantaged, even under the present legislation. Uncertainty in the minds of veterans has been created in the discussions about the Bill. It is claimed that the Government has tried to ram through this legislation and in so doing has created uncertainty and in many cases real fear, both for war widows and war veterans of all types. Any uncertainty in the veteran community about the entitlement Bill stems from disgruntled elements who it seems have set out to distort the effects of the various provisions of the Bill to confuse veterans and widows about the changes which flowed from the Treasurer's May economic statement. I have already spent some time outlining the considerable efforts the Government has made to involve the veteran community, and that process will continue. One honourable senator opposite criticised the provisions made for veterans' dental expenses. Let me put the record straight. It is considered necessary to restrain the rate of growth of dental cost, but I should point out that all World War I veterans in receipt of a 50 per cent disability entitlement with service pension, those who are 100 per cent incapacitated, TPIs and war widows still have access to a wide range of dental treatment in access of that covered by the $300 annual allowance. It applies only to a certain number of more sophisticated dental items-chrome cobalt dentures, crowns, bridges and inlays. It appears to me that some honourable senators and members have not understood the intent of the Government's decisions in these matters. It is palpable nonsense to suggest that as a result of this initiative the veterans' teeth may rot to hell, as was suggested in another place. There will be no basic change to the normal dental treatment that is available to those who are eligible. The new rules do not apply to dental treatment provided in respect of war caused disabilities or cancer. During the debate on the Bill much has been made by a number of honourable senators of the increased administrative costs associated with the repatriation determining system and the delays in processing claims and applications within that system. Prior to the introduction of the new determining system in January 1983, which had the overwhelming support of the Senate, there was a dramatic increase in the level of claims which was not matched by a sufficient increase in staffing resources in the Department to meet the extra demand for pensions, treatment and other services. This was in no small part due to the staffing restrictions imposed by the previous Fraser Government. In line with the recommendations of the Administrative Review Tribunal in its report of 16 September 1983, this Government implemented a new determining system which came into operation on 1 January this year. Much of the initial expenditure, estimated at $21m, was for additional staff to reduce delays in the determining system. The new determining system inherited over 30,000 claims and applications for review. Once this backlog is eliminated it is expected that some savings of administrative expenditure will be achieved as well as a reduction in the time taken to process the claims and the applications for review. There was some discussion by Senator Lewis in respect of those veterans who served in other wars. He suggested that somehow or other the Government was discriminating against a group of veterans who served on the allied side in wars in the Pacific region. I want to nail that erroneous view on the head. I point out to the Senate that under the legislation embodied in this Bill, and agreed to by the Advisory Committee, it is not the Government's intention that Vietnamese nationals, Americans, Filipinos and others who served in Vietnam should have access to our repatriation system. We are the only country in the world that extends any benefits to those who were not Australian veterans during the war. It is wrong to suggest that we have taken something of a racist position in denying a disability pension to those groups of people who have migrated to our country in recent times. I just point out to the Senate that the mere assertion by a person that he served on the allied side in a particular war does not constitute sufficient evidence to warrant the granting of a service pension based on reaching the age of 60 or based on unemployability, perhaps because of his problems of assimilation in the Australian community. It is not envisaged to extend that benefit in this legislation, which is designed overwhelmingly to assist the rehabilitation of ex-servicemen and veterans generally, to a large group of migrants who have come to our country for whom there would be great difficulties in establishing the validity or otherwise of their claims. The Government does not resile from its responsibilities and obligations to veterans. We believe this is a good Bill and that the steps that the Government has taken in this legislation will substantially meet the obligations on government to provide a ready access for genuine claimants to benefits arising out of their service to Australia. Senator Macklin, in his speech in the second reading debate, made some outrageous statements when comparing the number of staff in the Department in the years 1961 to 1984. He suggested that cuts should be made in the administration and that the figures reflect over-staffing of the Department and a wastage of resources in the administrative area. In comparing the number of staff with the number of survivors from wars, he has failed to take into account that the greater proportion of staff in the Department of Veterans' Affairs is employed in the institutions. For example, in 1961 of a total of 8,079 staff, 5,412 worked in institutions. At 30 June 1984 of a total of 11,338, the number of staff working in institutions was 7,750. He failed to take into account that 1984 staff figures include many new staff required to undertake functions which did not exist in 1961. He should be aware of the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service and the additional functions of the Office of Australian War Graves, which is obviously an area that requires more staff and resources. He should be aware of the free limbs scheme under which limbs are provided to amputees in the community-not only veterans but also civilian amputees are eligible-and paid for by my Department. He should be aware that the introduction of the freedom of information legislation required the Department of Veterans' Affairs to process a record 12,000 claims a year. In addition, the reasons for decision in respect of applications or assessments for pensions have to be given on determination. There has been an extension of benefits, which has been widely applauded by all political parties and ex-service organisations, and a growth of expenditure on benefits, reflecting an improvement in conditions and the widening of benefits. Overall, it must be said that there is no substance to the criticism that has been made by Senator Macklin of the way in which the Department carries out its responsibilities in a period in which the average age of veterans has now reached 67 and when the great majority have retired from the work force and desire to be recognised for benefits. In addition, practically all of them, apart from those who served in the Vietnam war, have reached the age of 60, which makes them eligible for a service pension. With the increased number of services that have to be provided, both in hospitals and through other facilities, inevitably the Department's work has intensified, putting more responsibilities on the Department and the Government to provide the range of services to which the veterans are entitled. I indicate that the Veterans' Entitlements Bill contains a number of new provisions that will benefit veterans and their dependants, specifically war widows. An extended range of benefits will become available. I table a document which indicates in very brief form the 20 additional benefits available as a result of the consolidation of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. I confidently expect that the Senate will take a mature and responsible position on the legislation and support it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The immediate question is: That the words proposed to be left out-Senator Macklin's amendment to Senator Lewis's amendment-be left out. Amendment negatived. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question is: That the words proposed to be added by Senator Lewis's amendment be added. Question put. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C.Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Missen, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Rae, PeterCarrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G.Collard, S. J. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C.Durack, P. D. Townley, M.Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S.Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P.Bolkus, N. Macklin, M. J.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R.Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J.Coates, J. Morris, J.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A.Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M.Elstob, R. C. Sanders, N. K.Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W.Gietzelt, A. T. Siddons, J. R.Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C.Grimes, D. J. Vigor, D. B.Haines, J. Walsh, P. A.Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Parer, W. R. Coleman, R. N.Hill, R. Evans, GarethWithers, R. G. McClelland, DouglasMacGibbon, D. J. Button, J. N.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Georges, G. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS BILL 1985 Clauses 1 to 5-by leave-taken together. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.55) —I have an amendment to this clause, which I have circulated, but it is contingent on the Bill not passing before 5 December. I do not propose at this stage to proceed with that amendment. It will, of course, depend upon what other amendments are carried and the likelihood of the House of Representatives dealing with them. I think it can be put aside at this point. Clauses agreed to. Clause 6 (Operational Service). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.55) —I must apologise to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I was distracted when he was replying earlier and he read a letter from the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) dealing with operational service. I wonder whether I could have his indulgence to reiterate that point because I was distracted at that time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.56) —The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has given me a letter indicating his intention to set in train an examination of the issue of a military compensation scheme. It will report to him in 1986 with a view to introducing legislation into the Parliament in 1987. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.56) —I was referring to clause 6, which deals with the three vessels which went to Vietnam between 1965 and 1973-the Sydney, the Boonaroo and the Jeparit. I thought that the Minister had referred to that clause in his speech. I apologise. I move: (2) That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment: Sub-clause 6 (1), after paragraph (n), add the following new word and paragraph: ``; and (o) a person who has rendered continuous full-time service aboard a vessel while that vessel was engaged in supporting or supplying members of the Defence Force located in the Republic of Vietnam shall be taken to have been rendering operational service while the person was so rendering that continuous full-time service.''. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.57) —I believe that there is no difficulty in this area. The legislation seeks to extend the range of benefits to those who served in Vietnam. The relevant vessels will be designated by the Department of Defence as having been involved in dangerous waters or in circumstances that place lives at risk. On the basis of that evidence, the legislation will be applied to them. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.58) —I am aware of that. In fact, that was the import of the statement made by the Minister in his second reading speech. What I am interested in is when this will be done, where it will be done, who will do it and whether an instrument has already been issued by the Minister for Defence? Since this Bill has been around now for quite some time, if there is no such instrument already signed by the Minister for Defence, when will this actually happen? I must admit that I am not inclined to withdraw my amendment unless we can be given some firm assurances as to when that instrument will be signed. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.59) —The Minister for Defence has provided estimates of potential beneficiaries as a result of the Government's decision to extend benefits to those who served in Vietnam and the surrounding waters but who were not allotted for service at the time. That includes the Boonaroo and the Jeparit. I stressed earlier in my reply to the second reading debate that it is a matter for the Minister for Defence to designate them. He has given me the number of potential claimants. The HMAS Sydney, which engaged in 24 voyages, has 1,209 potential claimants. Eleven other vessels encompass 843 claimants, and claimants on the supply ships Boonaroo and Jeparit bring the total to 2,083. I am advised that the number of potential claimants from the visit of HMAS Torrens is not immediately available, but it is estimated that approximately 1,500 Army or Royal Australian Air Force personnel who served in Vietnam for the short periods that are the subject of concern by both the Government and Senator Macklin may be eligible. To that extent we are not able to be precise until we are given that information by the Minister for Defence. It is our view that the number of potential claimants will exceed 4,000. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.59) —I was not asking for any of that information but I thank the Minister anyhow. What in fact I was asking for was when the decision will be made with regard to those people. Presumably some instrument has to be signed or issued by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) with reference to these people actually having been on operational service. I would have thought that working out precisely who that applies to is a subsidiary matter further down the line. I am interested in the in-principle question of when a decision will actually be made. If the Minister cannot provide that information I intend to move the amendment. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.00) —I assure Senator Macklin that his fears are unfounded because as a result of the passage of this legislation those eligible will be immediately entitled to benefits. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.00) —On the passage of this legislation nothing happens to those people unless somebody within the Government designates those people as having been in operational service. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.01) —I have just read out to Senator Macklin the extension of repatriation benefits made by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). I cannot say whether Able Seaman So-and-so on a particular boat was there, but if the Minister for Defence gives us a certificate to say that he was, he is eligible for the benefits. Senator Macklin —Has that been issued? Senator GIETZELT —They will be eligible for the benefits. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.01) —I thank the Minister. I now understand that the certificate has been issued. Can I please have the date of that certificate? Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.01) —The Bill requires that a claimant be allotted for special service. A certificate to this effect will be issued by the Minister for Defence. He has no obligation to provide that until the Act is proclaimed. When the Senate passes the legislation the Minister will verify the written information that he has given to me. He cannot act on an anticipated view of the Senate. The moment the legislation is passed he will confirm the information he has made available to me and when all of those persons make their applications the applications will be dealt with immediately. Senator Macklin —It is not true that it is possible to do that under the current Act as it now stands? Senator GIETZELT —Under the current Act those people concerned, who the honourable senator has designated, are not eligible because-- Senator Macklin —Because they haven't been declared to have been on operational service. Senator GIETZELT —The Department of Defence has for many years not been prepared to designate these persons as being eligible for repatriation benefits. As far as we are concerned, the instrument will be recognised for purposes of entitlement under the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. Request (by Senator Macklin) put: That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment: Sub-clause 6 (1), after paragraph (n), add the following new word and paragraph: ``; and (o) a person who has rendered continuous full-time service aboard a vessel while that vessel was engaged in supporting or supplying members of the Defence Force located in the Republic of Vietnam shall be taken to have been rendering operational service while the person was so rendering that continuous full-time service.''. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Jones) — Order! The question is that the request be agreed to. All those in favour say aye, against say no. I think the noes have it. Senator Gietzelt —I point out to the Committee, Mr Temporary Chairman, that Senator Macklin's amendment, though put in good faith, would narrow the position provided for in the legislation. Senator Macklin —On a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman: I believe that the vote has been taken. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! I have said that the noes have it. Is a division required? Senator Macklin —Yes. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator G. N. Jones) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Macklin, M. J.Baume, Michael Mason, C. V. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Missen, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Rae, PeterCarrick, Sir John Reid, M. E.Chaney, F. M. Sanders, N. K.Chipp, D. L. Sheil, G.Collard, S. J. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Siddons, J. R.Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Haines, J. Townley, M.Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Jessop, D. S. Vigor, D. B.Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W.Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N.Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R.Coates, J. Morris, J.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A.Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M.Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O.Grimes, D. J. Parer, W. R. Coleman, R. N.Hill, R. Evans, GarethWithers, R. G. McClelland, DouglasMacGibbon, D. J. Button, J. N.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Georges, G. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Request agreed to. Clause agreed to with a request. Clauses 7 to 12-by leave-taken together. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.10) —I wish to raise with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs an aspect of clause 11(1) which deals essentially with the problem of sex discrimination. The clause itself says: (b) in respect of a female veteran (including a veteran who has died), a child of the veteran is a dependant of the veteran. Considering the Government's philosophical position on sex discrimination and the general matters enunciated by the Minister for Education (Senate Ryan) on behalf of the Government on the status of women and legislative proceedings that flow from that statement, I wonder why this Bill-not only in this clause but in other clauses as well-has still carried through the distinction which is so contrary to announced Government policy. We find that in many places female veterans are actually worse off in some significant instances than widows of male veterans. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.12) —The Government accepts the goal of the elimination of discrimination on the basis of sex, but clearly I can only do that on the basis of its being an objective to be realised over time. We cannot eliminate this problem overnight. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill has been drafted to minimise the differential treatment of male and female veterans on the ground of sex. The adoption of the single definition of `veteran' helps us to realise that objective so that it applies the same eligibility criteria to all veterans, regardless of sex. The Government believes that this is central to eliminating many of the discriminatory provisions that have existed for more than 65 years in the various repatriation Acts. This particular legislation is designed to overcome this discrimination. However, the Government admits that there are still a number of provisions in the Bill which maintain elements of sex descrimination, but of course not all of the provisions discriminate against women. The provision of the Bill which maintains elements of discrimination against female veterans on the ground of sex is the definition of a dependant of a female veteran in clause 11 because this does not include the husband or the de facto husband of a female veteran. The effect of this is to prevent the husband or de facto husband from becoming eligible to receive a widower's pension on the death of the female veteran, to be provided with treatment and to receive a funeral benefit in respect of his death should he die in indigent circumstances. The husband of a female veteran who is receiving a service pension is not eligible for a service pension as the spouse of the veteran. However, I should point out that the provision of the Bill which discriminates in favour of women is that female veterans are eligible for service pensions at the age of 55, whereas male veterans become eligible at 60. Thus, the dependant of a male veteran-the wife, de facto wife or widow-is eligible for a widow's pension in respect of the veteran's death, treatment benefits, to which I referred in the earlier debate, and a service pension at any age subject to the income and assets test. If she is the spouse of the service pensioner she also receives funeral benefits of up to $550 if she dies in indigent circumstances. Also she has access to special assistance, such as a loss of earning allowance for earnings lost as a result of attending a branch office in the course of an investigation of a claim for a pension and related travelling expenses. The existing repatriation legislation is exempt from the Sex Discrimination Act. The Attorney-General's Department accepts that differentiation on the ground of sex should be retained in the Veterans' Entitlements Bill for the time being. Clearly cost is the most prohibitive factor in extending pensions to widowers of female veterans, service pensions to husbands of female veterans who are in receipt of service pensions and extending other benefits such as treatment for the husbands of female veterans. Having said that, the Government believes that this is a matter that will be rectified in time. It will be considered as a policy proposal in respect of the Budget next year. Clauses agreed to. Clause 13-(Eligibility for Pension). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.16) —I move: Sub-clause 13(2), paragraph (c), leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), insert: ``in respect of a pension under this Part''. Basically as clause 13 now stands it will limit payment of a pension to a dependant if the death of the veteran is due to war-caused injury or disease, unless of course that veteran has a special rate totally and permanently incapacitated pension. My amendment will have the effect of ensuring that upon the death of a general rate pensioner from non-accepted disabilities, his widow will continue to receive a pension. This proposition is well in line with the standards that are applied around the world. I refer particularly to the Canadian legislation. Australia has always prided itself on having the best legislation, but it is interesting that in this area although other changes have been made to the widow's pension, this item has not been picked up. At present the widow would continue to receive only the dependant's allowance of $4.05. This is an appropriate area for change because this has been an area of discrimination and it is unlike most of the provisions which apply in other Acts administered by this Government and previous governments. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.18) —The Government rejects the amendment for a number of good and valid reasons. The war widow's pension is a compensation for the death of a veteran as a result of war service. That is why we have extended the legislations so that a war widow upon remarriage will still be able to be recognised as a war widow, irrespective of the financial capacity of her second or third husband. The pension is in recognition of that fact; it is regarded as compensation. If a woman in civilian life is compensated for the loss of her spouse, this compensation is not cut, as a result of some other decision, upon her remarriage. We do not think it is fair that any cut should apply on the remarriage of a war widow. When a veteran receives a TPI pension special provision is made for the automatic grant of war widow status to his wife. It is hardly appropriate-and it has never been suggested by anyone in the veteran community-to grant a compensation pension automatically to a widow where the veteran received, for example, a 10 per cent disability pension arising from impairment to his hearing and somehow or other he is injured and dies from those injuries, which are totally unrelated to war service. That is what the amendment seeks to do. It shows a total disregard for the concept of compensation for a service-related death and that is why we have the determining system. If the veteran who has been granted a disability pension of 10 per cent or anything up to 100 per cent for an accepted disability and he dies from that, there is no problem with his spouse becoming a war widow. There is no problem at all because he has died from an accepted war-caused disability. Of course, that is the whole basis of the determination system. As one of my officers has pointed out to me, the widow of a veteran who receives a 10 per cent disability pension because she needs to wear glasses could, under this amendment, be classed as a war widow even if her husband was killed in a car accident in which he was a passenger. This has never been suggested as a valid approach by the veteran community. Currently, over 165,000 veterans receive disability pensions at various rates, including the pension for totally and permanently incapacitated veterans. This proposal would cost $10.25m in the first full year and costs would escalate quickly as veterans died, because, on the basis of the adoption of this amendment, anybody in receipt of a minor disability allowance would automatically be granted a war widow's pension. I do not think that the amendment is reasonable. It is overgenerous and it is not one that anybody of whom I am aware in the veteran community is suggesting ought to be accepted. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.21) —I indicate that the Opposition accepts the Government's arguments in regard to this amendment. Amendment negatived. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.22) —I move: (4) That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment: After sub-clause 13 (4), insert the following new sub-clauses: ``(4A) Where a person who is a dependant of a member of the Forces within the meaning of the Repatriation Act 1920 was, prior to the commencement of this Act, in receipt of a pension under Part III of that Act, and the Commonwealth, but for the operation of this sub-section, would not be liable to pay a pension to that person under this Act, the Commonwealth is liable to pay a pension to that person as if the Repatriation Act 1920 were in force after the commencement of this Act. ``(4B) Where a person entitled to pension under sub-section (4A) elects to receive, in lieu of that pension, a payment equal to the amount of pension payable to that person during the period of 5 years following that election, such an amount is payable to that person in lieu of that pension.''. This amendment relates to the area of dependants' pensions. The Minister has maintained that none of the benefits available to veterans prior to the passage of this Bill will be removed. One of the reasons that the Government has announced for dealing with the matter as it has dealt with it in this Bill-that is, on the basis of a three-year period-is that the rates are so low. I must agree that the rates are low. In fact, the rates have not been changed in most of these areas for a considerable period; hence, one finds that some cheques are being written for as little as $1 and possibly even less. The point must be made that dependants' pensions are compensatory pensions. They are not provided to the dependants of a veteran who is a pensioner for income maintainance but as compensaaion for what that family has lost-a father or a mother-or their ability to perform the normal operations. For example, veterans may have been bedridden or have suffered from some disease which was war-caused. They are not the only ones to suffer; their families have suffered also. Indeed in many circumstances probably the most care and attention has been provided to the veterans by their families, which is as they would wish it to be. Previous governments have determined in this area that some small payment by way of compensation to the spouse for the care that must be given to the husband or wife in many cases saves considerable sums of money that otherwise would have to be provided in institutional care for those people. If one wants to take the cost argument it is now recognised that the care provided by the family has been of enormous benefit, not only to veterans but also to the community as a whole. I believe that the item ought to be dealt with in a more generous way-that is, that people should have the option to maintain those benefits if they so desire. If they do not desire that, the second part of my amendment states: . . . in lieu of that pension, a payment equal to the amount of pension payable to that person during the period of 5 years following that election, such amount is payable to that person in lieu of that pension. I acknowledge that it is a more generous provision and if the Government finds that the second part is too costly, I believe that the first part ought to be able to be opted for by the veterans so that they can continue to receive those payments. I believe that cost savings can operate in this area, not on the level of the pensions but on the level of the administration of the pensions, which I would be happy to expound at any time if anyone were interested. I think it is fairly obvious that those cost savings could come about because there is no need to have these payments administered as separate items from other pensions and pension-related payments. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.26) —I wish to clarify whether Senator Macklin has moved the whole of amendment No. 4, relating to sub-clauses 13 (4) and 13 (8), or just the part that relates to sub-clause 13 (4)? Senator Macklin —At this stage we are dealing only with sub-clause 13 (4). We will deal with sub-clause 13 (8) afterwards. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.27) —Sub-clause 13 (4A) relates to a wife or child of a veteran who has been granted a dependant's pension before the commencement date of the Repatriation Legislation Act Amendment in June 1985 and continues the pension payable. The Government rejects Senator Macklin's amendment because the effect of proposed sub-clause (4A) is somewhat nonsensical. It will not give dependants any more than the Bill already gives them. The June amendments to the Repatriation Act 1920 abolished future grants of dependants' pension and provided that the rate of pension payable to those currently entitled was to be frozen at the rate payable as at 5 June 1985. I remind honourable senators that that has been the case since 1952 for children and 1953 for wives. It has been frozen over all those years. Senator Macklin's amendment seems to be based on the false premise that the dependant's pension payments are abolished by this Bill. That is not the case. I refer honourable senators to sub-clause 4 (6) of the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill and draw the attention of the Committee to the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review, which has noted: The need for these provisions has been overtaken by the introduction of widows' pensions, supporting parents' pensions and unemployment benefits, as well as the widening of the entitlement for the aged and invalid pension. Clause 6 of the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill provides that the recipients of current dependants' pensions will have a once-only option to commute their pension entitlement for a sum equivalent to three years pension. The amendment would increase the commutation to five years payment and would cost the Budget $14.2m. The Committee has to consider whether that is justified. There is no doubt that there would not be any member of parliament who would not want to be more generous in respect of these matters, but I ask the Committee whether that is a priority item which is justified, having regard to all the other priorities in this area. For example, the No. 1 priority of the Returned Services League is to increase the maximum loan provided by the Defence Service Homes Corporation from $25,000 to $40,000. Ministers and Governments have to weigh up the amount of funds available, having some regard to the priorities. We do not accept that there is a priority for this, no matter how justified it is, in terms of the Budget for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.30) —The Opposition accepts the Government's argument that it must set its priorities as it sees fit. It also acknowledges that when the Opposition was in government it was not prepared to extend this benefit in the way the Australian Democrats wish to extend it. So the Opposition supports the Government on this matter. Request negatived. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.30) —I move: (5) That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment: After sub-clause 13 (8), add the following new sub-clause: `(8A) Where a pension payable under the Repatriation Act 1920 to a person who is a widow of a member of the Forces within the meaning of that Act ceased to be payable by reason of that person's marriage, and that person is divorced or that person's husband dies, the Commonwealth is liable to pay a pension to that person in accordance with this Act as if that person were the widow of a veteran.' The provisions in this legislation will enable war widows who remarry after 29 May 1984-an interesting date in itself-to retain their war widows' pensions. This is an extension of benefits and has been warmly received by the War Widows Guild. However, I am looking at a slightly different matter. My amendment provides for the restoration of a pension to a war widow who had lost it under the existing legislation because she had remarried. Subsequent to the passing of this legislation, if her second husband dies she will probably be the person who is most disadvantaged because, while the Government has extended certain provisions to enable war widows who remarry to retain the pension after they remarry, a group of people who have lost their pensions previously will not be able to regain them. Having lost the support of the pensions of their previous veteran husbands, with the death of their second husbands they are further deprived of support. It seems to us that this group will be extremely disadvantaged. It seems odd to allow that situation to occur, certainly in the face of the generosity of the Government with regard to the war widow's pension after this Bill comes into effect. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.32) —I say to the Minister that the Opposition sees considerable merit in Senator Macklin's amendment. If the Minister intends to speak against it, I will be very interested to follow his argument. It seems to the Opposition that a widow who is entitled to a pension and who has formed an association with another fellow is in a difficult position. If she marries him she forfeits forever her entitlement. So the temptation is for her to enter into a de facto relationship so that she can then keep her widow's pension during her association with the person. If he dies or leaves her she continues to receive the widow's pension, whereas if she goes through the formality of marriage she forfeits for all time her pension. It seems to the Opposition that there is much merit in the argument of the Democrats that one should not put a widow into this extremely difficult position. I think the Parliament of Australia still supports the institution of marriage. Certainly, the Opposition still supports it. In that event, a war widow ought not to be put into the position where her benefits are so badly attacked as a result of her marriage that she would be better off entering into a de facto relationship. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.34) —The Government cannot accept the amendment for what I believe are valid reasons. The effect of the amendment would bring back into the system all the former war widows-I stress `all'-who have subsequently remarried. We would be dealing with war widows who, perhaps, remarried in 1929. The complexities of that retrospective aspect must surely be daunting for any authority or government. The Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review recommended that war widows' compensation should not cease on remarriage where the marriage occurred after the commencement date of the new legislation, that is, the commencement date of this legislation. As a result of further representations that were made to me by the Returned Services League and the veteran community, I was able to get the Government to agree to make the date of effect the date on which the legislation was announced-29 May 1984. So we went back to that period, giving the legislation at least 18 months retrospective application. It has to be recognised that the Government made a very significant contribution to the acceptance and recognition of the compensatory nature of the war widow's pension in taking that step. With the adoption of the legislation pensions will not be taken away in any future relationships. It is a question of mechanics. Cases have been brought to my attention where two or three remarriages have taken place. In all legislation and in all matters of life there is a starting point and a finishing point. The Government has been pretty generous in taking the position it has taken of restoring that provision, having regard to the fact that the issue has been around a long time in the veteran community, particularly amongst war widows. We believe that applying the legislation retrospectively over so many years would be going too far down the track and administratively would make the job of the Department that has to deal with these matters very difficult. The amendment does not have regard to the generosity the Government has applied to the legislation generally. Previous governments have not seen fit to extend the provisions for reasons, I suppose, associated with budget considerations. We have taken what I think is a generous approach to the matter. I ask the Senate to give consideration to the fact that we have rectified a wrong but we cannot really apply the legislation retrospectively to the maximum extent. Senator Lewis must surely appreciate the difficulties that could be involved if the amendment were passed. Would the estate then sue the Government because mum and dad have both died, mum following a second marriage? Will a son be able to say that he is entitled to claim what his mother's pension would have been, if she died in 1935 after a remarriage in 1929? The complexities involved are what prompted the Government to set a starting point, and one which I believe is reasonable. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.38) —I thank the Minister for his comments. I must say that I cannot see where the administrative difficulties would come from simply because these people would already have been married to veterans and hence are already on the books. At some stage an administrative operation would have taken place upon their remarriage to discontinue this type of support. Hence there already would be a file, name and date attached to them. We would already know, by going through the books, precisely the names of the people we were dealing with. I also put it to the Committee that after the commencement of the Act we will be in a situation whereby, because of the Government's generosity, a veterans' widow who has remarried will be receiving the pension and will be receiving the support of her new husband. The group of people I am concerned about will not have the support of their new husbands and will have no support from the pension. It seems to me that this is a double-edged situation that is really iniquitous. I have already said that I support the generosity of the Government with regard to the war widows and there outstanding claims. I think that the War Widows Guild also is aware of the problem that has now arisen because of that move with regard to this specific group of people. There cannot be any suing of States, or anything like that, because the Bill does not refer to anybody except people who will be alive after its enactment and who are in the circumstances described in the amendment-that is, a woman who was married to a veteran, who remarried on his death and whose second husband has died. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.41) —If a widow is in need of some assistance she has access automatically to the social security system, and generally assistance has been made available. What we are trying to do here is to give her the extra $12 a week. I stress that, in the context in which governments have to operate, if budget considerations are ignored I have to make cost savings in some other sections of my budget. That is the problem with which I am faced. I wonder whether one could consider this proposal to be a top priority, having regard to the fact that the provision will in any event be back-dated to May 1984. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.42) —The Opposition will accept the arguments of the Government in this matter, although we hope that at some stage or other the Government might consider some other method of looking after these people. Request negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 14 to 18-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 19 (Determination of claims and applications). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.43) —I move: (6) Sub-clause 19 (4), leave out `the claim shall, by force of this sub-section, be deemed to have been refused', insert `the Commission may refuse the claim'. Currently as clause 19 (4) stands it states: (4) If, at the expiration of 6 months after a claimant has been informed under sub-section (3) that a claim has been deferred by reason of the refusal or failure of a veteran to undergo a medical examination, the veteran has not undergone the medical examination, the claim shall, by force of this sub-section, be deemed to have been refused. My amendment seeks to take out the words `deemed to have been refused' and to insert instead the words `the Commission may refuse the claim'. What I have tried to do is give some flexibility and some discretion to the Repatriation Commission with regard to a situation that often arises. There has been the need for a medical examination of a claimant after the expiration of six months, but clause 19 (4) states that the Commission shall have absolutely no discretion in such a case, that the claim shall `be deemed to have been refused'. Reasons beyond the control of a claimant may very well be such that that person could not have undertaken that medical examination. I point to problems such as ill health, the death of a family member in another country and a whole host of other possible genuine reasons. I believe that my proposed amendment would not affect the operation of this clause in any material way except to broaden the discretion of the Commission. If in fact a veteran refused to undertake that examination, the Commission would have been in receipt of all of the details of that person's claim and would see that that was a wilful refusal and, under its discretionary powers, it could simply deem the claim to have been refused. I see no problems in the operation of that clause if my amendment were to go through. It would simply broaden the Commission's discretion and enable it, if it found a genuine reason, to allow a claim and if it could not find a genuine reason it would not have to allow it. It seems to me that the Commission will find great difficulty at some stage when it is confronted by someone with a genuine reason. At the moment we are not necessarily able to point to what might actually happen, but at some stage a genuine reason may arise. I find it very odd that under those circumstances the Commission could not use a discretionary power and allow a claim to continue rather than having to scrub it and move back to the beginning and start the whole operation all over again. There are other circumstances that one could imagine. There is an arbitrary period of six months-there always has to be a date. I cite the problem of a veteran undertaking to have the required examination but the doctor, for circumstances quite beyond the reach of the claimant, is away on the day for which that person has made the appointment. If the appointment were made for a Friday but the doctor was unable to conduct the examination until the following Monday and the six-month period expired on the intervening Saturday or Sunday the operation of this provision would be rather absurd, and I am sure that the Commission would find it absurd. I feel that simply broadening the Commission's discretion as I have suggested would enable any of those injustices or problems that may arise to be eliminated. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.46) —The Government believes that this amendment is totally unnecessary. A provision with the same effect as proposed clause 19 (4) was included in the repatriation legislation relating to the new determining system which began on 1 January this year. The purpose of that was to ensure that the primary determining authority had sufficient information to determine a claim. It is therefore in the interests of the claimant to have such a provision. I point out that the Administrative Review Council, in its report on the review of pension decisions under the repatriation legislation, emphasised the importance of having available sufficient evidence at the primary decision-making level. I know that Senator Macklin and many other senators have been concerned, as I have, about the delays in the system. If such evidence is not before a single determining officer, that would affect the efficiency of that decision-making process and it would bog us down in appeals to the higher authority. No veteran wants to be put in that position. The Government does not believe that it is unreasonable for a veteran's claim for a pension to be rejected by force of clause 19 (4) where that is a consequence of his refusal or failure to co-operate in having a medical examination over the substantial period of six months. Refusal by force of clause 19 (4) does not preclude a veteran from making a fresh claim for a pension. I draw Senator Macklin's attention to the question of what the Veterans Review Board would be reviewing at the second level of appeal. If the Commission had not made a decision because critical evidence was not available, how would the VRB be able to make a decision when a claimant had refused to submit to a medical examination? To agree to such an examination would be in a claimant's own interests. To allow a VRB review would provide a means of circumventing the Commission's consideration of a claim by refusing to co-operate with a Department of Veterans' Affairs investigation, which it is obliged to do under the relevant Act. It is part of the obligations of the Repatriation Commission to investigate all of the claims and to investigate whether refusal to undergo a medical examination is wilful or otherwise. Senator Macklin said that genuine reasons would not be recognised. I believe that what is proposed is not unreasonable as Senator Macklin has suggested. It is in the interests of the applicant to undergo that examination. If there are problems, and I do not disagree that from time to time there are problems in arranging medical examinations, alternative appointments can be made. It is only when an investigation requires medical evidence and the claimant repeatedly refuses to submit himself or herself for medical examination that the issue would arise. That does occur from time to time. I suggest it is totally unnecessary to persist with this amendment. It would certainly impair an applicant's ability to have his case dealt with successfully by a single determining officer. The purpose of that process was to eliminate the backlog so that, rather than having three men or women determining an application, there would be a single officer. That officer needs all the evidence. The Commission is obliged, under its responsibilities, to provide all the evidence. If it does not have that evidence and if the applicant has not made himself available to provide that evidence, how can that applicant possibly expect to succeed? There is absolutely no reason why we should persist with this amendment. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.50) —I thank the Minister for his response but it was at variance with the point I was making. I agree totally that it is in the interests of the veteran to provide as much material as possible, as rapidly as possible, and at the earliest stage so that things can be moved along and not get bogged down. I support totally the idea of being able to reduce the number from three to one to allow a lot more claims to be dealt with at the primary determining stage. I have not said anything about any of those. I am merely pointing to the second part. I did emphasise that the clause does not simply say `refusal'; it says `refusal or failure'. It is the failure bit that I am concerned about because the failure may not be the fault of the claimant. In other words, the person may be quite innocent. He may be in ill-health or may have been run over by a truck or something and be in a hospital in some other part of Australia. The doctor may be absent. The medical specialist may be sick on the day of the appointment. This guillotine is to come down at six months. This is the problem I am emphasising. I am not saying that the determination system itself is not the proper way to do it. I accept all of that. I am happy with it and I hope that it will speed things up. I am merely saying that where there is a failure and it is outside the ability of the claimant to do anything about that failure injustices may well be caused at that point. I think they could be overcome quite simply by investing slightly more discretion in the Commission. I do not seek any other change whatsoever to the procedure as I support the entire procedure. I am merely seeking to extend that discretionary power to enable the Commission to act if it finds a genuine reason. I am ready to admit that this would be rare, and that is why I believe this is an acceptable amendment to cover that situation. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.52) —I understand the nature of the argument being put by Senator Macklin. I presume the Commission would use this procedure only when it wished to bring a matter to some finality. I recognise that Senator Macklin's amendment would provide a way of getting around some injustice if it should arise, but the other way around it would be for the applicant to make a fresh application. He is not disbarred from making a fresh application. In that event the Government's arguments make sense to me and I am not prepared to support the amendment. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 20 to 22-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 23 and 24-by leave-taken together. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.54) —by leave-I move: (7) That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments: (a) Sub-clause 23 (1), leave out paragraphs (a) and (b). (b) Sub-clause 23 (3), paragraph (b), leave out ``, not being a veteran who has attained the age of 65 years,''. (8) That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments: (a) Sub-clause 24 (1), leave out paragraphs (a) and (b). (b) Sub-clause 24 (1), paragraph (c), leave out ``that'' (first occurring). (c) Sub-clause 24 (2), paragraph (b), leave out ``, not being a veteran who has attained the age of 65 years,''. (9) That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment: After clause 24, add the following new clause: Exceptional disability allowance ``24A. (1) Where (a) a veteran is not entitled to receive a pension under section 24 by reason only of the operation of sub-paragraph 24 (2) (a) (i); and (b) the Commission is satisfied that the degree of incapacity of the veteran from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, increased after the veteran ceased to engage in remunerative work, pension is payable to the veteran under section 24 notwithstanding that sub-paragraph.''. The situation we are dealing with here is again one which I think is of considerable concern to the veteran community. This issue is somewhat hard to determine in absolute terms. We all know of veterans who have come to us at times suffering from various war-caused disabilities and who have not availed themselves of the facilities provided by the previous repatriation Acts and which, of course, will be provided in the future by the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Those veterans, for whatever reason, have wished to restrain the burden on the taxpayer. They feel that they can battle on on their own in their business or employment and not accept their just deserts under the legislation, not only as it has been drawn up but also as this Bill provides. I do not think those people deserve to be penalised at a later stage, which is what this part of the legislation will undoubtedly lead to. When those veterans retire, either at the normal retirement age or earlier because their dis- abilities have got the better of them and they find they can no longer carry on, I think they expect to be paid a special rate of pension if they are entitled to it. I emphasise that the people I am talking about are the people who, had they applied before the relevant time, under this legislation, would actually be entitled to the special rate of pension. I am talking about the people who, under this legislation, would be entitled to the pension if they had applied for it before but who will now not be entitled to it simply because they chose not to burden the taxpayer. That seems to me to be very odd. The Government is actually increasing the costs by insisting that anyone who is entitled to it, at any stage, will have to go out and apply for it because that person knows that if he waits until further down the track he will be ineligible. I should have thought that it would not be in the interests of the Government, the taxpayer or anybody else to operate in that fashion. Hence, I believe that those disabled veterans who, because of their determination not to give in to their incapacity, not to become a burden on the taxpayer, the repatriation system or the veterans' entitlements system, as presumably it will come to be called from now on, and who have not applied before the age of 65 for a special rate of pension will not be eligible to do so. I believe the effect of the Government's legislation will be to increase costs rather than to decrease them. I think it would be unfortunate if we were now to force all of those veterans to take whatever is due to them under the legislation as early as possible, merely to protect themselves. One would imagine that the costs and the impositions caused by those injuries would be exacerbated by increasing age. I am not at all sure that I want to go extensively into the matter of the interpretation of the reason for having the totally and permanently incapacitated pension. I could go back to the 1920s and the introduction of it by the Minister at the time, but I am not at all sure how relevant most of that discussion would be to the item before us because, after all, many of these things, particularly those in relation to this area, have over the years been variously interpretated as to what they are supposed to be about. I believe that the point I have already put is consistent with the general thrust of the understanding of the veteran community about who does and who does not get the TPI pension. I leave it at that. I think there is a general understanding and I think that understanding has been violated by the way this provision has been drawn up. I turn to the matter of the mandatory rate of 100 per cent incapacity before a TPI pension is considered. The Commission has the power under the legislation to review this. A veteran could go before a departmental medical officer and in due course the 100 per cent pension could be reduced, thereby nullifying the first test that needs to be passed with regard to clause 24 for a person to be eligible for a TPI pension. There certainly needs to be a provision for an exceptional disability allowance to cover those veterans who, at the retirement age of 65, find that their war caused injury or disease has caused their health to deteriorate to a marked extent. I am not talking about the normal aging process; I am talking about deterioration caused by the extent of the war-caused injuries or diseases. I wish to give an example that I have which puts the problem in a fairly concrete fashion and enables us to look at the types of problems that will be coming into the office of every member of Parliament shortly. It is an example of a former prisoner of war of the Japanese who has 16 accepted disabilities but who, because of financial and family problems, worked until he was forced to retire at the age of 65 years, even though he should have left the work force years before. We have all met such people. On retirement he was receiving a 100 per cent general rate of disability pension. When his medical condition deteriorated he applied for an intermediate or special rate of pension but this was refused because he had retired from the work force. He can never become a totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman even though, before he reached the age of 65, his accepted disabilities had gained him an assessment greater than the 100 per cent rate. That is a very good example of the type of problem that we are confronting. I hope that the amendments that I have moved will be acceptable to the Government as a result of problems that have been shown up since the veteran community has had time to digest the earlier amendments to repatriation legislation and work out their implications. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(12.02) —I remind the Committee that the criteria for a totally and permanently incapacitated pension referred to by Senator Macklin were not subject to the sunset clause and in fact were passed by the Senate in the autumn session of Parliament in the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act. The provisions in that legislation, and in fact in this legislation, are the result of recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review. Accordingly, the Government cannot possibly accept the amendments suggested by Senator Macklin. It should be stressed, as Senator Macklin seemed to be confused about this, that if a veteran does not qualify for a TPI rate pension, that does not mean that he is not eligible for any pension. There are three separate types of pension to which he could be eligible. The three levels of compensation under a repatriation disability pension are, firstly, the totally and permanently incapacitated rate which is a pension payable to a veteran who, because of his accepted disabilities, is unable to undertake more than a negligible amount of remunerative work, that is, less than eight hours a week. That pension rate is $182 a week. Secondly, there is the intermediate rate of pension which is payable to a veteran who, because of his accepted disabilities, is unable to work other than on a part time basis, or intermittently. That rate of pension is $125 a week. Thirdly, there is the general rate pension which is payable to a veteran who, although he has suffered service related disabilities, is still able to have a full working life. Those disabilities are rated from 10 to 100 per cent and the amount of pension ranges from $6.80 to $68.80 a week. Thus, there is acceptance in a varied form of a person's disability. The general rate pension provides compensation for the veteran who could continue to work despite his disability. When I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the great bulk of World War II veterans have now left the work force, one has to have regard to the costs involved if, after a person has engaged in remunerative activity all his working life, he can then claim a totally and permanently incapacitated rate pension. Of course, that is why the Advisory Committee recommended as it did and why the Government took the recommendation on board and presented it in the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill which was approved by both Houses of Parliament in the autumn session. We naturally reject the amendments because they are patently absurd and would make the clauses inoperable for a whole number of reasons. In effect, the amendments remove the distinction between a veteran able to work part time or intermittently-that is, who would be eligible at the intermediate rate-and the veteran not able to work more than eight hours a week and who is entitled to a TPI rate. The rate paid would become a matter of choice as both clauses would contain identical wording. The remaining clauses would become inoperable because of the cross-references to paragraphs deleted by the amendments. I wonder whether the Democrats really understand what they are proposing. The amendments would have the extraordinary effect that a TPI pension would be payable even if the veteran was not severely disabled and even if he could work more than eight hours a week. To make such changes would be irresponsible and that is the view of the veteran community. The criteria for the granting of a TPI pension came into effect on 6 June 1985. This legislation simply clarifies what has always been intended for payment at this rate. I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the cost to revenue of this proposal this year would be $69m rising to $226m in the subsequent years. There seems to be a lack of understanding of what is envisaged in the TPI rate. It is a recognition of a person's incapacity to work. For example, in the debate in the House of Representatives the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) said: The connection between a TPI pension and whether an eligible veteran worked is entirely a creation of the present Minister's imagination. I remind the Committee how wrong those comments are. One honourable member went on to say that TPI claims, once determined on capacity, are now being considered on the economic ability to work. The wording of the Repatriation Act, prior to its amendment in June this year, has remained unchanged since 1920 when it first came into operation. I remind Senator Macklin that a Schedule to the Repatriation Act as it then stood stated: The Special Rate of Pension may be granted to members of the Forces-- I stress this- who have been blinded as the result of War Service, and to members who are totally and permanently incapacitated (i.e. incapacitated for life to such an extent as to be precluded from earning other than a negligible percentage of a living wage). I emphasise the words `precluded from earning other than a negligible percentage of a living wage'. There can be no responsible reason why the Committee, having already passed the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act earlier this year and not having applied a sunset clause to these provisions, and the Government having taken that into account in framing the budget for the Department of Veterans' Affairs for this and subsequent years, should now change what has already been determined because of an issue on which certainly there are some people in the veteran community who have a view. I do not deny that some people hold that view but it is not the official view and no representations have been made to me on this matter by any of the responsible leaders of the veteran community. I urge rejection of the amendments. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.09) —Many of the points raised by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) were at variance. I think many people would take enormous exception to his comment that no reputable leader of the veterans' community had made any representations with regard to these matters. It was a very sweeping statement. I am sure that that will be offensive to a number of leaders. If the Minister really wants to know, I suggest that he looks in his departmental files, because he will certainly find in those files that representations have been made by very reputable people-for example, the National President of the Regular Defence Forces Welfare Association. Those types of offensive comments are really quite out of place in a debate on this Bill. The Minister referred to what TPI was all about and questioned whether I knew what it was about. It is his prerogative to do that. I would certainly like to question whether he knows what it is about-so we will stop the matter there, presumably. I should have thought that in such a debate it is not of much use to be bandying those types of comments around. The Minister gets little pieces of paper passed across to him from his advisers, and that is about as much as he knows about it. If he wants to have a debate with me in the open without an adviser, I welcome him to it-before any veterans' organisation in Australia-and let us see how long he stands up without bits of paper being pushed across his desk. So perhaps if we can return to the Bill without the abuse, we might get somewhere today. The second reading speech on the Australian Soldiers' Repatriation Bill 1920, made by the then Minister in this place on 24 March 1920, said that the intention of the TPI rate of pension was payment to those veterans whose health could not be restored. No mention at that time was made of any of the factors in the current legislation, and it has not been up to now. So, if we want to go back around that silly argument, perhaps the Minister might like to cite his authority and where it was said in a second reading speech on some Bill in this place as well. The point that I was putting-and trying to put sensibly and reasonably, before the Minister started his reply-was a genuine concern about the problems of those people who have not up to the present sought to be a burden on the community but at some stage in future may seek to be a burden on the community. The point I was making is that there will be less cost by the proposition that I am putting, whereby a person is not forced, prior to the age of 65, to take his entitlements. I am talking about those who are so entitled under this legislation, but for the fact that they must take them prior to the age of 65. That is the crux point that I was trying to get across. I should like the Minister's reasonable response to that particular problem, that particular group of people, who could take entitlements before they are 65 but who do not do so. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(12.13) —The Opposition sees considerable merit in the Australian Democrats' proposal and asks that the Government consider it at some stage, but recognises that this is a decision for the Government, as to whether it will adopt this measure. If the Democrats are unable to persuade the Government to adopt it, the Opposition would not be prepared to impose such a financial burden on this Government. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(12.14) —Having regard to amendment No. 9, when I said that no responsible veteran leader had made such suggestions to me, I was talking about veteran leaders. There is a difference between them and leaders of serving personnel. I respect their views on the matter. I am talking about the veteran community. I am the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, and that involves, substantially, the ex-service community. I emphasise that no veteran leader has suggested anything to me along the lines that have been suggested by Senator Macklin. In respect to Senator Macklin's amendments, I wonder whether Senator Macklin understands what is being proposed. The effects of these amendments, particularly the latter, would be so far-fetched and so lavish that it borders on complete financial irresponsibility to even propose them, let alone to expect the Senate, in regard to its capacity to amend a money Bill in the way suggested by Senator Macklin, to adopt them, and it just makes a farce of the whole process of the Senate carrying out its role of review of legislation. Conceivably, what Senator Macklin is saying under this amendment is that if a veteran receives a disability pension of 10 per cent for an ingrowing toe-nail, for example, and he retires after a full working life with no other disability and no other health problems at all, and then has a slight increase in that incapacity-I accept that ingrowing toe-nails can cause discomfort and would be acceptable as qualifying for disability allowance-that person should be entitled then automatically to become a TPI beneficiary. That is what the amendment would achieve. Those of us who are from time to time in government, be we of the Liberal Party, the National Party, or the Labor Party, recognise that we cannot allow that sort of lavish, extravagant-there is no other word to describe this-approach to Budget matters. It is not competent for responsible governments to adopt such an approach-unless, of course, a government has the funds and the will to do so in terms of its Budget obligations. I reiterate that I have not had any representations made to me by any of those involved in the Advisory Committee's activities. Senator Macklin has good will and a lavish approach to veterans. I think we would all share that philosophy. However, if senators are prepared to provide these sorts of benefits, let them say so. But let us then have no further suggestions that there ought to be tax cuts and reductions in public sector spending. Question put: That the requests (Senator Macklin's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator D. S. Jessop) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Chipp, D. L. Sanders, N. K.Haines, J. Siddons, J. R.Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Vigor, D. B.Mason, C. V. J. Archer, B . R. Jones, G. N.Aulich, T. Kilgariff, B. F.Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C.Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McIntosh, G. D.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P.Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R.Boswell, R.L.D. Messner, A. J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Missen, A. J.Garrick, Sir John Morris, J.Chaney, F. M. Puplick, C. J. G.Childs, B. K. Rae, PeterCoates, J. Ray, RobertCollard, S. J. Reynolds, M.Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ryan, S. M.Cooney, B. Sheil, G. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Crowley, R. A. Sibraa, K. W.Devlin, R. Tate, M. C.Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Elstob, R. C. Townley, M.Foreman, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Walters, M. S.Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W.Jessop, D. S. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 25 to 34-by leave-taken together. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.26) —I refer to clause 29 and, in particular, to the guide which was issued to veterans' organisations on 16 October. I want the Minister's comments on the record with regard to how that guide will operate and what the Minister will do with regard to the Act, which requires that guide to be tabled. How does the Minister propose to operate in the Parliament with regard to that guide? Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(12.28) —The Veterans' Entitlement Bill 1985 provides that the Repatriation Commission may prepare a guide to the assessment of rates of veterans' pensions. This is to be used as a means to determine the amount of pension payable at the general rate and will have no application to the intermediate or special rate pension. The guide to the assessment of rates of veterans' pensions is designed to ensure consistency. Of course, that is germane to the whole purpose of this legislation. The guide is to be tabled in the autumn session. Clauses agreed to. Clause 35 (Interpretation). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.30) —I move: (10) That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment: Sub-clause 35 (1), definition of `allied veteran', leave out `, before 1 September 1957,'. I wonder whether with your concurrence, Mr Temporary Chairman, I might range over matters concerning clause 35 and clause 81, both of which deal with allied veterans. Obviously we will vote at different times on these clauses, but I would like now to be able to refer to clause 81 as well. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Jessop) —There being no objection, that course may be followed. Senator MACKLIN —Under the repatriation legislation currently in force, the conditions for eligibility for allied veterans who fought in conflicts in which Australia was involved are quite clear. I believe that no good reasons have been given for these to be changed. Inclusion of `before 1 September 1957' in a definition of allied veterans removes service pension rights from Allies whose service was post-Korean war. Of course we are talking mainly about veterans who are American, Korean, Thai or Vietnamese. That is the major group of people involved. No logical reason seems to have been given for discriminating against one particular group of allied veterans-that is, veterans who fought in the Vietnam war. Various reasons have been given in the community for this exclusion. One reason is cost, and I must admit that that is difficult to estimate. We have been given a figure of between 3,000 and 4,000 veterans. However, as Senator Lewis mentioned in his speech in the second reading debate, we are anxious to see how those calculations have been made. Another reason given is that it is too difficult to find out who they are. I am not sure how that meshes with the first point because if we know that there are 3,000 or 4,000 veterans, presumably we know who they are. If we take it on its own merits, it would be tested by the normal civil standard of proof procedure under the veterans' entitlements legislation. A person would simply have to bring forward the proof required to be acceptable to the determining authorities. We have already established within the Veterans' Entitlements Bill mechanisms by which that will occur. There does not seem to me to be any particular difficulty involved with that exercise. If people are unable to produce sufficient proof they will not be accepted. Having spoken to a number of these veterans, they do have quite good documented proof that certainly convinces me that they were serving members of the South Vietnamese forces. I am not sure how this provision is meant to operate. Another reason circulated simply involves racial discrimination, in that if all these veterans happened to be whites from America, Britain, France or Germany this problem would not occur. I do not suggest that that is a reason, and knowing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs I know that it certainly would not be, but that reason has been circulated in discussions. Given the context of the debate that floated around Australia about 1 1/2 years ago, it is understand- able how it has gained some credence in the community. I am quite sure-I know that Senator Lewis will agree and that the Minister will affirm my view-that no decisions made in relation to this clause will be based on any racial discrimination element whatsoever. It is useful for us to emphasise that, because it is extremely important that all parties stand together on this issue. This chamber must never be a party to making any decision, on any piece of legislation, based on such motives. I now put that matter aside, but I did want to mention it because it has been raised with me. I believe that it should be aired and it should be settled once and for all that that could never be a reason for any party in this place acting in a particular way on any piece of legislation. The other matter I wish to raise-this is why I sought to range over clause 81 as well-is that I am concerned that we are setting up two groups of people in this country. We have people who have come here from overseas, who have stayed here to become citizens, and who previously fought with Australian soldiers. If they were French or German-we did have Germans fighting with us during the Second World War, not many people know that; I had the honour of meeting a few of them recently when I was in the German Democratic Republic-or anyone else who fought with us in any of those wars, up to and including the Korean War, and they are now Australian citizens, we are dealing with them under the legislation, except for some exclusions in terms of medical costs under clause 81. I will refer to that in more detail when we deal with that clause. But another group of Australian citizens who fought with Australian troops in a war, in Vietnam, will not be accepted. There are two groups of people. Why are we distinguishing between them? If there is a valid reason to take the first group, whatever that reason is it must apply to the second group. If not we are merely making an arbitrary distinction between two groups of Australian citizens, which I consider to be at variance with the spirit of our Constitution, under which all citizens, if they have equal basis for claim, are treated equally. So we are going to have a group of people who came from South Vietnam and who are Australian citizens being treated differently from the way in which other people-for example, people from Britain who fought with Australians and who are now Australian citizens-are being treated. I abhor that situation. I do not think it is fair. It is not acceptable in Australia that we should make that arbitrary distinction between two groups of Australian citizens. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(12.37) —Senator Macklin's suggestion that the Australian repatriation system be widened to include any group of citizens who come to our country without verification, and without our having regard to our responsibilities to our own citizens, almost leaves me speechless. The repatriation system was designed primarily for Australian veterans. It has been extended, as a result of a Whitlam Government decision, to include certain classifications of veterans of the armed forces. At the conclusion of World War II it was widened to include veterans in Commonwealth forces, and it was extended again in the early post-war years to include those veterans who served under a formal command structure. It is that latter category that Senator Macklin seeks to include under this legislation. One of the tasks that I had as Minister during my trip overseas early this year was to discuss with the Greek, Italian and Yugoslav governments the verification of eligibility of persons who have been in our country for some 20 or 30 years in the post-war period and have reached the age of 60 years or are unemployable and therefore come within the service pension provisions, as we require verification of their eligibility as a result of their service in World War II before we can grant them a service pension. What Senator Macklin's amendment seeks to do is to bring a whole range of new persons into the service pension area. He ignores the fact that our legislation takes account of our social security obligations. If people are unemployed, they become eligible for unemployment benefit. When a man reaches the age of 65 and a woman reaches the age of 60 they become eligible for social security benefits. The Government approach is not racist, but we believe that we must draw the line in relation to Australia's involvement in the Vietnam conflict. Having regard to the changed political situation in Vietnam, we believe it would be impossible for the Vietnamese Government to verify the alleged service records of those who have come to Australia, largely as boat people. Senator Macklin seems to think that somehow or other they had in their hip pockets documents which said they served in the war in Vietnam. There is the very important principle that one must serve in an operational zone in a war-like situation. For example, there are people who served in the Armoured Division in Australia, people who served in Darwin at different times from those stipulated in the regulations, Australian citizens who served for four or five years, who are not given access to the service pension. Yet the amendment suggests that someone who produces a document saying that he served in the Vietnamese Army, although he may never have moved out of a base area, should receive a service pension on the mere presentation of that document. We have no way of verifying that person's application. If the mere presentation of a document stating that the person was in the Vietnamese armed forces entitled him to a service pension he would be placed in a superior position to the 90,000 Australians who do not qualify for the service pension because they were not in an allotted war zone during the Second World War. Could anyone seriously justify as valid an obligation on the part of the Commonwealth Government to provide such persons with access to the service pension and all that that means? It also means access to all the fringe benefits-local government subsidies for rates, telephone rental subsidies, electricity bill subsidies and help with bills from water boards and other statutory authorities. Most service pensioners get all those benefits together with free travel. There are Australians who enlisted in World War II and who are not eligible for that pension because they were not sent to a war zone. Senator Lewis raised legitimately during the second reading debate the question of my Department's estimate that 4,000 allied veterans and their wives who served after 1 September 1957 might qualify for receipt of the service pension by 1990. He asked for some confirmation of those figures that were given to the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs by one of my officers. As Senator Lewis will appreciate, any estimate of pensions granted in the future will need to be read as indicative only. The number of pensions granted is dependent on the lodgment of claims by eligible veterans and claims lodged at any time can be influenced by many factors, including the economic climate of the time. My Department's expenditure of $21m in 1990 is based on the best available estimates of numbers of potential claimants, in terms of the size and age of the population at that time. These estimates are subject also to many external factors. Progress reported. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs: The operation and administration of the Freedom of Information legislation. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, until 2 p.m. this day, matters of public interest may be discussed by senators, provided that no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(12.46) —Today, for a very short time, I want to pay tribute to a South Australian, Sister Elizabeth Nghia. Before I give the details of this woman's position and state why that tribute should be paid to her, I remind honourable senators of a sonnet that is inscribed on a bronze plaque at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty. The sonnet was written by a woman called Emma Lazarus and it is called `The New Colossus'. With the indulgence of honourable senators I will remind them of the words of that sonnet. They are these: Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name. Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame, `Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!' cries she, With silent lips. `Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!' It is my submission that anyone with any degree of compassion would endorse the spirit of those words for this country. I quite accept that the practice of them is not always easy but every now and then we hear a story that serves to bolster our resolve in that regard and I think Sister Elizabeth Nghia's story is just one of those. Yesterday, in South Australia Sister Elizabeth was presented with the Zonta Club's 1985 Woman of Achievement award. When she arrived in South Australia in 1976 she could not speak any English. She had left her family and friends in Vietnam without having the opportunity of saying goodbye and certainly knowing that she would not have the opportunity to return to her home country. She told the Zonta Club that at that time there seemed to be no future, that she did not know what was going on, but now she is perfectly happy with her life in Adelaide. Of course, this woman was not given the Zonta award simply because she came from Vietnam to Adelaide in 1976. She was given the award because of the tireless work that she has done for her community and, indeed, for the Australian community since she has been here. From a very desperate situation when she arrived at the age of 40, she has certainly become a driving force in the Indo-Chinese and South Australian community. She works as a social worker at the Woodville Refugee Centre, she is a President of the Indo-Chinese Australian Women's Association; and she is co-ordinator of the Indo-Chinese Australian Women's Association community centre. She is also an ethnic affairs commissioner and government adviser. It is for all these duties and for the work that was involved in getting to the stage where she could contribute in that way since 1976 that the Zonta Club in South Australia has given her this award. It may be of interest to honourable senators to know something of the journey to Australia that she faced. I am certainly not suggesting that her journey was any more perilous than anyone else's but, nonetheless, nearly 10 years ago she was on board a tiny fishing boat which was drifting toward Malaysia with no fuel, food or water. Some 32 Vietnamese people had escaped their country under the dark of night. They had been chased by communist forces for several hours and during this time, unfortunately, the captain's compass was dropped overboard. After 10 days of sailing aimlessly through the South China Sea, a large ship went past. All on board the fishing boat thought that the ship would continue to go past. As luck would have it that did not happen. The ship, a bulk carrier, the High Lee, turned around and picked up all these people. Sister Nghia was told by the captain of that ship, a Hong Kong born Roman Catholic gentlemen, that, in fact, he had seen her blue dress, realised that she was a nun and decided to turn around and pick up the people on the fishing boat. I realise that that raises questions of why a captain should pick up a nun as opposed to someone else but, nonetheless, I think that explains why Sister Nghia believes in miracles. It might explain, to a certain extent, the degree of gratitude that she feels to this country for being here. I suggest that the Senate pay tribute not only to Sister Elizabeth but also to people in her position. Sitting suspended from 12.52 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the failure of the Minister for Finance yesterday to answer Senator Messner's question on the superannuation issue adequately, I ask the Minister: Is it a fact, as suggested by Senator Messner's question yesterday and as reported in several newspapers today, that as a result of the agreement forced on employers in the paint industry by the Federated Storemen and Packers Union, employers could be required to continue paying into existing superannuation schemes and to contribute to a new union or industry scheme? In other words, will he confirm that employers may be forced to double up on their contributions in respect of the same employee? Is he yet in a position to provide the promised early answer to the question I asked on Tuesday, namely, whether under the Government-Australian Council of Trade Unions deal on superannuation there will be no requirement for employee contributions? Senator BUTTON —With regard to the last part of the question, the guidelines in respect of superannuation schemes have not yet been finally determined. There will be consultations with industry and unions relating to the guidelines for this scheme and when they are finally determined there will be an answer to that question. I believe that the answer to the first part of the question is best stated in the terms `I believe not', but I will check that matter with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Senator Chaney —And let me have an early reply? Senator BUTTON —I have given Senator Chaney a reply to the second part of his question and I think he should be grateful for small mercies. Senator Chaney —I am deeply grateful. Senator BUTTON —Gratitude is not something which wells up strongly in the bosom of this Opposition since it has been in opposition. I think Senator Chaney ought to be grateful for this early answer. Insofar as the first part of the question is concerned, I will provide an answer, but I believe the answer is no. I think that is a misinterpretation. Senator FOREMAN —I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to an article in the Toronto Star dated 28 August 1985. In that article, Mr Donald Eltringham, the managing director and chief executive officer of Australia Post, was reported as addressing the Canadian Federal Government task force holding an inquiry into the provision of postal services. Is it true that Australia Post compares more than favourably with its Canadian counterpart and, for that matter, with most other postal services in the world in terms of efficiency and cost to consumers? Is it true also that this statutory body provides this service at no cost to the taxpayers? Senator WALSH —I recall in the last day or two having seen some analysis, which I think is the same analysis to which Senator Foreman has referred. However, I do not appear to have it with me at the moment. I believe that the Australian postal system, compared with that in any reasonably competent country-the Canadian system was cited as being reasonably competent-has been shown to be quite efficient. I will endeavour to locate that piece of paper, which I have some recollection of having seen, and to supply that information to Senator Foreman, either privately or by way of an addendum at the end of Question Time today or tomorrow. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, and follows a question asked yesterday by Senator Parer concerning intimidation by the Transport Workers Union over superannuation. What action will the Government take to prevent the Transport Workers Union from succeeding in its campaign to force Australia's four biggest transport companies to agree to a $12 per week superannuation claim by 13 December or face industrial action? Will the Government ask the Prices Surveillance Authority to investigate the companies concerned if they give in to the unions, as suggested in a telex from Mr Willis last month? Is it true, as claimed today by Mr Hodgson of the Transport Workers Union, that the Government had to agree to the union continuing its superannuation campaign as part of the price of the renegotiated prices and incomes accord? Senator WALSH —I presume that behind Senator Crichton-Browne's question is a fear that some damage might be inflicted on the economy. I remind Senator Crichton-Browne that a great deal of damage also is inflicted on the economy by insider trading on stock exchanges of the type in which his wife certainly engaged when she was an employee of Burrell and Jones, geological consultants, in 1969 and 1970. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order. This is part of the continuous abuse of Question Time by this Minister. He has been asked a question on a matter of important national interest. He chooses to be abusive in response and he should be asked to answer the question. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walsh, Ministers may answer questions as they choose, but the answers must be relevant to the questions asked. You were becoming irrelevant. Senator WALSH —I would like to have it noted for the record that the Liberal Party of Australia does not care whether its members indulge in insider trading, which is the view expressed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. I have a note from Mr Willis's office which refers to the meeting that was held between the TWU, transport employers, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and Mr Willis on 15 November, at which it was agreed that the parties would negotiate an appropriate superannuation scheme consistent with the Government-ACTU agreement to apply from July 1986. The agreement provides for the introduction of this scheme in special and isolated circumstances prior to 1986. Senator Crichton-Browne —You know more about lies than you do the truth. Why don't you get yourself familiar with the facts? Senator WALSH —Tell us how many Poseidon shares you bought and sold and in what names you sold them, other than your own. Senator Crichton-Browne —Is that you-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Crichton-Browne, you have asked your question. Senator Walsh is answering it. Senator WALSH —Mr Willis has also told the parties that such a special introduction should occur only on a negligible cost basis and consistent with the wage fixing guidelines that there should be no industrial action. That was the position at the time those discussions were held. If Mr Willis has any further information to supply, I will ask him for it and present it later. Senator ROBERT RAY —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that the House of Representatives has set up a Procedure Committee in order to review the parliamentary procedures in that chamber? Given the legislative chaos that now prevails in this chamber and the obvious ineptitude of the Standing Orders Committee, will the Leader give consideration to setting up a Senate procedure committee? Senator BUTTON —One would like to give consideration to everything, particularly when it is put by Senator Ray as a constructive suggestion. Because that is so, I will give consideration to it. For what relevance my view is, it probably will have marginal value. It is a matter for the Senate, of course. Senator Ray is a member of the Standing Orders Committee; so he includes himself in the generic description of useless, together with the rest of us. The Committee has had difficulty in grappling with some of the problems with which the Senate has been confronted in the last few weeks. I must say that attempts have been made by the leaders of the three parties to resolve these things. We have particularly tried to keep Senator Chipp and his colleagues in order. Senator Chipp —Unsuccessfully. Senator BUTTON —We have been totally unsuccessful in that regard. A letter has been sent by the Clerk of the Senate to the members of the Standing Orders Committee suggesting that we as individuals should address the question of improving the procedures of the Senate. We have a large number of individuals to satisfy in this place in trying to do that. I must say, with the wisdom of hindsight, that the situation is probably no worse this year than it has been every year I have been here. We are making slow progress. It is no worse this year than in any year in which the Government has not had a majority. That is the very distinct difference between the Senate and the House of Representatives. Senator CHIPP —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Will the Government undertake to cut all aid to the Philippines if the Marcos Government does not institute real reforms? Has the Government yet officially castigated the Marcos Government this year for its appalling violations of human rights? Can the Government give a categoric undertaking that under no circumstances will Australia support, militarily or economically, the corrupt and decaying Marcos regime? Senator WALSH —The Minister for Foreign Affairs said in a statement to the House of Representatives only yesterday that the Australian Government had made a substantial commitment to the people of the Philippines in terms of aid. Our intention is to continue to give development assistance. This Government, like other donor governments, gives most of its aid through the governments of the recipient countries. The provision of aid in this form does not imply endorsement of those governments' policies. Australia's development assistance to the Philippines is aimed at making an effective contribution to the welfare of the needy. Withdrawal of that aid would harm their interests. In response to the second part of the question-Senator Chipp's reference to violations of human rights in the Philippines and so on-I have nothing further to add to the statement made by Mr Hayden yesterday in the House of Representatives. Senator RICHARDSON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware that the Builders Labourers Federation is demanding that employers on major building sites in Sydney sign two letters? The first letter must state that builders oppose the deregistration of the BLF, and the second letter that employers support the 35-hour week. Refusal to sign either letter will result in a walk-out of BLF members at a time guaranteed by the union to create maximum inconvenience. What action will the Government take to ensure that these letters, signed under duress, will have no impact on the deregistration proceedings currently before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Senator WALSH —Mr Willis is well aware of letters of the type to which Senator Richardson referred and, indeed, a number of other letters. I can assure Senator Richardson that as far as Mr Willis is concerned-I think this could be extended to every member of the Government and probably well beyond it-those sorts of threats will make absolutely no difference to the Government's attitude and determination to persist with the deregistration proceedings against the BLF in two States and one Territory. Senator Chaney —Can you protect the builders? Senator WALSH —I can tell Senator Chaney one thing we will not do. We will not dob them in, the way that his Western Australian colleague, Mr Viner, dobbed in Costain Aust. Ltd in the House of Representative three years ago. That is one thing we will certainly not do. Mr Willis is a competent Minister. He does not dob in people whom he is trying to enlist in support of the case he is pushing in the way that Mr Viner did, which demonstrates one of the important differences between this Government and the one it replaced, that is, that this Government is competent and the one it replaced was not. The Government-I note with some satisfaction on behalf of Mr Willis and the Government in general, with apparently strong support from employers, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and other building industry unions-is determined to push ahead with its policy on the BLF. It will not be intimidated by threats of the type to which Senator Richardson referred. Senator REID —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to the unholy mess which now exists in the Australian Capital Territory public hospital system in a dispute between an honourable profession, which has public support, and the Government. I ask: What does the future hold for my constituents? Senator GRIMES —Like the Minister for Health, I am neither pleased nor satisfied with the situation which exists in the nursing profession in the hospital system in the Australian Capital Territory. I was also interested to hear by implication that Senator Reid apparently supports the action of the Royal Australian Nursing Federation. Senator Peter Baume —She didn't give any indication of that. Senator GRIMES —If honourable senators read the Hansard, they will see. Senator Button —It was a very subtle question. Senator GRIMES —Senator Reid is a very subtle person. She asked what the Government was doing about this dispute involving her constituents and talked about the difficulties the profession has. If she does not agree with the actions of the RANF, she should get up and say so. One must infer from what she says that she does agree with the actions of the RANF. As it happens, the Minister for Health and I have considerable sympathy with the nursing profession in Australia. Dr Blewett and I are on the public record as saying that the conditions of employment of nurses are less than satisfactory. I also believe that the present situation need not have developed in the way it did. Dr Blewett, this Government and the Department of Health had increased the number of nurses in Australian Capital Territory hospitals to a record level leading up to the time of this dispute. I remind the honourable senator that the dispute broke out on a Friday and a general strike followed on the next Tuesday or Wednesday. Since then, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commissioner, after considering the facts, has asked RANF members to return to work. They have refused to do so. The fact that members of the RANF until now, as far as I know, although I think there is a meeting today, have been refusing to return to work has created a very difficult situation, which I accept. Picket lines have created shortages of food, and nurses who are still working-there are nurses who are still working-are very weary. This has created a hazardous situation for patients and has also resulted, incidentally, in the Full Bench of the Commission in Melbourne adjourning indefinitely the comparable worth case for the nurses of Australia, which I think is a great pity. Many of us thought that out of that case would come at least the start of a better set of conditions for nurses. I do not like to see an important case like that adjourned because of a local dispute. The people who have kept the hospitals working and functioning should be thanked and congratulated. I hope that the situation will soon return to normal. When that happens, the RANF and the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority can sit down and begin a study of nurses' claims. On a semi-personal note, earlier this year I was Acting Minister for Health for two or three weeks, during which I spent all my time on the New South Wales doctors dispute and the problems in the Australian Capital Territory hospitals. As a result of the action that was taken then, when the nurses took a very responsible view and worked under very difficult circumstances, there was a complete restructuring and revamping of the Capital Territory Health Commission. Since then the number of nurses in the Australian Capital Territory has been increased, as I said, by a record number. I would like to see better conditions and pay. However, I do not think that will be achieved by the RANF in the Australian Capital Territory engaging in a general dispute and a general withdrawal of labour so soon after the dispute was declared and in the light of what has happened in the last 12 months. It has to accept that governments cannot immediately grant all its claims as soon as there is a dispute. I have considerable sympathy with the RANF and with the nurses' case, but I am afraid that I have no sympathy with the action they have taken in this instance. I agree with Senator Reid that the situation certainly is not satisfactory. It is very difficult for a large number of patients and potential patients in the hospitals in the Australian Capital Territory. I just hope that the meeting called today by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commissioner about the nurses' refusal to return to work will result in a return to work and a further sitting down and discussion of the matter between the Nurses Federation and the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority. Senator MORRIS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. The Minister will be aware of the recent announcement of the New South Wales Government on the redevelopment of the sports ground complex at Moore Park. Will the Minister ensure that Commonwealth land at Moore Park transferred to the State in 1981 for public recreation purposes will be utilised for that purpose? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that in 1979 it was agreed that the Army engineers depot at Moore Park, Sydney, would be transferred to the State Government on the important condition that the State undertook to reserve the land for public recreation under appropriate legislation. I am not totally aware, however, of the State Government's proposals, although the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has advised me that he recently wrote to the State Minister for National Resources, the Hon. Mrs Crosio, MP, who is responsible for land exchange matters between the Commonwealth and the State. The Minister has indicated that he expected the land to be readily accessible for public recreation in accordance with the 1979 agreement. However, I should add that while that may be the principle upon which the Commonwealth Government agreed to transfer the land at a very nominal fee to the State Government, the question of what constitutes a proper use of the site for public recreation is one which finally will have to be determined by the State itself. The Commonwealth can only express a view in respect of this matter. Whether it will be used for an exclusive club, which I have read somewhere is one of the proposals being contemplated by the State Government, will finally have to be worked out by the State, provided, of course, that a substantial area will nevertheless be put aside for public use. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I note that the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, has finally conceded that significant losses to Australia's beef trade have resulted from the Mudginberri dispute but that he has not sought to find out the extent of those losses. I ask: Is the Minister too embarrassed to inquire into the extent of the financial losses to our beef trade resulting from the Mudginberri dispute, particularly as the losses could have been avoided if the Minister had not grossly neglected his responsibility to send in Commonwealth meat inspectors to certify the meat killed during the dispute as being fit for export? When will the Minister be seeking information as to the extent of the losses suffered and when will he advise the Senate? What action does the Minister intend to take to explore ways of recovering lost sales, and what action will he take to reassure our overseas markets that the Federal Government will not permit such a situation to develop again? Senator WALSH —I do not know whether Senator Kilgariff has reported fairly and accurately whatever Mr Kerin may have said on this subject, because I do not know what he said about it, if anything. I certainly do reject the assertion that Mr Kerin was derelict in his duty in any way on this question. That assertion has frequently been made by members of the Opposition and by other people. They have never been able to substantiate it, for the very good reason that it is not so. However, I am a bit surprised-if Senator Kilgariff was quoting Mr Kerin accurately-at his reference to losses to the Australian beef industry, because as I recall only buffalo were being killed at the Mudginberri abattoir. As for the other points raised, I cannot answer them off the top of my head. I will refer them to Mr Kerin to see what comments he has to make. Senator REYNOLDS —Can the Minister for Community Services detail the arrangments which have been made in regard to finalising the implementation of the home and community care program in Queensland? When will the agreement be signed? Will the program be operational by January 1986? What kind of community advisory body will be established to monitor the home and community care program's operations in Queensland? Senator GRIMES —The situation in Queensland changes daily, but I think that I can accurately give Senator Reynolds an answer now. I have had correspondence recently with the Queensland Minister involved with the home and community care service to iron out some of the difficulties which the Minister saw in the Commonwealth-State arrangements. It is my understanding that Queensland now finds the arrangements satisfactory and it is likely that the Queensland Government will find itself in a position of signing the agreement, although I understand that it probably still has to be sighted by the Queensland Cabinet. At the moment, South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia and the Northern Territory have signed agreements. I have recently had meetings with the Victorian Minister, and I am somewhat hopeful that Victoria will sign. Under the home and community care agreements the Commonwealth will be involved with the States in incorporating the payments which have now been paid under the States Grants (Home Care) Act, the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act, the States Grants (Paramedical Services) Act and the Home Nursing Subsidy Act. This is being done in order to provide maintenance and support services to aged and younger disabled people, to avoid inappropriate and early admission to nursing homes or dependant accommodation and to plan and co-operate with the State governments and the non-government organisations so that we will have a coherent program. To do this, we are setting up committees in each State, with representatives from the State government, local government and the Federal Government Department of Community Services. These committees will be looking at the existing programs and at various proposals for new programs over the years so that we can monitor what is happening and get a more sensible and coherent arrangement. At the moment, as far as I know, no proposal has been put to me to finalise setting up such a committee in Queensland, but the process has gone smoothly in the other States which have signed. I am certainly hopeful that the Queensland Government will in fact sign within the next few weeks so that we can get the program well and truly on the way by the end of the year. All that is required now is a signature on the agreement, as both governments have been working towards the day of implementation so that we can get the program off the ground quickly. Senator JESSOP —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to a question I asked on 15 November concerning the activities of Mr Ali Kazak, self-professed Australian representative of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and his reported threat-- Senator Tate —How many times are you going to ask this? Senator JESSOP —It is a very important question and I hope that the honourable senator will listen to it. I refer to his reported threat that Australians would be targets of the PLO. Senator Bolkus —I feel sorry for the Minister. Senator JESSOP —The honourable senator may not be concerned about this matter, but I am. Does the Minister recall also that on 7 November I asked again about the report in the Bulletin of Kazak repeating his threat and I directed a three-part question on that subject to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I received a bland reply from Senator Gareth Evans. Senator Bolkus —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. This question could go on all day. Could you ask the honourable senator to come to the point of this question? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Jessop to continue his question. Senator JESSOP —I ask the Minister whether he recalls that in answer to that question Senator Gareth Evans said: The assertion that Australian citizens travelling abroad are in some way at risk is unfounded. Is the Minister concerned over the recent tragic events associated with the Egyptair hijacking in the last week and the fact that two Australians on board were lined up for execution immediately after the Israeli and American passengers? At the time of the assault of the Egyptian commandos, Mr Lyons and a young lady from Melbourne, Elizabeth Fisher, were next in line for execution. Has the Minister seen the report indicating that Mr Lyons eventually escaped but that the young lady lost her life tragically? Has he gathered from Press reports that she lost her life in the fire resulting from the rescue attempt? I learn now that her relatives were told this morning by the Department of Foreign Affairs that she was in fact executed. I ask the Leader of the Government whether Miss Fisher was in fact executed and whether the Government shares the offhanded attitude of Senator Evans about Australian travellers? Finally, I want to know whether the Government now takes Ali Kazak's threat seriously? Senator BUTTON —Many years ago I was trained at great public expense to follow arguments, indeed tortuous arguments, but my training is totally inadequate to follow some of the arguments which were contained in that question. For example, Senator Jessop asked me whether I was aware of an answer given by Senator Evans to him, and he identified the answer as being given in a private letter to him. Senator Jessop —No, in the Senate. Senator BUTTON —No, the honourable senator referred to two answers from Senator Evans and he said in his question that the second one was given to him in a letter. I am not aware of that. I am aware of him asking a question of Senator Evans on this matter but I am not aware of the second question to which he referred. I am also aware that the Bulletin and newspapers have identified comments, not from Mr Kazak but from others, that Australians may well be targets in international terrorist activities. I did not put those two allegations together in the way the honourable senator sought to do in his question. The honourable senator asked me whether I am concerned about these things. Of course I am concerned about these things and of course the Government is concerned about them. No Minister in this Government is offhanded, as Senator Jessop chose to suggest in his question, about the very serious situation which, of course, is a threat to all travellers, whether they be Australians or otherwise. It is very difficult for us to identify whether there is a specific threat to Australians. I suspect there probably is. So of course the Government and all Ministers in it are concened about these matters. The honourable senator then went on to ask a number of supplementary questions, as it were, about Miss Fisher and whether she was in fact killed during the Egyptian commando raid on the Egyptian plane at Malta or whether she was a victim of asphyxia as a result of smoke grenades. I have no up to date information on that. I will endeavour to get a formal answer to that question before the end of Question Time. From the honourable senator's question, the information seems to be available to the Department of Foreign Affairs. Senator Jessop also asked me whether I am concerned about that incident. Of course I am concerned about that incident. Everybody in this Parliament is concerned. I find the phraseology of the question somewhat insulting. Senator BLACK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Is he aware of the Queensland Premier's claim, as reported in today's Australian, that the Federal Government's proposed Bill of Rights is designed to destroy the inherent rights of Queensland citizens? In view of the legislation passed in Queensland since the National Party of Australia's Government came to power, can the Minister assure the people of Queensland that it is not the Federal Government which is seeking to erode their civil liberties? Senator WALSH —I am aware of statements made by the Queensland Premier along those lines. I am also aware of a report on that matter in yesterday's Brisbane Daily Sun, about which I will say something later. It is a little surprising, I suppose, to find the Queensland Premier taking any interest in civil rights. Indeed, he has displayed a great deal of interest in the past in keeping out of gaol crooks such as Dr Shrian Oskar, who was finally slotted in the United Kingdom a couple of weeks ago, and facilitating business deals for them. The assertions made by the Queensland Premier are, as usual, riddled with inaccuracies and distortions. I gather that his principal concern is the suggestion that the Bill of Rights may be used to impose some sort of democracy upon Queensland, some sort of fair and reasonable electoral system which would ensure that the party or parties which gain the majority of the votes were in a position to form a government, something to which the Queensland Premier is very strongly opposed. He is also reported as suggesting-this is referred to in the Daily Sun, which rather surprises me-that the Bill of Rights might be used to change the composition of the Senate. He points out that about 24,000 Tasmanian voters are needed to elect a senator-that figure is correct as far as I can recall-but about 285,000 voters in New South Wales are required to elect a senator. I am not sure what his purpose was in raising those facts-I believe for a change that they are facts-or whether he was suggesting that the Senate voting system should be changed in some way. Perhaps he had better consult his spouse on that question. I think Mr Bowen has said a little more about this recently, but if anybody finds offensive the suggestion that there should be a fair and equal electoral system in operation anywhere, one should pass judgment on the person who finds it offensive rather than the suggestion itself. That helps to demonstrate that it is obviously not the Commonwealth Bill of Rights which threatens the liberties of Queenslanders; it is the legislation enacted by the Queensland National Party, often in the dead of night and at five minutes notice. It is that sort of behaviour and legislation which jeopardise the civil liberties of Queenslanders. Senator PETER BAUME —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, concerns a medical practice in the St George area which seeks to serve veterans and to bulk bill the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Why has it taken so long for the Minister's Department to process its claims for payment? Is he aware that his Department's reimbursement payments for medical practices such as this are taking up to five months to complete? Is he aware, for example, that until we called his Department in October this particular practice had had no payments since May? Does he acknowledge that, despite his claim that the average processing time for these reimbursements should be 90 days, they are running as slow as 230 days? Does he agree that this is disgracefully incompetent and inefficient? In the interests of veterans, will the Minister assure the Senate that he will take steps to ensure that the average processing time is reduced to a reasonable period, perhaps to 60 days, throughout 1986? Senator GIETZELT —I am aware of a number of delays that are taking place in the payment of accounts from medical practitioners. I am talking generally; I am not aware of the particular one to which Senator Baume referred. The delay has taken place for a number of reasons. It has been the intention of the Department to overcome this difficulty by establishing a new system of payments. A manual system has operated for many years. With the growth in treatment services to veterans generally and the growth of local medical officers throughout Australia, there has been an explosion of services and treatment providers within the Department. We became aware of this several years ago but, unfortunately, staff ceilings imposed by the previous Government has some effect upon changing the system to a more computerised and more modern method of payment of such accounts. Even though we have subsequently made more staff available, the expansion of treatment services generally has created this problem. I am talking in a general sense and not specifically to the problem in the St George area to which Senator Baume referred. The Department hopes that within the next few months we will catch up with the backlog in the treatment of accounts from medical practitioners. I can assure the honourable senator that the problem occurs in many places in Australia. We are not satisfied with that and steps have been taken to improve the situation. Those practitioners affected are asked to bear with us for a short time until we solve the problem. In the case to which Senator Baume specifically referred, if he takes it up with me personally after Question Time, I will see that that account is paid promptly. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer to the Minister's answer yesterday to a question from my colleague Senator Sibraa in the proposed privatisation of public assets in South Australia and in particular to the Minister's comments on the sale of public assets to finance current consumption expenditure. Has the Minister had any reason to consider the comments he made yesterday, particularly in view of the surprising claim on radio this morning by the Liberal Party Leader, Mr Howard, that privatisation is not an issue in the South Australian election? Senator Chaney —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy President. That is a gross misrepresentation of what was said by the Leader of the Opposition. It is typical of the dishonesty that we see at Question Time, usually from Ministers but now from this honourable back bencher from South Australia. It was a disgraceful misquotation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. I call Senator Walsh. Senator WALSH —This morning, when I was slowly waking up, the wireless was on and I was astounded to hear the Leader of the Opposition on the AM program. I was so astounded and interested in what he had to say that I asked for a transcript of the program as soon as I got into the office. I have the transcript here. In discussion of the South Australian election he said: The privatisation issue has got a lot of publicity, but I don't see the thing at issue as being anywhere near as dominant as the issue of State taxes and charges and interest rates. He said that privatisation is not important and that what is important is State taxes and charges. He has inexorably linked the question of privatisation with that of State taxes and charges because he has circulated a document which states that the tax cuts which he forecasts or promises, or whatever one should say, would be funded from the proceeds of privatisation. Senator Chaney —I take another point of order, Mr Deputy President. That is another lie. The Minister earlier this week in Question Time made a very clear point that there was a clear undertaking that there would be a reduction of indebtedness from the sale of any assets. The Minister is again misleading the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chaney, you must withdraw the word `lie'. You cannot use the word `lie' in referring to a Minister. Senator Chaney —I said that a lie was told. It was a deliberate untruth. I withdraw `lie'; it was a deliberate untruth. Senator WALSH —I am not offended by that. I am quite willing to be judged on the facts that are on the record. I have no qualms about that. Senator Maguire referred to my-- Senator Chaney —The Hansard makes it quite clear that he quoted the undertaking. Senator WALSH —The undertaker? Are we talking about Mr Sinclair now? Senator Chaney —You quoted the policy yourself. Senator WALSH —Senator Maguire referred to my answer yesterday to a question from Senator Sibraa. Yes, I pointed out in that answer that the principal lesson to be learned from the British experience of the Thatcher Government's privatisation program is that `privatisation is a device used by Tory governments to fund current expenditure by flogging off public assets so that they can promise tax cuts immediately before an election'. That is precisely what Mr Olsen is also doing. I pointed out that the same policies which the Thatcher Government is pushing through are being contemplated and promised by the Olsen Opposition. Then there was the AM interview with Mr Howard this morning which sabotaged Mr Olsen's privatisation strategy when Mr Howard said that the issue of privatisation really is not the dominant issue in the South Australian election; that it is the question of State taxes and charges and that the two do not have any connection. Of course, that is quite untrue. In fact, Mr Olsen has inextricably linked his privatisation proposals with his promises of tax cuts-a link which has now been severed by the Federal Liberal Party Leader. Therefore, South Australians are entitled to ask, if only for the purpose of the record because I suppose there would be little other reason to ask it, whether the Liberal Opposition in South Australia still holds with tax cuts or whether it has abandoned that promise in view of the statements on Federal Liberal Party policy made by Mr Howard. In addition to that, the Liberals could not fund State tax cuts from Commonwealth grants because Mr Carlton, the shadow Treasurer, has already proposed that the 2 per cent real increase in general purpose payments to the States, which is on this Government's program for the next financial year, should be cancelled. So, as well as the shortfall in revenue from the now jeopardised privatisation proposals for short term revenue, a South Australian Liberal government, if a Federal Liberal government policy were implemented, would have to deal with a shortfall in revenue from Commonwealth sources. Perhaps Mr Howard and Mr Olsen should seek some economic advice from Brigadier Greville, who I understand is a Liberal Party adviser these days and who advocated in the Adelaide Advertiser yesterday the privatisation of the Australian defence forces. Senator Maguire having directed a supplementary question to the Minister for Finance- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! That is not a supplementary question. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Has the Government made a decision about whether recipients of German reparation payments will no longer have that money included under the definition of income in the Social Security Act 1947? If it has, when will it make that decision public? If the decision is to exclude German reparation payments from the definition of income, when will the change come into effect and will it be made by way of ministerial directive or some other method such as amending legislation? Senator GRIMES —Senator Haines and I will both be pleased to know that the Government has decided to exclude such payments from definitions of `income' under the social security legislation. Mr Howe, myself before him, Senator Chaney before me, and Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle before him, I think, were conscious of the problems of recipients of German restitution payments in that those payments were treated as income for pension calculations. It is now considered by the Government, in the light of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision, about which Senator Haines knows, that such payments should not result in a reduced rate of pension. The Minister has decided to adopt the procedure recommended by the AAT in several decisions, and it will apply from 5 March 1985, which was the date of the first AAT decision. Essentially, this means that when German restitution pensions are by way of compensation for loss of property, or where such loss forms an indefinable but substantial part of those payments, they will be exempt from income for the purpose of the calculation of pension-which, I assume, will mean essentially all German restitution payments of that type. The decision was announced by Mr Howe yesterday, I think. The Council of Australian Jewry, which had been active with Senator Haines and other people in this regard, was notified. I understand that some sort of formal announcement was made earlier today. I shall seek any further details for Senator Haines, but it is my understanding that now, essentially, all those payments will be not recognised. Senator BOLKUS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is a question that may provide assistance for Senator Chaney against the colleagues behind him. Will the Minister say what action, if any, the Australian Government has taken to ratify the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on Human Rights Day-10 December-last year? Senator WALSH —I am sure that Senator Bolkus knows that Australian officials have played an active role in the lengthy, seven-year negotiation of the United Nations Convention against Torture, aimed at achieving a text which could serve as an effective weapon against torture. Our emphasis was on a convention with strong implementation provisions. Australia was also a co-sponsor of the United Nations resolution providing for adoption of the convention, and all formalities for Australian signature have been completed. Mr Hayden has announced the Government's imminent signature of the convention, as have our representatives at the United Nations General Assembly. It is expected that it will be signed by Australia in New York as soon as appropriate arrangements for the ceremony have been made by the United Nations Secretariat, and consultations prior to ratification will now be pursued with State governments, the Northern Territory Government and other relevant Federal authorities. Senator ARCHER —Has the attention of the Leader of the Government been drawn to the fact that more and more of Australia's top companies and investors are finding it more attractive to invest overseas than in Australia? I refer, amongst others, to Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, Elders, News Ltd, and Mr Holmes a Court, and to the vast amounts of money involved. Has the Government considered the implications of the moves, and does the Minister believe that it warrants any particular action by the Government? Senator BUTTON —I am as aware as Senator Archer is of a number of substantial investments by Australian companies overseas. I do not necessarily draw the same conclusions as those which Senator Archer tends to imply in his question about the desirability or otherwise of that process. The fact of the matter is that a company such as BHP is an international company. It embarked on a deliberate strategy to become an international company, and the first step in that was the purchase of the Utah interests in Australia. There have been a number of steps since, including BHP investment in oil drilling in the South China Sea, in various companies in the Americas, both north and south, and so on. I do not see that as in any way being a strategy which I think the question seeks to imply-of saying that the investment environment for these companies is unsatisfactory here and that they are therefore embarking on a course of international investment. I think that probably exactly the opposite follow; that the fact of the matter is that companies of that size have sufficient international market strength, acquired on the basis of their operations in this country, to enable them to compete in an international market in that way. As a Minister in this Government, I certainly do not see that as an undesirable thing at all. This question is often raised in the context of manufacturing industry. I think that Senator Archer has raised it in this chamber previously. Contrary to some emotional feelings about it and to some beliefs about it, the fact of the matter is that a number of companies which have invested overseas-it is not only the Australian experience but also the international experience-have, as a result of those investments, strengthened their operations here in Australia. I am not talking about fly-by-night companies which flit between Australia, the Philippines and Singapore, and things of that kind; I am talking about companies which have substantial operations here and invest in manufacturing operations overseas. The first point I make about that is that sometimes it is highly desirable and necessary that they do so in order that they might involve themselves in international markets. Senator Watson —Your tax policy is discouraging them. Senator BUTTON —The tax policy is not discouraging them. The honourable senator does not know about that, any more than do some of the outside critics. There has been a lot of empty-headed rhetoric about that, and I am surprised that the honourable senator rushes in to join it. Going back to Senator Archer's question, the fact of the matter is that not only has overseas investment strengthened companies' international operations and enabled them to obtain economies of scale in the international market, but it inevitably has had the effect of strenghtening their local operations, because most of those firms in the manufacturing sector which have established successfully overseas have an integration with the parent activity in Australia and inevitably technology, equipment and so on is supplied from this country. If Senator Archer is interested in pursuing this question, I would refer him to the research paper of the Bureau of Industry Economics, which was published last year, I think, on Australian investment overseas by manufacturing companies and the consequences which they saw from that process. I also make the point that the same paper drew the conclusion that by international standards it was not high. Senator ELSTOB —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. It refers to the recent study undertaken by the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria. Will the Minister confirm the finding that migrants are missing out on pensions and benefits because of communication and cultural barriers? If that is so, will the Minister advise on what methods are being used to break through the existing communication and cultural barriers? Has any consideration been given to using ethnic and other radio programs aimed at young people, who are often the chief communicators in ethnic families? Senator GRIMES —The Minister for Social Security and I have both seen the report referred to by Senator Elstob, and I think it is important to put it into perspective. It was based on 63 responses to a questionnaire out of a total of 350 questionnaires distributed. The Victorian office of the Department of Social Security is currently examining the report. A meeting with the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria and a representative group of ethnic welfare workers, both inside and outside the Department, was held early this week-two days ago, I think. I am aware, and the Minister for Social Security is aware, of the importance of ethnic language services. We always have been very conscious of the difficulty in this area. The Department of Social Security has recently adopted a national policy on language services with the aim of providing these services to individual clients who are not competent in English. As I understand it, this is the first Commonwealth Department to do so. The ethnic services of the Department of Social Security in Australia, but in particular in Victoria, are quite extensive. It has 25 sessional interpreters in 20 regional offices providing about 70 sessions a week and that will be extended to an additional 20 sessions a week from 12 December this year. About 30 on-call interpreters are used every day, 134 bilingual staff are located in 46 offices in Victoria, and the Department has five ethnic liaison officers who work with the Greek, Italian, Yugoslav, Vietnamese, Turkish and Arabic speaking communities. The Department has long used spot announcements on various radio stations, particularly on radio 3CR, and regular weekly question and answer sessions on radio 3EA in Victoria. Ten ethnic language pamphlets continue to be distributed throughout the country regions of Victoria and throughout Australia generally on unemployment and all the other benefits, and other pamphlets on pensions and allowances are currently in production and will be available progressively as the year goes by. The central office of the Department of Social Security has established a translation unit. This will facilitate the translation of publicity materials in all the major languages and particularly in the production of pamphlets, radio and television scripts, et cetera, quickly and accurately, which has been a problem in the past. The Department has issued glossaries on social security and welfare terms in the last few years in Greek, Italian, Vietnamese and Polish and more of these will continue to be produced. They have been very useful in the past. The Department also has a migrant advisory committee in Victoria which is made up of ethnic community and other welfare bodies who have experience in migrant information and who advise the Department on information and service delivery matters. All these things have been developed or expanded in recent years. The Department of Social Security has always been conscious of the need for a close liaison and proper communications with the ethnic community, and those services will be continued to be expanded. While I suppose one could always do more, I think, all in all, the Department of Social Security has a very good record in this regard. Senator BUTTON —Earlier in Question Time today Senator Jessop asked me a long question about the hijack of an Egyptian aircraft and the incident which took place at Valetta Airport in Malta following that hijack. As I recall it, in the course of his question Senator Jessop alleged that the relatives of the late Miss Elizabeth Fisher had been informed this morning that she had been executed, the implication being by the hijackers, and that her parents had been so informed by the Department of Foreign Affairs. I am advised that the Maltese authorities have informed the Government officially that Miss Fisher was one of the 59 victims killed during the hijack at Malta and the incident which followed it. Her body was identified by an official Maltese pathologist. The pathologist has not yet reported on the cause of her death. Miss Fisher's family has been informed of this information by officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I repeat that current advice is that the cause of death has not yet been received from the pathologist. I might add that one thing is beyond dispute and that seems to be that Miss Fisher met her death in the course of a violent incident at the Valetta Airport. Whether she met her death as a result of shooting by one side or another in a shoot-out or by asphyxiation from smoke grenades I suppose will be determined in due course. In the overall context of this most unfortunate incident, it does not seem to be particularly material at this time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —For the information of honourable senators I table a report from the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House relating to the precincts to the new Parliament House and the Parliamentary Zone. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) — by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present the report relating to the construction of the Canberra Mail Centre, Fyshwick. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the seventh report of the Publications Committee. Report-by leave-adopted. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria) —by leave-I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the European Parliamentary Institutions and to the German Democratic Republic 1985. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Democrats nominating Senators Sir John Carrick, Crowley, Macklin, Tate, Walters and Zakharov to be members of the Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt)-by leave-agreed to: That Senators Sir John Carrick, Crowley, Macklin, Tate, Walters and Zakharov, having been duly nominated in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 17 October 1985, be appointed members of the Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985. Consideration resumed. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(3.08) —It might be recalled that, before the suspension of the sitting for lunch, I was responding to Senator Lewis's questions about the allied veterans who served in the Pacific region. The estimated number of refugees and immigrants is currently 80,000. The figure of 4,000, which has been suggested to the Opposition spokesman, is based upon an assumption that some 15 per cent of that group would have served in the armed forces and one-third could become eligible for the service pension by 1990. That number needs to take into account members of the forces of, for example, the Republic of Korea and the United States who have migrated to Australia. Even if only half of the estimated number of veterans and their wives were granted the service pension the cost would still be considerable. It has to be recognised that these grants would be only the beginning of a flow of grants which undoubtedly would continue for the subsequent decade, with a progressively increasing cost factor. The real problem is that my Department does not have records; it does not have access to any form of documentation to determine the precise service of any applicant for a service pension. I stress to the Committee that it would be virtually impossible to administer the provisions contained in the amendment moved by the Australian Democrats. Senator Macklin's position is that anyone who served with an allied force in Vietnam should be allowed to apply for a service pension. His argument runs along the lines that we should let them apply for the pension, have the Department of Veterans' Affairs go to a lot of administrative effort to investigate the claim, which it is obliged to do under the Act, and have the Repatriation Commission refuse the claim because there is insufficient evidence to justify the granting of a service pension. How hypocritical that position is because the Repatriation Commission-be it a single delegate of the Commission or subsequently any of the appeals processes available to the applicant-is not able to authenticate on the basis of reasonable satisfaction-- Senator Lewis —How is that different from now? Senator GIETZELT —If the honourable senator will allow me to explain it to him, I will do so. When I was in Italy I took up with the Italian Government the fact that after the collapse of the Mussolini regime the re-formed Italian Government put forces in the field, together with the Allies under an allied high command, to fight the German occupation. Italians who fought under that high command and subsequently migrated to Australia became eligible for a service pension when they met the basic residency criterion. The difficulty that those Italian migrants were having with their applications for service pension, having reached the age of 60 years, was that they had to have their records authenticated to show that they were in fact part of the Italian regrouped pro-allied forces. They had to show that they were so designated and that their records had been so authenticated by the Italian Government. That is what I took up with the Italian Minister in that country. Similarly, I took up this problem in regard to Yugoslav migrants who, having reached 60 years of age, applied for a pension. At a certain stage of the war Marshall Tito's forces were recognised by the British, American and Russian governments as being part of the allied war effort, so these partisans became eligible for the service pension on the criterion that they were not engaged in any activities with the enemy but were fighting the enemy and were part of a formal command structure, and had been recognised by the Allies as such. When these people came to Australia, as significant numbers did, as residents, they became eligible in the course of time, on reaching 60 years of age, for the service pension. That is the basis of the legislation; the basis of the processes at work. A Vietnamese person who has come to Australia usually came as a refugee. He has to satisfy the Commission first that he was in the armed forces, so he has to produce some evidence to that effect. Then he has to meet our criterion that he was in an operational area and was not in Saigon, for example-that is the criterion we apply in respect of granting the service pension to members of the Australian armed forces, that they have been engaged in an actual combat operational area. It must therefore be admitted that it would be very difficult for any such refugee who came here and who satisfied the 10-year residence rule to produce that sort of evidence or get from the Vietnamese Government proof that he served in the armed forces in Vietnam and also that he was in an operational area and never at any stage was involved, as the Repatriation Act sets down, in activities with the enemy. By `the enemy' I mean the North Vietnamese or the Viet Cong, in accordance with our legislative requirements. According to newspapers, a number of former Viet Cong became disenchanted with that Army, with the new regime, the newly established Government, in Vietnam and fled to countries such as Australia following the collapse of Saigon at the end of the war. It stands to reason that these persons cannot, under any criterion of the existing legislation, qualify for the service pension if at one stage they were involved in activities against our forces. That is the difficulty with which we may be faced if the Opposition gives support to the Australian Democrats amendment. We are confronted also with another difficulty. Whether the Opposition likes it or not, the fact is that in the existing legislation we have taken away approximately 6,000 service pensions from Australian veterans who were eligible in terms of meeting the other criteria I have referred to. On the other hand, it is being suggested that, having taken it away from those people-the Democrats supported that proposition; it was Government policy and there has been an election so it has been endorsed by the people to the extent that it did not impede the re-election of the Hawke Government-we should now extend the service pension to a new group of people. Let us make sure that we understand what evidence is required. First of all, a claimant must satisfy the definition of `allied veteran' in clause 35. It provides for a person who served as a member of the Defence Force established by an allied country during a period of hostilities, but not a person who served with or assisted the enemy in any way. This amendment would give to the Repatriation Commission the responsibility of making a judgment in respect of that matter. Secondly, the person must have had qualifying service as defined in clause 36 (c), which states the test for qualifying service for allied veterans as follows: (c) if the person is an allied veteran who, during a period of hostilities, has, as a member of the defence force established by an allied country, rendered, in connection with a war, or war-like operations, in which the Naval, Military or Air Forces of Australia were engaged, service in an area within or outside the country in which the person enlisted in those forces, being service in respect of which the person incurred danger from hostile forces of the enemy; Can anybody tell me how the Repatriation Commission can establish that criterion on the basis of an affirmation of statement by a Vietnamese person who has become an Australian citizen after 10 years residence? Honourable senators must appreciate that before an allied veteran receives a service pension he is required to do more than merely produce a piece of paper which says that he served with the South Vietnamese forces. I do not know whether we have been affected by the propaganda or the way in which the Press dealt with the arrival in Australia of large numbers of Vietnamese refugees, but my recollection of these people is that they came here literally penniless and with only the clothes in which they stood. The amendment would mean that the Repatriation Commission would have to be satisfied on the following matters: That the person served in the South Vietnamese Army during the period from 31 July 1962 to 11 January 1973; that the person had at no stage served with or assisted the enemy in any way; that during that eligible service he was engaged in war-like operations. Those are the criteria which must be applied to Australians if they are to qualify for the service pension. They must also prove that during their eligible service they incurred danger from enemy forces. The criteria which are applied to Australians are far more sophisticated than Senator Macklin seems to appreciate. This is a test which would be almost impossible to satisfy on the civil standard of proof in relation to Vietnamese refugees. There is no way that any officer in the Department of Veterans' Affairs or the Repatriation Commission would be able to verify the full range of qualifications and conditions. I put the same point to the Italian Government. We required authentication by the appropriate department in the Italian Government that persons A, B and C who are resident in Australia enlisted on a certain day and served in a particular unit. It then must be established that that particular unit was under a formal command structure. That test is the same as that which is in Part V of the Repatriation Act. I stress to the Opposition that there is no support at all in the veteran community for this proposal. I know of only one veteran-a person whom I respect very greatly-who has put forward this view. The advisory committee made no recommendation in favour of this proposition and the principal veterans' organisation is totally opposed to it. In fact, that organisation-the Returned Services League-has asked that the 90,000 Australian veterans who, as a result of no decision of theirs, did not meet the service pension criteria of serving in an operational theatre and facing hostile troops and who have reached the age of 60-some of them are now 62 or 63-be given access to the service pension. The Government has had to refuse, not only because it disagrees with the proposition but because in this period of economic restraint such expenditure cannot be regarded as a priority area. Having made that decision, I have also had to make a decision in respect of members of the Greek community in Australia, many of whom served in partisan units but unfortunately did not serve under a formal command structure. Even as late as yesterday I had to write a letter to a Greek member of parliament in Victoria to say that because certain Greek veterans did not meet the criteria I have referred to, even though they fought very valiantly on our side during the war, sometimes with Australian troops, as in Crete, we were not able to give them the service pension. Do Opposition senators realise what a can of worms they are opening? Also there are many thousands of allies from Yugoslavia who do not meet the criteria because at some stage they fought with the Chetniks. There are people from Greece who are here in great numbers-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Jones) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Senator Lewis —If the Minister wishes to carry on, he may do so. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(3.25) —Thank you very much. Those sorts of people will be very much aggrieved. While it has been and will be argued by the Opposition that the Government has somehow been on the defensive throughout the debates on this legislation and that the Opposition has been able to gain some credence and credit for the controversy over this Bill, I wager that this issue will be one on which the Opposition-will founder. Being the grandson of a migrant, I know something about chauvanism and racism and I do not want to be put in a position-neither do the Government and the Opposition where we extend a range of benefits to certain groups of people yet at the same time, on the basis of budgetary restraints, we say that we will not extend that range of benefits to Australians. I would wager that there would be an outraged reaction from every ex-service organisation in Australia if we went to the extent of extending the range of benefits to a group of people who can apply for benefit immediately on the basis of unemployability because that is a factor in respect of payment of the service pension. That pension was introduced in 1935 in the middle of the Great Depression in order to deal with the intangible effects of war service which could not satisfy the requirements of the determining system that operated at that time. The pension was implemented for a handful of people and was never intended to be available to the broad majority of veterans and certainly it was never inteded to apply to veterans from other countries. I had to make a decision about priorities in my Department. If it comes to a point where I have to spend $1m, $5m, $10m or $20m, depending upon that guesstimate to which Senator Lewis referred, I will have to make cuts in some other section of my budget in order to accommodate this amendment if it is passed. The Government was criticised yesterday by Senator MacGibbon about a reduction in dental treatment. Perhaps if this amendment is passed I will have to abolish that completely in order to provide the funds for this area. The money does not come from nowhere. I am restricted, as my predecessor, Senator Messner, will appreciate. Cabinet makes the decisions about the funds that are available, Cabinet decides on the allocation. If I want to introduce new policy proposals, I will have to make some savings within my existing budget. That is the yardstick upon which I have to work. In the total scene of all the priority areas that the veteran community places upon this Government, I do not think that this can be considered in any way to be such a high priority area. At present neither allied veterans nor Commonwealth veterans in receipt of a service pension are entitled to repatriation treatment. They are specifically excluded. Yet this amendment seeks to extend treatment benefits to those allied service pensioners who have taken up Australian citizenship. We are not only dealing with the accessibility of a group of people; we are also seeking to extend a whole range of benefits. We are amending a money Bill and that will be considerably costly from the point of view of the operation of the repatriation system. Under existing legislation neither Commonwealth veterans-and there are 24,000 of them from the United Kingdom-nor 3,500 allied veterans are eligible for treatment. The amendment ignores Commonwealth veterans who are not entitled to treatment but who qualify for the service pension. Of course it is the Government's policy to progressively extend treatment benefits as part of its budgetary initiatives, but I have to make the decision as to whether this occupies a top place on the priority list. If I have to make that decision-and Ministers, whatever their political persuasion, have to make these decisions-the first priority for any extensions must be to Australian veterans and not all Australian veterans qualify for free medical treatment. I hope, rather than move down this track, that the Opposition and the Democrats will examine seriously what they are seeking to achieve and to that extent will recognise that there will be a very big reaction from the veteran community which is overwhelmingly Australian in content, tradition and outlook. That community will see extending this benefit as being at its expense, and that is a strategy and political objective that ought to be avoided. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.30) —I have known Senator Gietzelt for a long time and I say to him honestly that, when he has an opportunity to read in tomorrow's Hansard what he has just said, I think that he will regret some things, because I have rarely heard more racist statements than he has just made. We have heard about Australian's entitlements to this and that. Who are these people? In order to qualify, they must be Australian citizens. Senator Macklin —They are Australians. Senator LEWIS —They are Australians. We are talking about Australian citizens. When the Minister reads tomorrow what he said today, I honestly think that he will regret it. The Minister has said so many things that could be taken as racist remarks that I could not believe some of the things he said. Firstly, I make it clear that we are dealing with the Australian Democrats' amendment to sub-clause 35 (1), which is the definition of `allied veteran'. We are not talking about clause 81, to which the Democrats propose certain extensions to `allied veteran'. We are talking just about the definition of `allied veteran'. The Minister kept saying that the Democrats are trying to extend this benefit to these Vietnamese; he kept calling them Vietnamese. In fact, they are Australians. The Minister kept saying that the Democrats' amendment will extend it. The truth of the matter is that under the legislation they are entitled already to this benefit. That is proved. I will say it again, because the Minister was talking to the Clerk: The Minister kept saying that the amendment will extend the benefit to Australian citizens of Vietnamese origin. The truth of the matter is that under the present legislation they are entitled to it already. The proof of that statement is in the Minister's explanatory memorandum, at page 35, which states: . . . `allied veteran'-- that is the definition of `allied veteran'- which will maintain the definition in section 98H of the Repatriation Act 1920 except that it will exclude service after 31 August 1957. This date marks the end of the Korean/Malayan conflict. So the Minister will have two classes of allied veterans in Australia. He will have allied veterans who served in Australian forces anywhere, so long as it was not in Vietnam. What will the Minister say to the former citizens of the United States who have come to Australia and become Australian citizens? He will say: `If you fought with us in Korea you are okay, but if you fought with us in Vietnam you will get nothing'. In that way, the Minister is telling the Senate-and presumably the Minister keeps telling the Returned Services League organisations-that the Democrats and the Opposition want to extend this to those Vietnamese. Of course, if the Minister goes around this country saying that sort of thing, Australians will get upset about it. The truth of the matter is that this is not an extension; it is the Minister's legislation which is cutting back what they are entitled to already. The Minister told us that they were entitled to it in 1935 and he talked about the Whitlam initiative, but the truth of the matter is that this was a Fraser initiative. This was introduced in 1979. I will read from the second reading speech of Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle at page 1712 of the Hansard of 24 October 1979. She said: In respect of veterans of allied countries, this Bill honours an election promise of the Government made in 1977. It will mean recognition in a material way of the contribution which allied veterans made in war against common enemies. From 7 February 1980 eligible veterans will be able to receive a service pension on a similar basis to that applying to British Commonwealth veterans. So it was the Fraser Government that introduced this. She went on to point out that the service pension is similar to the age pension, except that it is granted five years earlier. She then said: . . . the specific requirements he will have to meet are that he served as a member of a formally raised force; served in a theatre of war; resided in Australia for at least 10 years; satisfies the income test applicable to Australian and British Commonwealth veterans; and reached 60 years of age if a male or 55 years if a female or become permanently unemployable. For the purposes of the legislation, an allied country is one which was engaged with Australia in a war or war-like conflict against a common enemy and would include forces of governments-in-exile during the 1939-1945 War and includes members of the Free French Movement under General de Gaulle and comparable forces. She then went on to explain: I take this opportunity to make clear that allied veterans will not, under repatriation legislation, be eligible for income tax concessions, a defence service homes loan, or repatriation medical treatment benefits. Allied veterans will be eligible to receive only an income-tested service pension and funeral benefits. Other proposed extensions will be dealt with later in the debate, but at this stage we are dealing only with the definition of `allied veteran'. When the Minister said to the Senate, and apparently to members of RSL clubs around Australia, or in correspondence, that the Democrats-I do not know whether or not the Opposition was included-want to extend this legislation to include these people, that is not so. The truth of the matter is that the Minister is excluding them from something to which they are entitled today. It will not be until this legislation is passed that they will be disentitled. In the Minister's speech, which went for nearly half an hour, he raised so many matters which I wanted to contradict that I have great difficulty in knowing where to start. The Minister kept telling us how difficult it would be for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I ask the Minister to get a set of the tape recordings of the Yes, Minister series on television and have a look at it, because that is what he is saying to us-that it will be administratively difficult. Of course it will be administratively difficult, but the point of the matter is that the person does not get the entitlement unless it is established. That should be the end of the debate. The person does not get it unless it is established. I see the Minister shaking his head. As an old country lawyer, I will give an example of the sort of proof of which I am thinking. I would say to my Australian citizen of Vietnamese origin: `Do you know any Australian servicemen? Can you find an Australian serviceman?' Then I would produce that Australian serviceman and he would say: `I know this fellow. I remember fighting alongside him in such and such a theatre of war'. To my mind that would be pretty substantial evidence of which the Repatriation Commission would have to take notice. Having verified that person, if he could come along and say, `Yes, I served in this force; I had these qualifications and I know this fellow over here, he was my sergeant', that would be getting fairly well down the track of establishing one's point of view, but it is up to the applicant to prove it. I know that the Department also has tasks to do under this complicated mass of legislation. Nevertheless, to say that it cannot be done for these people because it is administratively difficult is a nonsense. I say also, with respect, that the Minister misled the Parliament and the Senate by saying: `I will have to make cuts'. He did not know whether the amount was $1m, $5m or $10m, but ultimately it will be $20m. The truth of the matter is that to get a service pension an applicant will have to establish his claim and then, in addition, prove that he is 60 years of age. One could say that he is unemployable, but, with respect, very few Australian citizens of Vietnamese origin would be unemployable in this country. As a matter of fact, I would be surprised if any of them are able to pass the means test by the time they reach 60 years of age because they are all working so dashed hard they will not have any need to seek that sort of a pension. After all, the Vietnam war ended only 13 or 14 years ago. An applicant for a service pension will have to establish that he is 60 years of age, or 55 years of age for a woman, that he has been in this country for 10 years, and that he is an Australian citizen, before the Minister can make a cut. Yet the Minister is implying to the Senate, and no doubt implying out in the community, that it will cost $1m or more this year. The truth of the matter is that the Minister has some sort of statistical guesstimate. That is all it can be and all it is. I knew right from the word go that that was all it was-a statistical guesstimate. I would like to know what deflator the Department used. Was it guessing that inflation in this country would continue at the rate of 8 per cent or 10 per cent or 12 per cent over the next 10 years until finally the Minister is able to say: `It will cost $20m'? I say with respect that if the Minister watched the Yes, Minister series he would see that that is just the sort of argument departmental officers use when they do not want Ministers to do something. Alternatively, because the departmental officers may think that that is a terrible indictment of them, they are the sorts of arguments Ministers use when they do not want the Parliament to do something. The Minister said that the Democrat amendment maintains that the definition of `allied veteran' should be widened without verification and without regard to our own citizens. But these are our own citizens. These people are Australians. That is what we are all worried about-that for some reason or other we are not treating them as being Australian. How can it be without verification? The defects in the Minister's sentence are this: The Minister says that the Democrat amendment maintains that the definition should be widened-that is not true at all; and that it should be widened without verification-that is not true at all; and without regard to our own citizens-but they are our own citizens. So in a sentence of about 10 words the Minister misled on three separate occasions. Let me talk about these people of Vietnamese origin. Let us think about it. These people have had to survive the Vietnam war, a war in which some of them were fighting for many years, some of them practically since they were babies-- Senator Haines —Most of their lives. Senator LEWIS —Most of their lives. Somehow or other they had to survive that war. Then they had to survive the debacle when the surrender took place. Then, having been members of the South Vietnamese armed forces, they had to survive the executions which took place in 1973. Then they somehow or other had to escape and survive the camps. They had to survive the extortionists, the pirates, the rapists, in order to get on to a boat or get away somehow or other into a camp. Those left had to survive living in camps until finally they either escaped by boat to Australia or were brought to this country as part of a scheme. After all of that, they live in Australia for many years and they become Australian citizens. They have to have been here for at least 10 years, and then they must face a means test. They must go through all of that. Talk about the rabbit diving down the hole with the shotguns going off one after another shooting at him! If the rabbit makes the barrier at the end this Government says: `The Vietnam war was not worth fighting. You should not have been involved in the Vietnam war. We are not going to treat you as allied veterans'. I am appalled. I say to the Minister, seriously and sincerely-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Jones) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator Gietzelt —Does the honourable senator want extra time? Senator Lewis —No, thank you. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.45) —I accept the propositions Senator Lewis has put about Vietnam. I think he has put them cogently and very well, to the point where he has answered all the problems I had enumerated in relation to what the Minister was saying. I think the Minister will certainly regret some of the things he has put on the record today. Veterans include not only Australians of South Vietnamese origin, they also include Americans. An Australian citizen here, my colleague Senator Sanders, is of American origin. He did not fight in Vietnam, he fought in Korea. He was lucky that he fought in Korea because under this Bill he will still end up receiving benefits as an Australian citizen. As a member of the Senate he will be entitled to benefits because he fought in Korea. However, if he had fought in Vietnam he would not be so entitled. We are talking about people who may not have come through the types of horrors Senator Lewis is talking about, people who have been in the war, who have fought with Australians and commanded Australians in the field. They may come here with every bit of their documentation. They may be able to refer to documentation in the United States. These people are also being excluded. Let us be very clear. We are not talking only about people who will cause administrative difficulties for the bureaucrats. We are talking about people who will cause no administrative difficulties. They have all the documentation. Many South Vietnamese I have met would not cause any administrative difficulties at all because they have fairly extensive documentation. Not all of them came to Australia via the path Senator Lewis was talking about. Some of them came with extensive documentation. They will be able to present that documentation if they are simply allowed to be treated as any other person is treated. Senator Lewis's proposition is reasonable. They have to go through every hurdle that every Australian citizen has to go through. I am merely saying, as I believe Senator Lewis is saying: Let us treat equally every Australian citizen who was an ally of ours and who fought with Australians in an operational area. Let us not say that those who served before 1 September 1957 are fine but that those who served afterwards are not. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(3.48) —Senator Lewis has very carefully disposed of the arguments put by the Minister. He has pointed out that the legislation does not increase rights; an existing right is being taken away. I agree with what was said by Senator Lewis and Senator Macklin. If Senator Lewis were wrong and the Minister were right, his advisers would be telling him immediately to get up and object to this amendment. It could not be an amendment, it would be a request. Under section 53 of the Constitution the Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people. The Minister is not taking that point of view. He is not being advised by his advisers to suggest that the legislation is increasing the burden, because it is not. He is taking away something which will be a burden on these people but will certainly relieve the taxpayers of some payment. By his own actions he condemns himself. He shows that he is not validly adopting this attitude and that what Senator Lewis has been saying about this matter all along is right. What the Minister has been saying is totally wrong. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(3.49) —I want to respond to some of the exaggerated statements made by Senator Lewis. He talked about different classes of people. We have different classes of veterans in Australia-those who qualify for the service pension and those who do not. We have different classes of serving personnel. Those who served in the armed forces before 1972 do not generally have access to the repatriation system. As a result of the Whitlam Government decision, those who served from 1972 onwards do have access to the repatriation system. There are many cases and examples of different classes of people in the veteran community. Of course, we have different classes of beneficiaries in the social security system. Those honourable senators who have expressed support for the amendment moved by the Democrats are forgetting that as a result of the changes made to section 47 of the Repatriation Act and the measure proposed in clause 119 of this Bill, there is no onus of proof whatsoever on the claimant. The obligation rests in the first place with the single determining officer to determine the claim of an applicant for a service pension. If that claim is refused by the single determining officer, it can be taken to the Veterans' Review Board on appeal. Similarly, the Board has to determine the claim of the applicant. Should the applicant still fail to be satisfied, he has the capacity to take his claim to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I refute any suggestion whatsoever that in the Government's approach to this question there is anything other than a financial consideration. There is absolutely no racism involved and there is no chauvinism whatsoever. I was indicating to the Committee that I believe that this amendment would exacerbate reactions and the demands that are made on government by the various veterans' organisations, some 35 of them. Those organisations, particularly the Returned Service League, which is the premier organisation, have stated from time to time that they wish the Government to extend the range of benefits to those Australians who served in World War II who do not currently qualify because of the operational criteria which are germane to the whole service pension area. There are 90,000 who do not qualify for the service pension. Quite naturally, they believe that the Government is not being responsive to that demand. The reason that we are not responding to that demand is in large part financial. It may be conventional to attack departments and Ministers' advisers, but I can assure honourable senators that there is no such thing operating in the Department of Veterans' Affairs as a Yes Minister syndrome. I want to lay that sort of theory to rest. What the Department is required to do is to implement government policy, and the Government's policy in the existing economic climate, in this political period, is to have a priority approach to the areas in which government funds should be expended. Opposition spokespersons constantly-day in and day out-suggest that there should be cutbacks in public sector spending. This Government has substantially reduced the deficit and it has applied itself to maintaining a responsible position in respect of the repatriation requirements. It has taken some very unpopular decisions, such as the assets test and reductions in travelling allowances for veterans attending treatment services. The Government has reduced the amount of funds available for dental treatment and it has cut back in a whole range of areas. Nevertheless, this Bill has been extended to cover some 20 new areas. I suppose it could be argued that some of those areas are not particularly expensive in terms of funding, but we have taken out some of the anomalies that have existed in the repatriation system over many years. There are some areas in which savings have to be achieved. In our view, this is one of the areas. It is a view which I believe has the backing of the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review that was set up by the previous Government to examine this question. This definition of `allied veteran' has not been decided on the basis that we are anti-Vietnam. I say to Senator Lewis that Vietnam has been excluded because it is the one place where records can- not be verified. With respect to South Korea and the Americans, the handful of people who are affected can justify, with authentic records from the respective governments, their claims to have served with an allied force against Australia's enemies. Senator Missen —So we will chop these people off. Senator GIETZELT —That justification cannot be provided with respect to Vietnam. That is why I was emphasising the point. That is the dilemma I have in respect of those other categories about which I spoke. It is not because I have any ill-feeling. Senator Missen must acknowledge, because of my activities in Amnesty International, that there is no racism or chauvinism involved in my approach to these matters. I do not want to see, as a result of some decisions made by this Parliament, some reaction which will be counter-productive to the harmony that is essential in this multiracial society in which we live. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.57) —Once again, Minister, I say that you have endeavoured to mislead the Parliament. I did not take a note of your words, but I think that you said something along these lines: `You will recall, that the onus of proof provisions have been changed'. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Jones) —Senator Lewis, would you please address your remarks through the Chair and not directly to the Minister? Senator LEWIS —I certainly will, Mr Temporary Chairman. Will you please tell the Minister that he has misled the Committee again. The Minister said that we must remember that the onus of proof provisions have been changed and we should not forget the High Court and the O'Brien case. The truth of the matter is that that provision relates to a claim under Part II. This is not a claim under Part II. Sub-clause (4) of section 35 states: Where a person, being the claimant for a service pension satisfies the Commission . . . The sub-section lists the three criteria a person has to satisfy. It states that the Commission shall make a determination after it has been satisfied. So for the Minister to imply that these people would be able to do an O'Brien is, with respect, misleading the Parliament. Senator Missen —A red herring. Senator LEWIS —Senator Missen says it is a red herring, but I think that it is worse than that. The Minister keeps coming back to Vietnam and saying that the only reason for not including Vietnam is lack of records and that he is not racist. I do not accuse him of being racist. That is why I said honestly to the Minister that when he reads tomorrow what he said today he will regret it. The truth of the matter is that it is this Government's detestation of the Vietnam war that is the problem. It is that detestation that makes this Government say: `Look, that war is different, and we will not provide for people even if they are United States citizens, or Thais, or Koreans, or Vietnamese. It does not matter where they came from, if they fought with our troops in Vietnam, Vietnam is out. We are saying this is where we will draw the line'. The Minister talked about saving money, but no money will be saved for this Government. The predicted saving of $20m, which I do not believe in, is for 1989-90. Glory be, I hope for the sake of Australia that the Minister's Party is not still in government by 1989-90. Question put: That the request (Senator Macklin's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator Jones) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Baume, Michael Mason, C. V. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Missen, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Rae, PeterChipp, D. L. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Sanders, N. K.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G.Durack, P. D. Short, J. R.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Siddons, J. R.Haines, J. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Townley, M.Jessop, D. S. Vanstone, A. E.Kilgariff, B. F. Vigor, D. B.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S. Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W.Macklin, M. J. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N.Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R.Coates, J. Morris, J.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A.Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M.Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O.Grimes, D. J. Parer, W. R. Coleman, R. N.Hill, R. Evans, GarethWithers, R. G. McClelland, DouglasMacGibbon, D. J. Georges, G.Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause agreed to with a request. Clause 36 (Meaning of qualifying service). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.06) —I move: That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment: Clause 36, after paragraph (h), add the following word and paragraph: ``; or (j) if the person has been granted the Returned from Active Service Badge.''. Many honourable senators would have had representations with regard to this clause. The returned from active service badge was issued to those people who returned from qualifying active service. Because of the extent of the debate on this Bill I will not go into detail, but essentially this item is covered under Military Board Instructions No. 44 of 1946, which gives the full operational details as to who is eligible for the returned from active service badge. The instruction with regard to persons who served after the Second World War, particularly in Korea, the Malayan emergency and in the Malay-Thai border area from May to July 1963, is fairly clear. The instruction concerning the special service operations in Vietnam after 1963 is also fairly clear. Basically we are dealing with a problem that has occurred since the Second World War. I believe this is an area which could and ought to be reorganised. The returned from active service badge should be issued to those who returned from active service. If the Military Board Instructions No. 44 had been adhered to the badge would have been issued under those circumstances because the instruction referred to those people who embarked on overseas service from September 1939 to September 1945. The instruction also referred to those who served in the Northern Territory north of latitude 14 between February 1942 and September 1945; to those who served in the Torres Strait between March 1942 and September 1945; to those who served in New Guinea between January 1942 and September 1945; and to those who served in Papua between February 1942 and September 1945. The people who served during those periods are the people who are actually eligible. It appears that this returned from active service badge was granted to people who may not necessarily have been eligible under that instruction. The difficulty I am trying to point out is that persons have an expectation that this badge will be given out in future, and that has not been accepted by the Government. In other words, one part of the Government is saying that such persons have returned from active service and another part-the repatriation system, which will become known as the veterans' system-is saying that they have no entitlements. I think there needs to be a concurrence of views on this. I would be interested in the Minister's response to this problem. No doubt he has been well briefed about this matter. It has gone on for so many years and I think it has been a running sore in the Government. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(4.10) —The Government rejects the amendment. Under the Bill a service pension is paid to those veterans with qualifying service in areas where they were in danger from hostile forces. In the main the Bill continues the long-standing and generous criterion for the granting of a service pension. The amendment proposed is a considerable and unwarranted departure from the long-standing basis upon which a service pension is granted. As pointed out previously, a service pension was introduced as a welfare benefit to take account of the premature aging of veterans as a result of the privations of war service; that should be the criterion. The Democrats' amendment would grant a service pension to all veterans holding returned from active service badges even though those veterans did not suffer the same danger, anxiety or difficult conditions of service as did those who served in qualifying areas. The amendment would have the effect of demeaning the service of those who were in combat conditions by equating those who served in combat conditions with those who, through no fault of their own, did not suffer that privation, that hardship and in some cases, death. The amendment would apply a uniform criterion for eligibility for a service pension. That would create tremendous administrative nightmares because some of those people are now 63 years of age. Does the Democrat senator suggest that we should make it retrospective? He certainly did not support retrospectivity when we introduced our legislation to combat bottom of the harbour tax evasion. He spoke and voted strongly against that on every occasion. The bulk of those who returned from active service have reached the age of 60 and some are several years older. The amendment would have the effect of creating an administrative nightmare. That may be considered to be old hat and not important. But it is important. More importantly, it would have the effect of costing an additional $12m to the Budget in the first full year. For that reason one is entitled to say that the Government should have the opportunity to decide this in its Budget context and not in a Bill at this time. It has been one of the issues raised with me consistently by the veteran community, particularly by the Returned Services League, but I have had to say, and I will continue to say and to defend our stand, that there are higher priority areas in my portfolio than this. It is not that I disagree with the idea that, given good economic conditions, we could apply the criterion to such people. But, even under those circumstances, to do so would be to depart from the very important principle that this is an award made for people who suffered more than others in any conflict. As a result, I ask the Committee to reject the amendment. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.15) —The Opposition accepts the argument of the Government on this proposal. Request negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 37 to 53-by leave-taken together. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.16) —I refer to clause 47 as it relates to veterans aged 70 and over. I ask the Minister what is the Government's intention with the pension to the over-70s, which has not been increased since 1978. The buying power of that pension has, of course, been eroded by inflation by some 32 per cent in that time. The problems faced by many of those veterans because of the way their pension is structured are forcing them back into full time labour, although many of them are now quite elderly. I would be interested to know whether the Minister has any view on that matter. Clauses agreed to. Clause 54 (Pension reduction amounts). Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.16) —Clause 54 introduces into the eligibility criteria for a service pension the iniquitous assets test which this Government has introduced to this nation. The assets test has caused enormous heartache in the community. The Government is to impose this test on ex-servicemen who have given so much to their country when we have said time after time that what we want to do for ex-servicemen is to provide them with the best that a generous government can provide. The Government will now say to them: `Oh yes, but now we cannot really afford to be generous with you; we are going to impose an assets test on you'. This will create enormous concern among people. I am thinking in particular of those who served in the earlier world wars and who set up their lifestyle on the basis of criteria that existed prior to the introduction of this iniquitous assets test. No doubt some have helped their children on farms and in other ways and set up their assets on the basis that they would get the sevice pension for the rest of their lives. But along came this Government and introduced this measure which has created absolute havoc, particularly among country ex-servicemen. They are the people with whom I have most contact. It has caused them enormous distress. The Opposition is prepared to put the Government to the test again on this clause. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.18) —I am rather surprised that, in such a major review of veterans' legislation as this Bill represents, the Government has not seen fit to change substantially its views on the assets test in the light of the huge community outcry over the introduction of that harsh and very difficult test. As my colleague Senator Lewis has pointed out, it is certainly true that veterans seem to have been singled out by this Government to be mistreated and ill treated with the introduction of the assets test on their service pensions. He is also very right when he says that it seems to be country veterans who have been singled out for especially harsh treatment. It is those veterans in country areas who we see in our constituency work who are finding that the hardship provisions in the assets test which the Government has incorporated into its plan mean that the legislation is used against veterans rather than for them. If the Minister were able to disclose the number of cases brought under the hardship provisions and the number of cases that have been allowed, we would find a tremendous disparity. We would find, in fact, that many veterans have been unable to take advantage of the hardship provisions because of the very stringent requirements that the Government has laid down in respect of them. It is virtually impossible for veterans to be able to demonstrate that they are in hardship. That is because they have assets such as farms which are producing, in many cases, very low incomes. That occurs especially in drought years, very low yield years, when income is very small. Consequently, they find themselves in need of a pension but, because of the hardship provisions and because of their ownership of farms and, in some cases, other assets, they find it absolutely impossible to obtain the pension. The provisions also have a very deleterious effect insofar as many veterans, particularly disabled veterans, as they get older find themselves unable to work a farm because the effects of their war service have been such as to reduce their capacity to work, and they need to hand over the property to their children to continue its development and operation. But even in that situation, the veteran finds that he is unable to effect that because the provisions require that any asset transferred to his family in that fashion is treated as an asset anyway and is consequently taken into account in assessing the veteran's pension. That is something of serious concern to many veterans as they reach the age of retirement. As they reach the age of 60, having given their best for this country on the battlefields of the world, they find themselves unable to continue to work on the farm and they are precluded by virtue of their situation from divesting themselves of their assets in any way which would ensure that they get the pension. That is something that the Government ought to consider in regard to this legislation. I am amazed that it has not been taken into account in a review of the legislation, because it is a direct attack on veterans, who are in a special category. They are not in the same category as social security beneficiaries in the sense that many of them are disabled and consequently cannot work a property as much as they might have been able to work it in their youth. The logic of the veteran's service pension is that it is a recognition of the need for early retirement, as against the rest of the community, by virtue of the fact that there are some latent or hidden effects from war service which bring about premature aging. That, surely, is more applicable in the case of a veteran who has to undertake enormous physical work on a farm or similar property, and consequently such veterans ought to be given special consideration in relation to the assets test. The problem is that the Government has failed to recognise that need, and it treats the veteran in precisely the same way as it treats the social security beneficiary. That is a failure to appreciate veterans' very special problems. The Government ought at least to have taken account of that in the review of this major legislation which is before us today. We have many complaints against the assets test, and they have been made well known over the last several months as we have been debating that issue. The Government has itself recognised the problems of the assets test and has moved on many occasions to water down its original propositions. We have had four or perhaps five amendments to the original scheme which was outlined in the 1983 Budget; yet still we have the deleterious effects which are hurting so many veterans, country veterans in particular. Many of the veterans in that category who are farmers are not generally very wealthy. Many veterans who are being caught by the assets test own and operate very modest properties. The kinds of properties on which these people are frequently found working are soldier settler properties made available by a grateful government for ex-soldiers at the end of the wars. Consequently, by definition, they are very modest properties. The people who went on to them after the wars did so with very little capital. A grateful government at that time provided special conditions for the purchase and financing of those properties. Yet, coming to the other end of the life of such veterans, this Government is not prepared to take account of the special situations that arise by virtue of veterans prematurely aging, as they do, as a result of war service. It is despicable that this Government has not given due consideration of that circumstance. Indeed, it can be said that there is not just a small number of odd cases that occur in these circumstances, and it is not only physical disabilities that begin to reveal themselves in veterans as they get older. In my constituency experience, I increasingly meet people affected through nervous complaints and mental problems as a result of their war service who find themselves just physically and mentally unable to handle the problems of business and of farming as they reach the age of 60 or more. As a result, those people are particularly disadvantaged in the way in which the assets test operates. They are trapped in a situation in which they cannot get rid of their properties to their children, even though the urgency of that course piles up upon them increasingly. Because many of them are declining rather more rapidly as they get older, and because of the total debilitating effect of being unable to cope with a situation, being unable to earn income from a property effectively and unable to transfer the property to someone else, these people are driven down further and further. In my experience, I have found a number of people in that situation who just wonder what this Government has been all about and, consequently, really are at their wits' end in trying to manage their lives and those of their families in the situation into which this heartless Government has put them. We in the Opposition have, as has been demonstrated on previous occasions when we have debated the assets test, consistently opposed any legislative moves in regard to the assets test. As part of our social security policy, we stand committed to repeal the legislation on re-election to government. At the next election, we shall campaign on the basis of the promise to repeal that legislation. That applies not only to social security beneficiaries but also to veteran beneficiaries. As a result of that, it behoves us as an opposition to oppose the clause. We know that the Australian Democrats support the assets test, so no doubt we shall fail in this, but that does not matter because we are standing on a matter of very great principle, because we stand for independence in social security and not dependence. Consequently, we shall be opposing clause 54. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(4.29) —Clause 54 is the machinery part of the assets test. It must be conceded, even by Senator Messner, that we have debated this matter many times. He has had the opportunity time and again to express his view; he has availed himself of the opportunity to do that again. The Government's position is unchanged; that is, it seeks the Senate's support. I remind Senator Messner that changes have been made with a view to accommodating the hardship provisions. He asked for some of the figures. I am able to advise him that as at 25 October, the Department had received 717 hardship applications, mostly from farmers; 147 have been approved, and 465 rejected. Some 71 remain to be determined and currently priority is being given to this task. However, as it is the policy of the Government and the matter has been determined by the Parliament on several occassions it is obviously an issue that will be resolved at a future election. I suggest, therefore, that the Committee should proceed. Question put: That clause 54 be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator D. S. Jessop) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Aulich, T. Jones, G. N.Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Chipp, D. L. Maguire, G. R.Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J.Colston, M. A. Morris, J.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M.Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F.Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M.Elstob, R. C. Sanders, N. K.Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W.Georges, G. Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Vigor, D. B.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O.Haines, J. Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C.Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Missen, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Rae, PeterCarrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M.Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S.Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Coleman, R. N. Parer, W. R.Evans, Gareth Hill, R.McClelland, Douglas Withers, R. G.Button, J. N. McGibbon, D. J.Robertson, E. A. Chaney, F. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause agreed to. Clauses 55 to 67-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 68 and 69-by leave-taken together. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.37) —by leave-I move: (12) That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:: (a) Sub-clause 68 (1), definition of ``defence service'', paragraph (a), leave out ``and before the commencement of this Act; or'' and leave out sub-paragraph (ii). (b) Sub-clause 69 (1), leave out ``and before the commencment of this Act; or'' in paragraph (a) and leave out paragraph (b). (c) Leave out sub-clause 69 (2). These clauses concern those members of the defence forces who will become members after the commencment of this Act. As honourable senators are aware, the defence forces came under this Act as a result of the Whitlam Government inititative in 1972 and they have remained under this Act for the whole of that period. The Government has announced, through the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), that it intends to introduce a separate military compensation scheme and that this compensation scheme will be brought in some time next year. Since that military compensation scheme is not before the Committee and, hence, we do not have any idea as to whether or not the Parliament will accept such a scheme, it seems entirely inappropriate to exclude the defence forces from the Act under which they are currently covered, to allow them to move into limbo and to come under a workers compensation scheme or some other type of compensation scheme for injuries that might occur, until we can see the military compensation scheme and until the Parliament has accepted it. It is taking this place somewhat for granted to suggest that the mere introduction of that scheme, or the Government's wish to introduce it, means that it will be accepted. I feel that taking the defence forces out is a premature step, and a step that should be considered after, not before, the introduction of the military compensation Bill. The Government has also said that one way of avoiding the problem is to introduce the added notion of those people who are in the defence forces and who are operating on hazardous service. As part of the general discussion I ask the Minister: What will the Government determine constitutes hazardous service; how will the Minister for Defence be involved in making that determination; and will that determination be after a member applies and says that he has been injured in some way by hazardous service or will a determination be made prior to a particular activity? I give an example. Last year on a military exercise in the north of this country a serviceman was killed. How are we to take that particular occurrence. Will the Minister for Defence declare prior to a military exercise that that exercise constitutes hazardous service; or if somebody is hurt in some way will the Minister say that it was hazardous service; or will he make determinations in regard to various areas, giving a generic type of definition of `hazardous service'? People would be aware that many members of the defence forces have lost their lives in peacetime. Many of the things that defence forces are required to undertake are extremely dangerous, and even those ones which normally are not considered dangerous can result in injury or death. I had a friend who was killed a couple of years ago in a fairly routine flying operation. He was a very capable and highly qualified pilot who was killed flying a light aircraft on manoeuvres in Victoria. So we do know that this occurs; we are aware of it and we are aware of the problems that result thereby. I would like the Minister to clarify first of all the whole notion of hazardous service and, while he is responding to that, would he also respond to the problem raised with the combined veterans groups concerning clause 69 of the Bill, and the differentiation between hazardous service as it appears in the explanatory memorandum and the lack of a reference to hazardous service in clause 69 of the Bill? Also, since the Minister knew that this Bill would be the subject of an extended debate and possible amendment, why was it not possible to rectify that item at this point if the Government had known about it for so long? Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.43) —The Opposition supports the Australian Democrats amendment, which is the same as that proposed by the Opposition. We understand what the Government is saying, that it is going to introduce some kind of military compensation program at some stage in the future, but we do not accept that new recruits coming into the forces should in the meantime be simply covered by ordinary Commonwealth compensation legislation. The reason that peacetime defence forces came under the Repatriation Act in the first place was the recognition of the inadequacy of Commonwealth compensation legislation. It is all very well for the Government to indicate that it is working on some compensation package which will be forthcoming, but it is asking for a blank cheque from the incoming recruits. When one considers the Labor Government's behaviour in relation to its liability to HMAS Voyager survivors-it denied liability on the basis of the statute of limitations-one wonders how any serving member of our forces can have any confidence that this Government will ultimately come up with a just package. I also mention that nothing could be further from the mind of a recruit when he is entering the defence forces than the possibility of death or injury resulting from the hazards of service. Once in the defence forces, there is nothing that the recruit can do about it. That is why the Parliament has an obligation to ensure that recruits and their dependants are adequately covered. The amount of expenditure involved in leaving the existing entitlement to repatriation benefits until a satisfactory defence forces compensation package has been put in place has not yet been set out, although I presume that the Minister will give it to us. Surely it must be small, given the continued rundown of our defence forces under this Government. There seems to the Opposition to be no persuasive argument against allowing new recruits to remain under repatriation cover at least until the legislation implementing the Government's new compensation package has been brought into the Parliament. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(4.47) —The amendment effectively negates the Government's decision to limit repatriation benefits to members of the defence forces who enlist or are appointed for the first time before the commencement date of the new legislation or to persons who enlist or are appointed after that date but are involved in hazardous or peacekeeping service. Senator Macklin asked whether the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) will take the option of determining whether an event constitutes hazardous service before, during or after the event. I cannot specifically answer that question, except to say that the Cabinet has decided that the Minister will have the opportunity on any occasion he deems fit to determine what is hazardous service and to make a recommendation to the Government. I would imagine that if, for example, an international incident of terrorism were to take place on an off-shore oil rig and we required combat troops to handle that situation, that would be without any doubt hazardous service and as such the Minister would gazette it. Similarly, as Minister for Veterans' Affairs I have the responsibility for gazetting our peacekeeping obligations. The Minister for Defence does not do that; that responsibility rests with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I was led to believe that, conditional upon the Minister for Defence giving that undertaking, he would carry out those obligations in the House of Representatives debate and that provided that I had confirmation of that act in the Senate debate-I refer to a letter which I had incorporated in Hansard this morning-there would be very little difficulty with the Senate on this matter. No new members of the defence forces will be affected by the changes mooted in legislation until they have completed three years service. The Minister for Defence has given a written undertaking that in that time he will produce such legislation. I suppose that the point of difference that Senator Macklin has raised-Senator Lewis seems to endorse that view-is that he wants to see it before agreeing to the clauses in the Bill. The Government has created an additional definition here. Previously we only had `peacekeeping'; now we have added to that `hazardous circumstances'. We must acknowledge that in the preparation of this legislation an error was made in clause 69 in that a person with hazardous service has not been prescribed as a member of the Forces. This is a drafting error which will be fixed up in the autumn session and backdated to the commencement of this Bill. As the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has said: Whilst very demonstrably a vast array of activites are conducted in peacetime by the Defence Forces which ought not of themselves to attract particular attention in repatriation legislation because the problems confronted are not really all that different from those encountered by sections of the civilian community, nevertheless there are a substantial number of areas of service activity to which that does not apply. It will now be incumbent upon me to arrive at an appropriate definition of what constitutes hazardous service. The Minister for Defence went on: Whilst not abusing the sensible efforts of government to eachieve a reasonable approach on this issue, my inclination would be to err on the side of being supportive of the role performed by the services in the situations in which they find themselves. That is the very question that Senator Macklin raised. The Minister continued: Some of their training activities, insofar as the general community is concerned, are abnormally hazardous. Requirement to do that for peacekeeping forces is generally agreed and I do not think I need to deal with that at any point. The Government has taken every conceivable step to reach a conclusion on this matter so I would ask the Committee to support the Government's position and reject the amendment. Requests agreed to. Clauses 68 and 69 agreed to with requests. Clauses 70 to 80-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 81 (Application of Part V). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.55) —I had circulated some amendments to the clause but as we had a debate ranging over these matters earlier and it was clearly indicated that there would not be support for my amendments, I do not propose to proceed with them. Clause agreed to. Clauses 82 and 83-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 84 (Provision of treatment). Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.56) —Would the Government be prepared to accept the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills amendments and to take them all together? I do not want to read out what the Committee said about each clause. The amendments I wish to move are to clauses 84, 105, 110, 116, 122, 127, 131, 134 and 208. I seek leave to take these clauses together. Leave not granted. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.58) —I am happy with Senator Lewis's suggestion as to how this matter should be dealt with. However, there are a couple of my amendments which overlap with his so perhaps the Clerk could alert us to that fact when we get to my amendments so that we do not avoid discussing them. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(4.59) —We are in some difficulty here. If we do not complete this Bill within the next hour there is no possibility of its coming into effect in this session of Parliament. One of the difficulties is that there are timetables which governments have to meet. I have my responsibilities in these matters. As the House of Representatives is rising tomorrow, we have an obligation to deal with this legislation today so that where it is amended it can be reprinted and go to the other place for its consideration tomorrow. In the event of that not happening, we are in great difficulty. If it pleases the Committee, I will withdraw my opposition to dealing with these clauses in total. Clauses 84, 105, 110, 116, 122, 127, 131, 134 and 208-by leave-taken together. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.00) —by leave-I move: (2) (a) Sub-clause 84 (6), leave out ``determined'' (first occuring), insert ``prescribed''. (b) Sub-clause 84 (7), leave out ``determined by the Commission, in writing'', insert ``prescribed''. (c) Sub-clause 84 (7), leave out ``The Commission may, by instrument in writing, determine'', insert ``The regulations may declare''; leave out ``the instrument'', insert ``the regulations''. (3) (a) Sub-clause 105 (1), leave out ``The Commission may, by instrument in writing, prepare a scheme'', insert ``The regulations may prescribe a scheme''. (b) Leave out sub-clauses 105 (2) and 105 (3). (c) Sub-clause 105 (6), paragraph (c), leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), insert ``the Vehicle Assistance Scheme as in force from time to time.''. (4) (a) Sub-clause 110 (1), leave out ``as the Commission determines'', insert ``as are prescribed''. (b) Sub-clause 110 (2), leave out ``as the Commission determines'', insert ``as are prescribed''. (5) (a) Sub-clause 116 (1), leave out ``The Commission may, from time to time, by instrument in writing, prepare a scheme'', insert ``The regulations may prescribe a scheme''. (b) Leave out sub-clauses 116 (2) and 116 (3). (c) Sub-clause 116 (4), leave out ``the powers of the Commission under sub-section (1)'', insert ``the generality of sub-section (1)''. (7) Sub-clause 122 (4), leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause ``(4) Application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision of the Commission in respect of the payment of an amount under sub-section (1).''. (8) Clause 127, after sub-clause (1), insert the following sub-clause: ``(1A) A person may be required under sub-section (1) to furnish information, produce a document, or appear before an officer, only at a reasonable time and place.''. (9) (a) Sub-clause 131 (1), leave out ``as the Commission determines'', ``as are prescribed''. (b) Sub-clause 131 (2), leave out ``as the Commission determines'', insert ``as are prescribed''. (c) Sub-clause 131 (2), leave out ``as the Commission considers reasonable'', insert ``as are prescribed''. (d) Sub-clause 131 (3), leave out ``as the Commission determines'', insert ``as are prescribed''. (e) Sub-clause 131 (4), leave out ``as the Commission determines'', insert ``as are prescribed''. (f) Sub-clause 131 (4), leave out ``as the Commission considers reasonable'', insert ``as are prescribed''. (g) Sub-clause 131 (5), leave out ``as the Commission determines'', insert ``as are prescribed''. (h) Sub-clause 131 (6), leave out ``as the Commission determines'', insert ``as are prescribed''. (j) Sub-clause 131 (6), leave out ``as the Commission considers reasonable'', insert ``as are prescribed''. (k) Sub-clause 131 (7), leave out ``as the Commission determines'', insert ``as are prescribed''. (l) Sub-clause 131 (8), leave out ``as the Commission determines'', insert ``as are prescribed''. (m) Sub-clause 131 (8), leave out ``as the Commission considers reasonable'', insert ``as are prescribed''. (n) Sub-clause 131 (9), leave out ``as the Commission determines'', insert ``as are prescribed''. (10) Clause 134, after sub-clause (1), insert the following sub-clause: ``(1A) A person who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Commission in respect of the grant of- (a) a clothing allowance under section 97; (b) an attendant allowance under section 98; (c) a benefit towards the funeral expenses of a veteran, a dependant of a deceased veteran, or a service pensioner under section 99, 100 or 101; (d) a decoration allowance under section 102; (e) a Victoria Cross allowance under section 103; (f) a recreation transport allowance under section 104; (g) special assistance or benefits under section 106; (h) a temporary incapacity allowance under section 107; or (j) a loss of earnings allowance under section 108, may make application to the Board for a review of the decision of the Commission.''. (12) (a) Sub-clause 208 (1), paragraph (a), at the beginning of the paragraph, insert ``knowingly''. (b) Sub-clause 208 (1), paragraph (b), leave out ``that is not payable'', insert ``knowing that that pension, allowance, benefit or instalment is not payable''. (c) Sub-clause 208 (1), paragraph (e), at the beginning of the paragraph, insert ``knowingly''. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of the report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, as it relates to those amendments. Leave granted. The report read as follows- VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS BILL 1985 This Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 16 October 1985 by the Minister Representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The purpose of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 is to consolidate, rationalise and simplify the entitlements available to members of the veteran community. It represents the most important and comprehensive overhaul of the repatriation system since its establishment over 60 years ago. The Committee draws the attention of Senators to the following clauses of the Bill: Clause 84-Lack of parliamentary scrutiny Sub-clause 84 (6) provides that the Commission may determine a scale of charges in respect of the treatment at its hospitals and institutions of veterans (otherwise than for war-caused injuries or diseases) or persons other than veterans. Under sub-clause 84 (7) the Commission may determine that persons in a specified class of persons are to be exempt from paying the charges fixed under sub-clause 84 (6). There is no provision for parliamentary scrutiny of the scale of charges or of the exemptions determined by the Commission. The Committee draws the clause to the attention of Senators in that it may be considered to subject the exercise of legislative power insufficiently to parliamentary scrutiny. Clauses 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107 and 108-Non-reviewable discretions. Under Part VI of the Bill the Commission may grant to a veteran a clothing allowance (clause 97), an attendant allowance (clause 98), a decoration allowance (clause 102), a Victoria Cross allowance (clause 103), a recreation transport allowance (clause 104), special assistance or benefits (clause 106), a temporary incapacity allowance (clause 107) and a loss of earning allowance (clause 108). The Commission may also grant a benefit towards the funeral expenses of a veteran, a dependant of a deceased veteran, or a service pensioner (clauses 99, 100 and 101). There is a right of review in respect of only one of these allowances and benefits, namely the attendant allowance (see clause 134). In respect of the grant of the other allowances and benefits the Commission's decision would be final, subject only to challenge as to its legality pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Because no criteria are given for the excerise by the Commission of its discretion in the grant of these allowances and benefits the scope for such review would be limited. The Committee draws these clauses to the attention of Senators in that they may be considered to make rights, liberties and/or obligations unduly dependent upon non-reviewable administrative decisions. Clause 105-Lack of parliamentary scrutiny Clause 105 empowers the Commission, by instrument in writing, to establish a Vehicle Assistance Scheme for the provision of motor vehicles to veterans and for the payment of allowances towards the cost of running and maintaining the vehicles so provided. The instruments establishing, varying or revoking the scheme must be approved by the Minister but they are not required to be subjected to any form of parliamentary scrutiny. The Committee draws the clause to the attention of Senators in that it may be considered to subject the exercise of legislative power insufficiently to parliamentary scrutiny. Clause 110-Lack of parliamentary scrutiny Clause 110 states that a veteran or a dependant of a deceased veteran who travels for the purpose of obtaining treatment and an attendant accompanying such a person are to be entitled to the payment of travelling expenses `subject . . . to such conditions so the Commission determines'. Such determinations by the Commission are not required to be subjected to any form of parliamentary scrutiny. The Committee draws the clause to the attention of Senators in that it may be considered to subject the exercise of legislative power insufficiently to parliamentary scrutiny. Clause 116-Lack of parliamentary scrutiny Clause 116 empowers the Commission, by instrument in writing, to establish a Veterans' Children Education Scheme to provide education and training for eligible children. As with the Vehicle Assistance Scheme the instruments establishing, varying or revoking the scheme must be approved by the Minister but are not required to be subjected to any form of parliamentary scrutiny. The Committee draws the clause to the attention of Senators in that it may be considered to subject the exercise of legislative power insufficiently to parliamentary scrutiny. Paragraph 119 (7) (b)-Ministerial determination Under paragraph 119 (7) (b) the Minister for Defence may determine service in the Defence Force of a specified kind to be `hazardous service'. Where a claim is made in respect of the incapacity from injury or disease of a member of the Forces or the death of such a member which relates to `hazardous service' rendered by the member the Commission is required to determine that the injury, disease or death was defence-caused unless it is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is no sufficient ground for making that determination. If the service of the member of the Forces is not determined to be `hazardous service' then the member or the dependant of the member does not have the advantage of this criminal standard of proof: the Commission is merely required to decide the issues relevant to the claim to its reasonable satisfaction. Despite the importance of determinations of `hazardous service' to the claimants concerned there is no parliamentary scrutiny of such determinations. The Committee drew attention in its Eighth Report of 1985 to the lack of such scrutiny in respect of similar determinations under section 107J of the Repatriation Act 1920 as amended by clause 25 of the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985. The Private Secretary to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs responded to this comment on 16 August 1985 indicating that what might be designated as `hazardous service' had yet to be decided: `In some circumstances, it might be possible to define it by a generic description of the service (e.g. parachuting duties), at other times on the basis of service with a specific Defence Force group (e.g. service with the Special Air Services Regiment), or by a description of particular incidents (e.g. neutralising an unexploded device). The Department of Defence has advised, however, that the Minister for Defence may consider a highly sensitive operation should be declared as `hazardous service'. In these circumstances, issues of national security could require that such a determination not be made public. Even if there were to be a legislative provision requiring the tabling of determinations, it would need some companion provision whereby the Minister for Defence was enabled to issue a conclusive certificate to avoid tabling specific determinations. This in turn raises the further question whether a conclusive certificate would be required to be tabled. Whether legislative provisions of such complexity can be justified in the present circumstances would require further consideration.' The Committee assumes that it has been concluded that tabling and disallowance of determinations of what constitutes `hazardous service' cannot be justified since the provision remains unchanged in the present Bill. However the Committee still takes the view that the determinations are of sufficient significance in the scheme of the legislation that some mechanism should be found whereby the Parliament may be informed of such determinations (other than those which may concern matters of national security) and may debate the making of a determination or the failure to make a determination in respect of particular service. The Committee also notes that it would be concerned at the use of conclusive certificates if the issue of such certificates were not to be clearly restricted to situations involving considerations of national security. The Committee draws the provision to the attention of Senators in that it may be considered to subject the exercise of legislative power insufficiently to parliamentary scrutiny. Clause 122-Non-reviewable decision Clause 122 enables the Commission to pay to the legal personal representative of a person who has died or to distribute among the dependants of such a person any accrued amount of pension, allowance or other benefit unpaid at the death of the person or any amount which has become payable after the death in respect of the grant of a claim made before the death of the person. Such an amount may be not insubstantial since the Commission may grant pensions with effect from a date 3 months before the date on which the claim for the pension was lodged with the Department. By virtue of sub-clause 122 (4) the Commonwealth is not to be liable to any action, claim or demand in respect of any amount paid or distributed in accordance with the clause. The effect of this clause is to prevent any review of the exercise by the Commission of its discretion under the clause. Thus, for example, if the Commission were to distribute an amount unequally among the dependants of the deceased, a person who felt aggrieved by that decision would not be able to challenge it. The Committee draws the clause to the attention of Senators in that it may be considered to make rights, liberties and/or obligations unduly dependent upon non-reviewable administrative decisions. Paragraph 127 (1) (c)-Reasonableness of time and place Sub-clause 127 (1) empowers the Secretary, by notice in writing, to require persons to furnish information, to produce documents and to appear before a specified officer to give evidence or produce documents. While in each case not less than fourteen days notice must be given for the person to comply with the requirement, there is no limitation as to the reasonableness of the time and place at which a person may be required to appear before an officer. Failure to attend at the time and place notified would constitute an offence carrying a penalty of a fine of up to $1,000 or 6 months imprisonment or both unless the person concerned was incapable of complying with the notice. The Committee has expressed its concern in relation to a number of similar provisions that the failure to require that the time and place specified be reasonable may result in the provision operating harshly in some cases. Accordingly the Committee draws the provision to the attention of Senators in that it may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. Clause 128-Self incrimination Clause 128 provides that a person is not excused from furnishing information, producing a document or giving evidence on the ground that the information or evidence or the production of the document may tend to incriminate the person. The clause is subject to the usual proviso that any information so furnished, evidence so given or document so produced is not admissible in evidence against the person except in proceedings for a failure to furnish information, give evidence or produce a document or for furnishing information or giving evidence that is false or misleading. As is its usual practice the Committee draws the clause to the attention of Senators in that the removal of the privilege against self incrimination may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. Clause 131-Lack of parliament scrutiny Clause 131 provides for the payment of travelling expenses to persons attending before the Commission to support claims or as witnesses and to persons accompanying such persons as attendants. As in clause 110 the entitlement to travelling expenses is in each case expressed to be `subject to such conditions as the Commission determines'. There is no provision for parliamentary scrutiny of such determinations. Furthermore, whereas under sub-clauses 131 (1), (3), (5) and (7) the relevant travelling expenses are to be prescribed, the travelling expenses to be paid to attendants under sub-clauses 131 (2), (4), (6) and (8) are to be such as the Commission `considers reasonable'. If it is intended that the Commission will determine these expenses in accordance with a standard scale then it is suggested that any such scale should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. If, on the other hand, the Commission is to determine such travelling expenses on a case by case basis then it is suggested that its decision should be subject to review by an independent, quasi-judicial body like the Veterans' Review Board. The Committee draws the clauses to the attention of Senators both in that it may be considered to subject the exercise of legislative power insufficiently to parliamentary scrutiny and in that it may make rights, liberties and/or obligations unduly dependant upon non-reviewable administrative decisions. Paragraph 208 (1) (a)-Strict liability Paragraph 208 (1) (a) provides that a person shall not make a false or misleading statement in connection with a claim for a pension, allowance or other benefit under the Act. The more usual form of such a provision would be to create an offence only if a person `knowingly' makes a false or misleading statement (see, for example, sub-clauses 127 (5) and 168 (2)). Because the requirement that the person making the statement knows that it is false or misleading has been omitted in paragraph 208 (1) (a) it may be thought to create an offence of strict liability: that is, it would be sufficient to secure a conviction if it were proved that the statement was in fact false or misleading even if the person making it believed it to be true. The Committee draws the provision to the attention of Senators in that it may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. General Comment The Committee notes for the information of Senators that clause 119 continues in force the change in the standard of proof for the determination of veterans' entitlements made by the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1985. By virtue of that change the Commission is required not to grant a claim if it is reasonably satisfied that there is no material before it raising a reasonable hypothesis that the injury, disease or death giving rise to the claim was war-caused. Previously, in order not to grant a claim, the Commission had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there were insufficient grounds for granting the claim: see Repatriation Commission v. O'Brien (1985) 58 ALR 119 per Gibbs CJ, Wilson and Dawson JJ at 128. The Committee recognises that this change in the standard of proof for the grant of repatriation benefits is clearly a matter of government policy. The Committee also recognises that in strictly legal terms a claimant bears no onus to prove his or her claim before the Commission. While the Committee therefore takes the view that the change in the standard of proof is not a matter on which it should formally make comment under its Terms of Reference, it draws attention to its concerns with provisions which reverse the traditionally accepted onus of proof in other contexts, most particularly in criminal proceedings: see pages 26 to 32 of the paper on `The Operation of the Australian Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills 1981-85', tabled in September, and see also the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on The Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings (Parliamentary Paper No. 319/1982). VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1985 This Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 16 October 1985 by the Minister Representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 will provide arrangements for the transition from the existing Repatriation Act 1920 and other supplementary legislation to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985. The Committee draws the attention of Senators to the following clauses of the Bill: Clauses 42, 43 and 44-Retrospectivity The Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1985 altered the standard of proof applicable in respect of claims for pensions by requiring that the Repatriation Commission not grant a claim if it was reasonably satisfied that there was no material before it raising a reasonable hypothesis that the injury, disease or death giving rise to the claim for a pension was war-caused. Previously, in order not to grant a claim, the Commission had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there were insufficient grounds for granting the claim: see Repatriation Commission v. O'Brien (1985) 58 ALR 119 per Gibbs CJ, Wilson and Dawson JJ at 128. In its Eigth Report of 1985 the Committee drew attention to the fact that sections 69, 70 and 71 of the amending Bill (as it then was) applied the altered standard of proof to claims made before 15 May 1985, to applications for review by the Veterans' Review Board made before 15 May 1985 and to certain applications for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of decisions made before 15 May 1985. The Committee suggested that such retrospective alteration of entitlements might be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. The Private Secretary to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs responded to this comment on 16 August 1985 stating that: `It is a matter of Government policy that the [responsible hypothesis modification intended to overcome the effect of the High Court decision in O'Brien] should be applied in a consistent manner to all decisions made after the date of effect of the Amendment Act. It is the Government's view that personal rights flow from the determination of Commonwealth liability to pay a pension rather than the mere act of lodging a claim.' Clauses 42, 43 and 44 of the present Bill are similar in effect to sections 69, 70 and 71 of the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1985 although the Committee is pleased to note that the terms of these clauses have been clarified so as to overcome any doubts similar to those which the Committee also raised in its Eighth Report concerning the continued application of the more advantageous criminal standard of proof to claims lodged before 15 May 1985. The Committee indicates as a matter of record that it accepts the Government's view that the application of the altered standard of proof in the determination of claims and appeals after the date on which the amending legislation came into operation does not involve any retrospectivity (even though such claims and appeals may have been lodged or initiated prior to the commencement of the amending legislation). Clause 59 Reasonableness of time and place Clause 59 amends the Acts set out in the Schedule including the Seaman's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940. New paragraph 30 (1) (c) to be inserted in that Act is in similar form to paragraph 127 (1) (c) of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 and the Committee's comment on that paragraph also applies to this provision. Self incrimination New section 31 to be inserted in the Act is in similar form to clause 128 of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 and the Committee's comment on that clause also applies to this section. Strict liability New paragraph 58 (1) (a) is in similar form to paragraph 208 (1) (a) of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 and the Committee's comment on that paragraph also applies to this provision. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.01) —Obviously the Government will oppose the Opposition's amendments. As Senator Lewis has been given leave to incorporate his reasons in Hansard, I obviously do not have a copy of them and I therefore find it difficult to respond to them; but that is not a criticism. We are confronted with some difficulties. We accept the fact that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has some responsibilities and obligations in these matters, but we appreciate that as a result of the decision of the Senate there is a sunset clause. Unless the House of Representatives can deal with this matter tomorrow, the whole legislation will be in limbo. The House of Representatives will not come back after tomorrow's sitting and the effects that will have upon the determining system and upon the new improvements made in the legislation will be quite horrendous. We do not want to place anyone in a disadvantaged position in that respect. The Senate is entitled to make its decision, but the House of Representatives too is entitled to make its decision. Accordingly, at some time there will have to be a reconciliation of what may be a variance of views. We cannot have the situation unresolved. There will have to be agreement either with the legislation or the amendments that have been made by the Senate. We have time problems. If we cannot get this legislation completed by tomorrow, it will be impossible to have the Governor-General's consent and all the essential protocols and procedures which are required to have the Veteran's Entitlements Bill in place by 5 December. I ask the Senate to take that into consideration in these matters. While I will forgo my right of reply on each of the detailed objections or views which have been expressed by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, I think it has to be said that the Government ultimately will have to make a decision in the House of Representatives on where it stands on the matter and obviously send it back to the Senate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.03) —I indicate that the Australian Democrats support the various amendments moved by the Opposition, which arise out of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report. I point out that all honourable senators have had access to that report since it was presented to Parliament. I think it is slightly unfair for the Minister to suggest that he did not have access to it. Senator Lewis was trying to speed up the debate by incorporating the report. He could have read the report into the Hansard and had a debate about it, but I hope it is accepted that everyone has had access to it. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Verteran's Affairs)(5.04) —I am not disagreeing with that, but I have been led down the garden path in the belief that the Opposition would give us passage of the Bill today with some minor amendments. Obviously there has been a change of direction. That is fair enough; I have no complaint about that. We did not take steps to detail all of the different aspects of the report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee because we were led to believe that the second reading and third reading stages would be supported and it would go back to the House of Representatives today so that it could have an opportunity to deal with the views of the Senate. If there has been a different emphasis by the Opposition, it is entitled to take that course of action. I want the Senate to appreciate that there is no point-as the Australian Democrats and the Opposition have indicated clearly that they are taking the path they have-in me prolonging the agony by going through the sorts of details that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has suggested. I therefore have regard not only to my own legislation which has to be dealt with, but also to the fact that Senator Grimes or other Ministers have legislation which has to be dealt with today in order that we meet the timetable for the legislation for which the Senate has the responsibility. As we have had a pretty fair go on this-a full day's debate-I hope that the Committee realises that the Government will not accept the great majority of the amendments that the Opposition has seen fit to impose on the legislation. There is one further amendment that I will have to bring forward about recommittal of an earlier decision that was made, and by the time that is determined, we will have done as much as we can do in respect of the legislation. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.06) —I feel that I must respond to the Minister by saying, with respect, that I believe very few changes have been made to his legislation by the Opposition's amendments that have been carried today. I am not talking about the Oppositions amendments which have been proposed. I appreciate the Scrutiny of Bills Committee matters ultimately will come out from the legislation after they have been considered by the House of Representatives, but if the Minister looks at the amendments we have supported so far, they have been pretty minor. Amendments agreed to. Clauses, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 85 to 101-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 102 (Decoration allowance). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.07) —I move: (14) Sub-clause 102 (5), after paragraph (c), add: ``(d) the Cross of Valour; and (e) the Star of Courage.''. This clause relates to decorations. The imperial decorations awarded for gallantry are listed in sub-clause 102 (5) (a). Since the introduction of the Australian awards in 1975 imperial awards are not applicable to the Australian defence forces. No gallantry awards have been introduced specifically for the defence forces, although this may be rectified. I have had an answer from the Minister with regard to this, which says that the interdepartmental committee which has been looking at this and reviewing the subject of awards, medals and decorations for the defence forces has presented its report to the Minister and the Minister currently is inquiring into it. There are two decorations, the Cross of Valour and the Star of Courage, which could be said to be the equivalent of the George Cross and the George Medal. The Cross of Valour and the Star of Courage like the George Cross and the George Medal can be applicable not only to defence forces but also to other groups in the community, such as the police and the fire brigade. It seems odd that the imperial decorations, which are now no longer applicable to the Australian defence forces, have been included, yet the Australian awards have not. One would imagine that when the Australian gallantry awards are issued in due course, they will be included. One would have thought that some reference would have been made to them in this clause to allow that to happen in the event that they are so issued. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.09) —The Government rejects the amendment. A decoration allowance of $1 per week is payable only where a veteran in receipt of a disability pension has been awarded a decoration for gallantry in war or war-like operations. Both the Cross of Valour and the Star of Courage were initiated in 1975. As far as we can ascertain, only one veteran, a policeman who served in Cyprus as a member of the Peacekeeping Force, has been granted a Star of Courage and is receiving a disability pension from my Department. I ask the Committee: Is it seriously proposed that this Bill be amended and possibly delayed to enable one person to receive an extra dollar a week? If it is, I suggest that the proposal is quite irresponsible and should be given hardly any serious consideration having regard to the general value of the Veteran's Entitlements Bill. I emphasise that the list of decorations specified in clause 102 (5) of the VEB is as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review. The Government is, therefore, not prepared to support eleventh-hour amendments of this nature. However, in order to accommodate Senator Macklin's view, I will ensure that a review of gallantry awards for inclusion in the legislation in the future is undertaken. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.11) —I believe that it is the responsibility of this chamber during the Committee stage to go through the Bill to see whether or not it has been sloppily drafted. We have in one clause of this Bill a whole list of imperial medals and no Australian medals. The Minister should not come into this chamber and tell me that I am not allowed to bring in an amendment at any stage which tries to pick up the sloppy drafting of his officials. This is the proper chamber for this type of thing to take place. I resent greatly the high-handed attitude of the Minister when he says: `How dare anybody interfere with this legislation'. This is a legislative chamber, not one for the convenience of bureacrats. Senator Gietzelt —It is not, it is a review chamber. Senator MACKLIN —It happens to be a legislative chamber. If the honourable senator does not know the difference, that is his problem, not mine. When there is sloppy drafting, such as there is in the Bill before us, the Minister should not come in with the weak excuse that the Government cannot accept amendments at this stage. This Bill has already been amended. It must already be sent back. I gave the Minister the courtesy of providing him with a copy of my amendments some time ago. One would think the bureacrats could have come up with a better excuse than the one the Minister just gave. If it is the Minister's excuse, I am very much ashamed that a Minister of the Crown should put up such an excuse in this chamber. I see that the Minister has taken off his hearing aid. That is fine. We will stay here and I will go through each one point by point. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 103 to 104-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 106 to 109-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 111 to 115-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 117 to 118-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 119 (standard of proof). Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.14) —I move: (6) After sub-clause 119 (7), insert the following sub-clauses: `(8) Where a claim for a pension or an application for a review of a decision relating to a claim for a pension was made before 15 May 1985, this Act shall have effect in respect of that claim or that application as if section 47 of the Repatriation Act 1920, as in force on 5 June 1985, were substituted for this section. `(9) Where a claim for a pension or an application for review of a decision relating to a claim for a pension was determined after 15 May 1985 and before the commencement of this Act, that claim or that application shall be deemed not to have been determined and to have been made after the commencement of this Act. `(10) Application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision by the Minister under sub-section (7) determining service to be hazardous service.'. I think the amendments are fairly clear and I hope I can be fairly brief in explaining them. Proposed new sub-clause 119 (8) simply makes it perfectly clear that where a claim for a pension or an application for a review of a decision relating to a claim for a pension was made before 15 May of this year, the Act shall have effect in respect of that claim or that application as if section 47 of the Repatriation Act were substituted for this clause. So there will be no argument about claims and applications made up to that date. They will be dealt with under the old Act. Proposed new sub-clause 119 (9) is the result of an undertaking we gave to ex-service men and women back in May in regard to claims for pensions made after 15 May of this year but before the Bill is passed. We said that we would make sure that if there were any modification of the legislation, beneficiaries would not be disadvantaged and would be dealt with under this legislation as it is amended ultimately and passed by the Parliament. Proposed new sub-clause 119 (9) makes that clear. Proposed new sub-clause 119 (10) provides that application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal `for a review of a decision by the Minister under sub-section (7) determining service to be hazardous service.' Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.16) —I have circulated amendments similar to those just moved by Senator Lewis. Senator Lewis's amendments propose the insertion of new sub-clauses 119 (8), 119 (9) and 119 (10). My amendments proposed the insertion of new sub-clauses 119 (8) and 119 (9). However, I indicate that we also support the amendment moved by Senator Lewis inserting new sub-clause 119 (10). The problem has been set out fairly clearly by Senator Lewis. It arose with the application of the May legislation both to people in the prior-determination area and those under review. I believe that, in keeping with the movements that have been made in a whole range of other areas, it is fair and reasonable that when these types of changes are made they should operate from the date at which the Bill comes in. For example, not so long ago we changed the requirements for applicants under the first home owners scheme. We allowed people who had submitted applications for loans under the old scheme to be judged under the old criteria if it were advantageous to them, or simply to withdraw their applications and submit new applications under the new scheme. I agree that when these changes are made there has to be some cut-off date. However, it seems to me to be fair that that cut-off date is decided in such a way that people who are already in the system and seeking whatever benefits and provisions are available are dealt with according to the provisions that applied when they went into the system. I would have thought that would have applied a fortiori to those people who had been given some type of determination but who are now under review. I add a specific query of my own to the concerns that have been voiced by Senator Lewis. It concerns the operation of clause 119 in regard to diseases whose causes are unknown, diseases which up to now have been acceptable for the granting of benefits-for example, cancer, heart disease, hypertension, Parkinson's disease, motor neuron diseases, and the like. Under the new provisions there seems to be a complete dearth of references to diseases of unknown aetiology. I would have thought that, considering the wide-ranging debate that has taken place in the community, some attention would have been paid to this matter and comments made on it. Concern has been expressed by the entire veteran community, yet the Bill and even the explanatory memorandum make no reference to how these diseases are proposed to be treated. If the Minister says that he has no idea we ought to be able to look at a draft which specifies how they are to be treated. If it were the intention of the Minister to exclude these diseases, that intention should have been made clear. In a challenge to the High Court of Australia, obviously in response to the Acts Interpretation Act, the High Court would examine the Minister's intention in the second reading speech and would be able to determine it accordingly. We are really in the dark at the moment with regard to this range of diseases because we do not know what the Government's intention is. Hence, we are flagging a process of going to the High Court to get another determination on section 47 of the Repatriation Act similar to that in the Law case or the O'Brien case to get precise clarification of the situation. That does not necessarily make good law. If we know what the Government is attempting to do in regard to these diseases at least we can vote for or against it. At the moment, because there was no discussion about the matter either in the second reading speech or in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill, I am unaware of the situation regarding diseases of unknown aetiology and the onus of proof. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.20) —I understand that the Minister has given representatives of ex-service organisations an assurance that no part of clause 119 will act in an unfair way to the detriment of the veteran, or some similar assurance. I ask the Minister whether in the course of his response he will tell us what that assurance is. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.21) —The Government will have to reject the amendment, and I will give reasons why. I do not think that the Opposition or the Australian Democrats appreciate the immensity of what the proposed new sub-clauses seek to do. The requirement that there be a reasonable hypothesis for a connection with service is the only change in the standard of proof applied to claims lodged before 15 May. I am referring to clauses 20, 42, 43 and 44 of the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill. I do not think it is an unreasonable requirement that there be at least a reasonable hypothesis of a service connection before a pension is payable. That ought to be fairly fundamental. By lodging a claim a claimant is in fact asserting that there is a connection with war service. Pension entitlements flow from a determination of a liability on the Commonwealth to pay a pension. The mere lodgement of a claim carries no vested right to have that claim determined irrespective of legislative amendments. The Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills has accepted that no retrospectivity is involved in the provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill. I do not know whether the Opposition appreciates the enormity-I stress, the enormity-of the consequence of adding proposed new sub-clause (9) to clause 119. This would have the consequence that every decision involving the granting or refusing of a pension or increasing or refusing to increase a rate of pension would be cancelled. In other words, every pension granted after 15 May 1985 would be taken away under this amendment that the Opposition has moved. The same would apply to any increase in the rate of pension, such as that granted to a totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner. Since the amendments to the standard of proof section came into operation on 6 June 1985, about 18,000 pension claims and applications have been determined at the primary level of the new determining system. Some 1,800 applications for review have been determined at the Veterans' Review Board level, and two applications have been reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. At least 12,100-that is, over 60 per cent-of these decisions were in favour of a veteran or his or her dependant. My advice is that if the Opposition were to persist with this amendment it would cancel those 12,000-plus favourable pension decisions. On what basis is this action to cancel a pension justified? Imagine the outrage in the veteran community that this would cause. Presumably the effect of the proposed amendment would be also that substantial amounts paid as pensions will have to be repaid to the Commonwealth. I draw Senator Lewis's attention to the administrative chaos that this amendment would cause. While proposed new sub-clause (9) to clause 119 is misconceived, its suggested basis is that a claim may have been rejected under the standard of proof provisions of the Repatriation Act as amended in June and a claimant may be disadvantaged if such a claim were successful under the revised provisions in clause 119. In the case of a claim rejected at the Repatriation Commission level since 6 June 1985, there is a period of 12 months in which an applicant may seek a review by the Veterans' Review Board. Where the Veterans' Review Board reviews such a matter after 6 December 1985, it will be required to apply new clause 119 to clause 20 and clause 43 of the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill. A dissatisfied claimant can ensure the application of the modified section 119 simply by availing himself of the normal review mechanisms. The same principle will apply where people's claims have been rejected at the Veterans' Review Board level and they appeal to the AAT. Such a review of the decision of the Veterans' Review Board will ensure that a claim is reconsidered by the AAT on the basis of new clause 119 as applied to clauses 20 and 43 of the transitional provisions Bill. In order to satisfy Senator Lewis I am happy to undertake that the question of whether any cases might have been disadvantaged as a result of those changes will be examined. I am advised by my officers, who obviously have the responsibility in this area, that there are likely to be some 200 cases involved. If any disadvantage is identified in any of these cases, the Repatriation Commission has advised-I remind the Committee that the Repatriation Commission is an independent statutory authority-that it will arrange for those cases to be referred for immediate review. It is not considered appropriate that a ministerial decision on what constitutes hazardous service be subjected to external review. I spoke about that previously. Whilst acknowledging that there is a technical defect in some of these areas, it would be a matter of some great consequence if the Opposition were to pursue the amendment that it has moved. I urge, therefore, on the basis of stability and continuity, that the existing clause stand as printed. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.26) —I know that these matters are sometimes extremely difficult. I must admit that I was somewhat worried about the actual interpretation of proposed new sub-clause (9) of clause 119, when I saw the method that my draftsman had adopted. The third line of that proposed new sub-clause refers to a claim for a pension determined after15 May. I do not accept that this proposed new sub-clause sets aside all of those determinations irrevocably, because having deemed a claim not to have been determined it then deems it to have been made after the commencement of this Act. In effect, as I understand it, if a claim were made on, say, 16 May, all the proposed new sub-clause would mean would be that a determination should be deemed to have been made and then remade immediately after the commencement of this Act. I do not see how that can mean that these 12,100 decisions will be set aside; all our proposal means is that they will be deemed to have been made immediately after the commencement of the Act. That would make perfectly clear that those determinations made since 15 May-I am interested that over 12,100 decisions favourable to people have been made since 15 May-should be made under this Act. I think that even the Minister accepts that this Act has to date back to 15 May. We do not want determinations up to 15 May 1985 to be made under one Act-an old Act-and then from 15 May to, say, 5 December to be made under some interregnum Act which just happened to be in operation until the new Act could come into force. If my proposed new sub-clause is wrong the Minister, who has all the advantages of being able to go to the office of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), could get it amended properly in the House of Representatives. He could then come back and explain to me why it was wrong. If I abandon it at this stage, I think we will be left in a position which is the worst of both worlds. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.29) —I think the Committee could be in an invidious position in this. I certainly admit that I am, as the Minister, with legal advisers present in the chamber, in a more favourable position than Senator Lewis. I have told the Committee the interpretation my legal officers have placed on Senator Lewis's proposed new sub-clause (9). The fact is that becomes a decision of the Committee. A determination is deemed to have been made after 15 May. I do not think we can throw back that matter without accepting the implications of the proposed amendment. We have to make that decision. Honourable senators will appreciate that the same advice will be given by my officers to Mr Holding, who represents me in the other place. I believe we should resolve the matter here. Senator Macklin made quite a deal of comment about this being a House of review and this being our legislative responsibility. We are either right or wrong in what we are seeking to do. My very strong advice from my legal advisers is that it would have disastrous effects upon all of those people who have been granted their claims since the 14 May statement. To that extent, we have to accept the responsibility for it, and that is a very big responsibility. If, as my senior officers and my legal advisers say, 12,000 people will be affected, I do not think we can throw ourselves upon the tender mercies of the House of Representatives and expect it to have more knowledge on it than we have here. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.31) —In that event, I ask the Committee to postpone further consideration of this clause. I am aware that we want to finish by 6 o'clock. The Australian Democrats have agreed to recommit the first amendment that was carried. We have a few things to discuss. I ask that we defer further debate on this clause pending further consideration. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.32) —Before the question of the postponement of further consideration is dealt with, I want to make some general observations about clause 119, which will become section 119 of the new Act. I want to add my support to the views that have been expressed by Mr Fisher in another place that this proposed new section should be very carefully monitored by the Government as to whether it makes major changes to the administration of the repatriation legislation for the veteran community and makes a quite serious inroad into the standard of proof which has been the cornerstone of the old Repatriation Act in the guise of section 47. The new standard of proof which was introduced for the first time in the May legislation and which had not been the subject of consultation with the veteran community, has been changed to some extent as a result of consultation which has taken place with the veteran community since the May legislation. I do not give the Government any marks for that consultation because it was forced upon it by the Senate in placing a sunset clause in the May legislation. We made the Government honest in that respect, so I cannot give it any praise for the consultation. However, I am pleased that as a result of that consultation some changes have been made to the provisions of this clause in the May legislation. The abandonment of the 40-year rule is an important concession, and a very just one. Again, there is no praise for the Government because such an unjust provision should never have been introduced in the first place. The burning question about the standard of proof is one of the greatest moment to the veteran community. I am aware that representatives of that community, particularly the Returned Services League, have been prepared to accept this new version of the standard of proof. However, I am not satisfied, even with the consultation that has taken place and even with the acceptance of the new standard of proof under section 119, that the veteran community's rights have been preserved by what has been done. I say that because I believe that the nature of this clause and its complications will give rise ultimately to at least one more High Court case, if not more. I think it would have been far better if the Government had stayed with the existing section 47, which has already been interpreted on at least two occasions. I refer to the Law and O'Brien cases in the High Court. I do not know if there was another one. I know that the Government was very dissatisfied with the decision in the O'Brien case and the Opposition is certainly concerned with the possible implications of that case. But I still think it would have been better to have left that section as it is and as it has been interpreted for some time, rather than to have a new section which will start the whole process of interpretation all over again. That worries me because I think that the provisions of clause 119 may result in a reduction of the rights of the veteran community well beyond what even the Government may intend. I am a little concerned as to what the RSL expects the effect of the section to be. No doubt many people have had the opportunity, as I have, of seeing the opinion from Mr Gerard Nash of the Melbourne Bar and his comments on the effect of some aspects of the proposed new section 119, and particularly the concern he expresses about the Government's view of what it means, as contained on page 107 of the explanatory memorandum. Mr Nash says: I refer to the words on p. 107 `pension will not be payable in circumstances where the evidence does not provide some positive inference in favour of a connection between the injury, disease or death and the veteran's or member's particular service. The sub-clause will require the Commission to refuse the claim where, at the end of the Commission's consideration of the material before it, no reasonable hypothesis that there is such a connection has been raised, and if raised, no such reasonable hypothesis remains.' He then said: I am concerned that these words may be used as the basis of an argument that a disease of unknown aetiology if definitely not compensable. I am also concerned that they indicate, or may be taken as indicating, that, contrary to the wording of the section, there is an onus of placing before the Commission material which raises the necessary hypothesis. He suggests a different wording for the explanatory memorandum, with which I thoroughly agree. His suggested re-wording is: A pension will not be payable in circumstances where there is no material before the Commission from which an inference in favour of a connection between the injury, disease or death and the veteran's or member's particular service can be drawn. The sub-clause will require the Commission to refuse the claim where, on consideration of the whole of the material before it, it forms a view that that material does not raise a reasonable hypothesis that there is such a connection. I believe that the proper approach to and interpretation of the existing section 47 has always required that there had to be some material before a determining authority before it would be able to make the judgment whether there was no sufficient ground or, as it then said, whether there were insufficient grounds to make a claim even on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. I think that it is intended to preserve that situation. But the question is whether it does not go further than that in the way that Mr Nash fears. What is of concern is that, under the new provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act last year, the explanatory memorandum may be used to interpret this clause 119 and, if Mr Nash is right, it may well be effective in restricting what is certainly perhaps a better view of what clause 119 really means in relation to diseases of no known aetiology. I express a further concern with the introduction of sub-clause (5) which states that nothing in the provisions of the section of the Act shall entitle the Commission to presume that an injury or disease suffered by a person is a war-caused injury, et cetera. Sub-clause (6) states that nothing in the provisions of the section, or in any other provisions of the Act, shall be taken to impose on a claimant or on the Commonwealth any onus of proving any matter that is or might be relevant to the determination of the claim. Again, I can understand why these clauses have been included but they only confuse the issue and they raise the question of whether there is an intention on the part of the Parliament to restrict somehow the benefits and rights which the veteran community has always enjoyed under this traditional onus of proof provision enshrined in section 47 of the Act for so many years. The other matter on which I express concern is with the change to the civil onus of proof. It is certainly a major change as it relates to those who have not had operational service and who have now to prove their case. We all accept, including the RSL, that that is justifiable in those cases. However, the determination has to be made to the reasonable satisfaction of the determining authority. Mention was made of this being the introduction of the civil standard of proof in place of the reverse criminal standard. But it is not the civil standard of proof. The civil standard of proof is based on the balance of probabilities. I believe that the introduction of the standard `to its reasonable satisfaction' will go beyond that and will require more proof than the ordinary civil standard of proof. Surely these people should not have imposed upon them more than the civil standard of proof. I come back to the point I made earlier that this will result in endless litigation as to what is meant by `reasonable satisfaction' whereas, if the time honoured phrases had been adhered to, there would be far less chance of doubt and quite unexpected decisions being made by courts, particularly by the High Court of Australia. For all those reasons I express my disquiet about what is being done, register my very deep concern about the future course of determining authorities and court decisions on these matters and indicate the need for very close monitoring of the way this provision will work. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 120 and 121, 123 to 126, 128 to 130, 132 and 133, and 135 and 136, taken together, and agreed to. Clause 137 (Board not bound by technicalities, &.). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.45) —I move: (16) Sub-clause 137 (2), at the end of paragraph (b), add ``or as the Board requires for its purposes''. Clause 137 deals with the relationship between the Repatriation Commission and the Veterans' Review Board. It states that the Commission may make available to the Board a variety of things-statements of principle and other material as the Commission considers may be of assistance to the Board. My amendment seeks to add the words `or as the Board requires for its purposes'. At the moment it is a one-way operation. The Commission may make information available to the Board but the Board is not able to obtain material from the Commission. I would have thought that a two-way relationship between the Commission and the Board would enhance the operation of the Board. I cannot see any problem with this. It is not as though we are concerned about the Board saying: `We must have this'. I am just concerned at the way in which it is currently drafted. The Board is not even able to ask for material that it might want. It is specifically set down as a one-way process. It would be much better if it were a two-way process and if the Board could make a formal request for material from the Commission which, in the words of my amendment, it may require for the purposes of its review. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.47) —The Government rejects the amendment because it is based on a false premise and a misunderstanding of the legislation. Firstly, the Repatriation Commission has no jurisdiction in the activities of the Veterans' Review Board, and Senator Macklin should know that. We debated this about a year ago and we had ample opportunity to comprehend the proposed new determining system. The Repatriation Commission is obliged to provide both the determining officer and the Veterans' Review Board with all of the information relevant to an application before either of the authorities. The proposed amendment fails to recognise that clause 151 of this Bill provides that the Veterans' Review Board may at any time request the Secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs `to forward to the Board further documents in the custody of the Secretary relating to a review', `to obtain, and forward to the Board, further documents relating to a review' and `to arrange for the making of any investigation, or any medical examination, that the Board thinks necessary with respect to a review, and to forward to the Board a report of that investigation or examination'. Therefore, there are extensive provisions allowing the Veterans' Review Board to obtain information, material or evidence relevant to a review. Consequently, there is no need for this amendment. It is falsely based. It has no understanding of the relationship between the Commission and the Veterans' Review Board. Accordingly, I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.48) —This clause suggests quite clearly that the Commission may make available to the Board such other material as the Commission considers may be of assistance to the Board. I am very much aware of how the operation will take place between the Board and the Secretary of the Department. The Secretary of the Department may very well be on the Commission but he does not constitute the Commission. The Secretary of the Department may receive stuff in his role as a commissioner that he may not be able to disclose. Although he may be able to disclose them as Secretary of the Department, he may not have the same liberty to disclose them as a member of the Commission. It is already suggested in the clause that there may be material held by the Commission that is useful to the Board; otherwise there would be absolutely no reason to have this clause in the Bill. But the relationship is one-way. I am suggesting that there may be other material that the Commission has not thought of but that the Board may think useful and hence should be able to request. Either there is no material whatsoever, in which case I will move to remove this clause from the Bill, or there is material, in which case I believe the Board should be able to make a legitimate request. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.49) —The Opposition sees some merit in what the Australian Democrats are saying, but the whole clause is on the basis that the Commission `may' make material available to the Board. Having opened up clause 137 (2) by stating that the Commission `may' make material available-which means that the Commission may not make available anything it likes-how can one then add at the end of that `or as the Board requires for its purposes'? I find some difficulty with that. Senator Macklin —It makes a request, but it is not necessarily granted. Senator LEWIS —In the circumstances, I think I would have to accept the Government's arguments. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 138 to 172-by leave-taken together and agreed to. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.51) —I move: (17) After clause 172, add the following clause: Annual Report ``172A. (1) As soon as practicable after each 30 June, the Board shall provide to the Minister a report upon its operations during the year ending on that date. ``(2) The Minister shall cause a report provided under sub-section (1) to be laid before each House of the Parliament as soon as possible after the receipt of the report by the Minister.''. This amendment is simply to provide for a separate report of the Veterans' Review Board. As honourable senators are aware, the Repatriation Review Tribunal used to produce an annual report. The current situation, as we are informed by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, will be that any report from the Veterans' Review Board would be included in the Repatriation Commission's annual report. With all due respect to the Repatriation Commission, I would think that its report and, hence, what it chooses to put in from the Veterans' Review Board, will be what it chooses to put in. The Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), who is now in the chamber, will well remember discussing a very celebrated report from the Repatriation Review Tribunal which got stuck well and truly into the Commission and the way in which the Commission was operating in the determinations in this area. Frankly, I cannot see that appearing in a Repatriation Commission report. I believe it is an independent statutory group. As we have just discussed on clause 137, the Commission and the Board, of course, are not going to be dictating to one another; so there is that separateness. I believe there should be separateness in terms of the Veterans' Review Board's report, so that, if it wishes to make any criticisms, it makes them on its own and they stand or fall on its merits as a report of the Board. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.53) —I just say to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) that the Opposition sees much merit in the amendment. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.53) —I would have hoped that the Opposition would have listened to an explanation before it committed itself. It is neither necessary nor desirable for a body such as the Veterans' Review Board, which operates at the intermediate level of review, to be required to produce a separate annual report. I refer the Senate, and Senator Lewis in particular, to the fact that, prior to the debate on the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1985, an undertaking was given in the Parliament that the principal member of the VRB would provide a separate report of the Board's operation which would be included unaltered in the annual report of the Repatriation Commission as tabled in Parliament. In the circumstances, I fail to see how it can be argued that there is a need for a separate provision in the Bill for the tabling of the VRB's annual report. There is a cost factor, but there is also an unnecessary amount of duplication, because we have already given an undertaking that whatever the principal member of the VRB wants to say to the Parliament will be printed in the Repatriation Commission's report unaltered. That undertaking was given when the matter was debated earlier this year, and I give it again now. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.55) —I am glad that the Government is prepared to give that undertaking, because it will now be required to do it legislatively as well. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 173 to 205-by leave-taken together and agreed to. Clause 206 (Acquired immune deficiency syndrome). Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.56) —I move: (11) Clause 206, at the end of the clause, add the following sub-clauses: ``(5) Sub-sections (2) and (3) shall not be taken to provide a defence in a relevant action in respect of negligence by the Commonwealth, the Commission, the Society, a medical practitioner or a person acting on behalf of a medical practitioner. ``(6) This section, unless sooner repealed, shall cease to have effect on 31 December 1986.''. I take it that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) has had a discussion with his colleague the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) about the acquired immune deficiency syndrome addition to this legislation. What has happened is that this particular proposal has been put into an ordinance relating to the Australian Capital Territory and has come before the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, and, after much negotiation between that Committee and the Minister for Health, the Minister for Health has undertaken to amend the Australian Capital Territory ordinance in precisely the same way as I have moved to amend this legislation so that they will both be in line. There is a sunset clause in this amendment and the Minister for Health has undertaken to insert a sunset clause in the Australian Capital Territory ordinance relating to this matter. The reason for that is that the Minister for Health is trying to get unanimity around Australia in regard to AIDS and the problem with the blood being supplied by the blood banks, and insurance provisions. My amendment simply does what the Minister for Health has agreed to do, through the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, for the Australian Capital Territory. Amendment agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken together and agreed to. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(5.57) —I seek leave, Mr Temporary Chairman, to move a motion to recommit clause 6, in regard to an earlier amendment. Leave granted. Senator GRIMES —I move: That clause 6 be reconsidered and the question in relation to clause 6, `That the House of Representatives be requested to make an amendment,' be again put. I think everyone in this chamber knows why I have moved that motion. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.58) —The amendment that I moved in the first place was moved reluctantly. What I was seeking from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) was some clarification of when the material that was contained in the second reading speech would come into force. I now seek that information. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.59) —The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) explained how this system will operate during the debate on the Bill in the House of Representatives. He said in his speech: Now that this Government has reviewed the question of allotment for service in Vietnam it has decided that all Australian service personnel on continuous full time service who served in any capacity in the declared special area of Vietnam's land and waters during the period from and including 31 July 1962 to and including 11 January 1973 will be deemed to have been allotted for special service and will have access to repatriation and defence service homes loan benefits. The Government's decision is in a sense, as I said earlier, an act of grace. Claims for repatriation and defence service homes loan benefits will generally be accepted from 5 December 1985. That concludes what Mr Beazley said. The procedure to be followed, therefore, is non-legislative. The Minister for Defence will, by instrument, deem certain service personnel to have been allotted for service in Vietnam. This will be recognised for the purposes of the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the Defence Service Homes Act. Senator Macklin also asked me when the instrument promised by the Minister for Defence for the designation of particular members of the Defence Force who served in Vietnam would be made. I could not advise Senator Macklin before because obviously I had to seek the advice of the Minister for Defence. He has advised me that this will take place as soon as possible after the Veterans' Entitlements Bill comes into operation and certainly before the end of 1985. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.01) —I thank the Minister. I am satisfied with his explanation and I seek leave to withdraw the amendment I moved. Leave granted. Clause agreed to. The Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.02) —by leave-I move: (1) (a) Sub-clause 42 (1), leave out ``Subject to sub-section (3),''. (b) Sub-clause 42 (2), leave out ``Subject to sub-section (3),''. (c) Leave out sub-clauses 42 (3) and 42 (4). (2) (a) Sub-clause 43 (1), leave out ``Subject to sub-section (2),''. (b) Leave out sub-clause 43 (2). (3) (a) Sub-clause 44 (1), leave out ``Subject to sub-section (2),''. (b) Leave out sub-clause 44 (2). These amendments were consequential upon amendments to clause 119 of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill being carried, which were supported by both ourselves and the Opposition. I seek advice from the Minister as to the Government's attitude to those amendments. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(6.03) —The Government naturally opposes these amendments; but clause 119 has already been amended. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(6.03) —The Opposition finds this somewhat difficult to understand. As I understand it, this is the Govern- ment's problem. If the amendments moved by Senator Macklin are needed, clearly the Government will have to bring in the amendments itself. It is a matter for the Government to get its legislation in order, and I will be supporting the Government. Amendments negatived. Veterans' Entitlements Bill agreed to with amendments and requests. Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill agreed to without amendment. Veterans' Entitlements Bill reported with amendments and requests, and Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a third time. Debate resumed from 14 November, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.05) —The Child Care Amendment Bill will have the effect of withdrawing $10m a year from subsidised child care in Australia. This was announced as part of the May mini-Budget package and, to the extent that $10m a year will be withdrawn, it is a benefit withdrawal measure. By way of background, in November 1984 there were probably just under three million children in Australia under the age of 12 years. Of these children, 358,000 used formal child care and of that 358,000 children, under half-about 40 per cent-were in child care from between 10 and 19 hours a week. A further 864,000 children used informal child care. This Bill, which concerns itself with subsidies for formal child care in long day care centres, covers only a small number of children who are qualified by age and only a small proportion of the children actually receiving child care. Only a few children will be touched by this Bill. Commonwealth funds actually provide assistance for about 63,000 effective full time places for children under five in 832 child care centres and 262 family day care schemes. The main changes proposed by this Bill are to alter the basis of subsidy of child care centres. Up to now the subsidy has been related to staff costs and has been potentially, not actually, open-ended. Although the Government has set a level of subsidy each year, it has done so on the basis of certain agreed staff costs. The new subsidy will be more finite and will be determined by the number of approved child care places in any facility and upon the age of the children. Further the changes propose a new form of means test. It is a very complicated situation, but the means test assistance comes in three different components. First, there is a base fee to be paid, even by those of the most limited means which is to be increased by 20 per cent from $10 to $12 per week. Second, there is an element of fee relief which is tested on family income. The basis of subsidy withdrawal is to be altered so that the burden of the Government's cost saving will fall partly upon those on the middle income level. Third, there is a top fee level, which to some extent determines what the centres may charge. I observe that the increase in the base fee to be paid even by the poorest parents for the care of their children-an increase of $2 per week if the children are in care for 40 hours-may well raise up to $3m of the $10m savings. It is hard to be exact on this because I know that 58 per cent of the children in child care are on the minimum fee. What I cannot be certain of is that they are all receiving 40 hours care per week. If we multiply it out, it could be somewhere around $3m of the $10m saving to come from the poorest, who will get the $2 per week increase in their fees. The Bill also makes some other administrative changes. It provides a capacity to recover overpayments; it provides ministerial power to approve places for the purposes of subsidy; it provides ministerial power to set conditions for the receipt of subsidies, and it gives a ministerial discretion to approve subsidies for certain very long day care centres for hours in excess of the standard number. At this stage I interpolate to say that I wish to make a declaration of interest. A member of my family is employed in a very long day care centre. She very much values her employment and I want it to be on the record that I have that personal interest. Senator Robertson —She does not need the money, of course. Senator PETER BAUME —No, she does not. Finally, the Bill provides for a savings clause to protect centres offering less than the so-called minimum requirement of 48 weeks per year. The Opposition will not oppose this legislation. We are not delighted by the Government's decision to withdraw support for child care but it is a decision taken by the Government and announced in the May mini-Budget and we see no reason to change the stand we took at that time. The Opposition, while expressing certain views, will not oppose the legislation. We understand that the net effect of the change will be to reduce the subsidy for each place from about $30 a week to either $16 or $11, depending on the age of the child-that will save the Government $10.2m in a full year-and something like $3m of that may come from people paying the basic fee; the average increase in fees for better-off people may be as high as $14 a week; it may increase costs for some of the child care centres because the subsidy level will be reduced; and it may, particularly if we can believe the input we have had in the last few days, threaten the viability of some centres which have been dependent upon government subsidy. This legislation raises several issues. First there is the issue of child care as an essential component in the achievement of equal opportunity for women in Australia. Women have been moving increasingly to the work force; they have been moving particularly for economic reasons. A lot of women move into the work force because they have to, and they want proper arrangements available for their children. They see three main benefits from child care: The first, educational; the second, short-term relief from the double role they are playing of housemaker and as someone in remunerative employment; and thirdly, they see child care as providing them with the freedom to take up employment. Each of those three benefits is very important to the women who have come and spoken with me. There is a massive increase in the number of women wishing to enter the work force. This reflects a world-wide social revolution. It is in the end a matter for individual women to determine, but if they are to be able to exercise their choice the provision and availability of child care is essential. At least 40 per cent of working women in Australia do have dependent children and therefore potentially require care for those children. If we go the other way, only 50 per cent of mothers with dependent children stay at home; the other 50 per cent are in the work force and therefore potentially need access to child care. But at least half of the women who stay at home would like to work if they had child care available to them. I was recently on an open line in Adelaide talking about issues relating to the status of women and when we opened up the program to calls every phone call except one was from women asking why they had no access to child care to enable them, as most of the callers said, to look for part time work. They wanted to look for that work for several reasons, including to supplement the family income and because they wished to participate in the paid work force. Against that background we would like to see adequate and high quality child care provision. As we say, access to high quality child care is one critical factor in achieving equal employment opportunity for women, especially those women who need to work because of economic pressure. The second point that needs to be made is that the cost of high quality child care is more than most families can bear. It is higher, for example, than the cost of sending a child to an expensive independent school. The fees for one child may be pegged to $80 a week under this legislation, but if people do not have their children in a subsidised centre it may be much higher. It is very difficult for families to pay these kinds of costs, just as it is difficult for families to bear the entire cost of having older children in independent schools. It seems to me that the actions of the Australian Labor Party in withdrawing $10m from child care are inconsistent with the proclaimed espousals of equal opportunity by the Labor Party and this Government. If equal employment opportunity is the goal, why does the Government move to take $10m out of child care, which is one of the critical factors in achieving that equal employment opportunity? Further, if it is necessary to save $10m, why choose child care as the area in which it must be saved? The Senate will have before it next week a Bill to provide $280m more for universities. It could just as easily have been $270m for the universities, and the child care provision could have been left alone. Perhaps we could have avoided embroiling ourselves in the subsidisation of the defence of the America's Cup, or we could have examined the relative priorities of child care to liberate women and the building of sports stadia. We could have looked at the relative priorities of the provision of child care to liberate women and the subsidisation of my ballet tickets. What kind of justice is this? This Bill is an expression of the priorities of a government, and this Government's priorities are that these other areas for which money has been promised rank higher. The main issues that have been raised by the providers of child care relate to their concerns about what will happen to the parents, in terms of the extra cost; what will happen to the centres themselves in terms of their viability; and, finally, what may happen to the standard of services provided. I will deal first with what will happen to the parents. Many parents will have to pay more, and not all of them can afford it. It is very likely that some children will have to be removed from child care because the parents cannot meet the increased costs. The coalition parties have as part of their published policy a commitment to tax relief for child care expenses. The Opposition believes that the provision of such tax relief is an essential component to any provision of child care services and to government support for such provision. If in fact the Government wishes to concentrate its subsidy more on lower income earners, that is fine; it is a direct subsidy. But for those earning a taxable income the kind of tax relief laid out in the coalitions' policy is reasonable and is necessary to allow many people to exercise their choice and to exercise the rights of their children to get child care. The coalition believes that without that tax relief the Government's proposals are incomplete and inadequate. I indicate that we will be moving an amendment to the second reading motion which, among other things, indicates our belief that such tax relief for parents is a necessary part of any child care provision. In the same way the coalition is committed to putting more money back into families by means of its family taxation proposals, giving the option of income-splitting. Of course, if that happens-if more money goes back to families as a result of that manoeuvre as well-that will provide a great capacity for families to pay for child care under the new less generous fee-relief system. The second concern that people are expressing is that some of their centres may become less viable. This is based on several matters: First, there is no annual adjustment promised to the top end fee or to the levels of subsidy. If these are not upgraded year by year, there will be a progressive squeeze on the viability of child care centres. It may be that the Minister can give us some assurance on this matter or at least some indication. If these top end fees and levels of subsidy remain unchanged, real questions of non-viability will arise for some of the centres. Finally there is the question of standards of provision. The fight going on at present between the Municipal Association of Victoria and the Government really highlights this problem. We referred to it last week when we were discussing the estimates for the Department of Community Services. At that stage Senator Grimes indicated his views on what that fight was about. Part of the disagreement is about the standard or provision in child care centres that should attract government subsidy. As I listened to Senator Grimes explanation, it was clear to me that the Municipal Association of Victoria and the Government have a different perception of what is a necessary or reasonable standard of provision for the purposes of a subsidy. When we talk to the providers of child care they indicate that they have looked to the Commonwealth through its subsidy arrangements to, as it were, set the standard of provision for child care. They express the concern that under the new subsidy arrangements where that nexus will be broken and where the subsidy will be for a place, depending on the age of the child, the centres may move back to a minimum standard of provision under the relevant State regulations. These people were not slow to point out to me that they have arguments with the quality of some of the State regulations; they even assert that the Northern Territory has no regulation about standards of provision. That may or may not be true-- Senator Grimes —Victoria too. Senator PETER BAUME —Victoria does not either, as the Minister has pointed out. If in fact we cannot be certain about adequate standards of provision there will be some validity in the concerns of the providers. I ask the Minister to advise us in his summing up whether, when he makes agreements with the different providers in terms of this Bill, he will have the capacity to write in conditions and standards of provision as part of the agreement he makes with them in order to bring them into the scheme that this Bill will set in place. The coalition's policy supports the provision of child care. We recognise that in addition to our tax relief measures there is a need for subsidised child care places. At present only about 5 per cent of Australian children, give or take a little, have access to subsidised places which are the subject of this piece of legislation. It must be quite clear in terms of the figures I gave earlier from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that a large number of Australian children have no formal long day care or child care and are making use of either backyard or other informal arrangements, some of which will be good and some of which will not. It is quite clear that large numbers of children requiring care still have no access. I do not believe that one can look simply to Senator Grimes and the Government to provide all the places that will be needed. The Government has promised an extra 20,000 places, but even that will bring the total provision to only 7 per cent of children who qualify by age. It is quite obvious that what is needed in this area in order to give the women a fair go and a choice and to give the children a fair go is not only the subsidisation of child care places but also the taxation measures, such as those we have proposed, which will put more money into families and give them more choice to afford other kinds of child care arrangements. The Opposition will not oppose this piece of legislation. We are disappointed about the kinds of priorities that the Government has announced it will support. For example, it is giving money for the defence of the America's Cup. It is interesting to consider this against the needs of child care. I hope the Minister will tell us in his summing up about the kinds of ministerial discretions that he will be able to exercise, the extent to which he will tie those to the standards of provision and what he sees as the means of resolving the present impasse occurring in Victoria. Having said that, I shall formally move the Opposition's second reading amendment. I move: At end of motion, add: ``, but the Senate- (a) expresses its concern that the Bill may place at risk the standards of provision of child care; and (b) is of the opinion that, in order to meet the child care needs of the community, complementary measures are necessary, including taxation relief for child care expenses and income splitting for families''. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(6.27) —I support the Child Care Amendment Bill 1985, which was introduced by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), and reject the Opposition's amendment and its policy, which would introduce a high degree of inequity into the taxation system and the system of provision of child care. That is quite apart from the enormous additional costs that the Opposition's policy would involve. It would require something like $350m extra for the tax deductibility provision and an extra $400m or so for the income splitting arrangement. This comes from the Opposition which claims that the Government is not reducing expenditure sufficiently. I acknowledge that there have been misunderstandings about the effects of the new child care policy because full details of the way in which it will affect individual centres take time to calculate and advise. I note that the Opposition has picked up this general complaint in the first part of its amendment, which says: . . . the Bill may place at risk the standards of provision of child care; I reject that that is the effect of this policy or the aim of the Government. The objections have concentrated on the reduction in operational subsidy-that is, the amount paid across the board, regardless of the means or ability to pay of parents. People forget that there will also be grants for approved services operating for additional hours, a factor that has not been taken into account by some centres that are worried about their funding. In addition, there will be continuation of additional grants for equipment, supplementary service grants to meet special needs and assistance for training. The point that has been ignored most, or at least has not been emphasised enough, is the very large increase in fee relief payments to low and moderate income families. These have the effect of reducing the fees otherwise payable by parents. The notional fee will rise but the actual fee will be brought down, in most cases close to that which is being paid at present. More people will qualify for fee relief. The changes will increase the equity of the arrangements since the proportion of grants made on a flat rate basis will be decreased. Higher income earners will pay more, but most people will pay only a little more, so child care will still be affordable and that is the Government's policy. It was acknowledged that savings had to be made. This was primarily and initially a savings exercise arising out of the May economic statement which affected all portfolios. But the prime burden of those savings will fall on those families with a greater ability to pay and that is how the burden should be spread. At the same time as being a savings exercise, this has been a rationalisation, a simplification which makes the funding system fairer. The result is that some people will pay less because of the changes in the Bill. Let me emphasise that the savings are less than they were originally intended to be. They were to be $30m in a full year; they are now to be only a $10m reduction in a full year. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator COATES —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I emphasised that the savings arising from the May economic statement affecting child care are less than they would have been. The savings were to be $30m in a full year; now, they are to be only $10m in a full year. If there are complaints about the effect of cuts worth $10m, think of what it would have been like if the cuts of $30m had been proceeded with. I think the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, should be congratulated for achieving a less drastic result. I remind honourable senators about the pressures to reduce outlays. This $10m was part of an approximate $1,200m reduction in outlays announced in May. The response from the Opposition has been that the cuts were not big enough. The Opposition and the business community have kept on pressing for more and more slashing of Government expenditures. I would ask child care interest groups to ponder on what would have been left of the program if the Opposition were in a position to have its way. There would be less money available and it would be distributed in a totally inequitable way. Certainly, there would not be the commitment this Government has made to expand the number of available places by 20,000 over the next three years. On top of the major expansion of child care places already provided over the past two or three years that is a commitment of which we are proud. The main thing that we must do is to increase access to good quality child care. The percentage of children who can take advantage of child care, despite our advances, is still very small. It is not as small as Senator Peter Baume complained of, but it is still a minor proportion of the population, and even after the increase of 20,000 places it will still be quite small. Concentrating on providing more places so that not so many children miss out must be the Government's priority. There is a great unmet demand in the community. The main complaint in the community is that places are not available. Some are lucky; some miss out. The extra 20,000 places will be very welcome, will go some way towards satisfying the community's needs, and will provide plenty of employment openings for those who are training in the child care area. The question of standards is another area of concern to everyone. That has been referred to in the Opposition's second reading amendment. The Government wants child care centres to provide top quality service and to be staffed by well-qualified people. I point out that centres will not be approved for Commonwealth funding unless they are staffed properly, but the precise standards are a matter for the States to prescribe. I would prefer nationally imposed uniformity, just as I would prefer all sorts of matters to which the States jealously cling to be Federal responsibilities, but the real constitutional world does not allow for that. Of necessity, I have spoken briefly on this Child Care Amendment Bill. I will conclude by asking for recognition of the massive achievements in child care by this Government so far. It has provided expenditure growth in this area which is far ahead of most other programs. I ask also for recognition of the worthwhile, welcome and firm commitments for the future. I support the Child Care Amendment Bill. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(8.05) —Like Senator Coates, I must admit, somewhat grudgingly, that the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) deserves considerable congratulations for cutting the cuts, so to speak, from $30m to $10m. His negotiating skills were quite finely honed-- Senator Coates —Finely, or finally? Senator HAINES —Both finely and finally honed, in order to achieve this. As Senator Coates implied, one shudders to think what could have happened had we been left with changes to child care subsidies that were intended to pick up $30m instead of $10m of cuts. Senator Coates referred also in the final stages of his speech to the fact that the Government needs to keep an eye on Budget deficits and needs to make some assessment of where cuts can be made when cuts are required. I would have suggested that maybe when the Government was ordering its priorities it could have considered two rather strange pieces of decision making that were included in the Budget Papers. The first was the cuts to child care and the other was the decision to remove the sales tax from thoroughbred horses and to exempt horse and greyhound racing clubs from paying tax. I have no idea what that will cost the Government, but I would have thought that maybe children are slightly more important to most governments-they are alleged to be our greatest natural resource-and the Government could have put the needs of those children and their parents and families a little higher than those of the Packers and Sangsters of this world and the people who breed horses rather than children. Essentially, the Child Care Amendment Bill alters the nature of operational assistance to child care centres which will be funded under this proposed Act by the Federal Government. It changes, or seeks to change, the basis on which such assistance is made, the method of calculating grants payable and the rates of payment. To say that it has caused some heartache in the community amongst users and employers is putting it mildly. Currently, an operational subsidy is paid in respect of 75 per cent of the salaries of certain qualified staff. The subsidy covers two categories of staff; nurses and teachers. The number of staff subsidised depends on the number of equivalent children attending the centre full time on a specified day in each quarter. The main amendment, contained in clause 3 of the amending Bill, removes the link with salaries of staffs, and recurrent grants would be paid to assist with the general operating costs of the centre. The amount of subsidy would be based on a number of approved places at a centre. Grants would be calculated at the rate of $16 per week for each approved place for a child under the age of three and $11 for each child aged three or over. Unfortunately, this seems to be running into some conflict with some States' requirements, which base their subsidies on the principle of children under two and do not have the same sort of under and over three subsidisation principle. Additional grants would be paid for centres approved to operate for more than 10 hours per day. Clauses 4, 6 and 7 make minor amendments to clarify the operation of the proposed Act in relation to operational assistance and clause 5 does likewise in relation to overpayments. Savings are estimated at $2.6m in 1985-86 and $10.2m in a full year. A lot of concern has been expressed in the community, ranging from the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which has gone as far as describing Senator Grimes as Henry VIII-- Senator Grimes —It cannot be referring to my build any more. Senator HAINES —No. The senator has honed down-not just his negotiating skills, but his girth-to very acceptable proportions. Senator Grimes —Thank you, ma'am. Senator HAINES —That is quite all right. Senator Peter Baume —It is the cigarettes. He absolutely depends on them. Senator HAINES —No doubt. Whatever else they may do to him is anybody's guess. However, as I was saying, everybody, from the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills to the Prahan Council, has commented adversely in one way or another. Parents and staff are united in their anger, shock and concern about the changes. If Senator Grimes and other honourable senators have been getting the sorts of telegrams, telexes, letters and so on that I have been getting, that fact should at least have been made plain to them. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee's concerns rest not only with the fact that Senator Grimes is a latter day Henry VIII, but also with proposed new sub-sections 11 (1) and (5) as well as proposed new sub-sections 11 (10) and (11). Proposed new sub-section 11 (1) and (5), according to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, would grant the Minister unfettered discretion to approve the making of grants to child care centres. The legislation may be likened to bounty legislation-which seems rather an extraordinary comparison-under which decisions to pay or withold bounty are reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Committee has decided that honourable senators might care to cast their minds over whether or not a similar right of appeal ought to be available to child care centres. Proposed new sub-sections 11 (10) and (11) not only give the Minister a discretion to determine whether additional grants should be payable, but also grant to the Minister the discretion to determine what matters are relevant in coming to that conclusion. It would, therefore, appear, according to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, that even a challenge as to the legality of the exercise of that discretion by the Minister in the proposed new sub-sections under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 would be difficult to institute. As the Opposition has indicated its support for this legislation, it would be fairly futile for me to proceed with the sorts of amendments I would normally proceed with in the Committee stage of a Bill, having regard to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's comments. However, I would be interested in hearing from the Minister in his summation-I thank him for at least nodding enthusiastically about that-as to those comments and as to whether the Government is likely to introduce some sort of appeals mechanism into the legislation. Moving on to people who, because they are either users or providers of the service, are very much concerned about it, I refer to at least one council which has written to me, and I presume to others, which is concerned very much about the impact this change in the child care arrangements will have on its ability to provide quality child care. Essentially, the council in its letter to me expresses its concern about the provision of an unacceptable standard of child care. It is of the impression that it has been misled-that is the word the writer users-into believing that this could be provided within the guidelines and funding formula adopted by the Office of Child Care. The letter says: Council has resolved not to open the Union St. Child Care Centre until such time as adequate and appropriate funding arrangements have been entered into between itself and the Commonwealth Government. Senator Peter Baume —Which council was that? Senator HAINES —It is Prahran Council. Senator Grimes —Prahran is Union Street, is it? Senator HAINES —Yes. It continues: Council at its meeting with Senator Grimes expressed its concern that the proposed abolition of the 1972 Child Care Act and the introduction of new legislation, in the form of a Child Care Amendment Act 1985, would have a two-fold effect. Firstly, it would reduce the required standard of care to that of commercial child minding centres. Secondly, it is placing a greater burden for child care onto the consumer and the sponsor, i.e., Local Government, if standards are to be maintained. I received this letter on 25 November. It is dated 15 November. The Minister may have had some subsequent discussions with that Council which have sorted out its problems. On the other hand he may not, in which case its concerns stand. The Women's Electoral Lobby is concerned about the problems that are likely to arise as far as families are concerned if access to affordable, adequate, appropriate and high quality child care is restricted and made more difficult for them to get. It argues that its concerns are based on three major issues. The first issue is that family hardship for parents who will be forced to pay higher fees for child care is likely to occur. Its second concern is with regard to staff redundancies and other cutbacks required by the drastic fall in the annual budget for child care centres. Its third concern relates to the erosion of the national safeguards for quality child care once the Child Care Act is changed. At present, according to the Women's Electoral Lobby, section 11 (5) of the Act ties funding to the employment of qualified personnel, which, of course, it does, trained in the area of early childhood education. Under the changes, as I said earlier, subsidies will be based on the number of children at child care centres and control of the quality of the staff will be governed by State regulations, which vary widely, a matter that is raised in regard to child care areas as well as general social welfare areas on a regular basis in this place. While it may be quite acceptable for a State such as South Australia to be left to regulate child care, I can think of one or two States in Australia where quite the reverse is true. The Malvern Community Child Care Co- operative Ltd echoes the same sorts of concerns and gives some examples of the problems it is likely to encounter. It says that what it believes will result is the co-operative ultimately offering limited babysitting facilities for predominantly low and middle income earners. The situation for the co-operative is that there will be a quite considerable drop in funding under the new formula-a drop of some $32,000-odd, or 67 per cent. This drop will cause the co-operative to have to take the sort of remedial action it fears will cause extreme hardship, in particular to low income families. Senator Grimes —If that figure is true. Senator HAINES —If the figure is true. I am quite sure that Senator Grimes will come up with his own figures to refute all of this in the long run-at least I certainly hope he will. The moves the co-operative will have to take if it is to make up for this funding drop in any way at all include increasing its fees or, alternatively, significantly reducing its expenditure. That means either hiring fewer staff or less qualified staff. While it has been said that teenage children, and teenage girls in particular, are particularly good at looking after children-as I have two teenage daughters of my own I guess I can attest to that fact, although where they have inherited their maternal instinct from I know not, but they do have some-nevertheless, there is no doubt at all that fully qualified and trained staff are far better than simply babysitting-type services provided by unqualified and much younger staff. The co-operative goes into considerable detail with regard to the sorts of figures it will have to raise its fees to, which I will not go into at the moment. It may well have to make significant reductions in expenditure by reducing the levels or qualifications of staff. The co-operative finishes by saying that retaining one qualified staff member on a mothercraft nurse's salary while replacing all other qualified staff would result in a net saving of about $27,000, which it argues is not sufficient to offset its calculated subsidy drop. The Kindergarten Union of New South Wales has been rather assiduous in getting in touch with me and, I dare say, other honourable senators about this matter. Senator Peter Baume —Yes. Senator HAINES —Senator Baume quite clearly has had a number of communications from the union, as have I. I share its concerns and the concerns that are expressed by other people who have telegrammed, telexed and written to me, people who either provide or use the care. A great clutch of letters came from Victoria expressing concern of parents whose children are in child care. One of those letters states: The great danger is that the Government's funding cuts, together with the removal of all standards regarding centres such as ours- that is the centre to which the writer's child goes- employing qualified staff, will force centres to replace qualified staff with untrained junior staff. . . . . It is apparent that the 20,000 new child care places promised by the Federal Government will not occur as a result of appropriate increases in the Budget for child care, but as a result of current users being required to pay for the expansion through increased fees, while everyone will suffer a drastic drop in the quality of care by the displacement of presently employed qualified staff. The letter finishes by saying: The Federal Government's commitment to quality child care and to affirmative action-- that is a matter which Senator Peter Baume raised in his somewhat extraordinary speech, which I will get to in a moment- is a nonsense- that is, the Government's action and not Senator Peter Baume's speech, although that could have been the case too- in the light of these funding proposals, and I find them totally unacceptable especially as they will come without proper consultation with all those affected. The letters and the telegrams go on in like vein, and I will not pursue them all, for which I am sure the Senate is duly grateful. The end result is that there is very widespread community concern at the likely end to high quality child care in Commonwealth government funded services as a result of these changes. Senator Peter Baume raised a number of matters in the speech that he made. He admitted that the changes to the Child Care Act may threaten the viability of a number of centres. He went on to list the issues that he saw as relevant; namely, that child care was necessary if the Government's commitment to equal opportunity for women, especially those in the work force and particularly those who are forced to work for economic reasons, were implemented. He went on to say that the provision of child care was essential to this choice and he discussed the percentage of women who are already in the work force and the additional percentage of those not in the work force who would like to work, if not full time, at least part of the time. I have made the point in this chamber on many occasions in the last few months that the Government cannot implement its policies for ending poverty traps and for equal opportunity, particularly equal employment opportunity for women, if it does not provide the sorts of child care places that these women can make use of in order to get into the work force and if it does not look at providing more permanent part time jobs or implementing some form of job sharing scheme. Many women do not want full time jobs. They may have pre-school-age children, or indeed school-age children. They simply want to get into the work force either to raise the standard of living of their families or to put to some use the talents that they have developed through their childhood and adult lives. Senator Peter Baume went on to talk about the fact that most women therefore need adequate high quality child care. He said that the cost of high quality child care was more than most families can spare; that indeed it often exceeds the cost of putting a child into a private school; and that the Government's action in withdrawing the funding was inconsistent with its declared aims. It surprises me, therefore, that Senator Baume is not prepared to join us in opposing this legislation. Here is a representative of a party, which apparently is going to vote against a whole range of tax measures, who is not prepared to oppose this Bill in order to preserve high quality accessible and affordable child care. Apparently, his Party is prepared to go to the barricades, so to speak, on the issue of preserving the right of businessmen to have as a tax deduction thick steaks and bottles of 1964 Grange Hermitage, but is not prepared to look at the needs of child care for families and the provision of high quality accessible and affordable child care at that. The amendment to the motion for the second reading which the Liberals are putting forward through Senator Peter Baume makes rather pious statements about the need for quality child care and then goes on to say that the Opposition: . . . is of the opinion that, in order to meet the child care needs of the community, complementary measures are necessary, including taxation relief for child care expenses and income splitting for families. I certainly think that the time is long overdue for people using child care facilities to be given some kind of tax relief. If every other person in the community is able to get a tax deduction for something or other, I fail to see why the necessary expense incurred by many women in earning their living is still denied tax relief. Essentially, the combined effects of the cuts in funding, the proposed changes to the Child Care Act and the actions of the Opposition in not opposing the legislation not only will undermine the provision of child care, but also will prevent many average income earners from using child care centres. There are, as I have indicated already, signs that some centres will be so severely affected that their only choice will be to close down altogether or to employ untrained staff, or, as in the case of the council that I cited, not to proceed with the development of a child care centre at all, thereby denying families in that area access to much need facilities. The lack of experienced staff will only add to the difficulties of the people in the centres and will diminish the quality of care. As far as the users of centres are concerned, the situation, as they have expressed it to me quite definitely, is appalling. Not only are they confronting the possibility of some centres closing, or in the case of a Victorian country area not opening and the prospect of poorer quality care but also, in many cases, the inevitable increases in fees will make it impossible, for some families anyway, to continue to use child care facilities. I think it is worth remembering that those facilities are used by parents not just for full time or just permanent part time care but for respite care, for emergency care and for casual care. If fees in those centres go up excessively, people whose families are already in crisis of one sort or another will only have additional burdens placed on them. The Government, I suggest, is hardly to be congratulated for the proposed moves, and its commitment to affirmative action quality child care and must, as Senator Peter Baume has indicated, be seriously questioned. It is alleged that the changes have been announced without prior consultation with those affected by them. While I am not in any position to attest to the validity of that statement, it certainly has been made to me by a number of sources. Not only is it unclear whether the new arrangements will work, but also they reverse previous measures which were seen by those involved in the community-by users and providers-as being positive. Ad hoc changes such as these cause instability and they sit most uncomfortably indeed with the Government's rhetoric about a planned approach to children's services. The proposals are clearly destructive to existing child care centres, and they come at a time when the community has every right to expect a greater commitment to an improved range of integrated children's services. The community has a right to expect that because we have in government at the moment the Australian Labor Party, which has always had as part of it policy a commitment to social equity, the implementation of policies producing social justice. I suggest that this Bill does neither of those things. For that reason, the Australian Democrats will be opposing the legislation. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(8.30) —As Senator Peter Baume said in leading the debate for the Opposition on the Child Care Amendment Bill, the Opposition will not be opposing it. At the same time it is expressing, through its amendment, considerable concern about the Government's proposals. That concern stems from a very real worry about what is going to happen to the quality of child care in this country as a result of the changes that will be occasioned if this Bill is passed. The changes and their likely effect on the quality of child care in this country sit very oddly with the remarks made by the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, in his second reading speech when he said that the changes that have been made fit within the basic principles that reflected the need to maintain standards and a quality of child care and to maintain affordable child care, particularly for moderate and low income earners. He said: `We are not prepared to surrender these fundamental principles'. I would submit that on both counts the Minister, and through him the Government, has abjectly surrendered those fundamental principles. I am concerned about the Bill for various reasons, which I will go into in detail in a moment. But I do want to stress at the outset my concern as to why this Bill has been brought in and debated with such haste. Senator Coates —Haste! Senator SHORT —Haste in terms of the detail of the Bill, yes. Why has there apparently been little or no consultation with many of those groups and organisations in the community-if I am wrong about this I would welcome Senator Grimes's comments to the contrary-which are expert in this area; for example, the Association of Early Childhood Educators and the Institute of Early Childhood Studies? According to the Municipal Association of Victoria there has been little or no consultation with it, and I ask why. I would like the Minister's comments on that, especially as it concerns a State in which 60 per cent of the child care centres are operated and sponsored by local government. A wide range of concerns have been voiced to me from both city and country based municipal areas of Victoria that operate or are contemplating operating child care centres. I am worried about the apparent lack of consultation and the haste in terms of some of the detail. I ask why the changes are to have effect from 1 April 1986. For example, why not make it 1 July, particularly as the changed arrangements mean the amount of money involved is something like $2.1m-- Senator Coates —It was going to be January. Senator SHORT —It is now to be April. The 1985-86 saving is said to be $2.6m, less about $0.4m in terms of establishment costs. So we are talking about a saving of $2.1m in the 1985-86 Budget. Due to the apparent confusion within the community, particularly in Victoria, I ask the Minister to explain why it is necessary to bring in this legislation without the consultation that so many people, particularly by those in my own State, feel is necessary. That consultation is said to be necessary because there is obviously a great deal of confusion about what is involved in the proposition and the effect on families in particular income ranges and the effect on particular child care centres. I think consultation is essential in this case because there are obviously deep differences in understanding what the simple facts and figures are. I think the Government owes it to those who are confused to try to explain it much more than it has. I will come back to the question of the cost to families in particular income ranges. I understand that there is considerable disagreement in Victoria with the Minister's figure of $85 per child per week as the cost of operating a child care centre. I think that was the figure the Minister gave in his second reading speech. I am advised that a detailed study by the Victorian Office of Child Care earlier this year put that figure at $109 per child per week. If there is that sort of difference, I think there is an obligation on the Government and on the Minister to explain it. If we have such a difference in figures we are never likely to get a set of proposals which will find acceptance. I am not asserting which set of figures is right and which is wrong, but because the difference does exist I think that is reason enough for the proposal, if it is not to be deferred, at least to be better explained. As I said earlier, the same applies when we look at the costs to families. As I understand the Minister's proposal, lower income families will pay only an additional $2 per week. That figure has been very hotly disputed, certainly in Victoria. I would like to hear a better explanation for that figure and, in fact, for the totality of the figures because, quite frankly, I do not think the Minister's arithmetic adds up correctly. It has been put to me that that ignores the fact that in the transition year at least child care centres can impose an additional $5 levy, which, as I understand it, will be imposed anyway to keep them going, and which, with the $2 increase, would in fact make the total increase $7. In that case the present cost of $10 per week for lower income families would be increased to $17 per week; namely a 70 per cent increase. I do not know whether I am right but that is the advice that has been given to me. I would welcome an explanation of it. If in fact there is to be a 70 per cent increase for low income families, that would be a very significant increase indeed. Many people at the lower end of the income scale would be severely affected during that transition year, and after that they would still suffer because many centres, particularly in my State, would be forced to put off trained and qualified staff if they were to keep their doors open. I appreciate that the reason why that could happen in Victoria-again this is my advice-is that the Victorian Government's regulations in terms of the standard of care required at child care centres is perhaps minimal at best and there is a loophole in Victoria that enables unqualified staff to be employed when the cost squeeze goes on. Again, if that is a misunderstanding on my part and Victoria's part, I would appreciate being corrected. If I am correct, I would like to know what the Federal Government has done about discussing this issue with Victoria because the implications are obviously very considerable. The combined effect of the reduction in funding and the consequential reduction, in Victoria's case, in the requirements for government funded centres to employ qualified staff would turn the clock back many years on child care services in Australia and have a major effect in many areas. I think it is also a telling commentary on this Government's absolutely weird priorities. Surely any nation has a responsibility to its children. In this respect in recent years we have become a much more enlightened nation. But now this Hawke Labor Government appears to be about to set back many of those advances, and in the process cause severe hurt to those lower income families whose interests it so blatantly and so falsely purports to represent. This is a government which cuts back on essential child care while at the same time spends vast amounts in other areas of a dubious economic or social nature. Senator Peter Baume mentioned some of them earlier this evening in his remarks, and also Senator Haines in hers. There are other examples that one could add. For example, I refer to the $200m or thereabouts being spent on the bicentennial. Here we are talking about something that will put the quality of child care in this country at considerable risk at a cost of $10m a year. Senator Baume mentioned the figures in comparison with expenditure on universities and Senator Haines with that on the America's Cup and on horse breeding, rather than on children. Quite frankly this Government has its spending priorities quite wrong. Senator Grimes will be aware that under no circumstances would I criticise the Government for seeking overall expenditure restraint. That is something that I have advocated ever since I have been in this chamber. But, for heaven's sake, let the Government get its priorities right. Its priorities are wrong if it is to cut back in the area of child care services, and particularly the quality of those services, while at the same time letting other less essential spending programs mushroom. The other criticism I have of this Bill- Senator Haines —You'll vote against it. I know you are going to vote against it. Senator SHORT —I thank the honourable senator. The other criticism I have of this Bill is that it appears to have been cooked up in a vacuum. Quite obviously, it is in no way part of a cohesive policy towards the family. It takes no account of the impact on families and offers no offsets to families. The Hawke Government's approach to families in Australia is nothing short of disgraceful. The Australian Labor Party has never recognised the role of the family as the basic unit in Austalian society. At best it has ignored the family not only in an economic sense but also in a social sense. In fact what it has done has been to bludgeon the family, particularly middle income families, with taxes, charges, interest rates and a whole barrage of other impositions that have put a squeeze of an unprecedented magnitude on the living standards of middle Australian families. Middle Australia is haemorrhaging with the policies of this Government. That haemorrhaging will cease only when the coalition parties are returned at the next election. The approach of the Liberal and National parties towards the family and towards child care is diametrically different from that of Labor. We believe that the family unit must be encouraged and nurtured and that, if family life is diminished, so is our nation. For this reason the Liberal and National parties' approach towards the family has been not only supportive but also consistant and cohesive. In particular, it has looked at areas such as child care in association with other factors that make up the total standard of living and pressures on families. For example, we have looked at child care in association with our taxation system. We are the only party with a policy of income splitting for single income two parent families. Thus, if a wife chooses to stay at home and to bring up children, that family is not penalised relative to a two income family in the amount of tax paid, as is the case at present. A policy which we have had for some considerable time now is that of the child care rebate. Senator Coates —At what cost? Senator SHORT —Senator Coates asks what is the cost of those two packages. The cost is not insignificant. But, if one believes that the family is the vital unit of our society, not just in an economic sense but also in a social sense, one orders one's priorities so as to cater for what needs to be done. It is all a question of priority. I say again that, with respect to the family, the prioritied of this Government are completely on their head. Those are the ways in which we should be going as a nation in the formulation of our family policies-not with the ad hoc, mishmash, incoherent and incohesive approach of the Hawke Labor Government. Mismanagement has now become the hallmark of this Government. The Child Care Amendment Bill is just another and very sorry example of this fact. I say again to the Government: `Why the haste? Why the lack of consultation? Is it too late to consult with those groups which are expert in this area and which quite abviously are very concerened about what you are proposing? Is it too late to consult with these groups?' Why force deterioration in the quality of child care services by virtually forcing centres by stealth to employ less qualified staff, by denying proper employment opportunities to those now training and by putting in jeopardy the jobs of those qualified staff now in employment-all for what has now come to be a very limited reduction in government expenditure and a reduction that could much more easily have been catered for by minimal changes in the priority spendings of this Government in other areas. It is not very often that I agree with the Age newspaper, but I do very much agree with its editorial of yesterday. I conclude my remarks by quoting from the latter part of that edititorial which states: . . . we fail to see why the Government is in such a hurry to get its legislation on the books. Senator Grimes says that most families using the centres will pay only $2 a week more under this scheme, and that the 15,600 families who will pay up to $25 a week more will be families well able to afford it. However, the figures are disputed by child-care organisations, as is Senator Grimes's claim that there will be no reduction in the quality of child care. In such a climate of disagreement, the Government would be well advised to defer its legislation and to consult further with child-care representatives. Only in this way will their deep-felt concerns be allayed. That is the conclusion of the editorial. I can only endorse those remarks. There are very deeply held and deeply felt concerns in the community about what the Government is doing with these proposals. I believe that those concerns deserve much better explanation and much better treatment than has been accorded to them by this Government. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(8.49) —We have just heard two quite differing speeches tonight. Senator Haines made what can mainly be described as her populist speech. She quoted liberally from various documents which had been sent to her, without any evidence of course, and came to the conclusion that, because people are disturbed, she should oppose this legislation. I will deal with the points that she raised later. I really must first of all deal with Senator Short's speech which I find the highlight of the evening. As honourable senators will know, Senator Short was a Treasury official. We have heard many speeches from him here in the past. One of the best speeches I can remember-like all the others he delivers in this place, a Steely economical rationalist's speech-was after the May cuts were announced by the Government this year. In that speech Senator Short said: `They are not enough. There is no way they are enough. The Government can cut much harder into its expenditure'. In his speech on the Budget, Senator Short said again: `This Government is irresponsible. The deficit is too much. It must cut and cut again'. He was very careful not to indicate on either occasion where he might make those cuts but he said: `The Government must cut and cut again'. Tonight we have heard, for the first time since Senator Short has been a member of this chamber, what may be called a bleeding heart speech from him; but it has been made without any evidence at all. In the course of his speech tonight, Senator Short, like the Opposition amendment, has advocated several things. The first thing he has advocated is that we do not make the $10m cut in children's services expenditure; so, there is $10m. He said that we should not spend $200m on the bicentennial. The $200m for the bicentennial was a decision of the Fraser Government, and one that we inherited. So there we have $210m extra expenditure. Senator Short then says that we should introduce tax deductibility for child care. There is another $350m. Remember: Revenue forgone is the same as revenue spent. So we have $560m that he has spent already. And then he says that we should introduce income splitting for single parent families which, on the figures of the former Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), is another $400m. So we are heading up to about $900m in one speech from our great economic rationalist tonight. He says: `This is what the Government should do; it should continue to expand children's services, but it should introduce all these other things'. Suddenly we are supposed to find another $1,000m for all these things; and he said that he knew of other things that we could do, too. That is a demonstration of the seriousness of Senator Short's speech tonight. But then Senator Short said that the Hawke Labor Government's record in children's services is appalling and something to be complained about. When I became Minister for Social Security and first took over the responsibility for child care nationally, we had just had a year of what was called consolidation and review by the previous Government of children's services expenditure. What that meant was that the previous Government would spend nothing more on children's services than it had spent the previous year; nothing at all. It had just had a whole year when it had not spent anything. We had a situation in which about 4 1/2 per cent of children under the age of five had access to children's services. The fee relief subsidy and the funding system were such a shambles that people were marching up and down the streets-even more than they are marching up and down the streets now, Senator Haines. We were determined that we would do something about this, and we did things. We increased the coverage from that miserable 4 1/2 per cent of children under the age of five to a slightly less miserable 7 1/2 per cent; and we have committed ourselves in the next two or three Budgets to the expenditure of another $107m to provide another 20,000 places for children's services in this country. That is because what we believe is important is not only quality child care and not only affordable child care; we believe it is also important for the people in this community who need it to have access to child care, and there is no way that they have adequate access when we cover only 7 1/2 per cent of children in the relevant age group. We shall continue with that policy. But what we also had to do was to introduce equity into the system, and that is what this legislation is all about. Back in May we decided that we had to reduce expenditure. We knew that we had to do that ourselves and we were told by people such as Senator Short that we certainly had to reduce government expenditure. We thought at the time that we might be able to reduce recurrent children's services expenditure by about $30m. We were quite wrong, and we found that out by conducting, over six months, the most careful and detailed research into the children's services system. We reached the conclusion that what we could reasonably do, if we were to maintain quality, improve access, maintain affordability and protect the low income earners-we make no bones about the fact that we are interested in protecting them-would be to get only the $10m, and that the way that we would get that was through this legislation. I find it incredible that Senator Short, that great advocate of reduced government expenditure, of economic rationality in this chamber, of needs-based welfare, and of needs-based expenditure generally in this country, should come here tonight and say that what we are doing here is not any of those things; that what we are doing in this legislation is somehow damaging the whole children's services program. I deny that and I shall proceed to demonstrate that I deny it. We have proposed changes in expenditure to make that expenditure more equitable. Under the existing system, every service in this community, every individual in a Commonwealth funded children's service in this community, gets an average of about $30 a week in assistance from the Commonwealth Government through the present operational subsidy, no matter what their income or their family income is. The operational subsidies vary from about $15 to $20 a week to about $53 a week. Under the new system, the operational subsidy will be per approved place. It will be fairer and less complex, and it will depend on the age of the child in the service. That is fair; in fact, is not only fair. I have refrained in the past, as I shall refrain tonight, from pointing out that that sort of change has been advocated in the past-not when it was advocated by the Australian Labor Party-by articles in the journal of a very well known and very large early childhood association in this country. But we have done it now because we believe it is fairer and more equitable, and we believe that it is demonstrably more equitable. How honourable senators can justify $30 a week for someone on the sort of income that Senator Short and I have, in children's services, is frankly beyond me-especially when we are covering only 7 1/2 per cent of kids and especially when, because of previous policies of submission based child care, those children's services happen to be concentrated in middle class and upper middle class areas. So we made those changes. At the same time we knew that we could not make those changes just by themselves, so we looked at the three sources of funding of each individual child care centre. We diminished the operational subsidy. We increased and extended-I shall not go into it; it is in the second reading speech-the fee relief subsidy, and, of course, for some people there will be increases in fees paid. For low income earners it will be about 5c an hour; therefore, it cannot be more than $2 a week for a 40-hour week. In fact, for most of those low income earners, it will be in the vicinity of 85c a week. Of course, people in this community will complain if one tries to change anything. But the complaints this time have been made on several bases, and I suppose that I had better deal with them, as Senator Short and Senator Haines dealt with them tonight. The first one is, I think, the easiest one that I can deal with. That is Senator Short's complaint, and Senator Haines's complaint, I think, that we did not consult; we did not talk to people. My only response to that, senators, particularly Senator Haines and Senator Short, is that I can assure the Senate-and I think that previous Ministers for Social Security in this chamber will agree with me-that for the dollars spent and for the number of people serviced, there is no one who is consulted more by this Government-or was consulted, I believe, by previous governments-than people involved in children's services. If one wanted to, one could not avoid consulting them as much as one does. I think that that goes for other honourable senators, too. They are the most assiduous lobbyists-I admire them for it-and I do not say this in a pejorative way. The number of letters and telegrams sent in the last couple of weeks would probably have saved the Daintree forests if they had not been sent. They are very active. They are very active because they believe in what they are doing. They are very active because they think it is terribly important, as we all do, that we provide adequate children's services. I and departmental officers think that the claim that they have not been consulted is an extraordinary one. We will continue to consult them. We want to monitor carefully the quality of children's services in this community. We want to monitor carefully the States' standards and, in particular, the Territory's standards; some- one mentioned that here tonight. For that reason, we have asked the Australian Early Childhood Association to assist us in this regard. If it agrees, it will monitor the services-in the past under the old child care Act it was the accrediting authority-so that we can report to this Parliament and to the people of this country about the relative standards and quality of children's services throughout the community, so that we can play a continuous monitoring role in this area and, at the same time, when the Department, when I and future Ministers approve funding it will be on the basis of the quality of staff, the level of staff, the standard of services, as well as on the number of services and the needs in the area. We will continue to do that; as we have always done. When people such as Senator Short complain about the alleged decline in quality in their States which is likely to result from the changes we have made we find almost inevitably that they are talking about an amount of money. That amount of money is a drop in the operational subsidy. They ignore the other two sources of income they have; the fee relief and the fees paid by their clientele. In the last few days we have looked at the Victorian situation and at individual budgets. We have found in every case so far that they have come in way under the budget they claimed they would need. Some of them in Victoria will still have very high costs. One of the things we wanted to do was to build in an incentive for them to reduce costs and we make no bones about that. This is not unique to childrens' services in Victoria. For instance, the cost of providing a nursing home bed in Victoria is 50 per cent more than in Tasmania and 70 per cent more than in Queensland. What that is about is State regulations, State awards, State conditions and a tradition of services in Victoria. There is no evidence there or in the children's services to show that the State's services are any better than anybody else's, even though all Victorians believe that they are. Some Victorians will have to cut their costs and we will assist them to do so. In the first year we will assist them to do so by providing transitional assistance so that people do not have to pay excessive increases. We will provide management assistance, help and advice so that they can cut these costs. We have a peculiar situation in Victoria-Senator Haines, Senator Peter Baume and Senator Short all mentioned this-which involves the Municipal Association of Victoria, a group of some of the councils in Victoria, which came to an agreement with the State and Commonwealth governments earlier that it would open children's services as part of the State-Commonwealth agreement. I suppose the best example to use is Senator Haines's example, and that is the Prahran Council's Union Street child Care centre. It is a good example of what this is all about. The Council first of all claimed, although it cannot produce any evidence of this to me or to anybody else, that it had a guarantee that the Commonwealth Government would pick up the costs of running the centre; for example, the cook for 20 hours a week, the gardener for 16 hours a week, and all the other things. When I said: `You demonstrate to me where anyone ever said that we would pick up that sort of deficit funding'-this Government will not and I am sure that no conservative government will-it could not demonstrate that. It said: `We do not care. That is the sort of service we will run. It costs $130 a week and we want you to pay for it'. I said: `I am sorry, neither this Government nor any other government will willy-nilly pay any expenses that local government wishes to incur'. I have negotiated with the Municipal Association of Victoria. My Department has been negotiating with that Association. Until the last few weeks it was complaining and saying that it would not open its centres under the existing child care funding arrangements. It is only in the last couple of weeks that it has decided it is a good idea to get stuck into the new child care arrangements. For the last six months it has been getting stuck into the existing child care arrangements. Under the existing child care arrangements and future child care arrangements the councils of the MAV have been treated in the same way as every other council and every other community child care organisation in this country. But they have said: `We are Victorians. We are a special group of Victorian councils. We cannot do it like everybody else. We need extra funding. We want the Commonwealth Government to pick up that extra funding'. We cannot do it, we will not do it, and I do not think any future government will do it. I think the Opposition is very wise in supporting this legislation because in 10, 12, 15 or 20 years time, when by some accident the Opposition gets back into government, it really does not want to be left with a children's services bill which is increasing at 30 per cent a year for recurrent funds, which is getting out of hand, and which means that we will not be able to increase the number of services that are available in the community. We just cannot increase them at anywhere near the rate we have increased them in the past. Senator Haines talked tonight about the problem that the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills is having with this legislation. She mentioned sub-clause 11 (1) and 11 (10). I am afraid that I did not catch them properly. Senator Haines is a member of that Committee and that report is not available; obviously it has been available to her. The Alert Digest is available and it mentions only clause 11, sub-clause (7) which it describes as the Henry VIII clause. Its complaint is that I am some form of Henry VIII. Senator Haines was kind enough to say that it was nothing to do with my girth, but that it was to do with the capacities that this legislation has given me. Senator Macklin —It is Richard II in this Bill. Senator GRIMES —It is not Richard II, or Richard III, I hope. Anyhow, he did not do it, Buckingham did. Senator Tate's Com- mittee complained about a section of the legislation-- Senator Haines —The inestimable Senator Tate. Senator GRIMES —The inestimable Senator Tate. He complained that this legislation gives me the power to provide $16 a week for children under three years of age and $11 a week for children over three years of age, or in each case such greater amount per week as is determined by the Minister from time to time by notice in writing published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. This means that I cannot reduce the fees but I can increase them. I thought that Henry VIII was the fellow who went around and took everything away from the monasteries and the monks. I do not think he was good at doling things out; he had another attribute which I try not to emulate. He was not in the habit of increasing the largesse he was handing out; he was in the habit of reducing it. According to this legislation, I am not allowed to reduce it; I can only increase it. To be serious, I think the Government will consider in the case of the operational subsidy in the future whether we should not index it in some way, although I am wary of indexation and I think child care groups and others should be wary of indexation. Once we build indexation in to things such as this it becomes the norm and the chances of getting higher than indexation operational subsidies are not very good, if we look at the operation of previously indexed benefits in this country. I accept that the Senate does not like giving me the untrammelled right, apparently, to increase fees. I thought it would have been more concerned if I also had the right to decrease them. But if Henry VIII I am, Henry VIII I am. I will wear that for a while and we will take into account the views of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee on this and other matters, and if we need to alter the situation in the future we can do so. It is important that we get this legislation in now so that we can do what Senator Short complained about, and that is introduce the new changes by 1 April. We were originally going to introduce them by 1 January but we felt that it was best not to do it by then because it would not have given us time or the organisations time to adjust, and also we would have been trying to introduce those changes over the Christmas period and on 1 January when most of them were closed for the holidays. That would not have been very sensible so we thought that 1 April was a good time. That is why we chose that date. We are not introducing it on 1 July because part of the process involved doing what Senator Short and his colleagues urged us to do, and that was to reduce government expenditure but to reduce it in such a way that it did not affect low income people, or for that matter anybody else. I think that the Government has proved its commitment to children's services, proved its commitment to quality and proved its commitment to accessibility and affordability. We are continuing to demonstrate these commitments in a number of ways. There are many determinants of quality in a child care centre. They include the employment of appropriately qualified staff, the physical environment, the structural components of the facility and, above all, the effectiveness of the management. We have been concerned about all of these areas, and we have created improvements and will continue to do so. Staffing is important and we will continue to provide the across the board operational assistance that we have provided in the past, albeit in a different, but we believe fairer, way. The staff will continue to be paid at award rates. The greater subsidy for younger children recognises the higher cost for those children. Certainly the operational subsidies have decreased but at the same time we have introduced a more generous fee relief service. In fact, fees will be reduced in many cases for those with more than two children in care. The reduction in assistance through fee relief is such that we will have expanded accessibility to fee relief for many people. Services will still be able to employ qualified staff and will still be able to operate on a break-even basis. We will be making additional grants available to those who operate for more than 10 hours a day, recognising the needs of parents who work long hours or shifts, or who have long distances to travel to and from work. Services will continue to include in their budgets the cost of employing qualified staff. Fee relief will continue to be provided for low and middle income earners and in fact special fee relief will be available for those who can pay very little. We recognise the fact that in some areas, because of special circumstances, centres will not be able to reduce their fees as much as in other areas. We will continue to provide special assistance for groups all over this country in special regions so that they can provide the services they have been providing, and we will be taking particular care of Aboriginals, the disabled, migrants, and isolated children and children at risk of abuse. The Government recognises, and will continue to recognise, the need for equipment grants. But all these things do not ensure quality. They will still need staff with appropriate skills; they will still need individuals who can provide the stimulating developmental environment that exists in centres now, and I believe that they will not change in that regard. We will keep an eye on what is happening. We will expand services and maintain a monitoring role. Senator Short was worried that putting on a fee relief ceiling of $80 but allowing fees to go up to $85 would mean that users would leave centres, forcing those centres to retrench staff and cut their costs. Very few centres have fees over $80 and in cases where they do they will be provided with transitional assistance, with special fee relief for low income earners. But in other cases they should be looking at why their costs are so much higher than the average, and that particularly applies in Victoria. Services are run by community groups which retain discretion and responsibility for many elements of their administration. Included in that is the development of mechanisms for centres to hold down their fees, whatever mechanisms they might be. We cannot as a government, and we cannot as a community, be expected to let services charge increasingly higher fees and then subsidise the users willy nilly so that they can pay those fees. We must recognise that if we are going to expand these services, if we are going to proceed in the way we have proceeded in the past to provide those high quality community-based services, we will have to make the sorts of changes we are making now. I accept that there will be criticism of any change of this type but I really think that the Opposition's amendment is a bit rich when in all other debates in this Parliament the Opposition complains about increased government expenditure but in this debate it is complaining about what it calls a lack of equity and a lack of quality. Members of the Opposition are proposing that children's services be funded primarily by way of deductions through the taxation system, which inevitably assists the high income earner and those who pay taxes more than it assists the low income earner. In fact for most of the very low income earners it is of no assistance at all because they do not pay tax or, if they do, they do not pay much. They are suggesting that we provide taxation relief in the form of income splitting, which again is of greater benefit to the high income earner than the low income earner. It is of no benefit at all for those who are single parents, an increasingly large number of whom utilise child care centres. As I said before, those two measures would cost in the region of $750m a year and it is inevitable that if those two measures are introduced by any government the amount of money available for community child care, for the capital grants, operational subsidies and fee relief, will drop. In fact, if the Government were willing to forgo $750m in this way I suggest that children's services expenditure would be held exactly where it is now and gradually be eroded by inflation. The Government would throw away all responsibility for quality and throw away all responsibility for distribution on the basis of need. We would have a service which would be based largely on profit making child care centres that in many cases would have the low standards that people are complaining about tonight. We introduced these changes to increase equity, to enable us to increase access, to maintain affordability, to maintain quality and to cause some reduction-a very small reduction-in government expenditure. I believe that our record stands for itself in the area of children's services. As the next couple of years go by and the alarmist predictions are demonstrated to be wrong and access and the number of services increase, the community will recognise that what we are about is achieving the aims we have set out, as we have been doing in the last three years. I thank honourable senators for their assistance in this debate. I thank those who are supporting us; I understand those who are not. It seems to me, as I count up the numbers, that the Bill is likely to be successful and I commend the Senate for passing it. Amendment negatived. Original question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Archer, B. R. Jones, G. N.Aulich, T. Kilgariff, B. F.Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C.Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J.Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P.Boswell, R. L. D. Maguire, G. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Messner, A. J.Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J.Childs, B. K. Morris, J.Coates, J. Puplick, C. J. G.Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterColston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reid, M. E.Cooney, B. Reynolds, M.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M.Durack, P. D. Sheil, G.Elstob, R. C. Short, J. R.Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W.Georges, G. Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Teague, B. C.Giles, P. J. Vanstone, A. E.Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P.A.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S.Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W.Jessop, D. S. Zakharov, A. O. Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J.Haines, J. Sanders, N. K.Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Vigor, D. B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.30) —The Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill contains amendments for a range of approximately half a dozen Bills affecting the Public Service. It has three major objectives. The first is that the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act is amended to add inefficiency and loss of essential qualifications as grounds to initiate redeployment and retirement of public servants covered by that Act. Under the CE(RR) Act staff can be redeployed or retired where their services cannot reasonably be used because they are surplus to the requirements of their department or authority or are incapable of performing their duties as a result of physical or mental incapacity. This legislation extends grounds for redeployment or retirement to inefficiency or loss of essential qualifications or for any other reason. The Opposition could not disagree with that. Secondly, the Bill revises the arrangements for engaging employees who are not officers under the Public Service Act by establishing four separate categories: Continuing employees, short term employees, fixed term employees or overseas employees. The Bill contains definitions of the categories. The Opposition will not be disagreeing with or opposing this piece of legislation. However, it will be moving an amendment to clauses 8 and 9 at the Committee stage. The amendment will add a provision to clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill, by which, during a time of defence emergency or war, section 22 (b) and (c) of the Public Service Act shall be deemed to have no effect in respect of persons employed under section 42 of the Naval Defence Act 1910 and section 10 of the Supply and Development Act 1939. I will be moving that amendment, which has been circulated in the name of the Opposition, at the Committee stage. I have outlined what it is basically about; so that will save me from having to make a speech at that stage. We will be supporting the amendment which will be moved by the Australian Democrats. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(9.32) —The Australian Democrats support the broad thrust of the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill. We believe that the changes proposed and other changes in train or in prospect make it possible for the Public Service to fulfil its duties effectively. I stress the word `possible' as there is, of course, no guarantee that what looks good on paper will translate into significant improvements in practice. We will have to encourage those who will implement the reforms to make certain that the changes are properly put into effect. We will have to show a continuing interest in the pro- cess. Frankly, if there is any resistance, I believe that we will be asking for full explanations before deciding on how to deal with the problem. The Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill tidies up administrative areas such as the abolition, creation and transfer of departments or parts of departments. It spells out in some detail the retirement or redeployment of officers who are inefficient or not qualified to perform their duties. This change may prompt departments to initiate new procedures for updating duty statements and instructions about required work standards. The Bill also sets out a common framework within which people can be employed overseas for fixed terms on short term contracts in positions where promotion and transfer rights are not particularly appropriate. This framework is designed to put pressure on departments to justify the continued use of short term and fixed term employees. The Public Service Board will oversee extensions for short term employees. It will look at the question of classes of employees who, after consultation with unions, can ordinarily start with short term contracts longer than three months. The Board will have to get staff organisation agreements for classes of continuing employees to be declared. The Board will lose its monitoring brief over consultancies in statutory authorities. I think that these changes should allow the Board to concentrate on management improvement functions a lot more than it does now and not to be tied up in unproductive red tape. Taken in conjunction with the Department of Finance's role in program budgeting reform, this gives us a chance to make the Public Service expend its energy on what is good for the country, rather than wasting resources by clinging on to what each department has constructed for itself. I notice that Senator Walsh has raised the possibility of three-year rolling funding or of departments being able to keep unused cash limit appropriations for the following year. That statement was made in a speech to the Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration in Canberra in September. Such reforms certainly would discourage the type of fiasco which occurred last year with the Commissioner for housing loan schemes in the Australian Capital Territory. There was a fear that not all the money would be spent and in the flurry of activity a further year's amount, and then some more, was committed, leaving the scheme on hold for over 12 months. I hope that this type of problem will be handled quite effectively by new budgeting methods. We can certainly do without the mad spending rushes towards the end of each financial year. In his speech in September Senator Walsh referred also to the criticism that some departmental central managers were not passing on the new flexibilities to their regional managers. I suppose that they are not devolving that flexibility on to branches or small units in most of these cases. I hope that this new legislation will allow management a lot more flexibility, even though they are not being overseen by the Public Service Board. I believe that if devolvement is not happening, it is a serious matter. The Australian Democrats strongly support industrial democracy. My colleague Senator Siddons has been at the forefront in that, both in the work place and in this Parliament. By proposing a requirement that departments report each year on their implementation of industrial democracy, I am asking the Senate to show that we mean business and that we will be following up the matter if little progress has been made. It was disappointing that only about two-thirds of the relevant departments and authorities submitted their industrial democracy and equal employment opportunity plans to the Public Service Board on time this year. I understand that similar processes have lagged somewhat within the parliamentary departments, and I am disappointed in that. Similarly, there have been problems with temporary employees who have been in virtually continuous employment for a number of years, without the opportunity for promotion or higher duty allowances when stepping into a temporarily vacant spot. The Bill before us will give such people greater protection, in that they will become continuing employees if they work for 12 months without a break. In the case of Iannou v. Fowell and Others, the High Court of Australia held last year that departments and authorities cannot disregard with impunity legislation on the conditions of appointment and employment of staff. The plaintiff was reinstated and achieved the full protection of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act. What should happen in other cases is not always clear from that decision, so the Government has stepped in to make the departments and authorities openly justify positions listed as temporary, but which are not necessarily so in practice. So we will be watching that. I think it is reasonable that departments sort out structural matters during normal budgetary processes. They should not make decisions on the run, especially if they are only avoiding the discipline of keeping to their appropriations for permanent staff in a roundabout way. Departments and authorities need to look at what they do and how they do it. The Australian Financial Review of 20 November has an example of 1,600 bureaucrats who ceased to write all weekly, monthly and quarterly reports. It turned out that 50 documents produced regularly contributed absolutely nothing to the division's operation. Such reassessment can clearly lead to better employment of resources. I commend that sort of analysis to departments and authorities that are complaining about shortages of staff. At the same time I urge the Department of Finance to recognise such initiatives where they occur and to show greater sympathy to under-resourced areas which have tried hard to get their houses in order. I now make some suggestions which should enable the Public Service to run better and be better value for money. The first area deals with greater efforts to achieve a smoke-free work environment. One employee has been successful in obtaining compensation for suffering brought on basically because he could not get a smoke-free work setting. Token efforts will achieve absolutely nothing. We have a problem that needs continuing attention. The same is true of repetition strain injury. Here we have a question both of equipment standards and work practices. If we force people to spend hour after hour at the keyboard without proper breaks, we should not be surprised to find sizable proportions of them unable to work after some time. This often means that extra staff have to be trained, and it takes some time to get them to peak efficiency. The speed-of-answer statistics I received in answer to a question I asked about Telecom Australia earlier this year showed that management has had major problems on its hands because of this retraining process. I hope that the Minister will also look at the question of personnel records in the Public Service. They ought to be compatible right across the spectrum so that people can move effectively from one place to another. There should also be a continuous record of training for each employee. That would serve two purposes. First, it would enable departments to make better use of staff talents. It would also enable studies assistants to give sound advice to staff who want to develop further in their careers. The problem is that at the moment a lot of valuable data can be lost as officers move from one department to another because of the incompatibility of record types. In the Estimates committee's proceedings the Public Service Board officers foreshadowed the establishment of an inter-departmental committee to examine technological change and its effect on work structures. I shall certainly be following the committee's deliberations with great interest. I trust that the difficult questions will be tackled quickly and that areas such as voice input into computers will be developed in consultation with staff associations, rather than just depending on keyboards. If we plan for and take the opportunity we can get extra-capacity equipment to free more people for the direct provison of services to the public. We can start thinking about what has not been practical so far. I believe that the Public Service must move into this area, as business has. I turn finally to accountability and reporting. That is a subject of the amendments I will be moving. I have already mentioned the importance of industrial democracy, and the Australian Democrats will be moving an amendment to make sure that the public gets proper reports on what departments have achieved or propose to achieve in this area. I pay tribute to the Australian Capital Territory branch of the Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration for having its annual award, a system which has been in existence since 1982, for the best-produced annual report of a department. Many shortcomings have been publicly highlighted as a result, and there is evidence of enormous improvements that have followed this practice. The first report of the panel of judges mentioned that few departments wrote about objectives. Staffing information was rudimentary and often not to be reconciled with the figures given in the annual report of the Public Service Board. Financial information was not often accompanied by interpretation, nor was it grouped according to purpose or program. Program budgeting may help us in this area. Comments made by the Auditor-General were not taken up in the annual report. I believe that is a real problem. The Australian Capital Territory branch of the Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration set down its own guidelines for the usefulness of annual reports. These were somewhat more forward-looking than the previous Government's guidelines, tabled in the Senate by Senator Sir John Carrick on 11 November 1982. I seek leave to have the former guidelines incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- GUIDELINES TO ASSIST PANEL IN ADJUDICATING DEPARTMENTAL ANNUAL REPORTS The following guidelines were determined in 1982 by the ACT Group of the Australian Institute of Public Administration to guide the review of Departmental annual reports for its annual award scheme. The Panel was asked to take account of these in assessing the information provided in annual reports on the activities of Departments. 1. Functions (a) Description of the functions and objectives together with a statement of the specific services provided and the sectors of the community served. (b) Departmental organisations chart, including regional and overseas offices and any advisory committees, and explanation of the particular functions carried out by each major unit. 2. Operations (a) Narrative review of operations, including adequate comment on policy changes, present or proposed, together with a statement of the background to major policy decisions. (b) Indication of the extent of achievement of objectives, in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, with quantitative measures where relevant. (c) Discussion of possible future changes in the environment within which the Department operates and the impact this could have on policies and operations. (d) Outline or research and development activites being undertaken and description of future actions or planned projects. (e) Summary of any major legislative changes affecting the Department. (f) Description of actions to ensure public awareness of Departmental activities. An indication of further publications and other sources of information produced by the Department and available to the public. (g) Comment on Departmental management policy and practice including management systems, functional and related resource reviews, employee and trade union relations, professional development activities and staff training programs (including co-operation with external prgrams) and other means to ensure effective management. 3. Financial Information (a) Financial statements in appropriate format and detail, clearly showing: * All major sources of revenue. * All major ends to which expenditure was directed. * Adequate details of any trading activities. * Departmental administrative expenses. (b) Adequate details of any separate funds administered by the Department (e.g. trust funds) including movements in, balance of and justification for each fund. (c) Adequate and understandable notes to the financial statements, including explanations where appropriate of significant financial and accounting policies. (d) Comment on results of any audits performed by the Auditor-General, and the effect of administrative review mechanisms. 4. Format and communication of the annual report (a) Clear text and logical order of contents. (b) Provision of reports in a modest standard, consistent with effective provision of information in a non-stereotype form. (c) Provision of appropriate highlights sections emphasising the major events affecting the achievement of objectives such as legislative changes, key financial and non-financial data, and major new projects planned or undertaken. (d) Adequate general design of report, including use of good typography, appropriate and clear illustrations, charts and graphs. Appropriate length and detail of narrative comments so that significant major items are not obscured in a large amount of detailed matter. (e) A clear identification of the entity on front cover, and of the period to which the annual report relates. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. The Government guidelines could certainly lead to excellent reports if the spirit of providing information were followed. The reports would be more useful if they were available before the Estimates debates or if they contained financial information about the operation of programs. Those things are in the guidlines. However, generally-this is not true of all departments but it is of many departments-the reports do not always take up these matters properly. I would like to get more useful and timely information made available to the Parliament and to the people of Australia. I note that when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) presented the first annual report awards in 1983 he said: Information about government operations is not, after all, some kind of `favour' to be bestowed by a benevolent government-or to be extorted from a reluctant bureaucracy. It is quite simply, a public right. The people of Australia have a right to inform themselves fully-subject to the normal protections-about the way those they have elected to govern them discharge that responsibility. Those are fine sentiments. I want to encourage their fruition. Guidelines are not enough to achieve that. In 1984, the annual report judgment panel pointed out the persistently poor reporting of financial matters. These figures and those on departmental staffing did not square with the Public Service Board's Statitstical Yearbook, nor with Estimates committee material. Only a handful of departments commented on the activities and achievements of internal audit units. Mentions of departmental problems in Auditor-General's reports were not taken up. The adjudicating panel said: `Financial reporting tends to have a token quality'. It also said: Equally, reports pay little regard to statements of objectives as determined by Parliament or Ministers. That is what the Public Service thinks of us. Assessing the reports of 1983-84, the next panel said that whilst standards of financial reporting showed significant improvements on past years, even the best reports were not providing sufficient information. I encourage departments to provide details of the year's highlights, to list the objectives and problems encountered in achieving them, and to let us know of important structural changes. An index certainly makes a report a more useful reference document. I would like to see a figure for the cost of internal review and another for the cost of Administrative Appeals Tribunal cases under the Freedom of Information Act. In my amendment I have set out a basic minimum for reporting on financial and staffing areas. However, I would like to see departments volunteer a lot more information than that. I would also like to see Ministers table reports in the Parliament well before the passage of 15 sitting days from the time they receive them. That is the requirement made by my amendment. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.49) —There are a few amendments to the legislation to be moved in the Committee stage. I will not comment on them until the Committee stage is reached. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Clauses 1 to 7-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 8 (Equal employment opportunity programs). Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.49) —I move: (1) Clause 8, after proposed new sub-section 22B (16), add the following sub-section: `(17) Where the Minister for Defence, by instrument in writing, declares that, by reason of defence or civil emergency, it is necessary for staff employed under the Naval Defence Act 1910 or the Supply and Development Act 1939 to be engaged in work in circumstances such that regulations made for the purposes of sub-section (14) should not apply in respect of those staff, those regulations shall not apply in respect of those staff until that instrument is revoked by the Minister.'. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.50) —The Government will not accept this amendment, although it is not regarded by the Government as being terribly important; rather it is regarded as being somewhat superfluous, because it seeks to allow exemptions for a variety of authorities or institutions under the control of the Minister for Defence, including the small arms factory at Lithgow, the explosives factory at Mulwala, and so on-there is a list of about 10 exemptions altogether-from the industrial democracy and equal employment opportunity programs of the Public Service. The fact is that secretaries to the departments in general already have the power to vary those programs if they choose to do so and if there is a justification for doing so. I gather that the Australian Democrats will support the amendment moved by Senator Collard. Could some Democrat senator signify whether that is so-- Senator Vigor —Yes, we will support the amendment. Senator WALSH —Under those circumstances, the Government will not support the amendment, but I do not propose to call a division on it. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 9 (Industrial democracy plans). Motion (by Senator Collard) agreed to: That clause 9 be postponed until after consideration of the Australian Democrats amendment to clause 10. Clause 10 (Secretaries of Departments). Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.52) —I move: (1) Page 3, at the end of clause 10, add the following paragraph: ``(c) by adding at the end the following sub-sections: `(6) The Secretary of a Department shall, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, prepare and furnish to the Minister administering the Department a report on the operation of the Department during the year that ended on that 30 June. `(7) Without limiting the generality of sub-section (6), a report under that sub-section shall include information on- (a) the revenue and expenditure of the Department, including revenue and expenditure arising from trading activities or cost recovery activities, during the year reported upon, in a form giving a true and fair impression of the activities of the Department; (b) the implementation and operation of industrial democracy plans in the Department; (c) the number of officers in each classification employed in the Department during the year reported upon; (d) the number of persons employed in that Department under section 82AC, 82AD, 82AE, or 82AF during the year reported upon; (e) the number of persons engaged by the Secretary as consultants during the year reported upon, their qualifications and experience and the purposes for which they were engaged; (f) the number of persons declared eligible for redeployment within that Department in accordance with section 9 of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979 during the year reported upon; (g) the number of persons whom the Secretary has retired from the Australian Public Service in accordance with section 19 of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979 during the year reported upon; and (h) the number of employees whose employment has been terminated under section 82AH during the year reported upon. `(8) The Minister administering a Department shall cause a copy of a report furnished to him under sub-section (6) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the report.'.''. The amendment deals with the reporting of annual reports and the conditions which have to be satisfied in preparing them. They are not a limiting set of conditions and they require the Minister administering the relevant department to present a copy to the House within 15 sitting days. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.53) —As I indicated, the Opposition supports the amendment moved by the Australian Democrats. It is entirely consistent with the Opposition's policy on reporting. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.53) —The Government will not accept this amendment, although we accept the inevitability of its being carried, given what has already been said. It is, however, more serious than the previous superfluous amendment, because it does entail quite substantial bureaucratic resources in order to discharge its requirements. I found it particularly ironic that during the second reading debate Senator Vigor referred to-I do not claim that this is verbatim; I could not write it down quickly enough, but it covers the essence of what he said-1,600 bureaucrats scribbling away doing nothing of any consequence or any use. Something like 1,600 or perhaps a few more bureaucrats scribbling away doing nothing of any consequence or of any use would be the outcome of the amendment which Senator Vigor is proposing. Proposed new sub-section (6) of his amendment refers to the requirement of each department to report each year; in fact, this is already covered by guidelines laid down by the previous Government and spelt out by Senator Sir John Carrick in the Hansard of Estimates Committee B on 11 November 1982. The amendment goes on to refer to a requirement that all departments include revenue and expenditure arising from trading activities or cost recovery activities. I must say that I am not aware of any trading activities as distinct from cost recovery activities in which any department engages. The amendment goes on to require departments to report on the implementation and operation of industrial democracy plans. That is already covered in existing legislation. It goes on further to require departments to report the number of officers in each classification employed by them during the year reported on. I am advised that there are something like 3,000 classifications in total in the Public Service in a somewhat aggregated form. They are already reported in various ways in the bureaucracy. But to require by legislation every department to report on the numbers of officers in each classification, and there can be as many as 3,000 different classifications, is an impossible requirement. I wish that Senator Collard were listening to this or, indeed, any other honourable senator in the Liberal Party who is interested in it. I accept that the Opposition does not have any malevolent intent in supporting this amendment. It is just a particularly silly amendment which I am sure if the Opposition had had time to think about, it would not be supporting. I was saying that one of the provisions of this amendment requires each Commonwealth department to report in an annual report on the number of officers in each classification employed in that department. There are around 3,000 classifications in total in the Australian Public Service. The amendment also requires the number of persons engaged by the secretary to a department as consultants during the year to be reported on. Presumably, the presumption underlying that proposal is that every consultant engaged within the Commonwealth bureaucracy is an individual; in fact, frequently consultants engaged by the bureaucracy are firms. To comply literally with the requirements of that amendment would require each department which engages a consultant such as Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co., or what ever you like, presumably to ascertain from that firm the total number of its employees so that they could all be reported as consultants engaged directly or indirectly by the department concerned, and so on. I could go on and on, but given that the Opposition has already committed itself to supporting this silly amendment, which, I repeat, will probably require a couple of battalions of bureaucrats being occupied in scribbling away, reporting figures, analysing and classifying for no particular purpose and for no real benefit to the public or anyone else, when the broad requirements for a department to report have already been laid down by the previous Government and have been continued by this Government-when those conditions have already been met-it really is very silly and, I even venture to suggest at this late hour of the night, quite irresponsible for the Opposition mindlessly to support such a silly amendment. We will be calling a division on it. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(9.59) —The proposed amendment will introduce uniform standards. One of the very important things that the Public Service must do is be responsible to this Parliament. This amendment places some basic requirement on the Public Service to provide information which this Parliament requires in order to discharge its duties. I am extremely surprised at the remarks of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), because I believe that we cannot properly fulfil our duties of supervising the Public Service of this country without having proper reporting. I have found that to be the case in the Senate with all the processes that take place. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Vigor's amendment) be added. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator D. S. Jessop) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Macklin, M. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Mason, C. V. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Missen, A. J.Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G.Chipp, D. L. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sanders, N. K.Durack, P. D. Sheil, G.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Short, J. R.Haines, J. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Jessop, D. S. Vigor, D. B.Kilgariff, B. F. Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. Grimes, D. J.Black, J. R. Jones, G. N.Bolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P.Coates, J. Maquire, G. R.Colston, M. A. Morris, JCook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M.Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F.Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M.Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Georges, G. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Parer, W. R. Coleman, R. N.Hill, R. Evans, GarethWithers, R. G. McClelland, DouglasChaney, F. M. Button, J. N.Townley, M. Robertson, E. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 9 (Industrial democracy plans). Amendment (by Senator Vigor) agreed to: (2) Page 3, clause 9, lines 19 and 20, leave out ``amended by adding at the end the following sub-section:'', insert ``amended- (a) by omitting sub-section (10A); and (b) by adding at the end the following sub-section:''. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.06) —I move: Clause 9, after proposed new sub-section 22C (15), add the following sub-section: ``(16) Where the Minister for Defence, by instrument in writing, declares that, by reason of defence or civil emergency, it is necessary for staff employed under the Naval Defence Act 1910 or the Supply and Development Act 1939 to be engaged in work in circumstances such that regulations made for the purposes of sub-section (13) should not apply in respect of those staff, those regulations shall not apply in respect of those staff until that instrument is revoked by the Minister.'. I suspect that the speech by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) will be the same on this amendment as it was in the last one. I stand by the amendment. If the Government is basically in favour of the Secretary having that power, let us enshrine it in the legislation. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent consideration forthwith of the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1985 as a separate Order of the Day. Consideration resumed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services) (10.08) I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of the Bill is to amend Section 6 of the principal Act to set the upper ceiling for the new levels of the charge to be fixed by Regulations. As honourable senators will recall, I announced on 22 March the broad parameters of the new overseas student policy. Decisions on the direction of the policy followed consideration of the reports of two independent committees. These were the Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy, chaired by Professor John Goldring, and the Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program, chaired by Sir Gordon Jackson. Both committees identified the hitherto ``hidden subsidy'' in the overseas student program-that is, the gap between the cost to the Commonwealth of providing places for overseas students in educational institutions, and the contribution made by those students through the Overseas Students Charge. In 1984/85 this subsidy was valued at $98.6m for students from developing countries (about 96% of all overseas students). The student's contribution through the Overseas Students Charge represented about 25% of the average cost of a place in higher education. The increase in the Overseas Students Charge proposed in this Bill raises that contribution to approximately 35% of the average cost. As from 1 January 1986, the new levels of student charge will be, subject to Regulations, as follows- $4,340 for courses in medicine, veterinary science and dentistry; and $3,500 for all other courses. The overseas students charge raised $30.3m in 1985/85 and is expected to raise $45.5m in 1985/86 (but $3.065m of this amount relates to 1984/85 charge payments not recorded until 1985/86). I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.09) —A little over a year ago this Parliament received two major and valuable reports concerning overseas students policy. One was the report of the Goldring Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy and the other was the report of the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program. The Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1985, which is now being debated directly reflects the Government's decisions in response to its consideration of these reports. The Government's response has been basically to adopt the Goldring approach. However, the Opposition regards the work of both committees as valuable and is critical of a number of the Labor Government's decisions in this area. Given the pressures of time for this debate and my need to concentrate on the particular Bill before us, I will not review all of the elements of what we in the Liberal-National Party Opposition believe should be a sound and dynamic overseas student policy. I just say that we are immensely proud of the positive measures taken by Australia in the 1950s, the 1960s and until now to establish and maintain a very significant overseas student program which has served so very well the students of our region and the countries of our region, especially those from South East Asia and the South Pacific but also importantly students from China, Japan and other countries with which we also have significant relations. The achievements of the program have been to the mutual advantage of Australia and our neighbours. In summary, the elements or principles of this very positive success for Australia and for all the countries of our region have rightly included the following: Sound professional education, which has an enduring impact on the lives and work of graduates for the ensueing 50 years; development assistance; cultural exchange; the development of Australia as a multicultural, tolerant and enlightened society; foreign policy interests including good relations with other countries and our region's strategic and security interests; trade and commercial interests, including a direct knowledge by graduates outside Australia, of our commercial and technical standards and practices. I now turn directly to the Bill and in doing so warn the Government that the financial implications of this measure already begin to endanger the best achievement of the principles to which I have referred. The Government's intention to raise the overseas student charge from 25 per cent to 45 per cent of the education cost endangers the best achievements of the overseas student program as we have up till now so confidently known it. The essence of this legislation is the Hawke Labor Government's decision to raise the level of charge which overseas students studying in Australia are required to pay. Until now there have been three categories of charge, depending on the type of higher education course undertaken. This year in the first category postgraduate students have a charge of $3,350 per annum. In the second category undergraduate students in the so-called high cost courses of medicine, dentistry and veterinary science have a charge of $3,100 per annum and in the third category all other undergraduate students have a charge of $2,500 per annum. The Bill proposes that there now be only two categories but that those charges be raised at a stroke by 40 per cent. However, I must add that, because the Opposition has strongly argued that such an unexpected and sharp increase is unfair, especially to those overseas students who have already enrolled in courses, the Government has now been forced to amend its original legislation to limit the increase for those continuing students to 15 per cent, that is, to about twice the rate of inflation. I must tell the Government that the Opposition regards the 15 per cent rate of increase also as unfair to existing students and we will propose a further amendment. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which has been prepared at my request by the Parliamentary Library. Leave granted. The table read as follows- OVERSEAS STUDENT CHARGE Year Postgrad. Courses (1) Undergraduate Courses High Cost (2) Other $ p.a. % incr. $ p.a. % incr. $ p.a. incr. 1980... 2,500 . . 2,000 . . 1,500 . . 1981... 2,500 . . 2,000 . . 1,500 . . 1982... 2,500 . . 2,200 10.0 1,700 13.3 1983... 2,500 . . 2,350 6.8 1,850 8.8 1984... 2,900 16.0 2,700 14.9 2,150 16.2 1985... 3,350 15.5 3,100 14.8 2,500 16.3 1986 (3)... n.a. 3,565 4,340 (4)...15.0 40.0 2,875 3,500 (4)...15.0 40.0 Average Percentage Increase 1980-85: % p.a. Postgraduate Courses Undergraduate-High cost Other 6.03 9.16 10.76 (1) Masters and Doctorates. (2) Medicine, Veterinary Science and Dentistry. (3) In 1986 the distinction between postgraduate and undergraduate courses will be abandoned. All courses will be subject to the rates for undergraduate courses depending upon the field of study. (4) The lesser rate is for continuing students; the maximum rate is for new students. Education and Welfare Group 25 November 1985...LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH SERVICE Senator TEAGUE —This table sets out detail of overseas student charges in all of the years since 1980, the year of its introduction, and includes the proposed charges for 1986. It is clear from the table that in the six years of its operation the average annual increase has been in the range of 6 per cent to 11 per cent. It is also clear that this range of annual increase until now has been no greater than the annual inflation rate in Australia. I add that in the first four years of its operation, that is, during the period of the Liberal-National Party Government, the overseas student charge was raised at less than half of this 6 to 11 per cent average rate. It has been a decision of the Labor Government in the last two years to increase the charge at a rate that considerably exceeds the rate of inflation. The culmination of all this is the Bill before us. This Bill enacts the extraordinary decision of the Hawke Labor Government to increase the charge by 40 per cent. When we in the Liberal-National Party Opposition protested the impact that this would have, especially on students already enrolled, the Government half changed its mind and made the weak and unconvincing response to set the increase for these students at 15 per cent, which is not only about twice the rate of inflation but also about twice the rate of increase that overseas students have been led to expect from the 1980 to 1985 experience of this charge. Unlike the Australian Democrats, the Opposition acknowledges that the Government should have the ability to increase the charge but we believe that the appropriate rate of increase in respect of existing students should be the rate of inflation. Accordingly, our amendment at the Committee stage will propose that the Government determined level of 15 per cent not apply but, rather, that it be the maximum under which the actual rate will be determined each year by regulation so as to reflect generally the rate of inflation in Australia. Because regulations are subject to disallowance by the Parliament, the Government should expect approval from the Parliament when the rate determined does in fact reflect the annual rate of inflation. Finally on this aspect, I remind the Senate that, when in 1980 the original overseas student charge was introduced, the then Liberal- National Party Government did not require students already enrolled to pay the charge. It was levied only on new students. This was on the ground that it would be unfair to existing students and unexpected by them. Thus, all existing students then were exempted from the charge. In the final part of my speech I wish to refer to the cost to the Australian taxpayer of overseas students. But, first of all, how many students are there? In 1983, there were 16,600 overseas students from developing countries studying in Australia and in 1984 this figure had increased to 18,000. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs. Leave granted. The table read as follows- STUDENTS FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES STUDYING IN AUSTRALIA 1983 Sponsored Tertiary Students (1) Other Tertiary Students (2) Secondary Students (3) Total 1984 Sponsored Tertiary Students (1) Other Tertiary Students (2) Secondary Students (3) Total Africa... 214 154 11 379 215 136 14 365 South America/Carribean . 23 21 7 51 28 15 1 44 Asia China... 36 35 3 74 46 80 13 139 Hong Kong... 9 1,388 744 2,141 10 1,639 638 2,287 Indonesia... 247 593 466 1,306 229 775 346 1,350 Malaysia... 60 6,016 3,191 9,267 57 7,269 2,958 10,824 Pakistan... 22 41 . . 63 13 42 1 10,824 Philippines... 63 26 27 116 61 28 30 119 Singapore... 67 723 84 874 72 776 84 132 Sri Lanka... 39 123 3 165 35 125 8 168 Taiwan... . . 21 4 25 . . 23 7 30 Thailand... 118 151 64 333 117 131 65 313 Other Asia... 101 294 34 429 81 359 24 464 Middle East South Pacific... 1 58 4 63 3 70 21 94 Fiji... 61 420 281 762 72 399 264 735 Nauru... . . 1 65 66 . . 1 72 73 PNG... 68 31 245 344 81 45 247 373 Solomon Is.... 11 6 12 29 11 11 15 37 Tonga... 18 45 32 95 27 35 27 89 Other S.P.... 19 15 13 47 17 14 18 49 Unspecified... . . 1 . . 1 7 18 12 37 TOTAL... 1,177 10,163 5,290 16,630 1,182 11,991 4,826 17,999 (1) This excludes tertiary students who are undertaking specially arranged courses funded from other parts of the aid budget. (2) These do not include students in approved tertiary exchange programs. (3) These do not include secondary students in approved exchange programs. Senator TEAGUE —This table sets out the number of overseas students, both sponsored and private and both tertiary and secondary, and the countries and regions from which they have come to study in Australia. Almost all of these students come from South East Asia and the South Pacific. I should point out that the overseas students charge is paid by a majority of these students but it is not paid by all of them. For example, it is not paid by secondary students nor by technical and further education students. Also, for sponsored students, the charge is covered by being incorporated into the scholarships these students receive, mostly by programs of the Colombo Plan type which are provided by Australia. In addition, the charge is waived for all private students from Papua New Guinea at a current annual cost of $121,000, and is waived for all private students from the South Pacific at a current annual cost of $1,018,000. I should also point out that the total cost of the courses of study undertaken by the remaining majority of students, that is, all the private overseas students who attend universities, colleges of advanced education and institutes of technology, amounts to about $130m. To this total of $130m the overseas students themselves currently contribute about one-quarter of the cost of their studies by their payment of the overseas student charge. The remainder, which is about three-quarters of the cost or about $100m, is paid by Australian taxpayers. In fact, in the 1984-85 financial year the Department of Foreign Affairs appropriated and expended $98,624,000 to meet this cost and in the current financial year the estimates indicate an appropriation of $97,398,000 but it appears that this will need to be supplemented early next year. In addition-- Senator Macklin —What is that based on? Senator TEAGUE —That is based directly on the Estimates. In addition to this, the Australian taxpayers provide almost $3m to administer the Overseas Student Office and this includes, of course, the cost of collecting the overseas student charge. In the light of this approximately $100m provided by the Australian taxpayers for students from developing coutries, I take this opportunity again to draw attention to the need for us to develop an equitable distribution of these resources between the various countries in our region. Finally, I note that, by the Government already changing the increase in the charge from 40 per cent to 15 per cent for continuing students, the revenue forgone amounts to $5m. It is in the context of having a responsible approach to these perspectives that the Opposition does not accept the approach to this Bill of the Australian Democrats. We do not agree with the Democrats' view that the Government should be denied altogether any ability to increase the overseas student charge for existing students. However, I urge Australian Democrats senators to support the reasonable amendment that I have outlined on behalf of the Opposition. My colleague Senator Peter Baume will in the Committee stage introduce the precise wording of the amendment that we have determined. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.20) —The Government's Bill dealing with overseas aid has been a matter of some fairly extensive discussions within the community and I think there are major items in terms of the arguments that need to be put straight. The Government's basic argument is that the costs of education and the fact that overseas students make no significant contribution to these costs means that there is a need to raise each year the amount that is being charged to those students to meet those particular costs. I believe that the Government's figuring, basically, is misleading. First, it ignores the fact that Australia benefits enormously from the education of a variety of people, particularly those from the Oceanic countries and from South East Asia, and that these people, upon return to their country, including those who are currently here, will be influential in business, the professions and politics; they are our best ambassadors for the future of this country and our future relations with our region. The Goldring report, for example, says that $A135m is spent annually by overseas students who are living in this country. That is not counted in and has not been counted in the Government's equation-that they bring money into the country. Whilst we are assiduously going around the world trying to get tourists, these people, who live here for a year, fairly obviously spend far more and contribute far more than a person who would be here for two or three weeks. It is important to look at the types of contributions they make, not only in the non-financial way to which I pointed first, but also in the direct financial way in terms of the influx of money from those countries. Secondly, the Government grossly overestimates, I think, the actual cost of educating overseas students. Again, the Goldring report recommends 40 per cent of recurrent costs. The Committee estimated that the recurrent costs were between $5,000 and $6,500. According to the Government, the cost is $10,000 a year for normal graduate courses. One has to ask where this figure comes from, and I would be very interested if the Minister could explain how that calculation was made. On a rough calculation using effective full time student enrolments for 1985 for universities and colleges of advanced education, the figure that one comes up with for each student is about $7,000. As a percentage, 35 per cent of that is about $2,500, or about $1,000 less than the charge the Government wants to impose. Even if one wants to put in the capital and equipment costs on that-and of course, the Goldring report recommended against this-one gets only about $200 more, anyhow. So we are not going to get anywhere near the amount of money that the Government has been suggesting is the cost. Therefore, I should like to know on what basis the Government has made those estimates. Thirdly, the Minister refers to the effects of currency fluctuations, and I think this is a very interesting matter because we have been made very much aware of the fall in value of the Australian dollar. Let us look at that fall with regard to the Hong Kong dollar. In March this year the Hong Kong dollar was worth in Australia 5.41c. On 30 October it was worth 5.49c. Yet the magnitude of the increase for those students who come from Hong Kong is 42 per cent; that is, a student from Hong Kong who enrolled in 1985 will, if this Bill is passed, have to pay 42 per cent more next year in his or her home currency. A student from Malaysia will have to pay 33 per cent more. Frankly, the Minister's use of the exchange rate figure is highly selective and highly misleading. The Australian Democrats' position is that the education of overseas students is part of Australia's foreign aid effort. The Government itself has recognised this fact; the Opposition has recognised this fact. The subsidy for overseas students now figures as a transfer from the foreign aid budget. Unlike assistance for famine relief or for other disasters, this particular aid may not at first sight appear to be something which has an inescapable moral obligation upon it. But I suggest that this aid, indeed, is aid which goes to assist stable development in our region, and that must be incredibly important for Australia in the short, medium and long terms. By educating overseas students Australia contributes, in a very cost-efficient way, to the social and economic development of the region. Australia has provided various types of educational opportunities and various types of training opportunities that are not available, or not widely available, in the country of origin of many of these students. Since 1940, over 200,000 students, most of them from Asia and the Pacific, have been educated in Australia and have graduated from our tertiary institutions. That must be seen by this country as a considerable contribution, a considerable effort. Before we get too carried away, let us just put that in the perspective of what other countries do. Overseas students comprise only approximately 3 per cent of the total higher education enrolments in this country. The figure for France is 13 per cent. The figure for the United Kingdom is 7 per cent. So when we talk about our contribution, we can be proud of it, but let us keep it in the perspective of what other countries see their obligation as, other countries to which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) constantly wishes to liken us. Those other countries are already making a much more significant contribution than we are. If the Minister claims that the reason for that is that France and the United Kingdom still have colonial ties and colonial obligations, let us have a look at another country with which we often compare ourselves. Let us have a look at Canada, for example. Canada has a 30 per cent higher rate of overseas student enrolments than Australia. Clearly then, Australia, while making a significant contribution in terms of the education of students from the Pacific regions and from Asia, still has a fair way to go to come up to the level of other countries. I think most people listening to this debate, or at least most of those reading the report of this debate, might say that $3,550 to $4,340 is a reasonable bargain when it is compared with $10,000 per student. Frankly, I do not know where all of those students who are supposed to be willing to pay $10,000 will be coming from. For example, very few Australian families could ever afford amounts of that order. What we know from the Goldring report and from the submissions of overseas students now studying in Australia is that the majority of overseas students come from very modest backgrounds. I think that has to be accepted. Up to 60 per cent of private overseas students come from families with an annual income of less than $A15,000 per annum. Debate interrupted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.30) —Tonight I want to raise a matter concerning the Friends of the Introductory English Centre which has been operating from the Telopea Park School for some time. Apparently a decision has been made that that Centre will be moved from there and certain consequences flow from this. The reason apparently is that the School of Music wishes to reclaim that accommodation, and certainly the School of Music used it in the past. That has caused some amazement amongst those who are concerned with the Introductory English Centre because the School of Music has its own multi-million dollar building which is not very old. I think these people are somewhat amazed that the School of Music has been allowed to expand and to take back this accommodation. One might ask: Why can it not go somewhere else? As a matter of fact, I heard earlier this year that there was a threat to the Introductory English Centre. After I made some inquiries about what was to happen I was told that the School of Music was to be given a wing of the Cook Primary School. As I understand it, the Cook Primary School was certainly not unhappy about that because its numbers had changed to such an extent that that amount of space would be available and, therefore, the Introductory English Centre would be able to stay in the most suitable premises that it occupies at Telopea Park School. It transpires that this is not the case. Information has leaked out in the last 10 days or so that the Introductory English Centre is to be moved and that the building is to be returned to the School of Music. I think there are good reasons for saying that this centre ought to stay there. Given that it is to move, I find it incredible that a decision has been made to split this centre in two. Apparently there are normally about 80 students at the Centre, which is not very many. Each student attends for about two terms and then moves into the ordinary school system or to a school which has English as a special language as a supplementary course. There are three groups-beginning, intermediate and advanced. If it is split into two we will have two groups of about 40, each with these three small groupings. I would have thought that, in this day and age, the financial realities were such that the economy of scale would be to keep it in one building. If a centre of that sort is split into two it will be more costly to run. I have heard it suggested that in part the Centre will go to a portion of the Woden Valley High School and in part to a portion of the Watson High School. The Watson High School must be one of the saddest things that anyone could see. It has been in difficulties with the removal of asbestos for just on two years. It is in an absolute shambles. How the principal and teachers manage to maintain morale and to run a school in those conditions is just about beyond me. I admire them tremendously for the work they are attempting to do in the most impossible of conditions. To send these students there would be a pity. Watson High School ought to be repaired and brought back to a decent condition. As I have said, what I find incredible is this splitting of the Centre, and splitting the costs just seems remarkable. If the Centre cannot stay at Telopea Park School, and I suggest that it should, at least we should have it in one place so that we do not add enormously to the costs. In other respects in Canberra, in the health area in particular, we have been making an effort to economise. Paediatric services were all moved to the Canberra Hospital so that we could have good paediatric services there. Cancer treatment is based at the Woden Valley Hospital. It seems that, in the health area, there is a concept for a small community such as this to run things in one place and not to split them, but this is not the case in the education system. It is either that or else it just is not being given the priority it ought to have. One suggestion was that the Centre is really run for diplomats. That, of course, is absurd. I think there are about 13 members of the diplomatic community in the group. Many of them are cooks and employees of embassies and not the diplomats themselves. In any event, if they are going to be in Australia for several years they need some assistance with their language. It seems to me to be a decision that has been made not with the best interests of the Introductory English Centre at heart. I suggest that this matter should be re-examined, firstly with a view to the Centre staying at Telopea Park and, secondly, that it should at least be in one place and not split into two. For the benefit of these students, for the company and companionship they can give to each other, and for a whole range of reasons, I think that is the appropriate course. I ask the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who is at the table, whether he will allow me to incorporate in Hansard documents he has not seen. The first is a letter written by the Secretary of the Friends of the Introductory English Centre to the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), dated 26 November, and sets out the resolutions of a meeting. The second is a letter from Mrs Valerie Smith to the Minister for Education, dated 20 November. The third is the text of a telegram from the Indo-China Refugees Association, also to the Minister for Education, in which views are expressed as to why this change should not occur. If the Minister agrees, I would like to incorporate these documents in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- FRIENDS OF THE INTRODUCTORY ENGLISH CENTRE Telopea Park School, BARTON A.C.T. 2600 26 November, 1985 Senator the Hon. Susan Ryan, Minister for Education, Parliament House, CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Ryan, At a special meeting of the Friends of the Introductory English Centre held today, it was unanimously agreed: 1. That members wholeheartedly support the decision taken by the Staff of the Centre that the present buildings in Barton should be retained for the Introductory English Centre; 2. That any move away from this location would seriously disadvantage present and future students and be detrimental to their educational program; 3. That accommodation be increased by the alteration of some buildings and/or use of demountables, and that toilet facilities be upgraded; 4. That members deplore the lack of community consultation prior to the reported ministerial decision; 5. That the Minister be requested to reverse the decision-as all the educational submissions support the retention of the Centre as a single unit, physically separate from (but philosophically attached to) the Telopea Park School, and with easy access to that host school's facilities; 6. That the suggestion of alternative accommodation within two high schools is unacceptable; 7. That alternative accommodation be sought for the School of Music. Yours sincerely, FUSIEUKOWSKI Secretary Friends of the Introductory English Centre 15 Hann Street, Griffith A.C.T. 2603 20 November, 1985 Senator the Hon. Susan Ryan, Minister for Education, Paraliament House, Canberra A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Ryan, THE INTRODUCTORY ENGLISH CENTRE TELOPEA PARK SCHOOL It is now no longer a secret, discussed behind closed doors, that the School of Music has made a bid for the use of the buildings housing the Introductory English Centre at Telopea Park School, Barton. The purpose of this letter is to ask why the School of Music, which has its own multi-million dollar purpose-built building, has reached the exalted state of achieving a ministerial decision (which will result in the ousting of probably the most important educational programme currently operating in the ACT) and to examine some of the options which should have been the subject of community consultation long before a ministerial decision was made. I am a member of the Friends of the Introductory English Centre at Telopea Park School. We have supported the Centre for many years-emotionally, physically and philosophically-because we care about what happens to the new settlers who come to this city. We believe in the well-espoused philosophy of the Centre and are proud of its success. Are we to see all this routed? Are we to see the already advantaged gain more advantages, and the already disadvantaged again disadvantaged by upheaval and disruption? I put it to you that there are many people in the community who will condemn such an action, which is ill-conceived and perpetrated with indecent haste and lack of thought for the community which is affected by such a decision-ultimately the whole of the ACT, in fact. I acknowledge that a decision re accommodation must be made . . . but for the Centre . . . not the music school. Our numbers are increasing-such is the measure of the Centre's success. I am informed that several options have been presented to the decision-makers and I propose to examine them-from my point of view: Option 1: Retain the buildings for the Introductory English Centre, with its `attachment' to Telopea Park School. Advantages: Obvious-retention of the Centre's character, ease of access, lack of disruption etc. Requirements: Demountables and plumbing work. Option 2: Division of the Centre and re-location-north and south. (Whoever suggested this must be living in the dark ages). A large proportion of our students come already from divided countries, divided families. They have already suffered dislocation and re-location-and now the spectre of separation or partition. This is unthinkable. Are our students to be shuffled around again? This will perpetuate the flotsam and jetsam attitude which exists in the minds of some backward-thinking Australians. Option 3: Re-location in a proper school building? What about a purpose-built school for our students? Our numbers are (and will be) as large or larger than some of the small schools in and around Canberra . . . centrally located, of course. Failing this, I urge you to consider (after consultation with those of us in the community who know about these things) the possibility of a dignified re-location. By that I mean where there is no danger of a ghetto-where the numbers of ``Aussie'' versus ``others'' could be equal. Where all students can come together with a ``one-school'' philosophy (as now exists at Telopea). To re-locate our students at the end of a corridor in a school which has several hundred socially-integrated students thundering around at the other end of the corridor would be a cruel and inhumane decision. You, Senator, as a former teacher would know exactly what I mean. I will also take this opportunity to draw you attention to the commitment of the Australian Labor Party as set out in the Platform Constitution and Rules, 1984 regarding education in the wide community sense as under: Page 52-8 Education-A Objectives Labor believes education should ``. . . Develop respect for the equal rights of all people, their essential humanity, their language and culture, and actively remove discrimination based on ethnic origin, race, sex, age, religion, political belief or economic circumstance.'' ``. . . Provide funding to enable a breadth of education provision in keeping with the principle of equality of educational opportunity and the goal of more equal educational outcomes across the community and the *principle of need''. (*my emphasis). Page 54-B The role of the Australian Government . . . ``Accordingly, a Labor Government will . . . 3 Give priority when assisting both government and non-government schools to those which are disadvantaged . . .''. Page 58-F Primary &Secondary Education . . .``The need to give priority to action to overcome all forms of educational disadvantage, including those resulting from socio-economic or ethnic background, gender, disability or isolation.'' Page 61-H Ethnic and Multi-cultural Education A Labor Government will-``. . . 50 Recognise and support the special needs of minority groups, refugees and recent arrivals.'' Senator, I question the advice that has been given to you from some quarters. I don't think, from my information, that this advice has been even-handed. The Platform statements above just touch on the sensitivity of the issues raised earlier in my letter. Much more remains to be said. In conclusion, I am most disappointed that the lack of community consultation has made, yet again, a mockery of the spirit and the letter of the A.C.T. Schools Authority philosophy of community involvement and participation in decision-making, so loudly trumpeted over the last eleven years. I await your reply. Yours sincerely, Valerie Smith (Mrs) Senator Susan Ryan, Minister of Education, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT Strong rumours circulating regarding the future of the Introductory English Centre Telopea Park. Community consultation imperative before decision made. Splitting the centre not advisable. Community backlash likely. Solution to present overcrowding and apparent rumoured resumption of current premises by school of music could be utilisation of facilities at Watson High. Repeat consultative meeting with interested parties imperative. Request your immediate attention to convene such a meeting. Marion Le President of the Indo China Refugees Association (A.C.T.) Senator REID —I thank the Senate. The letters speak for themselves. I could go on but I see no point in doing so. I hope that this decision will be reviewed. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.37) —Tonight I wish to speak again on the question of human rights and apartheid. As I have done previously, I would like to extend the debate about apartheid from the singular attention to one area of the world to broader attention to other areas of the world where the deprivation of human rights and the practice of apartheid are to be identified and abhorred. I wish to talk about the Ahmadi people of Pakistan and what has been happening there. The United Nations Economic and Social Council, in a report dated 27 August 1985 relating to the Commission on Human Rights and the situation in Pakistan, said in a resolution: 1. Expresses its grave concern at the promulgation by Pakistan of Ordinance XX of 28 April 1984 which, prima facie, violates the right to liberty and security of the persons, the right to freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention, the right to freedom of thought, expression, conscience and religion, the right of religious minorities to profess and practise their own religion, and the right to an effective legal remedy; 2. Further expresses its grave concern that persons charged with and arrested for violations of Ordinance XX have been reportedly subjected to various punishments and confiscation of personal property, and that the affected groups as a whole have been subjected to discrimination in employment and education and to the defacement of their religious property; 3. Requests the Commission on Human Rights to call on the Government of Pakistan to repeal Ordinance XX and to restore the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all persons in its jurisdiction; 4. Alerts the Commission on Human Rights of the situation in Pakistan which is one with great potential to cause a mass exodus, especially of members of the Ahmadi community. I ad lib that I understand, from other documents in my possession, that that could amount to something in the region of three million to four million people who may be subjected to pressure for a mass exodus from Pakistan as a result of the measures that have been taken in Ordinance XX and other measures. Lest anybody should think that no deliberate action is being taken in Pakistan, I quote from a statement made by General Zia-Ul-Haq in London in August 1985. He said, in reference to the Qadiani group of the Ahmadis: It is a matter of great pride for the Muslims of South Asia, that they have successfully exposed the miguided beliefs of the founder of the Qadiani movement, and firmly thwarted the attempt to spread the heretical claim of Zilli or Bruzi Nabi by him, or his claim as Jesus Christ or a re-incarnation of the Prophet. In the last few years, in particular, the Government of Pakistan has taken several stringent administrative and legal measures to prevent the Qadianis from masquerading as Muslims, and from practising various Shaure-Islami. We will Insha' Allah, persevere in our effort to ensure that the cancer of Qadianism is exterminated. I wish to emphasise the horror of those words. This is from President Zia of Pakistan, who says that his Government has taken stringent administrative and legal measures to ensure that the free practise of a religion and the freedom, the human rights, of a section of the community of Pakistan are to be exterminated. I emphasise the word `exterminated'. I refer to some of the other material available in relation to this matter, including a letter written by the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) dated 6 May 1985, to Mr Phillip Ruddock, in which he said: Thank you for your letter of 18 March concerning the situation of Ahmadis in Pakistan. I am aware of the problems that have been faced by the Pakistani Ahmadi community, particularly since the introduction of laws which effectively restrict their religious freedom. The apparent violations of the human rights of the Ahmadi community have been raised by the Australian Embassy in Islamabad with the Pakistan authorities and Australia's concern at the situation has been made known. He goes on to refer to particular aspects of this matter. We are not talking about a few hundred people, we are not talking about a few thousand people; we are talking about millions of people-millions of people in this world whose human rights and liberties, whose freedoms, have been restricted and, if we accept some of the evidence submitted to us, who are being tortured and killed because of their religious beliefs. Some of the information provided by the Ahmadiya Muslim Association of Australia cites numerous examples of cold-blooded murder taking place in Pakistan according to what is alleged to be a set plan. Yet not a single instance of any real or even apparent redress has been attempted by the Government. Not a single perpetrator of these crimes against humanity has been arrested, let alone brought to any court of justice. Those identified as having been murdered in Pakistan were the leading people in the Ahmadi community, and the list of atrocities, of mass arrests, of torture, of dismissal from jobs, of arson and demolition of Ahmadi mosques and property, of confiscation of Ahmadi-owned property and the detail of admission into educationed institutions of Ahmadi children is a long and gruesome list, according to what has been said. I challenge some of those people in this country, and in this Parliament, who have expressed their concern in relation to human rights in some sectors of the community to extend their thoughts to some of the other sectors of the community in which human rights are being violated-and being violated in the most extensive, gruesome and bloodthirsty way imaginable, it is so easy for us and for the world media to ignore these things. I notice that there is not one representative of the media here tonight to listen to what I have to say. There is not a single soul in that gallery which is supposed to report this Parliament. Senator Walsh —They are showing good judgment. Senator PETER RAE —Senator Walsh says that they are showing good judgment. I thank him for his contribution because he has shown that he does not care about the violation of human rights any more than apparently the media of Australia cares about it when it is not fashionable, when it is not trendy to be one of those who are kicking somebody who is regarded by the world as a violator of human rights at a time when a huge amount of violation of human rights is taking place in all sorts of areas in the world. I referred to some recently; I refer to more tonight. The execution of 200 political prisoners in Iran in the past month raised no more than three lines in the Australian Press. Of the order of 200,000 people are kept in detention as political prisoners in Vietnam, and that has raised not a word in the Australian Press, nor has the fact that millions of people in Afghanistan have been displaced and hundreds of thousands of people in that country have been killed as a result of a cruel and unwarranted invasion by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. What does Senator Walsh say? He says that the Australian media are showing good sense by staying away from a discussion on these matters, and his attitude is to say: `Let's forget it; let's not worry about what is happening in relation to human life around the world; let's forget about the violations of human rights and just sit and worry about ourselves'. That is a condemnation of this Government-a government which is so selective about who it picks out as being the goodies and the baddies. Let us be a little more broad in our identification of what human rights are all about and of who are the violators and where we should be directing our attention. Let us broaden our spectrum. That is all I ask of this chamber. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(10.49) —In discussing today with a number of people the nature of the speech I intended to make tonight several of them cautioned me not to make it. They gave me two reasons, the first of which is not particularly attractive. I was told that if I made a speech that was critical of media coverage of items raised in the Senate and of Senate standing committees, that speech might be reported but no other speech that I made for some considerable time would be. That is an unsatisfactory reason for not making the speech, firstly because I do not really regard myself as having got a lot of coverage anyway, so I am in a no-loss position; I have nothing to lose. Secondly, it seems a reasonably timid attitude for any member of parliament to take-that he or she will adjust the nature of his or her speech on the basis of whether or not it will get media coverage. I discarded that negative and that left me free to proceed. The second negative that was offered was that I would have to show some caution in making this speech so as not to pre-empt in any way the report of one of the Senate's standing committees. I sought advice on this matter and I am confident that in making this speech I will not be doing that in any way. The nature of the speech relates to a public meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations which was held here on Monday and in particular to the media coverage that was given to it. Honourable senators present may well remember some complaints being made after meetings of the Estimates committee that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation had not been forthcoming about particular pieces of information. The piece that caused so much controversy was the question of Geraldine Doogue's pay. This caused so much fuss that a reference was given to the Finance and Government Operations Committee. The exact terms of reference were: Whether the claim by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that certain information should not be available to Senate Estimates Committee C, on the ground of commercial confidentiality, is justified. That was the reference that was given to the Committee. It was not asked to find out Miss Doogue's salary. A public meeting was held on Monday and a number of people came to give evidence. A number of journalists attended and sat through the entire proceedings. The following day there were a number of reports of these proceedings. There were two in the Sydney Morning Herald, one on the front page with the headline `Geraldine's salary to stay an ABC secret'. Accompanying it was a reasonably amusing cartoon by Tandberg in which a number of people were sitting behind a desk saying `How much is Geraldine Doogue being paid?' The response from the ABC is `You're the Estimates Committee'. I can see that that is not a bad front page article if one wants to create some amusement and appeal to the sorts of people who have a desperate desire to know what Geraldine Doogue was paid at the time the question was asked. Further into the paper-and I am not sure what page this was on-in the `Stay in Touch' column there was a quite amusing report of one question that was asked in the Committee at about 5 o'clock. The question got such an extraordinary answer from the ABC-it was one of the best pieces of jargon that I have ever come across-that I can understand why the Sydney Morning Herald chose to report it. It reported the ABC's answer on the difference between a `frozen' and a `melted' position. I will not labour the point by going into it but the Sydney Morning Herald also reported the ABC's answer to the difference between `substantively occupied, but physically vacant' and `substantively and physically vacant' positions. In my opinion those are pieces of ABC no-speak. I give full credit to the Sydney Morning Herald for reporting that aspect of the Committee in that context. In the Age of the same day on page 3 under the heading `One ABC forgets about the other' there was a similar report of the same jargonistic sort of answer that was given to these questions that were asked quite late in the Committee's sitting. I have no complaint with the reports about the jargonistic answers that were given by the ABC, but I do have some complaint about the front page article of the Sydney Morning Herald that was headlined `Geraldine's salary to stay an ABC secret.' In my view the headline on that article, its placement in the paper and the text of the story very clearly gave the impression to people who would not know the ins and outs of parliamentary practice in Senate standing committees that there was a Senate standing committee which had been given the job of finding out Miss Doogue's salary-a pathetic enough job to be given in the first place. It also made quite clear that if that was the task, the Committee was not successful in that task. My complaint is that that is a gross misrepresentation of the task of that Committee and it does the Senate no good and it does the reputation of Senate standing committees no good at all. I know that I am repeating myself but I seek to make the distinction again between the articles that referred to the jargonistic no-speak sorts of answers in a public meeting which deserved reporting in that context and this particular article on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald. It is quite clear from the reference that I have read out that this Committee had a quite serious task. The rise in Government expenditure is constantly criticised by taxpayers, who constantly claim that their money is being wasted. Senator Walsh, who looks as if he is asleep, is one of the people who frequently agrees that public money is being wasted. I would have thought that it would have been of interest to the media to pursue full and reasonable reporting of a committee that was trying to get to the bottom of whether a big statutory organisation such as the ABC could get out of its accountability to parliament. Senator Peter Rae —How many million dollars does it spend-$400m? Senator VANSTONE —As my colleague says, it spends millions and millions of dollars. It is not as if this Committee was handled in a boring way. The journalists were not asleep and the Committee was very well run. Some very good questions were asked and there were good and serious things that could have been reported, not just by the Sydney Morning Herald but by whoever else was there. I will not go through the full details of the evidence that was given to that Committee, because I would be here all night telling honourable senators so many things that could have been reported. I will just present a few of them. The ABC offered the information that it has in the vicinity of 50 contracts with people, not for personal service, but for services rendered. In the current debate about tax reform and tax evasion, that raises serious questions for someone-whether a statutory organisation should, as a matter of practice, arrange its contracts with people in such a way that they are able to minimise their tax. I express no view on that matter other than to say I would have thought that the media should present a view on it. Senator Peter Rae —Senator Walsh might have a view about it. Senator VANSTONE —As Senator Peter Rae says, Senator Walsh might have a view on it. The second aspect that perhaps should have had some coverage in my view is the matter that was disclosed once again towards the end of this meeting and that was that in Miss Doogue's contract-I think I am right in saying her contract is not for personal service but for services rendered-there is a non-disclosure clause. The knowledge of that raises two other serious matters that could well have been reported. In my view the public should know and deserve to know about them. Those two matters are these: First, given that it is the case that the contract of employment that occasions Miss Doogue to do whatever she does with the ABC has a non-disclosure clause in it, why did not somebody say that at the Estimates committee meeting? There were a number of ABC people there who well knew this information at the time. I suggest that had they disclosed it then and there it would have saved a lot of people a lot of time and bother. It might have given the Finance and Government Operations Committee a more specific reference or a different reference from the one it has now. That aspect deserves some reporting. The other aspect of there being a non-disclosure clause in this contract and in others raises a much more fundamental question. Given that we believe that statutory authorities should be accountable to parliament, to what extent will the Parliament permit them, by signing contracts with non-disclosure clauses in them, to contract out of their responsibility to parliament. If the ABC can do it with Miss Doogue, the ABC can do it with the supply of glide-on clips and anything else it wishes to purchase. It is something that can be done not only in the employment of individual people. I could go on, but I hope that I have made my point. When I say that I am distressed with the media coverage of this aspect, I should add that if anyone said to me: `What do you mean by `the media'? ', I would have to say: `I do not know.' I do not know who is responsible for these serious matters not being reported. I am not suggesting that it is the journalists; it might be a sub-editor or someone above that. I have absolutely no understanding of the hierarchy within newspapers; I do not know who is responsible. All I am saying is that the Senate has addressed some serious matters in a public meeting and the media has chosen to give it only flippant coverage, and the Senate should be annoyed about that. Other journalists or people in other occupations within the media should be annoyed about that. There is plenty of opportunity in reporting Parliament, particularly the Senate, for very good investigative journalism, of which we see so little. Perhaps it is because of economic times or management policies of newspapers, television and radio, that journalists are not given the time to undertake the tasks of which they are capable. The point with which I wish to leave the Senate tonight is that a serious matter of accountability to the Senate is being debated. We are all proud of the work that the estimates committees can do and the best coverage of the job that one of those committees did went under a headline `Geraldine's salary to stay an ABC secret'. I think that is disgraceful. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.02) —I support what Senator Peter Rae has said in the adjournment debate on two occasions in recents times-firstly, when he referred to the slaughter that is going on in Afghanistan, perpetrated on the unfortunate people in that country by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Tonight, Senator Rae referred to what he termed apartheid in Pakistan. Senator Peter Rae —Four million people. Senator JESSOP —Four million people are involved in Pakistan and millions of people throughout the world are being slaughtered. Even in Zimbabwe at the present time, which has been established as a Marxist government with the support of many countries, the notorious Fifth Brigade, which is a North Korean communist-trained army establishment, is currently killing black people. I refer briefly to the question of South Africa. I know that my colleague Senator Puplick has an interest in that. We are all anti-apartheid people. I have tried to demonstrate that there is a way to encourage peaceful evolution with respect to the dismantling of apartheid in that country. I had the temerity to write to the President of the Republic of South Africa some time ago. In more recent times, I wrote to the South African Foreign Minister, Mr Botha and the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on that particular subject. I refer briefly to some of the points I have made. I have spoken to the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) about incorporating some of these letters and replies in Hansard and he has agreed to that. I wrote to the South African Foreign Minister on 6 August this year. Among other things, I said: The impression that Australians are receiving through the media, whether accurate or not, is that the South African Government is imposing a state of emergency, seen in some reports as being necessary, but that it does not appear to be consulting with responsible black leaders on future reforms. Your President, Mr Botha, in his well publicised speech to the NP Natal Congress in Durban stated that his Government is committed to peaceful reform and consultations with moderate black leaders. This point, and many other progressive statements, were not featured to any extent by the Australian media. Whereas in South Africa such statements may have been highly significant, the well-known tactic of raising expectations, as stated by the President, did succeed in making these progressive statements appear insufficient. Certainly the Australian press has described his speech as mere rhetoric with no immediate hope for the black population. However, the Australian public would be highly receptive to the news that the South African Government had begun a process of consulting with moderate black leaders. A well publicised statement that the Government is prepared to discuss reform options with moderate black leaders even before law and order has been completely restored would certainly place the ball in the court of those violently opposed to your Government. May I stress that, as a supporter of peaceful reform in South Africa, it would be a great pity, and possibly a disaster, if the majority of moderate blacks and their leaders were gradually removed from a position of having potential influence in the process of peaceful reform through any lack of Government commitment to undertake negotiations with those moderates at the earliest possible time. Admittedly, I comment, with respect, as an outsider who is not aware of any process of ongoing consultations or of the true feelings of the majority of blacks. I offer these Australian impressions in a constructive way and hope you will view them as coming from a concerned follower of South African affairs. My support, for your intention to pursue the course of peaceful reform both in the Australian Parliament and through the Australian media would be greatly assisted if you could inform me that your Government is addressing the critical issues of the Group Areas Act, the pass laws, arrest without charge, and accomodation of Blacks with respect to legislative consultation at a Federal level. I realise that, as in all parts of Africa, the concept of one vote-one value is impossible. Senator Grimes —Just like Queensland and Western Australia? Senator JESSOP —Just like any part of Australia. The letter continues: . . . and would result in an adverse effect on the quality of life of the black population and would be counter productive to all South Africans. I made that constructive attempt to try to encourage the acceleration of peaceful reform in that country. That letter was written on 6 August this year. On the same day, I wrote to the President of the United States of America. Senator Grimes —I thought you were going to incorporate these. Senator JESSOP —I will, but I want to refer to them briefly. I want the honourable senator to read it when it gets into the Hansard, and if he does not, I will make more speeches on it. Firstly, I said something about the President's health and that I hoped he had a speedy recovery. I will incorporate the full text of the letter in Hansard, but I then said: I believe you are quite correct in your judgment that trade sanctions and disinvestment would cause great hardship among the Black South Africans and the foreign black people currently working in that country, largely as a result of international companies operating in South Africa, particularly those from the United States. Although I am opposed to the policy of apartheid, I am of the firm view, having visited there twice, that progressive reform is taking place and that this has accelerated quite remarkably in recent years. It is also a fact that U.S. companies have acted, and will continue to act, as catalysts for change. I believe that these companies will contribute to a further acceleration in future changes that are required to be made by the South African Government. I went on to say that Chief Buthelezi and Mr Rajbansi, the Indian representative Chairman of the Minister's Council, supported that concept. I drew attention to the fact that disinvestment in South Africa would create problems and jeopardise the jobs of over 750,000 black South Africans and about 1 1/2 million foreign black workers from neighbouring states. I commented that it is necessary that the South African Government move quickly to deal with the accommodation of black political aspirations, the eradication of the apartheid system in legislation-which already has been done anyway-and the abandonment of the system of detention without trial. That letter was written on 6 August. On 13 September I received a letter back from the office of the United States Secretary of State, which is a darned sight quicker than some of the responses I get from the Australian Government. The letter, written and signed by Chester Crocker, says, referring to the President: I am writing on his behalf to thank you for your good wishes following his recent hospitalization . . . Concerning trade sanctions against South Africa, the Administration shares your belief that sanction-type initiatives to discourage investment are inconsistent with both U.S. foreign policy objectives and strategy concerning South Africa. We believe that the United States and other Western nations should develop rather than withdraw our influence, and be prepared to use it. We will continue to voice clearly, in public and in private, our strong convictions about racism and the denial of basic human rights in South Africa. At the same time, we intend to continue our programs in South Africa concerning education and training which build rather than destroy. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Assistant Secretary of State Washington Sept. 13 1985 Dear Senator Jessop: Thank you for your letter to the President of August 6 regarding U.S. policy in South Africa. I am writing on his behalf to thank you for your good wishes following his recent hospitalization. The President deeeply appreciates your kind sentiments. Concerning trade sanctions against South Africa, the Administration shares your belief that sanction-type initiatives to discourage investment are inconsistent with both U.S. foreign policy objectives and strategy concerning South Africa. We believe that the United States and other Western nations should develop rather than withdraw our influence, and be prepared to use it. We will continue to voice clearly, in public and in private, our strong convictions about racism and the denial of basic human rights in South Africa. At the same time, we intend to continue our programs in South Africa concerning education and training which build rather than destroy. Thank you for your interest and concern with South Africa. With kind regards. Sincerely, Chester A. Crocker The Honourable Donald S. Jessop, Senator for South Australia, Parliament of Australia, The Senate, Adelaide, South Australia I wrote to the Rt Hon. Margaret Thatcher on 25 October this year in similar terms. I seek leave to have that letter incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Rt Hon. Margaret Thatcher, MP; No. 10 Downing Street, London SW1 A My Dear Prime Minister, I write to you as a Senior Liberal Party Senator in the Australian Parliament, who has had a long interest in South Africa, and who understands and appreciated the complexity of the problems which the Government of the Republic faces. Although I oppose the policy of apartheid, I am of the firm view that progressive reform is taking place, and that this has accelerated quite remarkably in recent years, although not at the speed many demand from within and outside South Africa. I also believe that sanctions, if they could be applied effectively to South Africa, would harm that country and many others. The first people to suffer would be 750,000 black South African industrial workers, and a further 1,250,000 blacks from other States working in South Africa, as it is clear that multi-national disinvestment would follow. I wish, therefore, to express my personal admiration for your steadfastness in resisting the demands of many of the Commonwealth Leaders at CHOGM. Hon. John Howard, MP, Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in Australia, who is opposed to the application of sanctions, has indicated that the Opposition can support the Agreement which was evolved in the Bahamas. Although most Australians deplore apartheid, more than half oppose sanctions (65%) and the severing of sporting ties (81%). Therefore, despite the views expressed by Australians journalists and the Australian Governments, a majority of Australians applaud your actions at CHOGM. Earlier this year, I wrote to President Reagan expressing my support for his policy of `active engagement'. In his response, the President concluded: ``We believe that the United States and other Western nations should develolp rather than withdraw our influence and be prepared to use it. We will continue to voice clearly, in public and in private, our strong convictions about racism and the denial of basic human rights in South Africa concerning education and training which build rather than destroy''. As a friend, I also wrote to the South African Foreign Minister, Mr P. K. Botha, urging him to press his Government to take positive actions in those areas of administration, which Australians find oppressive. In my view, at the time of writing, these were the Group Areas Act, the pass laws, arrest without charge, and lack of the accommodation of blacks with respect to legislative consultation at a Federal level, some of which have already been addressed. There are Australians who believe that `one-man, one-vote, one-value' is the solution to South Africa's problems, but in my opinion, this is an impossibility having regard to the inequality of numbers among the ten Black Tribes, as well as the Coloured and Indian Communities. However, some form of multi-cameral legislature is necessary to protect the rights of the black population, and to satisfy the ambitions of all of the thirteen ethnic groups in that country. I know that you will continue to use your considerable influence on the South African Government and urge them to continue their progressive reform leading to the peaceful dismantling of apartheid. Yours sincerely, DONALD S. JESSOP Senator for South Australia I will read the reply I received, amazingly enough, on 30 October, which again is a demonstration of the efficiency of the governments of the United States and the Tory Government of Britain. The reply is very short. It might be a lesson to the Ministers of this Government that they do not need to go into a lot of rhetorical nonsense in replying. They just have to come to the heart, the nub of the question. The Prime Minister personally wrote: Dear Senator Don Jessop, Thank you for your kind and encouraging letter which I was heartened to receive. I very much agree with you that isolating South Africa is no way to make progress towards the ending of apartheid. I also share your doubts about the feasibility of one-man one-vote in a unitary State. But this is of course a point for South Africans themselves to settle. I am demonstrating that if people in power, people such as the Prime Minister of Australia and the leaders of the Commonwealth countries who met recently, adopted that sort of approach rather than an insignificant person such as me adopting it, I believe it would have a tremendous effect on the South African Government. To appoint people to this so-called eminent persons committee, such as the recent appointment of a Nigerian fellow-I will tell honourable senators later on about the record of human rights in Nigeria-is appalling and, in my view, does not contribute to a peaceful-- Senator Peter Rae —Is he of the same objectivity as the squire of Nareen? Senator JESSOP —I think even Mr Fraser would be appalled by the appointment as co-chairman of the committee of this gentleman from Nigeria. The Minister's eyes are open; I think I am starting to interest him. I refer briefly to the letter I received on 4 November from the Foreign Minister in South Africa. Senator Walsh —You didn't write to Molotov as well, did you? Senator JESSOP —I might do that. Senator Puplick —I think that was one of Senator Walsh's Party colleagues. Senator JESSOP —Senator Puplick points out that it would be interesting to get some comment from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which is spending millions of dollars on Cuban mercenaries. I learnt recently, in regard to the wheat we supply to Ethiopia, that a ship drew into the port of Adab the other day, and two Russian ships were discharging light artillery and Cuban troops. I have written to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and asked him what is happening to the wheat we are sending there. I believe that, rather than going to fill the stomachs of the unfortunate people who are starving, the wheat is sustaining the Cuban mercenaries, supported by Russian artillery and all that sort of thing, who are propping up a dictatorial Government which is oppressing the starving people of that country. Senator Puplick —I bet you don't get a quick reply from Mr Hawke. Senator JESSOP —I have not received one yet. I am anxiously awaiting it. The letter I refer to, which I received on 4 November 1985, said: If more people in influential positions abroad had your perspicacity in evaluating the situation in South Africa, we would have less to contend with in our efforts to ensure justice and equality for all in this country. No other country is faced with problems as complex, as sensitive, as emotional or as so potentially dangerous as those confronting the diverse South African leadership. And yet we are expected to come up with a solution overnight. The Commonwealth gives us six months to produce results the adequacy of which it will determine and the prospect of further punitive sanctions is held in the offing if we do not provide satisfaction. The letter goes on to enunciate the actions that have already been taken, Senator Peter Rae —Who is the co-chairman? Senator JESSOP —The co-chairman of the eminent group? Senator Peter Rae —Yes. Senator JESSOP —The Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser. Senator Peter Rae —No, who is the other one? Senator JESSOP —I cannot pronounce his name. Senator Puplick —It is General Obasanjo. Senator JESSOP —I thank the honourable senator for his help. Senator Peter Rae —Tell us about him on human rights. Senator JESSOP —I will tell honourable senators about him later. There is a long list and it would take me half an hour to spell out the deprivation of human rights in Nigeria for which that man is responsible. Senator Peter Rae —Give us a brief summary. Senator JESSOP —I would prefer to do that at a later time, because I know that the Minister is anxious to go to bed. The South African Foreign Minister lists a few of the areas where reform providing for the removal of discrimination has taken place or is under way. He says that sport has been opened to all races. In regard to labour he says that a modern, sophisticated trade union system has been opened to all races and job reservation removed. He says that the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act has been repealed and that the offensive racial provisions of the Immorality Act have been repealed. He goes on to list the actions that have already been taken for which the South African Government has been given very little credit, if any to all. There is now full participation of all black people and all other communities in local government. He states that parity for all population groups in education is the declared objective and action to this end is under way. The Minister then lists a political program which provides for a united South Africa, a common citizenship for all South Africans, black and white, coloured and Asian, living within South African borders and a system of universal franchise within the structures chosen jointly by South Africans. I will not go on much further, because it is an 11-page letter. At the bottom of page 3 the letter states: In short, the door is wide open, for the first time in our history, to the achievement through negotiation of a political dispensation in South Africa which could satisfy the political aspirations of all the country's communities. I seek leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard. I hope that honourable senators will read it with some interest. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS Private Bag X152 Union Buildings Pretoria 0001 Tel 4 November 1985 Dear Senator Jessop Thank you for your letter of 6 August 1985. I have read it and your letter of 27 May to Ambassador Bastiaanse in Canberra with much interest. I should also wish to express our appreciation for the letter which you wrote to President Reagan on 28 August 1985. If more people in influential positions abroad had your perspicacity in evaluating the situation in South Africa, we would have less to contend with in our efforts to ensure justice and equality for all in this country. No other country is faced with problems as complex, as sensitive, as emotional or as so potentially dangerous as those confronting the diverse South African leadership. And yet we are expected to come up with a solution overnight. The Commonwealth gives us six months to produce results the adequacy of which it will determine and the prospect of further punitive sanctions is held in the offing if we do not provide satisfaction. Internal considerations have always provided the predominant reasons for reform in South Africa. Positive international involvements have helped this process. The same cannot, however, be said of punitive actions. Indeed such actions have aggravated our problems in promoting reform. What have we already achieved in this respect? We have publicly rejected political domination by any one community of any other; the exclusion of any community from the political decision-making process; injustice or inequality in the opportunities available for any community; racial discrimination and impairment of human dignity. And we have already repealed or amended legislation which is not reconcilable with these ideals or given notice of intention to repeal or amend such legislation. We have launched investigations of other legislation or practices which might seem to us to be out of keeping with these principles. May I list a few of the areas where reform, providing for the removal of discrimination, has taken place in recent years or is underway: Sport: Opened to all races; Labour: Modern, sophisticated trade union system opened to all races; job reservation removed; Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act: Repealed; Immorality Act: Offensive racial provisions repealed; Immigration: Provisions providing for White immigration only to be repealed; Influx Control and Pass Laws: President's Council's recommendation for phasing out, under sympathetic consideration for action during next Parliamentary Session; Constitutional: Asians and Coloureds represented in Parliament; Asians and Coloureds holding Ministerial and Deputy-Ministerial positions in the Government; Public Amenities: Many desegregated-hotels, restaurants, parks, trains, buses; Forced Resettlement: Discontinued; Property Rights for Blacks: Accepted as well as permanency of Black communities in urban areas; Local Government: Full participation of all communities; Education: Parity for all population groups is the declared objective and action to this end is under way. This list is not exhaustive or in any specific order. I include it in this letter simply to indicate that we have not been dilatory in carrying our reform programme forward. In addition we have now also produced a political programme which provides for a united South Africa, a common citizenship for all South Africans, Black and White, Coloured and Asian, living within our borders and a system of universal franchise within the structures chosen by South Africans jointly; provides for the full political participation in government in respect of matters of national concern of all our communities; accepts in other words the principle of power sharing in government in respect of matters of national concern subject only to the principle of the protection of the rights and interests of minorities through group autonomy; recognises that white domination will disappear in accordance with the principle that no one community should dominate any other; provides for the creation of the structures required to give effect to these principles through negotiation with the leaders of all the communities of this country; spells out that the Government will not prescribe who may represent the other communities or what the agenda will be for the negotiations. In short, the door is wide open, for the first time in our history, to the achievement through negotiaion of a political dispensation in South Africa which could satisfy the political aspirations of all the country's communities. I believe we have a policy and programme which spells out clearly our intention to end inequality between South Africa's ethnic groups. Most of the issues which the international community has raised with us from time to time have been addressed in principle, even to the extent of undertaking to release from prison those who are prepared to renounce violence. There is still much to be done and it will be done but having clearly stated our objectives, we are now focusing our attention on providing impetus to the negotiation process. This is the key to the solution of our problems and it is the impact on this process of the international action against South Africa, which causes serious concern. The situation in South Africa at the moment is sensitive and delicate. The circumstances could hardly be less conducive to the process of negotiation. Any future political dispensation in this country must be the product of negotiation between our communities. We have said that we seek an agreed not an imposed system of constitutional government, and we shall not achieve such a system if we cannot further stimulate the process of negotiation. As it is, Black leaders across the political spectrum are reluctant to come forward and participate publicly in the negotiations. To do so, would place their lives, their family and their possessions at risk. Any action which pushes up the temperature or undermines or threatens our economy or further polarises opinion within the country or serves as an encouragement to any faction or group in its opposition to others, further undermines the climate for negotiation. It is against this background that one must judge the actions of the Commonwealth and the industrialised countries. However well-intentioned they might be, the measures they have imposed against South Africa and their threats of further action, will be interpreted as action against the Government or as support for opposing groups. This is divisive. It is not the way to encourage dialogue within South Africa. I might add that even visits of Church groups (refer your question concerning Archbishop Huddleston), trade unionists, academics and others are proving problematic. Some are ostensibly on fact-finding missions, others are less well-intentioned but all are seen as supportive of one or other faction in this country or simply as anti-government. This is not constructive in present circumstances. Certainly it is no encouragement to the less moderate Black leadership to embark on negotiations. South Africans of all ethnic origins know what is required of them. They know that they have to meet across the table, develop trust and confidence in each other and resolve their differences by means of dialogue and communication. This is not therefore the time for the world to be promoting greater divisions within the country. It should be promoting reconciliation. I felt that it was important that I should spell out to you what our objectives are. You have also raised the issue of detention without trial and police action. In the circumstances in which we find ourselves, the security authorities are obliged to resort to methods which they dislike as much as our friends abroad. Detention without trial is one such device. We believe we have a viable, civilised alternative to violence in this country. Those who go out of their way to frustrate our attempts to promote negotiation between our communities and promote disruption, boycotts, disorder instead, should in our opinion be prevented from doing so. Legitimate opposition is one thing, disruptive action which parallels the actions of the advocates of violence is another. I hope that as the negotiaion process gains momentum, there will be an increasing acceptance of this process as the answer to our problems and that detention without trial will become more and more irrelevant. The confrontation between our security forces and the instigators of violence is unfortunately a feature of any violent situation. The objective of the security forces is purely and simply the maintenance of order but violence leads to confrontation in the course of which scenes are played out which are grist to the mill of television crews. Pure brutality should not occur and an investigating committee has been established which has been mandated to investigate each and every allegation of unacceptable action on the part of our security forces. Nonetheless, the international media is having a field day in South Africa at the moment given the nature of the disturbances in the Black towns and the savage methods employed by radicals to coerce moderate Blacks into rejecting negotiations and joining their ranks. The coverage overseas has been shockingly negative but we simply have to try to contain the violence which is being deliberately instigated. I cannot conceive of more adverse circumstances, given also the pressure from abroad, in which to get the negotiating process moving forward more rapidly. The recently announced limitation on television and camera crews in the districts in which security measures apply are not intended to prevent the world from knowing what is happening in this country. On the contrary, accredited journalists are able to work in the areas concerned and to report on events there. The mere presence of TV cameras has served as a stimulus for violence which has led to the loss of lives and the destruction of property. There have been numerous, well documented instances where violent actions have commenced only after a sufficient number of television crews had arrived. A distorted picture of South Africa has been portrayed abroad: tunnel vision would be an appropriate way to describe the scenes shown abroad. Overseas viewers get a picture of a country going up in flames which is exactly the perception which the instigators of violence desire overseas viewers to obtain. The over-concentration of, if not, an obsession with violence by visual media to the virtual exclusion of anything else has in the view of the Government encouraged and generated further violence. It is the Government's duty to stem the violence in order to protect lives and property. In many Western countries there is a great deal of pressure for economic sanctions against South Africa. The morality, motivation and objectives of such sanctions are ostensibly two-fold: to coerce the South African government into applying reformists policies and to do this by what are purportedly peaceful means of persuasion In sum, economic sanctions are said to be ``a peaceful alternative to violence'' which are capable of forcing the SA Government to change its policies. This view is based upon two fundamental fallacies. In the first instance, there is the unfounded belief that South Africa will change because of foreign pressure. This is fallacious because, as we have already demonstrated, South Africa is changing. South Africa is changing because the Government is responsive to domestic needs. We have changed because we are conscious of what is right and what is wrong. What we simply cannot accept is that persons who rule over many of the most oppressed and downtrodden people on this Earth should prescribe to us what is right. After all, it is the actions of tyrants, not their abstract prescriptions, that determine the lot of their peoples. Secondly, we are faced with the fallacy that economic sanctions are peaceful instruments of policy. Not only peaceful-but also precise. They supposedly affect only the South African government. No one else gets hurt. Everyone else will somehow benefit. The facts reveal the magnitude of this lie. Sad to say that truth will not always prevail. Be that as it may, the facts bear repeating. Firstly, while there is no doubt that all peoples of South Africa, Black, Coloured, Asian and White would suffer, it is not generally realised that the consequences will, in the first instance, affect the whole Southern African region. The reason is simple. In many respects South Africa is the mainstay of the entire region. Services and assistance provided by South Africa are often the most important stabilising factor in the sub-continent. About 350 000 foreign Blacks are legally employed in the Republic (This figure excludes workers from the independent states of Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei.) These men come from all over Southern Africa. About half of their total earnings is remitted every year. Several of the neighbouring countries derive a substantial proportion of their national income from these remittances. In fact, in 1983 they accounted for more than 50 per cent of Lesotho's gross national product. African families are traditionally large. If it is assumed that each of these 350 000 legal workers support six people at home, it means that nearly 2 million women and children in Southern Africa depend on their menfolk's earnings in South Africa. Foreign Blacks working and living illegally in South Africa far exceed the number of legal guest workers. Their number is estimated at 1, 2 million. These men are unable to find jobs in their own countries. These illegal workers also come from all over the region, but mostly from Mozambique, Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland and Zimbabwe. Many of them also remit funds and support families in their countries of origin providing a livelihood to possibly millions of women and children. The benefits accruing to the neighbouring countries go far beyond quantifiable earnings and contributions to gross national product. Employment of both legal and illegal workers in South Africa relieves the pressure on their labour markets to an enormous extent. This in turn promotes social and political stability in the countries concerned. Owing to worldwide recessionary conditions, unemployment in South Africa has assumed serious proportions, particularly among Blacks. If employment opportunities were to be reduced further by extraneous forces such as sanctions, the Government would be obliged to give preference to the needs of its own citizens in the labour market. This would not be `retaliation', as has been alleged. After all, charity begins at home, even in international exchanges. Public Sector borrowing is a prime target of the sanctions lobby. In debate with the latter, I have invariably come up against the view that such forms of sanctions can be selectively targeted against the S.A. Government alone. Once again, our enemies either do not know the facts or they will not admit to knowing them. The S.A. Government per se is a relatively small international borrower. The two largest public sector borrowers on overseas capital markets are the Electricity Supply Commission (Escom) and South African Transport Services (SATS). The infrastructure and services of both these utilities are indispensable for the economic well-being of a substantial part of Southern Africa. The loans raised by Escom are used to build large new power stations to meet the power needs not only of South Africa but also of several neighbouring states. Escom at present supplies 100 per cent of the electricity used in Lesotho, 79 per cent in Swaziland and approximately 52 per cent in Botswana, as well as 60 per cent of the power used in Maputo, capital of Mozambique. SATS is the undisputed leader in railroading in Africa. It not only runs 24,500 route kilometres of railways (or 25 per cent of Africa's total) but its unrivalled expertise is based on a century of experience of African conditions. South Africa's railways and harbours have long served as a lifeline for most countries in Southern Africa. At least 45 per cent of the combined total imports and exports of Malawi, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Zaire are carried to and from South African ports by SATS. Virtually all imports and exports by Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland are routed through South Africa. The South African postal and telecommunications administration also borrows large amounts on international capital markets for development programmes-for the benefit of both South African and neighbouring states. All Lesotho's and Swaziland's international telecommunications traffic and some of Botswana's is routed through South Africa. Eleven telegraph lines have been extended to Swaziland through the South African system to link that country direct with the United Kingdom. The South African Post Office has established a new microwave system to handle the increasing number of calls to and from Botswana which are routed through South Africa. South Africa is a substantial supplier of credit to Africa. This credit is provided by both the public and private sectors and amounts to some R1,6 billion (T.B.V.C. excluded) at present. South Africa and the so-called BLS counties (Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland) are members of the Southern African Customs Union, the only such union on the African continent. The agreement provides for the free flow of goods among the member states, which levy the same tariffs on goods imported from outside the common customs area. All major ports of entry are in South Africa, which collects the customs duties which are then distributed among the member states. Customs revenues received by these states have increased in proportion to the growth of the South African economy. The greater the flow of imports into Southern Africa, notably South Africa, the higher the amounts accruing to the BLS countries. If the South African economy were to be damaged by sanctions to the extent that the flow of imports were substantially diminished, this most important source of revenue of the BLS countries would be eroded, with serious consequences for the economies of these countries. If the Rand's value should be depressed by sanctions or for reasons other than economic, as has been happening during the past few months, Lesotho and Swaziland, like South Africa, would have to find extra funds to pay back their foreign loans. A depreciation of the Rand also makes their imports more expensive and erodes the value of their foreign reserves held in Rand. All this represents an additional burden on the vulnerable economies of these two countries. Extensive trade relations between South Africa and the rest of Africa have been built up over the years. In 1983 South African exports to Africa amounted to R1 800 million. South Africa supplies the lion's share of imports by Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana- either direct or through South African agents of foreign producers. If sanctions were to be effective, they would undermine South Africa's capacity to supply Southern Africa with vital imports, especially intermediate and consumer goods. Admittedly, alternative sources of supply could be found elsewhere, but these substitutes would be more expensive. Payment for these imports would also tax the frail economies of these countries to the utmost (most suffer from chronic shortages of foreign exchange). Longer delivery times would compound the problem. Many neighbouring states rely on South Africa for their supplies of fuel and petroleum products. If an effective oil embargo were to be imposed on South Africa, this could lead to a sudden and catastrophic cut-off of supplies to a number of neighbouring states. The trouble with economic data is that we lose sight of people. In the bluntest of terms, sanctions are all about jobs, welfare and livelihood. Nowhere is this more true than in Africa. We all know about starvation in Ethiopia. Some know about starvation in Chad. How many know that: almost half of Africa is on the United Nation's emergency food aid list? that an estimated five million children will die of starvation on our continent this year? that Africa's population has increased by ten per cent over the last decade-while food production has decreased by the same amount? That is the background against which the sanctions debate takes place. That is the real problem. Those who advocate sanctions must say what responsibility-if any-they accept for adding to this misery. Will they feed those for whom we may no longer be able to provide? If there are any further aspects on which you might need clarity, please do not hesitate to approach Ambassador Bastiaanse or myself. I appreciate and welcome your constructive approach and the spirit in which you have addressed our problems. Your sincerely R. F. BOTHA Senator Donald S Jessop Commonwealth Parliament Offices 100 King William Street ADELAIDE, S.A. 5000 Senator JESSOP —I thank the Senate and I thank the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) for listening so patiently and with his eyes wide open, because I believe that I have taught him something tonight. I hope that the Government of Australia and the Western world recognise the significance of South Africa, not only to the wellbeing and economic security of the whole of southern Africa but also to the security of the Western world. If Australia comes under threat-I believe this could happen if this Government takes any notice of our colleagues the Australian Democrats and listens to them to such a degree that the ANZUS alliance is destroyed-South Africa will be the first cab off the rank to help to protect our Western democratic way of life. That is a very important consideration for the Government and for governments of the whole Commonwealth of nations to recognise. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(11.21) —I rise basically to read an epitaph to an ordinance which has been disallowed by default today, in the sense that a motion by the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances had its last day today and by default, the New South Wales Acts Application Ordinance 1985 No. 25 of 1985, has been disallowed. I wish to make just a few brief points about the history of this disallowance in which I have been involved to some extent. I had also moved a motion for disallowance, but this referred only to section 3 of the ordinance, which was particularly obnoxious. Section 3 of the New South Wales Acts Application Ordinance proposed to repeal certain continued State Acts. Instead of listing the Acts which were to be repealed, it listed the Acts which were to remain in force. Hence, a number of Acts which had applied to the Australian Capital Territory would suddenly have ceased to operate if this Ordinance had been allowed. The Trade Union Act 1881 was one of the Acts that would have been disallowed. The reason why the Ordinance came to my notice was that a certain group of people, the Senior Executives Association, brought it to my notice. I wish to go through briefly the sorry saga which goes back to 18 October 1972. I will do this very briefly, just by referring to the main events in this saga. On 18 October 1972 the Australian Capital Territory Law Reform Commission, chaired by Sir Richard Blackburn, brought down its report on the Acts in force in the Australian Capital Territory. The report took some two years to be published, and it was published in 1974. The report stated that it was certain that sections 1 to 5 of the Trade Union Act 1881 would remain in force. However, there was some doubt about registration. The Commission recommended on page 9 of its report that the Act remain in force but be modernised and be replaced by local Australian Capital Territory legislation. The then Department of Labour said that if this legislation were repealed there might be a breach of International Labour Organisation obligations and, hence, that the Act should not be repealed. This advice seems to have been lost somewhere in history. On 28 February 1973 Australia ratified ILO Convention No. 87, Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise 1948 and the ILO Convention No. 98, Right to Organise and to Collective Bargaining 1949. The SEA wished to register under the Trade Union Act 1881 in the Australian Capital Territory. I must point out at this stage that if this Act had been disallowed the Australian Capital Territory would have been the only place in Australia where there was not a means of registration other than that under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. This would have been a severe disadvantage to people in the Australian Capital Territory. On 17 September 1984 the Second Division Officers Association wrote to the then Department of Territories and Local Government to seek confirmation that it was possible to register under the New South Wales Trade Union Act 1881 and to find out what requirements, procedures, costs and obligations were involved. I seek leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard in order to save a considerable amount of time. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- SECOND DIVISION OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION VICTORIAN BRANCH C/O Department of Employment and Industrial Relations 239 Bourke Street Melbourne 3001 Telephone: (03) 652 966 17th September 1985 The Secretary Department of Territories and Local Government G.P.O. Box 15 Canberra, A.C.T. 2601 Dear Sir, The Council of the Victorian Branch of this Association understands that it is possible for a trade union in the Australian Capital Territory to be registered under the provisions of the (Commonwealth) Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, and/or under the provisions of the (New South Wales) Trade Union Act 1881, as adopted by the (Commonwealth) Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909-legislation which it also understands is still in force. If this understanding of the position is correct, and if this matter is your Department's responsibility, I am writing, on behalf of this Council, to seek your advice in relation to the following matters: (1) Confirmation that it is still possible for a trade union in the Australian Capital Territory to be registered under the provisions of the second category of legislation as referred to above. (2) What are the precise requirements that a trade union would have to comply with in order to seek/secure such registration? (3) What are the precise procedures which would have to be followed by a trade union in seeking/securing such registration? (4) What are the imposts which would have to be met by a trade union in seeking/securing such registration? (5) Once registration has been secured are there any on-going obligations and imposts, e.g. annual registration fees. If, however, this matter is not the responsibility of your Department, I should be grateful if you could inform me which Department/Agency of the Commonwealth Government this Council should approach for advice. I look forward to your reply as soon as convenient. Yours faithfully B. J. HODGETTS Honorary Secretary Senator VIGOR —On 11 October 1984, which was just under a month after this letter was written, the draft New South Wales Applications Ordinance 1984 was referred to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. This, in fact, was a draft of the Ordinance to which I referred. On 19 October 1984, a letter was sent by the Second Division Officers Association to remind the Department of Territories and Local Government that it expected a reply. On 30 October, after the reminder letter, the Department of Territories and Local Government sent a letter apologising for the delay. I seek leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Department of Territories and Local Government G.P.O. Box 158, Canberra, A.C.T., 2601 Telephone: (062) 46 2211 Telephone: In reply please quote: Your reference: The Honorary Secretary Second Division Officers' Association Victorian Branch C/- Department of Employment and Industrial Relations 239 Bourke Street Melbourne Vic 3000 Dear Sir I refer to your letter of 17 September 1984 in which you request advice as to which legislation applies in the Australian Capital Territory governing the registration of Trade Unions. I apologise for the delay in replying. At present both the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Commonwealth) and the Trade Union Act 1881 (NSW) apply in the Australian Capital Territory. However the Attorney-General has referred to the House of Assembly a draft Ordinance-the New South Wales Acts Application Ordinance (No. 2) 1984-which, if it is made without amendment, will have the effect of repealing the Trade Union Act 1881 (NSW) in its application in the Territory. Yours faithfully A. G. Cashman for Secretary Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. The letter states: . . . both the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Commonwealth) and the Trade Union Act 1881 (New South Wales) apply in the Australian Capital Territory. The letter refers to the draft ordinance which was set out on 11 October 1984, and the possible repeal of the Trade Union Act. On 30 November 1984-honourable senators will notice the sudden acceleration in bringing forward this Ordinance-application was made for registration and notification of name change in train for the then Second Division Officers Association to become the Senior Executives Association. I seek leave to incorporate that letter. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- THE SECOND DIVISION OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 202 CIVIC SQUARE ACT 2608 The Secretary, Department of Territories and Local Government, GPO Box 158, CANBERRA ACT 2601 Dear Sir, I am writing on behalf of this Association to apply for its registration as a Trade Union in the ACT under the provisions of the NSW Trade Union Act (1881) as adopted by the Commonwealth Seat of Government Acceptance Act (1909). In a letter dated 30 October 1984 your department has advised us that this legislation still applies in the Territory. This Association is in the process of changing its name by plebiscite, to the Australian Government Senior Executives Association. Yours faithfully, D. C. Leaver President 30 November 1984 Senator VIGOR —On 17 December 1984 the Department sought the confirmation of the Attorney-General of its understanding that the Trade Union Act applied and sought advice on the extent to which it applied. The Association was told that if the Act applied it would have to sort out the lines of responsibility and the methods of administration through the Department of Territories and Local Government or the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. I seek leave to incorporate a short letter about that in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Department of Territories and Local Government G.P.O. Box 158, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601 Telephone: (062) 46 2211 Telephone: In reply please quote: Your reference: President The Second Division Officers' Association PO Box 202 Civic Square, A.C.T. 2608 Dear Mr Leaver I refer to your letter dated 30 November 1984, concerning your application for registration as a trade union in the ACT, under the Trade Union Act 1881 (NSW) in its application in the Territory. I have sought confirmation from the Attorney-General's Department of my understanding that the Act applies in the Territory, together with advice upon the extent to which it applies. In the event that the Attorney-General's Department confirms that the Act continues to apply in the Territory, it will be necessary to establish whether responsibility for administration of the Act rests with this Department or with the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. I would suggest, however, that it would be premature to address that question until such time as the Attorney General's Department has advised me of whether the Act does in fact apply. There is, as you are possibly aware, no register of trade unions being maintained under the Trade Union Act 1881 (NSW), and the mechanism by which a trade union might be registered under that Act, if it still applies, does not exist. The problems which this would appear to present however will be examined in due course, if the need arises. I will write to you again concerning your application as soon as I am in a position to offer you any substantive advice. Yours faithfully R. Jones for Secretary 17.12.84 Senator VIGOR —On 15 March 1985 members of the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly Standing Committee on Finance and Legislation recommended that the Trade Union Act be maintained and examined for possible modification and that it be included as an Act to be saved in the New South Wales Acts Application Ordinance. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the relevant record of the Assembly dealing with that. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Motion 1. At its meeting on 23 October 1984 the Assembly referred Message No. U1984/116 from the Minister, to the Committee for consideration and report. The Message requested advice on the proposed New South Wales Acts Application (No. 2) Ordinance 1984. Background 2. This legislation is the second which implements recommendations of the A.C.T. Law Reform Commission's Report on the Review of New South Wales Acts in force in the A.C.T. The first Ordinance was agreed to by the Assembly in May 1984. 3. The Ordinance is a significant A.C.T. Law Reform measure. It clarifies which NSW Acts, and which parts of those Acts, continue to apply in the A.C.T. It aligns the operation of such Acts with subsequent A.C.T. Ordinances and with the institutions which have developed over the years in the Territory. 4. Full details of the provisions are set out in the attached ordinance and Explanatory memorandum; pages 3-6 of the latter provide a comprehensive background statement for the legislation. Committee Consideration 5. The Committee has received representations from the Australian Government Senior Executives Association regarding the N.S.W. Trade Union Act 1881. This NSW Act is proposed for repeal by the Ordinance (see page 23 of the Explanatory Memorandum). The Association has recently applied to the Government for registration as a trade union under the provisions of that Act, and has therefore requested, inter alia, that the Act should not cease in force in the A.C.T.-at least for the time being. 6. The Committee has considered the position of the Association set out in a comprehensive submission, and has received advice from the Attorney-General's Department on this NSW Act, and its present applicability in the Territory. Suffice to say that the matter is very complicated: some intricate aspects of law and policy, touching, possibly, Australian International Treaty obligations, appear to be involved. 7. The Association has advised the Committee that it has no comments on any other parts of the legislation-its difficulties are related only to the proposed repeal of the N.S.W. Trade Union Act 1881, and the consequences this would have for the pursuit of its registration application. Committee Consideration 8. The Committee is satisfied that, if the N.S.W. Trade Union Act 1881 in its application in the Territory, was to be repealed as proposed by the Ordinance, there are grounds to believe that the Senior Executives Association could be seriously disadvantaged by that repeal. The Committee is therefore recommending that the Ordinance should be agreed to, subject to the exclusion from the repeal provisions of the N.S.W. Trade Union Act 1881. This would be accomplished by the inclusion of the Act in Clause 3 (1) of the Ordinance, which lists NSW Acts which are to continue to remain in force in the Territory. 9. The Committee will examine further the question of the repeal of the NSW Trade Union Act 1881, and report on that matter separately at a later date. Conclusion 10. Accordingly, the Committee has concluded that the proposed New South Wales Acts Application (No. 2) Ordinance 1984, be agreed to with the addition of the following words to Clause 3 (1)- add new paragraph (h) ``the Trade Union Act 1881 of the State of New South Wales as amended and in force in the Territory immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance.'' 15 March 1985 Senator VIGOR —On 21 June 1985 the Attorney-General gazetted the New South Wales Acts Application Ordinance 1985. However, the Trade Union Act 1881 was not proposed to be kept. This Act's repeal could have gone unnoticed if the Senior Executives Association had not spotted it and if the explanatory memorandum circulated by Mr Uren to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly had not mentioned it somewhere towards the end. On 19 July 1985 there was a message from the Minister for Territories advising what the attitude of the Attorney-General was towards the Trade Union Act 1881. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly record dealing with this matter. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 30 July 1985 New South Wales Acts Application Ordinance (No. 2) 1984 (Message No. 1985-86) DEPUTY SPEAKER-I report Message No. 86 of 1985 from the Minister relating to the New South Wales Acts Application Ordinance (No. 2) 1984. MR KAINE —I move-That the Message be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Legislation for consideration. This is an extraordinary Minute in more ways that one. Members will recall, as mentioned by the Minister in his Message, that only in March of this year this House recommended to him, and through him to the Attorney-General, that the Trade Union Act of 1881 not be repealed. That was based on the fact that it was known to the Committee that at least one organisation had lodged an application for registration under that Act with the Department of Territories 3 months before it was even proposed that this legislation be repealed. The Department played `ducks and drakes' with the applying association; they could not make up their minds whether it was the Department of Territories or the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations which was supposed to be administering this Act. They acknowledged to the applicant that they had not set in place the machinery to implement it. The Finance Committee, in recommending to the Minister through this House that the Act not be repealed was cognisant of the fact that there was at least one organisation which would be disadvantaged if this repeal was put into place, and we recommend accordingly to the Minister. We also indicated to the Minister that we were subjecting this matter to further investigation. There is a long history to this matter, and if my memory serves me correctly as long ago as 1973 the Law Reform Commission addressed this particular piece of legislation and recommended that it should not be repealed until a more modern piece of legislation was set in place to replace it. The Law Reform Commission recognised that in striking this piece of legislation off the books there would be disadvantage to some groups wishing to register under the Act. We now have this surprising situation, where only 4 months ago this House made its recommendation through the Minister to the Attorney-General that this Act not be repealed. We gave our reasons for it. We said that we had the matter under further consideration and here, on 19 July, the Attorney-General has come back and said that `despite your advice, and with a knowledge that there is an organisation which will be disadvantaged by the repeal of this legislation, we have proceeded to repeal the Act'. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am beginning to wonder what the attitude of this Government really is to the question of civil rights. Here we have an organisation which the Attorney-General knew had lodged an application with the Department under this Act, it had a recommendation from this House that until that matter was resolved the Act not be repealed, and yet the Attorney-General proceeded to repeal the Act. I do not know quite what one can do under these circumstances to protect the interests of people who have a difficulty, and the difficulty stems from a problem of trying to register as a trade union under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act so that the benefits of that Act can be obtained. They were refused such organisation. They discovered that this Act of 1881 still applied in the A.C.T. and that afforded them an opportunity to register, despite the refusal of registration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This avenue that was open to them has now been closed. I submit that it is a travesty for somebody like the Attorney-General to take an action like that without even coming back to discuss the matter with this House in the first place. Through the Finance Committee we have constant discussions with officers of the Attorney-General's Department on different matters of legislation that are under consideration and on which we take advice. At no time since March, has any officer of the Department indicated to us that the Attorney-General intended to repeal this Act. I find it quite curious. I wonder what political motivation was behind the refusal to accept the application from this organisation in the first place, and what political motivation is behind the repeal of this Act knowing that there is an organisation that is going to be disadvantaged by doing so. I submit that the only action available to this House now, is for the Finance Committee to examine it further, as we indicated to the Minister and the Attorney-General that we were doing, and to bring forward for consideration an A.C.T. ordinance to re-introduce the provisions that are relevant in this Act so they would apply in 1985 instead of 1881. Hopefully the Attorney-General will not have the opportunity to block that particular piece of legislation and continue to deny the rights of organisations that are currently disadvantaged. Motion agreed to. Senator VIGOR —At that stage I discussed the matter with Senator Lewis and Senator Coates of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and pointed out that the Ordinance had this very strange clause 3. I moved to disallow only clause 3 because the rest of the Ordinance appeared to be sensible to some degree. The Regulations and Ordinances Committee endeavoured to get the Attorney-General to specify those Acts which had been disallowed in this process. The Attorney-General's Department was unable until two days ago to actually list the Acts which were to be disallowed. This was an enormous problem. Negotiations went on until some time today, which was the last day for disallowance. We tried to get that list of Acts incorporated in a positive way in the Ordinance. Senator Walsh —They don't know all of them. Senator VIGOR —They did not know all of them; that is exactly it. This is a real problem because a number of people could be disadvantaged by this process. In fact the Trade Union Act is one of the Acts. We wished to get that Act added to that to protect the rights of the Senior Executives Association and that was why we were moving a disallowance motion. I am happy to say, having put that story, that I support the fact that the Ordinance has now lapsed due to time and that the whole Ordinance has been disallowed rather than just clause 3, which would have left all the other amendments in place. This has been done by the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee. I believe it is a well deserved disallowance, and I fully support the fact that it has been disallowed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.35 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 28 November 1985: Acts Interpretation Act-Statements relating to extension of specified period for presentation of periodic report-National Library of Australia, report for 1984-85. Canned Fruits Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 314. Christmas Island Act-Ordinance-1985-No. 9-Supreme Court (Amendment). Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act-Ordinance-1985-No. 2-Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment). Fisheries Act-Notice, No. 117C. Members of Parliament (Staff) Act-Report on consultants engaged under section 4 of the Act, for 1984-85. Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 317, 318. Patents Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 316. Quarantine Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 313. Sales Tax Procedure Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 319. Therapeutic Goods Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 312.