Tuesday, 3 December 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: 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 Senator Robertson (from 125 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG, and M rated video-cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of ``X'' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as is duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 11 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 Morris (from 581 citizens) and Robertson (from 153 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 offices accommodation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this petition be considered. by Senator Vigor (from 257 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support `The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of widespread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vigor (from 75 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Government did not honour its promise to consult with veterans before introducing the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should- Oppose any sections of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill which would have the effect of reducing veterans' benefits and particularly that section which seeks to change the onus of proof. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator MacGibbon (from 206 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: 1. In this aging Australian society children are our most precious resource. 2. We request that any changes to the Child Care Act should ensure the protection of these children by providing for quality care by mothercraft nurses or other trained child care professionals. 3. We urge that funding provided under the Child Care Act should ensure the maintenance of the present standards of 75 percent of award wages and conditions for approved child care professionals. 4. We also ask that available child care places be provided according to the needs of the children rather than through restricting access according to the work-related needs of parents. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 537 citizens). Petitions received. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) aware that the private sector has had extreme restrictions imposed upon it with regard to the deductability of hospitality and entertainment expenses; (b) conscious that the Federal Government should treat all Australians in a similar manner; and (c) being sure that the same restrictions that apply to those in the private sector should apply to those who work in the public sector is persuaded that the Ministers should answer the Questions on Notice Nos. 572-579 of Senator Withers, which relate to the amount allocated by each Department and to every statutory authority for which a Minister has authority, for hospitality and entertainment; the guidelines that were in force at 1 September 1985, and the new guidelines, following the Treasurers `Reform of the Australian Taxation System' statement made on 19 September 1985 before the Senate continues with the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1985 which is presently before the Senate in which the severe entertainment restrictions are imposed upon the private sector. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, unless otherwise ordered, the hours of meeting of the Senate on Wednesday, 4 December 1985, be- 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, contingent upon the President proceeding to the placing of business on any day, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Vallentine moving a motion to give precedence over other business to the order of the day relating to a statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on Australia's Foreign Policy Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators and I seek leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. National Agenda for Women-text of a statement by the Prime Minister made in the House of Representatives on 28 November 1985. 2. Australian Overseas Aid Program-text of a statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs made in the House of Representatives on 28 November 1985. 3. Murrumbidgee River in the A.C.T. Region- Government response to the Joint Committee on the A.C.T.-text of a statement by the Minister for Territories. 4. The Future of the Provisional Parliament House-text of a statement by the Minister for Territories made in the House of Representatives on 28 November 1985. 5. The Australian Delegation to the Third NPT Review Conference-report-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs relating to the report. 6. Ageing in a Multicultural Society: the situation of migrants from non-English-speaking countries-report and the supplementary report on aged migrants to Australia-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs relating to the report. 7. Second Regional Radio Network for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation-a discussion paper-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Communications relating to the paper made in the House of Representatives on 28 November 1985. 8. Australian Institute of Sport Internal Audit Review-document-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism relating to the document made in the House of Representatives on 28 November 1985. 9. Medicare Benefits Review Committee-1st Report-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Health relating to the report made in the House of Representatives on 29 November 1985. 10. International Labour Organisation Conference-instruments adopted by the 60th session of the International Labour Conference held in Geneva on 4 June 1975; the 64th session held in Geneva on 7 June 1978; and the 70th session held in Geneva on 6 June 1984-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations relating to the instruments. 11. Response to the first report of the Committee on Procedure-text of a statement by the Special Minister of State. 12. Response to the report of the Committee on Members Interests-text of a statement by the Special Minister of State. 13. Government response to Parliamentary Committee Reports-schedule. 14. Australian code of conduct for Australian companies with interests in the Republic of South Africa-text of a statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. 15. Commissioner of Taxation-Annual Report 1984-85-pursuant to section 14 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and section 3B of the Taxation Administration Act 1953. 16. Nuclear Science and Technology in Australia-report by ASTEC-pursuant to sub-section 6 (2) of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978. 17. Inquiry into superannuation and retiring allowances for holders of public offices-report by the Remuneration Tribunal-pursuant to section 6 of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. 18. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research-annual report 1984-85-pursuant to section 39 of the Australian centre for International Agricultural Research Act 1982. 19. The committee of review into the Australian volunteers abroad program-report. 20. Department of Foreign Affairs-Annual Report 1983-84. 21. Australia/United States-agreements of 2 August 1985 elaborating the agreement between Australia and the United States of America concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy. (Signed 5 July 1979) 22. Export Development Grants Board-Annual Report 1984-85-pursuant to sub-section 41 (4) of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 and sub-section 20 (4) of the Export Expansion Grants Act 1978. Senator Reid —I am wondering whether the Minister can say when the statement of the Minister for Territories relating to a change in government arrangements for the Australian Capital Territory will be brought into the chamber. It was presented by the Minister for Territories to a Press conference yesterday when in fact it could have been brought into the Senate so that the shadow Minister would have had an opportunity to respond. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! This is a question on the composition of the list of papers tabled, is it? Senator Reid —It is not on the list of papers tabled; it was a ministerial statement-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It is not a subject for debate at the moment. The honourable senator has asked her question. Senator Reid —I just want to know what is happening. It is very important to the Australian Capital Territory. It is a matter on which the Federal Parliament has to make a decision. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It is not subject for debate at the moment. Senator Grimes may answer if he wishes. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I realise the very great importance of this to Senator Reid. The Government's intentions were made perfectly clear by the appropriate Minister at a Press conference yesterday. I would not have thought that an unusual procedure. I will determine whether the Minister would like us to put down a statement for Senator Reid's edification and let her know. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.07) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill continues the practice of introducing an omnibus Bill into each sitting of the Parliament as an expeditious way of making a large number of non-contentious amendments. Some of the amendments made by this Bill tidy up, correct and up-date existing legislation. Other amendments are of minor policy significance or are matters of routine administration. Many of the proposed amendments will be self-evident or sufficiently explained by the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill. The Second Reading Speech is, therefore, addressing the more noteworthy changes included in this Bill. I propose, with the leave of the Senate, to have incorporated in Hansard the full text of the Second Reading Speech explaining in detail many of the changes to the various Acts which are to be made by this Bill. AMENDMENTS INCORPORATION ACT 1905 Minor amendments to this Act allow the Government Printer to publish a reprinted Act containing all amendments up to a date specified in the reprint. This will avoid delays in reprinting Acts which at present are required to include amendments to the date of publication. BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 The insertion of a new section 17AA will contribute to administrative efficiency by allowing a Registrar or a Deputy Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia to exercise the powers and perform the functions of a Registrar in Bankruptcy. The new section could apply, for example, during the short term absence of the Registrar in Bankruptcy or where he may have to stand aside in matters that may involve a conflict of interests. The amendment of section 41 removes an anomaly brought to light by the judgment in Re Ikin; Ex parte Ikin v Lamborghini Tractors of Australia Pty. Ltd. (Federal Court, Pincus J., 4 April 1985) where it was held that a valid bankruptcy notice could not be issued where the judgment debt was expressed in a foreign currency. The amendment enables a bankruptcy notice to require payment in a foreign currency or its equivalent in Australian dollars. COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 The amendment provides for the continuation of a definition of ``British subject'' for the purpose of the franchise qualifications. This amendment is required because, when section 7 of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1984 is proclaimed, it will repeal `British subject' status provisions in that legislation. CRIMES ACT 1914 The amendments bring into immediate effect various provisions of the Crimes Act 1914 inserted by unproclaimed provisions of the Crimes Amendment Act 1982 and provides that other provisions are operative, except in relation to the Australian Capital Territory, only where an arrangement has been entered into with a `participating' State or Territory as defined. In the Australian Capital Territory these provisions will have full force and effect immediately. CRIMES AMENDMENT ACT 1982 The original amendments introduced in 1982 to enable federal offenders to participate in non-custodial sentencing have not been proclaimed because agreement has not been able to be reached with all States and Territories in relation to their participation in the implementation and administration of non-custodial sentences. The proposed amendments will enable the original provisions to be brought into operation in a State or Territory jurisdiction with effect from that State or Territory entering into the necessary arrangement with the Commonwealth. CRIMES (CURRENCY) ACT 1981 The amendments are intended to exempt from criminal sanction under the Crimes (Currency) Act persons who are innocently holding counterfeit coins which, in the case of Australian coins, are of pre-decimal currency and, in the case of non-Australian coins, are no longer legal tender anywhere outside Australia. No mischief is involved in the holding of these counterfeit coins. Concerns that have been expressed about counterfeit items in collections being covered by the Act have delayed its coming into operation. The passage of these amendments will enable the Act to be brought into operation and, at the same time, give to persons innocently holding counterfeit coins within these categories exemption from criminal sanction and security of possession. DEFENCE ACT 1903 Existing provisions enable a witness before a court or board of enquiry to be required to answer a question notwithstanding that the answer may tend to incriminate the witness, provided that such evidence is not admissible against the witness in civil, criminal or service tribunal proceedings except on a charge of giving false testimony before the court or board of inquiry. The amendments extend the application of the protective provisions to a witness who gives evidence voluntarily. EXTRADITION (COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES) ACT 1966 The amendments redefine a crime for which Australia can grant extradition, by providing that such crimes must not only carry a penalty of at least 12 months imprisonment in the country seeking extradition, as is presently provided, but also, had the offence been committed in Australia, a penalty of at least 12 months imprisonment. The amendments also enable postponement of surrender to allow outstanding Australian charges against the fugitive to be dealt with or any sentence of imprisonment to be served. Provision is made permitting the grant of bail where surrender is postponed due to outstanding Australian charges. As habeas corpus is an inappropriate remedy for a person not in custody, a statutory review replaces the existing habeas corpus procedure. In effect, a person serving a sentence of imprisonment in Australia could be surrendered immediately upon completion of that sentence. At present the extradition proceedings could only commence at that time resulting in a further period of incarceration pending hearing and determination of the application. EXTRADITION (FOREIGN STATES) ACT 1966 The amendments to this Act are similar to those made in respect of the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966. In addition provision is made to enable Australia to grant extradition, subject to the provisions of the relevant treaty, for offences which although committed outside the territory of the foreign state are nevertheless justiciable by their courts pursuant to their criminal law. FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 The amendments make it clear that Registrars and Deputy Registrars may exercise powers of the Family Court as delegates of the Court since the present section 37A may have been open to constitutional challenge on the grounds that it may vest powers of the Court in these officials. Moreover, the Bill validates the exercise of powers of the Family Court of Australia by Registrars since the commencement of section 37A on 2 January 1985 and declares the rights and liabilities of persons to be the same as if those rights and liabilities were attributable to an order of a Judge of the Court. FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 The amendment enables the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to hear and determine any application in respect of a matter pending in the General Division of the Federal Court that may be made to a Judge of the Federal Court in Chambers. The effect of the amendment will be to put the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory on a similar footing to State Supreme Courts. The amendment is necessary because there is no resident Federal Court judge in the Northern Territory and a Federal Court judge may not be available to hear urgent interlocutory matters. GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK ACT 1975 Further to the amendments made in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985 this amendment increases the period of the operation of regulations relating to unzoned areas from three years to five years since the area became part of the Marine Park in August 1983. This will enable the Authority to grant permission for the operation of an activity in an unzoned area. At present any permission granted would expire in August 1986. MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (STAFF) ACT 1984 The amendments enable a Member or a Territory Senator to continue to employ staff under the provisions of the Act following the calling of a general election. The problem that arose in the case of the election of 1 December 1984 is remedied in relation to that election. In relation to future elections the amendments provide that Members and Senators shall not cease to hold office while continuing to be entitled to a Parliamentary allowance. MUSEUM OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1980 The amendments change the name of the Museum of Australia to the National Museum of Australia, conforming with the naming policy of other national cultural institutions such as the National Library of Australia and will reduce confusion with the Australian Museum in New South Wales. Also, the amendments extend the application of the Act to include the continental shelf as well as present and former Australian external territories; provide a procedure for accession of material to form part of the national historical collection; and enable the Museum to stage travelling exhibitions including materials from outside the national historical collection. The Government wishes both to ensure the comprehensiveness of the national collection and the respect accorded the heritage and culture of the external territories. Before material of significance transfers to the national historical collection the Museum will contact, as appropriate through the responsible Ministers, the Norfolk Island Government, the Christmas Island Assembly and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council. PATENTS ACT 1952 The Patents Act is to be amended so that the declaration of certain matters relating to ``Convention countries'' is made by regulations rather than by Proclamation. The change will allow consolidated lists of Convention countries to be more readily available to practitioners and the public. Further amendments relating to the requirements of patent applications for inventions involving micro-organisms, and to abstracts of patent specifications, will make administrative procedures more straightforward and will correct minor omissions. POSTAL SERVICES ACT 1975 A number of amendments formalise the use by Australia Post of vending machines for the issue of postage stamps. The amendments also provide that where a criminal charge is amended, the suspension of the officer based on the original charge need not cease. They also protect the author of a report made in good faith on the work of an officer or employee of the Commission from legal action. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill proposes assistance by way of subsidy on grain harvesters and certain parts for grain harvesters produced in Australia. The subsidy period is 21 August 1985 to 31 December 1990. The Bill also contains provision for the payment of a special subsidy on certain imported grain harvesters and parts. The Treasurer announced in the 1985-86 Budget that, as one of the important initiatives to assist the rural sector, tariffs on grain harvesters were to be replaced by a subsidy on local production. The Industries Assistance Commission was subsequently asked to advise on the assistance level and conditions that should apply over the next five years, consistent with the level of assistance accorded producers by way of tariff. The objectives of the Government are to reduce the cost of grain harvesters to farmers whilst maintaining assistance to local producers by means of a subsidy rather than a tariff. The Government accepted the IAC's finding that, of the options available, a composite two-part scheme would best approximate the structure of assistance to local producers under the 15 per cent tariff. The need for such a scheme arises from the difficulty of devising uniform and equitable arrangements for an industry which, as the IAC found in its inquiry, has patterns of production and cost structures varying widely from producer to producer. As a consequence clause 13 of the Bill provides for substantial local manufacturers of grain harvesters, whose value added in production of complete machines is not less than 40 per cent of ex-factory selling prices, to be eligible for subsidies at the rate of 12.5 per cent of ex-factory selling prices. For other manufacturers of grain harvesters and parts classified to sub-item 84.25.9 of the customs tariff subsidies will be at the rate of 25 per cent of value added. The new arrangements will also result in grain harvesters and parts classified to sub-item 84.25.9 imported on or after 21 August 1985 being duty free. The necessary action is being taken to alter the Customs Tariff to coincide with the other assistance arrangements. Clause 23 of the Bill includes a provision designed to promote the orderly development of the local grain harvester industry and to avoid fragmentation of production. The Comptroller-General of Customs will not register the premises of any applicants for registration that were not in production of goods eligible for subsidy on 21 August 1985 (the operative date of the proposed change in assistance arrangements) if, in the opinion of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, such registration would not permit the orderly development of the industry in Australia. Parts III, IV and V of the Bill contain administrative provisions modelled on similar provisions in recent bounty legislation. The arrangements I have outlined will remain in force until 31 December 1990, but will be reviewed by the IAC before the end of this period. Provision has been made to enable the Minister to extend the scheme for up to 6 months beyond the terminating day to cater for any unforeseen delays in determining the assistance measures (if any) beyond 31 December 1990. This brings me to the special subsidy to be paid on imported harvesters. This is a temporary measure designed to deal, in a manner fair to all interested parties, with a special problem affecting sales of harvesters which, if left unresolved, could exacerbate an already difficult market situation and reduce the benefits to the gain growing sector flowing from the Budget decision. Prior to 21 August 1985 a substantial number of grain harvesters were imported for sale in the current season. Most of these harvesters have yet to be sold. Importers would therefore have been faced with the prospect of having to sell duty paid machines in the 1985 season in competition with other harvesters which will be duty free or with locally produced machines on which the subsidy under this Bill will become payable. This would have seriously disadvantaged some suppliers in a fiercely competitive market, already depressed because of other domestic and world factors. In order to deal equitably with this situation and remove some of the uncertainty in the market, the Bill contains special provisions at clauses 11 and 14 whereby subsidies will be available in respect of domestic sales of imported grain harvesters cleared for home consumption before 21 August 1985 and sold on or after that date. These subsidies will also be extended to parts for grain harvesters classified to sub-item 84.25.9 cleared before 21 August 1985 and incorporated as original equipment into grain harvesters sold or otherwise disposed of on or after that date. The subsidy will be equivalent to the net duty paid on the subsidised harvesters or equipment. The Government considers that the provisions of this Bill will meet the twin objectives of reducing the costs of grain harvesters to end-users and maintaining the structure of assistance to local production. The subsidies available to producers will enable them to remain competitive against imports and grain growers' input costs will be reduced. This reduction in costs, when taken into account with the other cost reductions for farmers made possible by the package of measures announced in the Budget, will alleviate the pressures that grain growers have been experiencing and increase the returns to an important sector of the rural economy. Financial Impact Statement It is expected that these subsidy arrangements will involve costs of approximately $5.65 million in 1985-86 and of the order of $3.75 million per annum thereafter during the life of the scheme. Total costs, including revenue forgone as a result of the related tariff change, will be approximately $9.75 million in this financial year and $12 million annually thereafter. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.09) —I move: That the Bill be now a read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill will modify amendments of the water conservation and conveyance provisions of the income tax law proposed by the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1985 which is before this chamber. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1985 contains measures to put in place some of the proposals announced in the 19 September 1985 statement on reform of the Australian taxation system, one of which was to replace, with write-off over 5 years, the immediate income tax deductibility of capital expenditure incurred by primary producers on conserving or conveying water. After further consideration, and as a result of consultations with the Australian Democrats, the Government has decided that such expenditure, where incurred under a contract entered into after 19 September 1985, should instead be deductible in 3 equal annual instalments, the first in the year in which the expenditure is incurred and a further instalment in each of the next two years. The revenue forgone as a consequence of this change is estimated at $5 million in 1986-87 and $7 million in 1987-88. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.11) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Mr President, this Bill proposes two reforms to the Evidence Act 1905. The first relates to the obtaining of evidence abroad for use in criminal or civil proceedings in Australia under Commonwealth law; the second to the class of persons who are competent to give ancillary evidence to prove business records. Deficiencies in the law in these areas have been brought to attention by, in particular, the former Special Prosecutor, Mr R. F. Redlich, Q.C., and by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ian Temby, Q.C. Obtaining Evidence Abroad In relation to the first amendment, the Special Prosecutor drew attention in his 1982-83 and 1983-84 Annual Reports to the difficulty of obtaining evidence overseas for use in Commonwealth criminal proceedings. The problem was further highlighted in recent prosecutions in Western Australia for alleged breaches of the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations. The Federal Court held that the relevant court, which was a Magistrates' court, had no power to issue Letters of Request to an overseas court to have certain evidence taken abroad. The Director of Public Prosecutions has recommended that action be taken to remedy the situation. He comments that most of the heavy work with which his office is concerned has overseas aspects. He gives as examples drug prosecutions and revenue and other fraud cases. In most respects the law concerning evidence, practice and procedure in relation to Commonwealth civil and criminal proceedings is that applying in the State or Territory where the hearing is being conducted. The Evidence Act 1905 only deals with limited areas, and these do not include procedures for the taking of evidence overseas. The laws of evidence and procedure differ from State to State. The High Court, the Federal Court and Supreme Courts are able to order the obtaining of evidence overseas in civil matters before them. However, not all superior courts may order the taking of evidence in criminal matters. In no State or Territory does it seem possible for such evidence to be obtained in relation to criminal matters in inferior courts. The Bill will allow the obtaining of evidence overseas, both oral and documentary, for use in Federal and Territory Courts or State Courts exercising federal jurisdiction in civil or criminal matters. This will fill gaps that exist in State laws. The central features of the Bill are: (i) In relation to proceedings before a superior court-the High Court, the Federal Court, Family Court and State and Territory Supreme Courts-the legislation will empower the relevant court on the application of a party to the proceedings to issue Letters of Request to an overseas court, or to order the taking of evidence overseas by commission or by the appointment of an examiner. (ii) In relation to proceedings before an inferior court, such as a District Court or a Magistrates Court, a party to the proceedings who wishes to have evidence obtained overseas for the purpose of those proceedings may apply to the appropriate superior court for an order for the taking of such evidence. (iii) The use of evidence obtained overseas will be subject to the following safeguards, since it may not be obtained in the presence of the defendant, and in criminal jury trials will be obtained in the absence of the jury: (a) The issuing of the order will be at the discretion of the superior court. (b) The superior court may include special conditions or directions in the order e.g. that cross-examination of a witness be permitted as a special procedure where this would not otherwise take place. (c) Only evidence which answers the tests of admissibility in Australia will be admissible in Australia proceedings. Where the evidence is obtained for use in an inferior court, that court will determine the question of admissibility in its proceedings, and this determination will be subject to normal appeal processes. (d) The Australian court hearing the matter will have a discretion to exclude any of the material obtained overseas if it seems unfair to receive it, nothwithstanding that the evidence satisfies Australian tests of admissibility. Business Records Turning now to business records, although the Evidence Act makes special provision for their admission into evidence in Federal and A.C.T. courts, attention has been drawn to the difficulty in obtaining the admission into evidence of documents originating overseas where there is no witness in Australia concerned with the making or keeping of the records competent to give the necessary ancillary evidence to prove the documents. A provision has, therefore, been made in clause 3 to enable a person authorised by the Attorney-General, a member of the Australian Federal Police of or above the rank of sergeant or an Australian Diplomatic or Consular Officer, to give the necessary ancillary evidence on the basis of information and belief, if it is not reasonably practicable, or would involve undue expense, to call the maker or keeper of the records. Financial and Regulatory Impact The making of an order by a court for the taking of evidence overseas could result in increased costs for the parties since overseas representation at the examination could be necessary. In civil cases existing practice deals with this point. However, in criminal cases where the Commonwealth is the applicant for an order, it is reasonable for the Commonwealth to provide assistance to the defendant in cases of hardship, where in all the circumstances it is reasonable for such assistance to be granted. This will be done within the existing guidelines for financial assistance. The costs involved cannot be quantified but the occasions when such provision will be made are likely to be few. The Bill will have no regulatory impact. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. Messages received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to the following Bills: Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1985 Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1985 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is it desired to postpone or rearrange the business? Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —I wish to raise the matter of the report of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. On Friday this was not debated because the Labor Whip said that no debates were to take place. Various reports were going down and consequently no debates were taking place, so we put it over. The Government Whip gave me an undertaking that there would assuredly be a place for debate on this matter on Monday or Tuesday. It is not on the list today. I ask that it be put on the list for today in accordance with the undertaking by the Labor Whip under which we forwent on Friday the reading of the tabling statement and any debate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Missen, that is a private arrangement between you and the Manager of Government Business. You will have to take it up with him. It is not a matter for the Chair. Senator MISSEN —I would like to move that this matter be placed on the list. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Such a motion would not be in order. Senator MISSEN —I seek leave to do so. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I understood that that arrangement had been made but I thought that it was for tomorrow. I certainly remember the proposition being put to me that it was a matter that should be discussed. Senator Missen —That is quite satisfactory. Debate resumed from 2 December, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.13) —The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 covers several aspects of health care. I will speak to only four of the main aspects, those being the 3B certificates, the considerable changes proposed to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act, the reform of medifraud, and the identity card. The Government has at last recognised the problems associated with 3B certificates. Since the instigation of this measure the Opposition has been telling the Government that alterations had to be made. We had a situation in which, after a patient had spent 35 days in hospital, the doctor had to sign a form saying that the patient needed acute care and so the 3B certificate came into operation. There have been many occasions when the doctor has either been away or has not visited the patient on the required day and the patient has found himself up for a considerable amount of money for staying on in a private hospital purely because the certificate was not signed on a particular day. This has been brought to the Government's attention. I know that I brought it to the attention of the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) six months ago and at last the Government has acknowledged what the Opposition has been telling it. I am pleased to say that it has amended this aspect and made it possible for doctors to sign retrospectively the 3B certificates. The next considerable change is proposed to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act. I quote what the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) said in his second reading speech because I hope the Minister for Community Services will be able to answer some queries that I have about this matter. He said: These changes are the most significant changes to the structure and operations of CSL in its 69-year history. He went on to say: Clause 11 will allow the Commission to undertake a number of normal commercial activities, such as forming a company, buying and selling shares, or entering into a profit-sharing partnership. He pointed out that any transaction of this nature would require the Minister's approval for Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission to have a controlling interest in a particular company. My problem is-and I would like an answer from the Minister-why is that particular legislation necessary because, according to the 1983-84 report of CSL, under its current powers it was able to make an offer for David Bull Laboratories although the offer was not finally accepted. However, the report said that the Commission continued to maintain an interest in opportunities for expansion as they arose. I find it very difficult to understand how CSL has already made bids for David Bull Laboratories when we are now attempting to pass legislation enabling it to do so. Were those previous bids illegal? Was CSL able to make those bids quite legally at the time; if not, what was it all about? My concern is that CSL should enter into this area at all. As we all know, CSL, being so closely associated with the Government, has a considerable degree of advantage over private enterprise. The Minister said that this provision would give CSL `a window on the pharmaceutical industry'. Because CSL has the backing of the Government and there is no way at all that the Government would stand by and let CSL go broke, it has far more than just a window on the industry. If this legislation were passed I believe it would be possible for CSL gradually to take over all the pharmaceutical industries and, of course, carry out the Government's intention-socialisation of all medical and paramedical industries. Senator Grimes —Oh no! It is much too early in the day for that. Senator WALTERS —The Minister indicates that that is imagination, but the Minister says a lot of things. Indeed, the other day he said quite blatantly that Opposition senators all imagine there are Reds under the beds and so on. He throws off these charges and acts in an intimadatory way every time that sort of thing is said. But this is a socialist Government. There is no denying that. Senator Grimes —I am not denying that. Senator WALTERS —The Minister does not deny that; yet he says that we carry on about Reds under the beds. We have had Senator Vallentine proving in this place that there are Reds under the beds. She had established a political party. To her credit, she got out of that party because the Reds were indeed trying to take over her party and she would not allow them to. Because that sort of thing occurs repeatedly we will never keep quiet in that respect. No matter what the hour, in the morning or otherwise, there is no way that Senator Grimes can possibly intimidate us into not alerting the public to this Government's socialistic tendencies and to the fact that there are Reds under the beds in certain areas and in many areas of its left wing. I doubt whether Senator Grimes would really rule that out either. Let me get back to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories because the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories has tremendous expertise in certain areas and I believe that it should stick to those areas. It has done a wonderful job in the history of Australia in the areas where it has this expertise-in the vaccination procedures and all those areas where private enterprise cannot and will not deal because financially it is not viable to do so. The Commonwealth supports the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and, where the Minister requests the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to take up these vaccination procedures, such as penicillin and all the other areas that have been mentioned earlier in the debate, the Commonwealth pays. I believe very strongly that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories should remain in that area. I come now to the reform of the Medicare provisions. Senator Tate —Isn't the Chairman of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories a well-known socialist, Mr Neil Batt? Senator WALTERS —Yes, he sure is. Actually, now that the honourable senator has interjected we could discuss Mr Neil Batt. He quite amazed me because he left the Tasmanian Government, I think to go to Bangladesh for a very short period, and I do not think that suited his entrepreneurial activities because he then went into private enterprise in a very big way and worked there for some time. But he now feels that he could go back to Tasmania and be a socialist again. He is the sort of socialist I like. There are lots of those sorts of socialists who I like who say: `It is all very well for everyone else, but not for me'. We have lots of those sorts of socialists. Senator Tate knows that we have quite a few in Tasmania and probably knows who I am referring to when I say that they own very large properties. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) himself has said that one does not have to be poor to be a socialist. One of the very strong Labor supporters in Hobart is the sort of socialist I do not mind. He is a millionaire. He has a tremendous amount of money but he supports this socialist Government. There is no redistribution of wealth in his life. Senator Puplick —Yes, there is-from other people to him. Senator WALTERS —Senator Puplick has said that perhaps there is, from other people to him. Let me get back to the Bill because I have very limited time and I wish to deal with the reform of the Medicare provisions. Senator Crowley assured us yesterday that a large number of people in the medical profession were committing medifraud. She disagrees, obviously, with the Minister who said that there are small numbers. He admitted that only a very small percentage of the medical profession would indulge in medifraud. Senator Crowley, who I think has a chip on her shoulder about the medical profession, did not claim that; she claimed that there are quite a lot of them. Honourable senators in this chamber know-I am sure that Senator Grimes would agree-that the main problem is overservicing. I am quite sure that Senator Grimes would agree that that is so, and, therefore, I do not understand why the Government refuses to tackle this problem of overservicing. The other day, Professor Penington, who is not one to be emotive at any stage-indeed I believe him to be very much otherwise-said that medical costs were out of control. He made the statement that we really have two options: The first is the present system with tighter controls and the other is to make people pay for part of the cost-in other words, to get rid of bulk billing. He made it very clear in his statement that until this is done we will-- Senator Grimes —He didn't say that, you know. Senator WALTERS —Senator Grimes said he did not say it. Perhaps I can quote what Professor Penington said. He said that the cost of the present system is out of control. He also said that Australia can either have the current system with tighter government surveillance or a market system where the public has to pay fees and question whether they really need extra medical services. Whether one likes it or not, that is getting rid of bulk billing, and it is really quite ridiculous for Senator Grimes to say otherwise. People do not pay anything under bulk billing. Professor Penington says very clearly that if people pay something they will question the bill that comes to them. Senator Peter Baume touched lightly on the problem of overservicing. Senator Peter Baume —Not too lightly I hope. Senator WALTERS —Not too lightly. The honourable senator touched on the situation that exists at the moment and referred to the activities of one entrepreneurial doctor who sends letters to members of his medical practice asking that the figures be improved. One of those letters stated: I am disturbed at the lack of growth in our practice. It also stated: Patients are not being asked to make appointments. Requesting patients to make appointments for follow-up is essential. Patients believe if you ask them to return, that you are interested in them and by making an appointment, you can ensure that they see you personally and your workload can be evenly distributed, thus providing a better service. The doctor went on to point out that the optimum use was not being made of X-rays in the medical practice. That is the sort of over- servicing that I believe the Government should be following up. Yet, the Government is not doing a thing. What it is doing is concentrating on a very small area of fraud. I believe that eventually the Government will have to decide that bulk billing for everyone is out. Pensioners and disadvantaged persons are the only legitimate areas where bulk billing should take place. But bulk billing for everyone is out. If this does not happen the costs, as Professor Penington says, will remain out of control. I believe that the Health Insurance Commission let the Public Accounts Committee down very badly in terms of the information it presented to the Committee. However, I will not go into that. I will wind up my remarks now because I said that I would limit my speech. The only remaining area to which I wish to refer is that of identification cards. However, Senator Knowles spoke so well on this matter in the debate last night that there is very little need for me to elaborate any further. The honourable senator covered the area very throughly. Senator Crichton-Browne —I think it was so good we could have it again. Senator WALTERS —That may be right. However, I think it would be unnecessary for me to cover the area any further. I ask the Government to come to its senses and take note of the warning that medical costs will remain out of control if bulk billing is applied to all patients, not just the disadvantaged. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(10.30) —It is quite obvious that there is much confusion about Medicare. This is because people have been deceived into thinking that Medicare has something to do with health. Of course, it really has nothing to do with health; it has to do with Government control of the patients, the doctors, the therapists, the hospitals and the whole medical edifice. That is why we can expect every now and then huge portmanteau Bills such as this Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) to alter radically the whole system. This Bill consists of five parts, all of which have been adequately aired during this debate. The first part brings about substantive changes to the operation of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I was involved earlier in the historic changes that occurred to the CSL, which has had a proud history. CSL was instituted about 50 years ago to provide biological products that were essential to the health of the nation, such as antivenins for bites or stings of spiders, snakes, octopi and the like. It could also make various vaccines. It was specifically precluded from making non-biological products. It was supposed to sell its products and attract as much income as it could to try to offset the costs of its operations. Of course, gradually it has been opened up. The Whitlam Government saw an opportunity to use the CSL as a window into the pharmaceutical industry so that it could get some idea of the cost of manufacture of pharmaceuticals and the pricing arrangements, because of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme that we had at that time, and to provide more information for its pharmaceutical benefits advisory board. The Whitlam Government tried to expand the CSL. Later it was decided to open it up so that it could make non-biological as well as biological products. Of course, this put it into competition with the other manufacturers. At that time, as I recall it, the Government, because of its policies on pharmaceutical benefits, had really squeezed the pharmaceutical businesses out of Australia. At one stage there was no research and no development of drugs. It was a quite dangerous situation, particularly, say, from a defence point of view. We did not have manufacture or research into existing drugs or new drugs in Australia. This Bill is another move to open up the CSL dramatically for further business interests in Australia. We oppose part of that proposal-the part whereby the CSL will actually be able to take over other businesses. With the power to be given to it, it will be able to buy and sell shares and operate businesses. It will need only the consent of the Minister for Health to take over more than half of a business-in other words, to assume ownership of a business. That could be an unfair trading practice, on top of which it will have an unfair borrowing advantage because, with the Commonwealth backing it, it would have an advantage over private industries that do not have that sort of backing. I do not want to go on about this. We oppose that part of the Bill. It is part of a progressive story of opening up the CSL to put it into competition-unfair competition at that-with private industries. The amendments to the medifraud provisions in the legislation are interesting and we can expect more of them. Senator Walters is well aware of the problem. The fraud and over- servicing section of the Department of Health has caused enormous disquiet among members of the medical profession and patients. It has worried many legal people and has caused worry to the police also because they have been forced to do a distasteful job investigating all these things. Of course, the investigations have turned up what everyone expected; there is very little fraud going on-no more than one would expect in just about any other business. I am sure that architects and people in the Public Service and all the professions are committing fraud. A minor number of people would be involved in that. The overservicing, of course, is directly attributable to bulk billing. There is nothing new in that. The Government was warned from the very beginning that bulk billing would cause overservicing. I see Senator Georges is now in the chamber. The people who are involved in the massive cases of alleged overservicing cannot really be considered to be private doctors because their whole business is based on bulk billing. They are really working for the Government; they are not working for themselves. The Government is their paymaster. Senator Georges —You could have fooled me again. Senator SHEIL —That is the fact, if one takes a little time to look at it. Those doctors do not have private cases. They bulk bill the Government and the Government pays their fees, so they are working for the Government. Senator Georges —That is right. So you would be prepared to abolish fee for service and they would have a salary at the end of the year? Senator SHEIL —The honourable senator should think a bit more deeply if he can. The fact is that the doctors who bulk bill are working for the Government. I believe in the old adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune, and the Government can call the tune. Anybody who is silly enough to bulk bill must take orders from the Government, because the Government is- Senator Grimes —Why are you in favour of gap insurance then? Senator Peter Baume —Please, no logic at this time of the morning. Senator SHEIL —He cannot follow logic. Senator Grimes —Why are you in favour of gap insurance if you think people have to pay the money? Senator SHEIL —I am not in favour of gap insurance, either. Senator Grimes —Aren't you? Senator SHEIL —No. This Bill has nothing to do with gap insurance and the Government is not concerned about private insurance at all. Private insurance, of course, would solve the Government's problem and get it out of the Medicare hassle that it is already experiencing. The other features of the Bill are small. I cannot figure out what has happened to the identity card. I understood that it had been referred to a committee. We all have to keep open minds on it. I hope the committee will receive submissions from people such as Senator Knowles and me. Her contribution last night on the identity cards was very good and contained irrefutable logic. It proved that the cards would not solve the problems that they were supposed to solve and that there were so many bugs associated with them that they would be the greatest invasion of our privacy and the greatest instrument of government control that we could have? Senator Georges —But you supported it at the beginning. Senator SHEIL —No, we do not, and the National Party-- Senator Georges —Yes, you did. Your Leader supported it. He was all for it. He has changed his mind under pressure. Senator Peter Baume —Fair go; what he is telling you now is what he is supporting. Senator SHEIL —Yes. The National Party of Australia, particularly the National Party in Queensland, is opposed to the introduction of these identity cards. We do not want a bar of them. Senator Peter Baume —It is a perfectly logical, clear position. Senator SHEIL —Yes. There is not a problem with it, so I do not need to continue that discussion. The other requirements of the Bill are mainly minor. There is the alteration to the provision of certificates by doctors for patients in hospital who are actually ill. That is being made retrospective. As much as I dislike retrospective legislation, this is really a machinery matter for the convenience of patients, doctors and their hospitals. I make the point, though, in regard to the administration of the health Acts at the moment, that I think patients are being downgraded. I have mentioned this to Senator Grimes previously and I have mentioned during Estimates committee hearings that the general thrust is to force patients out of acute care hospitals and into nursing homes, out of nursing homes and into hostels, and out of hostels and into the home. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but once a system is established it should not be cut down with the broadsword, which is what I see happening here. This has created doubt and uncertainty in the middle echelon of institutions that look after patients, such as the nursing homes and hostels, and has caused dislocations in the allocation of patient numbers. People are being forced out of the bigger acute care hospitals and into nursing homes. The nursing homes, of course, are now chock-a-block. They have to force patients into hostels. The hostels are chock-a-block. Now patients are being forced out of the hostels and into the homes. I see that as a deliberate policy of the Government, simply because the costs of caring for these people are high and it is cheaper to keep people at home. That has always been obvious and it is the way we should have been going all along. The way the health care system is being administered now is causing enormous dislocation. The Government has got itself into problems with the promise of free health care at the point of delivery, necessitating bulk billing. That promise just cannot be delivered, as I have explained to the Senate previously, because such a promise creates unlimited demand. There is a limited budget to pay for it. As the money is spent and demand goes up the two elements diverge, and we wind up with dissatisfaction amongst patients, doctors, nurses, therapists, hospitals and everbody. The insurance companies also get into trouble. We have seen the experience of countries around the world which have tried these schemes. I have worked under them and seen how satisfactory they are. They have been tried in Scandinavia. The United States has them in minor ways with its Medicare, Medicaid, and its veterans' administration. Canada has tried them, as have Britain and New Zealand-the whole lot. The one thing all these schemes have in common is that they have been universal failures. Why we have to go down the same track, I do not know. I suppose it is just part of the socialist dream that the government must control the health industry. We are opposing the CSL provisions in the legislation. I express my dissatisfaction with the administration of the health care system in Australia today- Senator Georges —Going by that clock his time has run out. His arguments certainly have run out. Senator SHEIL —No, they have not. Why do we have nurses in this country going on strike? We have never had that problem previously. Why do we have doctors going on strike? There must be enormous payouts by the Government to settle these disputes. They arise because of dissatisfaction with the administration of health care. Doctors had never gone on strike until Medicare was brought in. They would not be striking if there were not the degree of control and dissatisfaction that exists. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.43) —I thank honourable senators who have contributed to this debate on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985. There is no doubt about it-Senator Walters is indefatigable. To come in here at that time of the morning and give her Reds-under-the-bed speech was, I think, a bit hard on all of us, especially those of us who were up late last night. I do not want to make too many points. The only point I make in passing is that Senator Walters is one of those people who obviously equate democratic socialism with the nationalisation of all industries. She starts from that premise and works from there. I suppose that the best example I can give to Senator Walters of the silliness of that premise is that the country in Western Europe which has had the greatest number of socialist governments in the last 50 years is Sweden. The country in Europe which has had the least is France. The country in Europe which has the greatest number of nationalised industries is France. The country in Europe which has had the least is Sweden. So the analogy that Senator Walters draws is quite false. That is the reason why there is a millionaire in Hobart who quite openly, eloquently, and with a great deal more erudition and logic than Senator Walters shows, supports democratic socialist parties such as the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps Senator Walters ought to look to why he does so and why he supports the philosophy he does rather than just denigrating him in the way she did. Senator Walters, like some of her colleagues in the other place, then proceeded to denigrate Mr Neil Batt. At least she did not criticise his appointment as Chairman of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission in the way that people in another place did. Senator Walters —No, I did not. Senator GRIMES —I know that the honourable senator did not, and that is very good. If the honourable senator reads tomorrow her words in Hansard, she will see that that meaning could be interpreted. The honourable senator probably did not mean to do so, knowing that she is such a kind person, but that interpretation could be made from her statements about Mr Batt's stay in Bangladesh. Most people who read the Hansard, and, I think, even the honourable senator, when she reads it, may realise that an obvious interpretation of someone of her turn of phrase would be that she was making inferences about Mr Batt's short stay in Bangladesh. It is quite wrong to suggest that he just did not stay there because it did not suit his lifestyle or it did not suit him. Senator Walters —I didn't say that. Look at Hansard tomorrow. Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator should look at Hansard tomorrow, too. However, we have had our Reds-under-the-bed speech very early in the morning, a subject which has nothing to do with the legislation. I make one final point. The problem of overservicing in medicine is a problem that is common not just to Australia. If we read the debates in the United States of America, we see that there is a problem there and there is concern about overservicing. I think that Senator Peter Baume pointed out that whenever we have an insurance system, be it public or private, whereby people can insure against ill-health-I believe that they ought to be able to do so both publicly and privately as we can do-there is the possibility of overservicing in both systems. Neither Senator Walters nor Senator Sheil produced one skerrick of evidence in general, apart from the entrepreneurial example that Senator Sheil used, that one can equate overservicing with bulk billing. The proposal that if we get rid of bulk billing, we get rid of overservicing is a nonsense. Senator Sheil knows it is a nonsense. At least Senator Sheil is consistent. He is absolutely consistent in what I call the gypsy principle-the best way to practise medicine is to cross someone's palm with silver. Therefore he is against gap insurance because that takes away the paying of that moiety which would control costs in medicine. Senator Walters, at the same time as she disagrees with bulk billing, agrees with gap insurance so that a patient does not have to cross someone's palm with silver. It is okay if it happens in the private sector but it is not okay in the public sector. That is the sort of glorious inconsistency we can expect from Senator Walters, but I think that we can put up with that. To get back to the legislation-I will be the only person who has done that this morning-Senator Peter Baume raised some matters and put the Opposition's case for opposing clauses 10 and 11 of this Bill. These are the clauses which deal with the powers and functions of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I think that the gist of what he said was that the Opposition did not see any need for the increased powers and that they would give CSL an unfair commercial advantage over its competitors. Senator Peter Rae, by interjection last night, extended that argument. He said that CSL had such an advantage in that it did not have to pay rents and rates. That is quite false. Senator Walters —He didn't say that. Senator GRIMES —Senator Peter Rae did say that last night by interjection, but it is quite false. In fact, CSL does pay rent to the Commonwealth and it pays rates to the Woodend Council in Melbourne of about $760,000 per annum. The knee-jerk response from people such as Senator Rae that CSL has a terrible advantage over everyone because it does not even pay rates or rents is nonsense, and I think it should be recognised as such. CSL, in accordance with its legislation, is required to operate profitably, and it has to operate profitably in a highly competitive industry. This legislation and these powers are being introduced to increase its capacity to do so. To suggest, as Senator Walters suggests, that this is the first step towards CSL taking over the whole of the pharmaceutical industry in Australia is mind-boggling. All I can say is that it is absolutely mind-boggling to suggest that CSL will take over Merck, Sharp and Dohme (Aust) Pty Ltd, Bayer Aust Ltd and all the large pharmaceutical companies. It is just the product of a very fevered imagination. I suppose that one can make assertions and extreme statements such as this when in opposition, but they are just not true. Nobody in the pharmaceutical industry would believe such a ridiculous statement and, certainly, no one in this Parliament should. CSL has to compete in a highly competitive industry. It has to pay a dividend to the Commonwealth and carry out research and a number of functions related to the production of and trading in pharmaceutical products. It provides technical assistance; it is a reference centre; it provides facilities in relation to pharmaceutical products and other functions of that type. Because it is a statutory authority it operates under a broad range of constraints. A lot of those constraints do not apply to its competitors. At present it can become involved only in producing pharmaceutical products for therapeutic use. When resources for production of those therapeutic goods are not in use, they remain idle. That is not sensible and it puts CSL at a considerable disadvantage with its competitors. If under the existing legislation CSL considered it necessary to expand its activities in any area, such expansion would require large amounts of capital from within the Commission and from the Commonwealth. If the Commission is authorised to form companies, buy shares and form partnerships, any expansion could be achieved at a lesser cost and in a shorter time than at present. We want to remove the difficulties encountered by CSL in its present operations and to define its future role. When CSL increases its viability it will be able to increase the amount of internal funds spent on research and development and it will be able to provide a greater return to the Commonwealth, which is a sensible approach. Nobody here is suggesting that CSL should not continue operating. It has resources lying idle and it misses out on business opportunities because those resources cannot produce non-pharmaceutical products. For instance, those facilities could be used for the production of enzymes used widely in industry for purposes such as detergents, paper manufacture and the conversion of starch to sugar. They could be used for the manufacture of biological control agents for agricultural purposes and for the development of micro-organisms for the degradation of pollutants that are a threat to the environment. In the past CSL has been approached to use its excess capacity to produce all of those above products, but it was unable to do so because of legislative constraints. The changes we are introducing in this legislation will decrease the cost to CSL and the Commonwealth of maintaining those resources in an idle state. Fixed overheads therefore, will be spread over a wider base, which will help reduce the cost of pharmaceutical benefit items, particularly the cost of national interest activities which CSL is required to undertake by the Government. The staff will increase their expertise and knowledge, which also can be used by the Commonwealth when required. I would have thought that was a function which would have been welcomed by Senator Sheil in the very sensible reference he made to the fact that we need a pharmaceutical industry and a pharmaceutical capacity for defence and security purposes as much as anything else. Clause 11 alters the powers of the Commission. It provides that CSL can form companies to buy and sell shares and enter into a partnership. These powers will enable CSL to take advantage of business opportunities and to be competitive in a highly competitive industry. Certainly there may be worries that CSL could get involved in exercises of an undesirable type, as the Australian Dairy Corporation did in the past with its Asian subsidiaries. To cover this, the amendments incorporate the recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. Those recommendations are that the Minister approve the creation of a subsidiary; the transaction is to be reported to Parliament within 15 sitting days; and the powers of the subsidiary cannot exceed those of CSL without the approval of the Minister. Approval for the extension of a subsidiary's power can be given only when it is considered necessary for CSL to carry out its functions. If the subsidiary's power exceeds that of CSL, the Minister can direct CSL to dispose of sufficient shares so that it does not have effective control. It is required to report regularly to keep the Minister informed of its activities. Any subsidiary will be covered by State companies legislation. CSL will continue to have the benefit of a Commonwealth safety net for its financial operations, and the reasons for that are clear and, I think, known to everybody. It is required under legislation to be commercially viable. It is owned by the Commonwealth and it carries out its activities when directed by the Minister. Any apportionment between commercial and non-commercial activities is difficult and each activity is in a constant state of change. As part of its commercial activities it is involved in unprofitable activities considered to be in the national interest, such as the production of anti-venoms for snakes and spiders. It uses its profit commercial activities for research into areas where Commonwealth funding is insufficient or not available. An example given is blue tongue research. It is owned by the Commonwealth and it is backed by the Commonwealth. No one hides that fact, but we believe that Commonwealth statutory authorities of this type in this area should be vigorous and competitive but should not have too many disadvantages as distinct from those of its competitors. Any small advantages that CSL has are outweighed surely by the constraints not forced on its competitors, such as government control and the accountability provisions, which are considerable. I think most of the points that have been raised by Senator Peter Baume and other members of the Opposition, as to the activities of CSL and the extension of its powers and its capacities, have been answered effectively in this place and in the other place and for that reason I would commend those changes and those clauses to the Senate. The fear that this creeping nationalisation will destroy the pharmaceutical industry in Australia is just not founded and certainly is not backed up by any evidence given by the Opposition. Changes to the Health Insurance Commission's operations to cope with the Australia Card situation also will, as I understand it, be opposed by the Opposition because it does not see the need for the amendments now and it would prefer to wait for the outcome of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, which is looking at the whole problem of the Australia Card. It is obvious that the Australia Card has proponents and opponents on both sides of Parliament and in the community itself. I am interested in the fact that polls consistently show that such a high number of people in the community are in fact in favour of the identity card. That was certainly a surprise to me and to many people in the community. The legislation has been introduced merely to enable the Health Insurance Commission, which is the body which was picked to look at the introduction of such a card, to undertake investigative and planning work so that if the Parliament decides to introduce the card, it can be fully operational within a reasonable time-by, I think, 1 July 1989. We want to introduce the card by March 1987. It is thought that between now and March 1987 is the minimum possible time which would be needed for all the planning, development and implementation work to be undertaken. A delay until after the Joint Committee has reported would mean impossible lead times and a delay in the card's operation. If we are to have a sensible approach to this or anything else by the Joint Committee we also have to look at what is involved in the introduction of such a card. We also have to look at the difficulties that will arise in the introduction of such a card. The amendment we are introducing here will authorise the Commission to plan for the card. The experience of the Commission and its investigations will be of interest and of use to the Joint Committee. These changes do not authorise any form of implementation of the proposal. That is specifically not allowed. The legislation allows for no more than planning, and for that reason we have introduced a sunset clause. It means that the amending legislation will cease to have effect after December 1986 if the substantive legislation has not been enacted by then. To enable the Australia Card program to be adequately defined, it is necessary that the Health Insurance Commission be authorised to undertake the necessary planning activites to identify the requirements more clearly. The result of this work will be reflected in the substantive legislation which is expected to be available for full parliamentary debate next year. The changes to the offences and disqualification provisions, which are supported by the Opposition, I believe are sensible proposals. They, in fact, overcome some difficulties in the existing legislation which I think are recognised on both sides. Particularly, there is a perception that practitioners can be disqualified for what are perceived as very minor offences. The blame for this sort of activity is directed at the Minister for Health, whose powers to moderate the mandatory three-year period of disqualification are very restrictive. I think the current legislation is aggravating Government and professional relations and it is important that after consultation with the medical profession we introduce these changes. Similarly, changes to the 3B certificates have been recognised as necessary by people on both sides of the Parliament and outside Parliament. In the light of Senator Walters's comments I think it is important to remind honourable senators that the original 3B certificates were introduced after considerable consultation with the Australian Medical Association. The certificates were introduced in the way they were, with the decision being left to the doctors about what was an acute illness and what was necessary for long-stay treatment, at the urging of the medical profession. In fact, we wanted to put in some definitions for the guidance of the medical profession but the medical profession said: `No, we do not want that. We want it introduced so that all the say is ours. We do not want restrictions and we do not want the capacity to sign them retrospectively, because the reason the Government is introducing it is for the well-know abuse of the system which exists, particularly in Sydney'. The changes we have made to enable them to be filled out retrospectively and to enable the Department of Health in cases like terminal illness, for instance, to declare that people should continue to be eligible for the payment of benefits are sensible changes. They are changes that, again, have been made in consultation with the medical profession. They are modifications which we all realise-- Senator Walters —We are not objecting to that. Senator GRIMES —I know. They are changes which we all realise are sensible. Senator Walters —Take the advice of the members of the profession and get rid of bulk billing, because they do make sensible suggestions. Senator GRIMES —I am pointing out that the original 3B certificates were introduced on the advice of the medical profession and after considerable consultation with the medical profession. They were introduced in the form they were introduced and with the rules that were introduced because that was the way the medical profession wanted it. Sure, the medical profession now says that it is wrong and it is not working properly. We accept that, so we change it. The medical profession en bloc is not opposed to bulk billing in the way that Senator Walters says. To suggest that by getting rid of bulk billing we will get rid of overservicing is nonsense, and Senator Walters knows it is nonsense. It is absolute nonsense. Those honourable senators who support the legislation completely I thank very much. Those who only partly support it I grudgingly thank for their contributions to this debate. I hope that the Bill now has a speedy passage so that we can get this fairly small omnibus Bill through the Parliament. From 1975 to 1983, twice a year every year we had major amendments to the health legislation in this Parliament. We had seven health insurance systems in that whole time. Every year I used to say to the then Government, `You will have to make huge amendments like this again next year' and every year it did. These are only very small amendments and they relate basically to CSL. If only all our health legislation was of this type life would be much easier for us. Senator Walters —That is why the costs are out of control. Senator GRIMES —There are no costs out of control and also the Reds have all gone from under the beds. If this legislation does nothing else, it gives Senator Walters the opportunity once or twice a year to pour out all that stuff about reds under the beds. I think that has a therapeutic effect on Senator Walters even though it might be disastrous for some of us. I thank honourable senators and hope that we can get on with more important business. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Referral to Committee Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.07) —Pursuant to standing order 196A I move: That the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Welfare for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in February 1986. As the Opposition indicated some time ago, it intends to move during this session for the reference of a number of Bills to an appropriate committee. The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 is one of them. If the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1985 is proceeded with in this session it will similarly be the subject of a reference as will the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1985, the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) and, if they are proceeded with in this session, the National Capital Development Commission Amendment Bill 1985 and the Federal Airports Corporation Bill 1985. The Opposition has moved this motion because it believes that a number of Bills raise matters which would benefit from reference to a Senate standing committee. This Bill is described by the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, as a small Bill which has amendments to touch basically only on the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. If that is the case there could be no objection to the Senate Committee investigating whether, in fact, the matters raised in debate about the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are correct and proper. The Committee would investigate whether the amendments will have the effect that the Government claims; whether the ability of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to undertake the exercises that it undertook in relation to the Fawnmac group of companies or David Bull Laboratories Pty Ltd makes unnecessary the expansion in its powers provided for in this legislation; and whether the clause 11 amendments regarding partnership arrangements are correct and proper. Reference would allow testing of the contended argument about the rates and rent that Commonwealth Serum Laboratories pays. Senator Grimes has said that they are all correct and at the proper level. Senator Peter Rae's interjection, to which the Minister referred and which will be found on page 2724 of yesterday's Hansard, in fact, questions whether they are proper. Senator Peter Rae said: It does not pay proper rates or proper rent. The reference would allow that matter to be determined. Similarly, the amendments made concerning fraud against the Health Insurance Commission Act, and their impact in relation to bulk billing, which has been a matter of dispute in the course of the second reading debate, would undoubtedly benefit from some Senate inquiry. Finally, the Committee would consider the planning of the Australia Card and whether it is necessary for the Health Insurance Commission to proceed in advance of the report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, which is to be established and which was agreed to by resolution in the Senate last Friday. We should bear in mind that this legislation is already different from the amending legislation which was introduced into the House of Representatives. The Government has already made one change to the Bill to remove some of the financial authorisations which were included in the Bill when it first came into the House of Representatives, after Opposition pressure for the establishment of the joint inquiry. This was made clear by Mr Porter in the other place and it was indicated, with the support of Senator Haines, that we would seek to refer this matter, that is the Australia Card per se, to a committee. So the Bill already has changed from the form in which it was originally introduced into the House of Representatives by the Government. I wanted to state only briefly the reasons why the Opposition believes that this would be proper legislation to refer to a committee. There are a number of matters arising which would benefit from examination by the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare. Senator Peter Baume —It generally has benefited legislation, has it not? Senator PUPLICK —Indeed, as my colleague Senator Peter Baume said, there have been a number of instances in which references of Bills-particularly those with a fairly short reporting time framework-have identified a number of deficiencies to which the Government's attention has been drawn and where remedial action has been taken. I have indicated the other Bills which might come forward in the course of the week to which a similar resolution will be moved by the Opposition. I do not believe it is necessary to take any more time of the Senate to explain the reasons behind this motion for reference of this Bill to the appropriate Senate committee for report by the first day of February 1986. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.12) —I must say that I commend Senate Puplick for his enthusiastic referral of pieces of legislation of one sort or another to Senate committees. I put it on notice to Senate Puplick now that we will bear this in mind should his party ever get back into government and remind him of his intense concern that Senate committees look at legislation before it gets through this place. I am sure that we will hear him singing a different tune from the other side of the chamber. It is a quite remarkable thing that Opposition members raise this every so often but never do it when they are in government. The Australian Democrats in the past have supported not only Liberal Party suggestions for sending matters off to committees but also suggestions from the Labor Party when it was in Opposition; indeed, we have moved such motions for referral ourselves. If the legislation clearly is deficient and there are very real concerns associated with it, then certainly we will be quite happy to facilitate referral. As I have said, we have done so on numerous occasions in the past. However, as I said yesterday, our concerns in regard to the current omnibus Bill, the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), whether it is a little omnibus Bill or not-I am not sure whether that means four cylinders and 2.1 litres-has some concerns for us. I expressed those concerns in the debate late last night. They related specificially to Part IV of the Bill-the legitimating section allowing the Health Insurance Commission to collect data with regard to the Australia Card, which it will then provide to the very committee that has already been established to look at the question of the need for an identity card. The Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card was established some time ago after negotiations between Mr Porter, on behalf of the Liberal Party, the Minister for Health (Mr Blewett) and myself. It seems a little odd to be referring a Bill to a committee of the Senate when the major section of that Bill has already been referred in essence to a fairly substantial joint parliamentary all-party committee which is due to report at the end of March. As far as the other two major elements of the omnibus Bill are concerned, I have already indicated that we have had no representations from the private sector with regard to the alleged unfair competition the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories is likely to present to the private pharmaceutical manufacturers. I certainly would not like to get in the way of the Government introducing provisions which tighten up the fraud and overservicing sections of the legislation, nor those which allow for the retrospective application of section 3B certificates. The medical profession itself is quite happy with those major parts of the legislation. As I said, the private pharmaceutical manufacturers have not indicated to me that they are at all unhappy about the section relating to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. The last part of the legislation relating to the planning of the Australia Card has already been sent to a committee and therefore, it does seem a trifle like something out of Alice in Wonderland to repeat the process quite unnecessarily. So, in this case the Australian Democrats will not support Senator Puplick's enthusiastic referral of this entire Bill to a committee. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.14) —The Senate will be surprised to know that the Government will not vote in support of the motion! Senator Haines has clearly pointed out, with eminent good sense, why the Australia Card part of the legislation should not go to a committee; it is already going to a committee. If we sent the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) to a committee for the next ten years we would not change the views of Senator Sheil, Senator Walters and Senator Knowles, who have spoken on it, on the powers of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. That would be an exercise in utter futility. The Opposition does not oppose the changes to the penalties for fraud and overservicing. It does not oppose the changes to the 3B certificates. As Senator Haines has said, I think this is one of a series of mischievous attempts to refer matters of this type to an already overburdened committee system. I will be interested to see whether Senator Puplick remains consistent even in Opposition in his attitude to whether certain things should be referred to certain committees. He may get the opportunity to express his views on that in the next few days or months in this place. We will see about consistency then. I see no good sense at all in referring this legislation to a Senate committee. Question put: That the motion (Senator Puplick's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C.Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Missen, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Carrick, Sir John Sheil, G.Collard, S. J. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C.Durack, P. D. Townley, M.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S.Jessop. D. S. Watson, J. O. W.Kilgariff, B. F. Withers. R. G. Aulich, T. Grimes, D. J.Black, J. R. Haines, J.Bolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Button, J. 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. Sanders, N. K.Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Siddons, J. R.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Georges, G. Vigor, D. B.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Hill, R. Coleman, R. N.Rae, Peter McClelland, DouglasMessner, A. J. Ryan, S. M.Lewis, A. W. R. Robertson, E. A.Chaney, F. M. Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Clauses 1 to 9-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 10 and 11-by leave-taken together. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.26) —The Opposition will oppose clauses 10 and 11, which enable extra functions to be taken up by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission. The arguments were rehearsed last night and this morning. I do not desire to go through all the arguments again. Honourable senators may be aware that in 1974 the then Labor Minister for Health, Dr Everingham, said: It is Australian Labor Party policy to enter the field of prescription drug manufacture and, indeed, to widen the charter of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Those were the explicit words in 1974 of the Labor Minister for Health, and indeed that is what is being done in this legislation now. The Opposition believes that the CSL under its present powers has been able to enter into the arrangement which existed for some years with Fawnmac. It has already been able to take that course. In the last year or so it has been able to make a bid for another privately owned pharmaceutical company, David Bull Laboratories Pty Ltd. It has adequate powers to carry out the extra functions it needs. It does not require the extra functions or powers. Because we are not convinced that a case has been made out, the Opposition will oppose these two clauses. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.28) —The Australian Democrats will be supporting the retention of these two clauses in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories has been one of the success stories in Australia. It has fairly important tasks to fulfil and honourable senators who have had the opportunity of visiting and going over the laboratories and discussing with the staff their role will be impressed by the work they do. They will also be impressed by the importance of many of the jobs which obviously cannot be done by any other organisation. For example, they could not be done by a private company since they are inherently unprofitable, but they need to be done in the national interest. An example of that is the retention of plaque vaccine. That role is retained by the CSL and the vaccine has been made available to meet the outbreak of plaque in some parts of South East Asia. Australia, because of its position, has a minute susceptibility in that respect. It is fairly obvious that in the national interest we should have an organisation which is capable of having stocks of various types of substances that may be needed if there are outbreaks. A number of those items and a number of the developments which have taken place in the laboratories are quite exciting. It seems to us to be acceptable, given the Government's concurrent acceptance of the items raised by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations in regard to a later clause in this Bill, that the way the Government has chosen to organise this means that Parliament will still be involved in the operation of these additional powers. It will still have the chance to overview and to discuss what is going on. To create a more vigorous Commonwealth Serum Laboratories has to be an acceptable item in the growth of bio-technology in today's world. Australia has the possibility of making considerable gains in this area, and I feel that the Government's move in this area is well timed to place us in that developing trend. The CSL obviously is a major contributor to that. It has extensive research capacity. In the last few years it has had extensions made to its accommodation. It is now provided with some of the best laboratories for particular types of highly dangerous work anywhere in Australia. Of course this type of work has been done in specific places. We cannot have escaping from laboratories the many types of products that are worked on. In that regard it seems to us that there will be additional costs to be borne in the next few years by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. It therefore seems appropriate to give the Laboratories an opportunity to make additional profit to offset these types of costs. I listened to the speeches of Senator Peter Baume and Senator Walters on this matter. We are not convinced of the problems that they perceive will arise. From my original look at this legislation I thought that it seemed very much like a privatisation move on the part of the Australian Labor Party, but I now understand that it is a socialist move on the part of the Labor Party. Obviously there are different ways of looking at that but I would have thought that to make the Laboratories increasingly competitive and especially to increase its profit to offset those obviously increasing costs in these areas so that it does not have to be a drain on the taxpayer are important points. The Laboratories ought to pay its way in an area in which it obviously can pay its way. I am quite happy to support these measures. I must also put on record that having spent a day at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, at its invitation, I was pleasantly surprised at the very vigorous way that it is tackling its task. I was also somewhat overwhelmed by the massive amount of work that is done in this area in the national interest. I think it is in all our interests to support the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and to support attempts to make it an even more vigorous organisation than it is at present. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.32) —Let us get this quite clear: The Opposition is not disputing at all the success of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories' present role in doing that which is in the national interest and involving itself in those things which are not taken up by private enterprise. We have certainly acknowledged the success of CSL in this regard. What we object to is CSL entering the area of private enterprise in an unfair way. There is no way that the Laboratories could compete fairly with private enterprise in this field; it has so many advantages. I am surprised that the Australian Democrats are not more interested in protecting private enterprise, but they do this sort of thing on so many occasions that I suppose it should no longer surprise me. The Democrats must understand that no more than a break-even situation is necessary for CSL. It does not have to make a profit as such; it has only to break even. It does not have to worry about loans and borrowing money; it will be supported by the Commonwealth Government. It will never have to worry about going broke because the Commonwealth would not allow it to go broke. It has so many advantages over private enterprise. I understand the Government's position because this is its philosophy, but I do not understand the Democrats, although I do not think the Democrats have any particular philosophy and it is therefore very difficult for us to understand what is behind their support for CSL entering the private enterprise field in such an unfair fashion. To liken this move, as Senator Macklin did, to privatisation can only underline the fact that the Democrats have no idea what privatisation is all about. The Government has never suggested that it should sell CSL. It is hanging on to CSL and, as I indicated earlier, I can understand its philosophy-it is one of socialisation, and that is very clear-but I fail to understand the Democrats' approach in this area. The Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, as is his usual wont, misquoted Senator Peter Rae when he interjected last night. For his benefit I would like to read from Hansard. He did not say, as Senator Grimes said in his speech today, that CSL does not pay rates or rent; what he did say was: It does not pay proper rates or proper rent. There is a very large difference, but we in this place have learnt never to take any real notice of what Senator Grimes says that people have said because we know that he misquotes whenever he can possibly do so. Again for Senator Grimes's benefit, I point out that when thinking of the socialisation required by his Party one has only to look at the history of the Australian Labor Party. He will recall, I am sure, that the Australian Labor Party has already attempted to socialise the banks. This is the history of the Australian Labor Party. There is no getting away from the fact that honourable senators opposite are the socialists and for the Democrats to suggest that this is a privatisation measure is quite extraordinary. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.36) —One's breath is sometimes taken away by the extraordinary contributions of Senator Walters. I would have thought that the history of the Australian Labor Party, particularly since 1983, as Senator Georges indicated earlier by way of interjection, with the deregulation of the banking system and the introduction of foreign banking licences in this country, was the exact opposite to the picture Senator Walters attempted to paint here today. However, we must let Senator Walters have her little dreams and go on with her little bits of nonsense each day. I apologise to Senator Walters that I apparently misquoted Senator Peter Rae. I did not hear him with the clarity that she did, and she has the Hansard. But I will answer Senator Peter Rae's interjection in toto now. Senator Peter Rae said that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories does not pay proper rates. It pays to the Woodend and Parkville Councils $769,000 in rates. Those rates are assessed by those councils, so CSL pays the same rates as anybody else in the district. Those are proper rates. Senator Walters and Senator Peter Rae have not produced any evidence that CSL does not pay proper rates. Senator Crowley —They are making a pretty wild claim. Senator GRIMES —That is a fairly wild claim. The problem we have to point out to Senator Walters, again very briefly, is that CSL already works in a difficult competitive field with difficult constraints. First, it has to take part in those national activities which governments of all political persuasions ask it to, and secondly it has to carry out government accountability procedures which are public and frequently more stringent than the accountability provisions of some of its competitors. The third point is that CSL has a large amount of plant which lies idle because it cannot do non-therapeutic things. Private industry has approached CSL and said: `Can't you use those extra facilities to produce enzymes for the detergent industry, to produce biological products for the good of Australia's agricultural industry, or to produce biological products which will break down pollutants for the good of our whole environment?' CSL has been approached by private industry to do this. This legislation will allow CSL to expand into this area and use idle equipment more effectively, more economically and be competitive in a very competitive area. What on earth is wrong with that? Senator Walters —And take over other companies. Senator GRIMES —CSL can take over other companies; it had done so in the past. But that is not the nationalisation of the pharmaceutical industry in this country. Any suggestion that that is even a halting step towards nationalisation of the pharmaceutical industry is nonsense. No one would want to nationalise the pharmaceutical industry in this country. Senator Walters wants to put her ideological beliefs into practice-she believes that no statutory authority, no government authority, should enter into any area of private industry. She believes that if something makes a profit it should be sold off and got rid of. The Government should have only non-profitable, ineffective things. CSL is a vital part of our pharmaceutical and health industries. As Senator Sheil conceded today, it has an important role to play in maintaining a productive pharmaceutical capacity in this country which is important for defence and security purposes and for all sorts of things. At the same time Senator Walters suggested that it was enough for CSL to break even, that one did not want government instrumentalities to make a profit. On the one hand she says that; on the other hand, she comes to this House and says that government-controlled institutions are no good because they do not make a profit. That sort of ideological nonsense and claptrap is the sort of stuff we are used to hearing in this place. I persist, and the Government persists with its amendments for the reasons that I have given and the reasons that Senator Macklin has given. If we are to have public enterprises-and we believe we should have some public enterprises because every country in the world has some-then let us make them profitable, effective and competitive. For heaven's sake, let us make sure that the facilities that such an enterprise has are used to their fullest extent and are used economically, not only for the benefit of the products produced, but in order to cut down the costs to the taxpayer. That is what we are trying to do and are doing with this legislation. All the idealogical stuff about Reds under the beds and everything else that we have heard from Senator Walters today is utterly irrelevant and we know that it is utterly irrelevant. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.43) —I wish to respond to Senator Macklin's remarks. The Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) has said on several occasions that he can count. I can also count and since the Democrats will support the Government on this matter, I understand how it will be resolved. With respect to Senator Macklin, he did not really address the issue of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) which is before us. He is not alone in admiring the work of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. He may be surprised to hear this, but he is not alone in having visited CSL. I think most of the speakers on our side of this debate have visited CSL, not once, but on a number of occasions. We share his admiration for the work that CSL has done in the national interest and which it continues to do. We are as one on that matter. We have admiration for Dr Neville McCarthy and for the people who are prominent with CSL. That is not the issue. Senator Macklin went on to talk about the need for CSL to extend its functions. There is no argument about that. CSL can do so under its present statute and, indeed, has done so. The issue is whether the statute should be extended, and the only argument that is relevant is that which is directed to why the statute should be extended and what extra benefits will be conferred. Senator Grimes addressed that matter. We happen to disagree with him. I accept the way that Senator Macklin and his colleagues intend to vote, but the argument he put up covered a number of matters which were not in contention. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 12 to 56-by leave-taken together. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.46) —I seek some information from the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) on clause 27. The Minister will be aware that clause 27 concerns the new retrospective 3B certificates. This matter was discussed during the second reading debate and I now seek information. The changes to the legislation contained in this clause have been sought by the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia for some 12 months and it welcomes the new capacity for retrospective certificates. A number of speakers have referred to this and there is general agreement that the proposal has merit. However, clause 27 inserts a new section 3A which will allow the Secretary to the Department or the Director-General, or whatever the head of the Department is now called, or that person's delegate I presume, to determine that certain long term inpatients of hospitals are in need of acute care. It is the extent and the operation of this delegation to the permanent head which is the cause of some concern. As it is written, it seems that that delegation is potentially open ended. It seems that it provides the Secretary or his delegate with potentially very wide powers and it seems, as we read the section, that there are no appeal provisions in relation to any determination which may be made. We have no reason to assume that the Secretary will exercise that power capriciously, but as it is presented, that possibility-if one takes an extreme case-could exist. People are wondering about the way in which it is intended that that power should be exercised. What assurances can the Minister give to the industry that the open ended powers will not be used capriciously? In the event that there is some disagreement about a termination by the officer, how do we get over the old calumny of power argument? What kind of appeal provisions would be open to those who feel aggrieved? Can the Minister give an assurance that any declarations made in proposed section 3A are determined on sound medical criteria? Could he further assure the Committee that no declarations will be made before full consultation is carried out with the health funds which may be affected? Will he further assure us that if these declarations prove to cause difficulties to health insurers-because they could prove to be potentially very expensive for the voluntary health funds-the Government will establish an appropriate appeals or objections machinery? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(11.48) —Senator Peter Baume knows that it is sensible to introduce exemptions of this type, particularly to cover the cases of long term acute psychiatric patients, acutely ill neonates and people with terminal carcinomas, in order to save doctors the task of having to repeatedly fill out 3B certificates. It will also relieve the health funds in some ways of the administrative burden and costs of having to monitor certificates for these patients. The reason why the appeal provision is not written into the legislation in the way that Senator Peter Baume would like it to be and the reason why these determinations will be subject to tabling and disallowance in the Parliament is that we are exempting classes of patients here rather than individuals. For that reason the method of tabling and disallowance is the preferred method for cases of this kind. The principle of exemption is sound. However, we do need a proper definition, as Senator Peter Baume said. For this reason an undertaking has been given to the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia and to the medical profession in this country that no action will be taken under new section 3A without full consultation with the industry. Thus, both the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia and the Australian Medical Association have been given these assurances by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). It is sensible that sound medical criteria be used and it is also eminently sensible that we should not run around excluding classes of people and causing great difficulties to those in the private health industry. For that reason the Minister has already announced that there will be these careful consultations and that is really the best that we can do in these circumstances. Parliament will have the capacity to disallow any irresponsible exemptions of this kind. I think it is important that it can do so. I think this is the best approach to take to the vexed question of these certificates. As I have said, the certificates are necessary because of the problems which arose under the existing system. I think this is really just a tidying up and a refinement of a system which should work very well. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 57 to 66-by leave-taken together. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.51) —Clauses 57 to 66, which make up Part IV of the Bill, are the clauses which together establish the Australia Card and which were the subject of much second reading debate. The Government made an announcement some months ago that the Australia Card would be introduced. Presumably, when it made that announcement, it did it on the basis of some information. Senator Macklin —Ha, ha! Senator PETER BAUME —Senator Macklin laughs but it is a threshold question. If the Government did it on the basis-- Senator Georges —The information was that you were going to support it. Senator PETER BAUME —I do not know what the honourable senator's information is but I am telling him now-and I said this last night-that until three reasonable questions can be answered no one should take a decision. These three important questions relate to the effectiveness of the Australia Card, the cost-benefit of the exercise and the civil liberties and privacy aspects. Presumably, when this Government announced the Australia Card, it did so on the basis of information. It is not sufficient for Senator Haines to argue that the essential reason for putting in these proposals is to allow information to be generated for the purposes of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card which we have established. Surely that information is already in existence? If not, we could ask: On what basis did the Government make its announcement which led its Department of Health to undertake certain expenditure, which we are now seeking to validate retrospectively, and which led the Government to undertake certain administrative planning? Presumably it was done on the normal, rational, sensible, and knowledgable basis on which this Government works. If that is the case, if the information is already available, that information can be made available now to the Joint Select Committee. Senator Macklin —It is not available. Senator PETER BAUME —Senator Macklin says that it is not available. That is an indictment of the Government. Senator Macklin —Of course it is. Senator PETER BAUME —Senator Macklin says `Of course it is'. He is even suggesting that the Labor Government proceeded with this matter in the absence of any proper information. Is that what he is saying? Senator Macklin —That is right: Data free decision-making. Senator PETER BAUME —Data free decision-making; there we have it. We now have Senator Macklin asserting quite clearly that the decision, whatever it was, was data free. The problem which the Opposition perceives is that we will be able to determine a final position on the Australia Card only when those three threshold questions are at least addressed in some reasonable and adequate way. Many people round the community who are concerned about the civil liberties aspects of the proposed Australia Card are asking in the representations which they are making to parliamentarians simply to have the issues addressed and to have some assurances given to them. I understand that the Joint Select Committee will be taking up that question. Presumably it will also be examining cost-benefit, effectiveness, the security of the card and all the other questions. The issue before the Committee now is whether, in advance of the consideration of the matters by that Joint Select Committee, it is appropriate to insert this proposed new section in the legislation. Senator Haines justified its insertion on the basis of developing data. Our response is that we presume that the Health Insurance Commission and the Government already have available to them sufficient data that enabled them to take their original decision, which data could now be made available to the Joint Select Committee. In fact, it is more desirable, from the point of view of protecting the public interest and in restraining an enthusiastic department from proceeding too far down the track in developing the Australia Card, that the enactment of this Part of the Bill be deferred until the Joint Select Committee has met and determined its position. The Opposition takes a very strong view on this matter. To the extent that the Australia Card involves potential infringements of the civil liberties of citizens, we think that has to be the overwhelming consideration. Because that is a consideration we will oppose this Part of the Bill. We indicate that, should our threshold questions be answered and our objections met, we would then be prepared to reconsider our position. But until the Government can answer these very real questions concerning civil liberties, cost effectiveness and the security and effectiveness of the card for doing the job for which it is designed, it is quite premature for the Government to seek to insert this Part in the legislation. The Opposition will oppose this Part and take the matter to a division. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(11.56) —I must confess to some amusement in listening to Senator Peter Baume. When this proposal was first mooted there was strong enthusiasm and support from members of the Liberal Party of Australia. Senator Peter Baume —From whom? Senator GEORGES —From Mr Howard in particular. There was an exchange between Mr Howard and me at a committee meeting. I said that it was passing strange that I opposed the identification card and the Liberal Party supported it. Mr Howard confessed that he supported it because it seemed to him, as an ex-Treasurer, to be a convenient way of gathering in funds. But the matter had not been carefully thought through. We now have members of the Liberal Party standing up and raising questions that were raised by many of us at the time the Australia Card was proposed. I assure honour- able senators opposite that the Government has paused and the matter has gone to a select committee of both Houses for consideration. There is no doubt that the Government would be unwise to allow any further expenditure to take place until the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card reports. This matter is dealt with in the legislation. Nevertheless, my view and my understanding of it is that there will be very little further expenditure on this matter until the Committee reports. Senator Peter Baume —What is your experience of dealing with the bureaucracy? Senator GEORGES —In my view the bureaucracy merely follows and tries to carry out the policy of the government of the day. More often than not it is very difficult for it to do so. I must admit that sometimes it takes initiatives before their time and manipulates procedures-as we have reported from time to time-to expedite the matters before it. The concerns that Senator Peter Baume now belatedly expresses on behalf of the Liberal Party are the concerns of many of us here. Having listened to the speeches yesterday about the identification card, I must say that I am a little bit concerned that if we can prove that this card will be effective we will all take it in hand. But in order to make this card effective we have to go further down the track in limiting the rights of individuals in the community. Many agencies in this country would like to have the convenience of being able to identify individuals clearly for a variety of reasons. The only way to do it effectively, of course, is to make certain that the identification card is effective and that it carries all the information for easy identification. We now know that technology can include on one small card all the information that is contained in three volumes. If we are going to take this matter as far as some people are trying to take it, we need to be able to identify poisitively every individual in our society through information from the moment of birth to the moment of death. Some people think this should happen. I would think that in a free society people should be able to change their identity should they desire to do so during their lifetime. Perhaps people want to do this to try to escape their past. The ability of a person to change his identity is an inherent right in a free society. The procedure which the Opposition seems to be encouraging will effectively limit the ability- Senator Peter Baume —Who is encouraging it? It is your Government. Senator GEORGES —No, my friend. The encouragement came from the honourable senator's side as much as it came from our side. The proposal was not properly considered or thought out. There was no pause to consider the magnitude of referring this matter to a committee. Senator Peter Baume —We are opposing the provision; you are supporting it. Senator GEORGES —Do not try to confuse the-- Senator Puplick —With the facts. Senator Peter Baume —Even for you this is extraordinary. Senator GEORGES —It is extraordinary that for convenience in collecting finance the Liberal Party, perhaps as well as the Australian Labor Party, went down a track which they are now beginning to believe might present considerable difficulties for ordinary individuals. If we succeed in making this card effective for taxation purposes we will create a whole new series of evasion measures in respect of normal procedures. The black market will grow; the cash economy will flourish; people will purchase portables; mansions will increase in size; and portraits will appear on the walls of practically every home. Devices such as these will be used by the strong and the wealthy to escape their responsibilities and only ordinary people will be caught. I am afraid that this proposal will catch the innocent more often than it will catch those who will use the system expeditiously for their own purposes. I am glad to see that this matter has been referred to a committee where it will be considered. I am a little nervous about the fact that we have before us legislation designed to implement the proposal. However, I am certain that the Government will not spend another penny on this matter until that Committee reports. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(12.03) —It is proper that I respond to the points made by Senator Georges. The decision of the Opposition which I set before the Committee this morning is the decision that was considered by the shadow Cabinet and announced by Mr Howard who leads the Opposition. It is the view which Mr Howard holds. Mr Howard is not prepared to endorse the Australia Card until three threshold questions have been answered. That is the Opposition's position. With due deference to my senior colleague Senator Georges, he can do many things but he is not in a position to try to speak for the Opposition or for the Opposition Leader. Senator Georges made it quite clear in the remarks he offered that it is going to be very difficult to satisfy the three questions which we have identified. Senator Georges says that in order to answer the first condition, that the card be effective, it may be necessary to infringe the third area which we have raised; that is, the question of civil liberties and the privacy of citizens. Senator Georges himself has indicated that it may not be possible for this Government or any government to reach a resolution, whether or not a committee is set up, on the three threshold questions which trouble the Liberal and National parties and which lead us to vote against the proposition. Let us be quite clear: Senator Georges spoke just now against the Australia Card. There can be no other construction put upon what he said. He spoke against the introduction of the card for very good and proper reasons of civil liberties. I would remind Senator Georges that it is the party of which he is a member-the Australian Labor Party-which has proposed legislation to provide a statutory basis for the card, which is insisting that the legislation is passed now and it is the Liberal and National parties which are seeking to vote against the legislation being passed at this moment. I suggest to Senator Georges that the eloquence of his remarks indicates that he should vote with us when a division is called. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.05) —I again thank honourable senators. I particularly thank Senator Georges for his support. It is ironic to think that if the Government had proceeded in the way in which governments of both political persuasions usually proceed, this debate would not have taken place because the Department of Finance, the Department of Community Services or organisations such as the Department of Health would have looked at this proposal, got the information and undertaken the research. But we said: `Look, the Health Insurance Commission has technical and practical experience in the issuing of universal cards of this type. It would be sensible for it to use its expertise and facilities to do the planning'. However, we need to pass a bit of legislation if the Health Insurance Commission is to carry out this work. If we had done what governments have always done and said `We are going to introduce a proposal but we need to plan carefully for it and get all of the information' we would not have had this debate at all. Some department would have carried out this work and we would not have had to go through the rigmarole of this legislation. I am sure that some of us wish that we had done it that way, that Finance or some other department had been brought in. But we did what we thought was the most sensible thing to do: We got the people who had some expertise to carry out this work. This is the reason this debate is now taking place. We have assured honourable senators that while the card proposal is being considered by a select committee the Health Insurance Commission will be doing only what is absolutely necessary for the planning stages of such a proposal. It will not spend any more than the funds that are necessary to do planning and research which, as Senator Haines has said, partly will be used by the committee which is looking at this matter. That is the reason the legislation is before this place. The Government finds itself in a catch-22 situation that governments always find themselves in. If we had brought forward a proposal such as the one now before us without having had the Health Insurance Commission look at the planning and introduction aspects of the proposal, if we had decided in the party room that we would introduce an Australia Card without having had the Health Insurance Commission or some Government department look at it to see whether it was a goer-we did, and it said it was-we would have been accused by the Opposition of proceeding without doing proper planning and research. Now we are doing proper planning and research, the Opposition is saying that we should not do that until a Senate committee has had a look at it, that we should have made the suggestion that we intended to introduce an identity card and then gone away and done the planning and research. As I said, this is a convenient debate for members of the Opposition to make their points but the debate would not have taken place if we had not decided that the expertise of the Health Insurance Commission would be used. For those reasons, and for the very cogent reasons that Senator Georges put forward, I ask honourable senators to support the clauses. Question put: That the clauses stand as printed. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator Bjelke-Petersen) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Aulich, T. Haines, J.Black. J. R. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Button, J. 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.Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Siddons, J. R.Georges, G. Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Vigor, D. B.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Missen, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Carrick, Sir John Sheil, G. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C.Durack, P. D. Townley, M.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S.Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W.Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G.Knowles, S. C. Coleman, R. N. Hill, R.McClelland, Douglas Rae, PeterRobertson, E. A. Crichton-Browne, N. A.Jones, G. N. Reid, M. E.Bolkus, N. Chaney, F. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clauses agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 28 November, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a first time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services (12.15) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1985 On 5 November 1985 Volume 3 of the Report of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for the 1985-87 Triennium was tabled in the Parliament. This volume of the Report responded to the Government's Supplementary Guidelines announced on 20 August 1985, and made recommendations on the distribution of additional funds for universities and colleges of advanced education for 1986 and 1987, and the Commonwealth's contribution to TAFE systems for 1986. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984 to complete the Government's 1986 tertiary education program in the States and Northern Teritory, provide additional grants for higher education for 1987 for enrolment growth flowing from increased intakes in 1986 and to provide cost supplementation for existing legislated grants. The Government has decided to support a further increase in intakes for higher education in 1987. Funding for 1987 for this increase will be determined in the 1986-87 budget context after consideration of a report from CTEC on efficiency and effectiveness in higher education the terms of which were announced on 17 October 1985. At the same time the Government will determine the level of Commonwealth support for TAFE systems for 1987, following its consideration of another review being undertaken by CTEC of the supplementary role of the Commonwealth in the TAFE sector. The financial impact of this Bill will be the appropriation of an additional $509.6 million. The Bill provides for an increase in higher education funding of $45.2 million for 1986 and 1987, and a total of $280.5 million for the TAFE sector for 1986. $183.9 million will be provided as adjustments for cost increases to existing grants for all sectors. Grants for all years of the Triennium will be further adjusted for cost increases from time to time in subsequent amending legislation in accordance with the Government's policy of retrospective cost supplementation for education grants. Under this policy, wage and salary increases occurring during the program year are met while increases in non-salary, equipment and capital costs are adjusted to the levels applying at the beginning of the program year. The distribution of the additional higher education grants for 1986 and 1987 is as recommended by the Commission. The key features of the revised triennial program for the States and Northern Territory for higher education are: Recurrent funds for 1987 will amount to $1,992.7 million. This is 5.5 per cent higher in real terms than the 1984 level. Additional funds necessary to support a further increase in intakes of some 2,000 in 1987 will be determined in the 1986-87 budget context. In total, an additional 20,500 higher education places will have been created over the triennium. Capital funding for 1985-87 will be $209.7 million. This represents an increase on the corresponding figure for the 1982-84 triennium of $59.4 million or 39 per cent in real terms. The supplementary program for 1986 and 1987 will enable the commencement of several new projects aimed largely at accommodating the extra students who will be provided for in higher education institutions as part of the Government's strategy for young people. Increased equipment funds will be provided to those institutions where enrolments are growing. In the TAFE program for 1986 increased funding will be provided for fees reimbursement grants while designated grants for special course provision and equipment grants will be maintained at the same real levels as in 1985. The States will also receive $130.2 million in grants in 1986 for new and continuing capital works projects in TAFE colleges. The Commission's recommended distribution of these funds among specific projects was accepted by the Government and is reflected in Schedule 20 of the Bill. This Bill also gives effect to the Government's decision, announced earlier this year, to permit higher education institutions to charge full cost fees for courses for overseas students, in accordance with the Government's guidelines on full-fee courses. Under the guidelines, universities and colleges of advanced education funded by the Commonwealth will be able to offer full-fee courses for overseas students, either in Australia or overseas, over and above those subsidised overseas students who are subject to the overseas student charge. The Bill provides for the exclusion of such full-fee courses from the condition generally applying to recurrent grants provided under the legislation that institutions are not to charge tuition fees. Consequential changes in respect of Commonwealth institutions are being made in other Bills being introduced today. The Bill also provides for the payment of grants to be made in other than the traditional context of university, advanced education or TAFE. In particular, provision is included for grants to be made in relation to approved `institutes of tertiary education'. The supplementary capital program for higher education for 1986 and 1987 includes a contribution to the planning phase of the Western Melbourne Institute of Post-Secondary Education, a new multi-sector institution which will serve an area of Melbourne which has been severely disadvantaged in terms of access to tertiary education. I commend the Bill to the Senate. COMMONWEALTH EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS (OVERSEAS STUDENTS) AMENDMENT BILL 1985 The purpose of the Commonwealth Education Institutions (Overseas Students Amendment Bill 1985 is to amend the Australian National University Act 1946 and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967 to empower the charging of fees for overseas students. In both Acts, the amendment will enable these institutions to charge course fees for overseas students in accordance with guidelines determined by the Minister. This action is being taken in respect of Commonwealth higher education institutions as a counterpart of similar provisions being introduced into the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984 for State institutions. The same procedures will be followed for both State and Commonwealth institutions. Revenue from fees will be retained by institutions on the basis that after direct costs are met any surplus is applied to the education activities of the institution in accordance with the relevant conditions as set out in the Guidelines for Full Fee Overseas Students in Courses provided by the Commonwealth Funded Higher Education Institutions. The Maritime College Act does not need to be amended because there is already a power in the Act to impose fees and the exercise of this power is already subject to the Minister's approval. I commend the Bill to the Senate. STATES GRANTS (EDUCATION ASSISTANCE-PARTICIPATION AND EQUITY) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1985 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Act 1983 to: * supplement for cost increases the grants available to government and non-government education authorities in the States and the Northern Territory to conduct projects and programs under the Participation and Equity Program in the years 1985 and 1986. * to put into effect the Government's decision to extend the program to 1987 and to spread the funds currently provided for 1986 evenly over 1986 and 1987. The present Act as amended provides funds for PEP activities for 1984, 1985 and 1986. The cost supplementation proposed is in accord with the Government's undertaking to provide retrospective cost supplementation for this program. The adjustments are consistent with those being made to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) and States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment bills which are also before the House today. The Government's decision to spread funds currently available for 1986 evenly over 1986 and 1987 was announced in May as part of the initial expenditure savings measures. The amounts to be provided in each of 1986 and 1987 are sufficient to allow the program to proceed and achieve positive results. The financial impact of this Bill will be to provide an additional $0.624 million in 1985, to reduce the amount currently legislated for 1986 by $38.462 million and to provide an additional $42.423 million for 1987. I commend the Bill to the Senate. STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1985 This Bill follows last year's historic legislation which set out policies for the implementation of a comprehensive long term scheme for the general recurrent funding of government and non-government schools in Australia. This Bill implements the Government's decisions on specific purpose and capital programs for schools in 1986 which I announced when tabling the Commonwealth Schools Commission's Report for 1986 on 15 October 1985. With regard to the Capital Grants Program, this will entail a greater emphasis on upgrading and refurbishment of facilities in existing schools, particularly those serving students characterised by low socio-economic circumstances, the construction of new facilities in accordance with overall educational planning, the provision of facilities to assist schools to encourage and cater for increased student participation at years 11 and 12, and the provision of facilities to encourage equal participation by girls and boys in all areas of the curriculum and to assist in widening career options for girls. The Bill reflects the Government's decision that in 1986 there will be a single general capital element in place of the five elements operating in 1985. There will also be two national elements: continuation of the existing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander element and a new element for the provision of facilities for children with intellectual and/or physical disabilities. This follows from the transfer from the Department of Community Services of the administration of capital grants to non-government institutions providing for disabled children. Within the general capital element, the Government's decision to direct a higher proportion of Commonwealth capital funds to upgrading and refurbishment of existing schools will be a matter for administrative implementation and will take account of forward commitment obligations already entered into. The Bill appropriates an estimated $1,495m for schools programs in the States and the Northern Territory for calendar year 1986, and also appropriates a further $14m for 1985 programs in line with the Government's policy of providing retrospective cost supplementation for the Commonwealth's school programs. In this legislation, the Government is implementing its policy on the funding of new non-government schools which was announced in March this year following the Government's acceptance of the report by a panel of Commonwealth Schools Commissioners on `Planning and Funding Policies for New Non-Government Schools'. This policy was the result of extensive consultations with government and non-government education authorities and will benefit all Australian children, in government and non-government schools. The main features of the policy that have been incorporated in the legislation are: changes to the definition of a new non-government school to include existing schools undertaking a change in character only when it results in a significantly increased and/or different clientele; general recurrent grants for approved new non-government schools and those undertaking a change in character which does not involve a significantly increased and/or different clientele, to be based on the general enrolment plan put forward by schools at the time of their approval; modification of the existing criteria for determining eligibility for Commonwealth funding; decisions on eligibility for funding also to take account of plans, including the plans of the relevant government and non-government education authorities, for the provision of education in the States and in the locality, the past, current and projected characteristics of the locality so far as the provision of education is concerned, and the priority the school should, in the opinion of the Minister, be accorded for funding from the Commonwealth. This policy is an important element in the Commonwealth's overall approach to the provision of a firm basis for proper educational planning, and will promote the most effective and most equitable use of Commonwealth financial assistance. I commend the Bill to the Senate. [COGNATE BILLS: STATES GRANTS (NURSE EDUCATION TRANSFER ASSISTANCE) BILL 1985 STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1985] Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(12.16) —If it suits the convenience of the Senate I suggest that we deal with the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3), the Commonwealth Education Institutions (Overseas Students) Amendment Bill 1985, the States Grants (Education Assistance- Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985, together with the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Bill 1985 and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985, in a cognate debate, with the questions being put separately. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There being no objection, it is so ordered. Senator PETER BAUME —I will deal briefly with the majority of the Bills because they enjoy the support of the Opposition. The Opposition supports the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Bill, which will transfer nurse education from hospitals to the higher education sector, and the associated Bill, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2), which provides some of the financial arrangements. My only comment on those Bills relates to the helping professions in general, the medical profession and most of the therapies-occupational therapy, physiotherapy and speech therapy. Most of the other associated helping professions now receive their education in the higher education sector, mostly in the college sector. Over a generation there has been a move by nurses to have their training moved away from hospital-based training to institution-based training. These Bills provide the statutory basis for such transfer to take place at a more rapid pace. The transfer is not without some difficulty and pain in several areas. Firstly, the people who have been teaching in hospitals want to ensure that they are not disadvantaged. They are concerned to ensure that some of the traditions of nurse education are not abandoned with the transfer. They are concerned to ensure that the institutions taking over the training will be able to do that job. There are concerns about the clinical training associated with such transfers. Of course, there are some quite complex arrangements to be made between the Commonwealth and the States for the new financial arrangements. Under the old arrangements nurse training was a State activity. Under the new arrangements, once nurses move to colleges of advanced education, which is a Commonwealth area of expenditure, there are questions of how and whether nurse trainees will qualify for the payment of student benefits as educational trainees. There are other questions of how the States will then proceed to rationalise the staffing within their hospitals. There is a whole range of questions, but we believe that they will be resolved and we believe that this legislation, on balance, is a desirable set of Bills to try to facilitate the movement of nurse training alongside that of the other helping professions within the higher education sector. I observe only that it may well emerge that a new class of nurse trainee will be needed more and more within hospitals-people without higher education, perhaps a practical nurse or a nurse's aide, whatever the phrase may be, who will take over some of the functions traditionally carried out by nurse trainees. Many of the people who were trained in hospitals as nursing sisters-as was my colleague Senator Walters-may be concerned that something will be lost if the ethos of nursing, built up as a result of hospital training over many years, is lost. With those few words the Opposition indicates its support for those two Bills. The Opposition supports the Bill which provides for the capacity of the Australian National University, the Canberra College of Advanced Education and the Australian Maritime College to take fee-paying overseas students. I will not discuss that legislation any further. However, I will refer to the other three Bills. The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) provides supplementation payments for higher education, to take account of price movements. I remind the Senate, as I did the other night, that it provides $45.2m in additional grants for higher education for 1986 and 1987, $280m for technical and further education for 1986 and $183.9m in adjustments for cost increases for existing grants. These are very large amounts of money. It is not possible to consider these amounts without reminding the Senate that this same Government introduced in the Senate one week ago a Bill to cut $10m from child care; child care being one of the essential components of the achievement of equal employment opportunity for women. We simply refuse to believe that it was not possible, for example, to have found $10m from amongst those amounts of $184m, $280m and $45m, and apply it to child care. The Government has made a declaration of its priorities, if one sets alongside each other three recent decisions: Firstly, the decision to give taxation or duty concessions to those wishing to import thoroughbred racehorses. That is scarcely help for the needy; it helps the very richest group in society. Secondly, there was the decision to supplement very generously-I have indicated the amounts, totalling hundreds of millions of dollars-the support given for the most fortunate and most privileged in our education system. Thirdly, another expression of Government priority was the removal of $10m from the child care area for subsidised child care and for the places available to those who require subsidised child care. The other comment one needs to make in considering the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill is to remind the Government once again that it is failing to satisfy or meet the requirements of young Australians, and of Australians generally, for access to higher education. Let me make that point in a rational and reasoned way. Let us acknowledge immediately that the Government has added to the places that are available in universities and colleges and that it has announced it will add more places. That is only one half of the equation. It is a question of balancing the places available against the numbers seeking admission to those places. I have obtained figures in regard to which I have sought to make a judgment on the numbers of people seeking and likely to be seeking places in higher education in Australia. It is necessary for the Senate to consider the fact that over the last few years more and more young Australians have remained in the senior years of school. I remember that when I was Minister I started a campaign at the end of 1982. Indeed, in 1983 retention rates at year 12 had increased substantially. The Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, and her Government have continued that campaign. They have extended it and they have achieved increased retention rates. Now up to 45 per cent appear to be retained in the school system to the end of year 12. Considerably more young Australians are being retained than was the case even five or seven years ago. It means that a larger cohort of young Australians is sitting for the examination which qualifies it for higher education. The question is: Are young Australians as well off, better, or worse off than they were a few years ago? One must work out the number of places available in universities and colleges and the number of applicants seeking those places. I have here some figures prepared from Statistical Monograph No. 3-`Apparent Grade, Retention Rates and Age Participation Rates' from the Commonwealth Department of Education, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics schools publications and Statistical Monograph No. 1-`Education: School and Other Leavers', also from the Commonwealth Department of Education. We have used all of those sources-I am grateful to those who compiled the figures for me-to try to get some measure of whether the places made available by this Government are keeping up with demand. In 1977 when the retention rate to year 12 was low, the figures suggest that of all those finishing year 12, about 48.7 per cent were commencing students the following year in regard to higher education. The figure dropped. Let me acknowledge that it dropped. The figure was down to 42.2 per cent in 1981 and 41.9 per cent in 1982. In 1983, which saw the result of the last Fraser Budget, it was 43.1 per cent; that is, 43 per cent of all those who finished year 12 seemed to be commencing students in universities and colleges. It seems that in 1985 that figure has dropped. It is now 41.1 per cent. Only 41 per cent of those completing year 12 seem to be commencing students, seem to be able to find places to be commencing students, in universities and colleges. That figure is lower than any since 1977. I cannot cite figures before 1977 because I do not have them. In regard to the figures before us, a lesser percentage of that cohort finishing secondary school in Australia is able to enter universities and colleges today than has been the case for a decade. That is in spite of the Minister's efforts to provide extra places and her achievements in being able to provide some extra places. The extra places are welcome, but they are nothing like the number of extra places required to meet the increased retention in years 11 and 12 in secondary school or the completion rates to year 12. It is nothing like the number required to allow the same percentage of young Australians to find their way into higher education. If someone urges a young Australian to stay in school so that he has a chance to enter higher education, he would be entitled to say: `What are you talking about? The chance of my participating seems to be dropping year by year, because whereas under the Liberals in 1977 I had almost a one in two chance if I completed year 12 to enter a college or university, now I have only slightly better than a two in five chance'.I hope that the Minister will be able to convince her colleagues that in pursuit of the interests of young Australians she should be able to provide more places. I doubt that the public purse will be able to fund the number of extra places that will be required. The Minister will have to acknowledge the fact that no matter what she thinks, it will be necessary to look to other sources of funding to achieve the extra opportunity, the extra access, and to maintain excellence in our higher education institutions. I remind the Minister that the Liberal principles for higher education are built around opportunity, access and excellence. The only other Bill to which I wish to address a few remarks is the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill. My colleague Senator Baden Teague will speak to this piece of legislation. The Opposition will move some amendments, both to the motion for the second reading of the Bill and at the Committee stage. They were foreshadowed by my colleague Mr Shack in the House of Representatives. The purpose of this piece of legislation is to provide certain retrospective cost supplementation grants for schools programs in 1985-the Opposition will not oppose those; to tend and authorise funds for annual programs in 1986-I will come back to that point in a moment; to provide for the transfer of certain early special education responsibilities from the Department of Community Services to the Commonwealth Schools Commission-we will not oppose that measure; and to provide for the Government's new policy on new non-government schools-we certainly will oppose certain elements of that measure. I return to the funding of annual Schools Commission programs for 1986. I make it clear that in very many areas this Government has reduced the funds for educational programs for 1986. Tables 17.1 and 17.2 of the summary tables on page 57 of the report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission for 1986 set out the figures. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the two tables. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- SUMMARY TABLES Table 17.1 1986 National Allocations Commonwealth General Resource Programs for Schools (expressed in estimated December 1984 prices) 1985 1986 ($'000) ($'000) Government programs General Recurrent (a)... 354 414 373 740 Capital... 165 501 150 890 Non Government Programs General Recurrent (b)... 660 947 671 074 Short Term Emergency Assistance... 643 643 Capital (c)... 59 727 54 406 Total... 1 241 232 1 250 753 (a) As this program operates on a per capita basis, final costs will be subject to actual enrolments each year. (b) Based on latest available year's actual enrolments (1984); final payments are dependent on actual enrolments for 1985 and 1986, the distribution of increased enrolments among the funding categories, the outcome of appeals by schools against their funding categories and the number of new schools to qualify for Commonwealth per capita and establishment grants; based on projected enrolments, total costs are estimated at an additional $13m-$15m in 1985 and $25m-27m in 1986. (c) Includes amount to be transferred from Department of Community Services in 1986. An amount has also been included in 1985 for reasons of comparison. Table 17.2 National Allocations 1986 Commonwealth General Resource Programs for Schools (expressed in estimated December 1984 prices) 1985 1986 ($'000) ($'000) Government Programs Primary Basic Learning... 5 549 5 549 Participation and Equity... 40 698 20 349 Computer Education... 5 251 5 251 English as a Second Language - General Support... 42 458 40 855 - New Arrivals (a)... 10 004 10 004 Disadvantaged Schools... 30 034 30 034 Special Education - Recurrent... 18 845 18 072 - Integration... 1 419 1 361 Early Special Education... 1 668 1 668 Non-Government Programs Primary Basic Learning... 1 466 1 466 Participation and Equity... 4 768 2 384 Computer Education... 1 313 1 313 English as a Second Language - General Support... 17 958 17 084 - New Arrivals (a)... 1 070 1 070 Disadvantaged Schools... 5 833 5 833 Special Education - Recurrent... 4 819 4 621 - Integration... 407 390 - Support Services (b)... 13 000 12 467 Early Special Education... 426 426 Joint Programs Participation and Equity... 1 701 850 Early Special Education... 1 780 1 780 Multicultural Education... 4 975 4 771 Ethnic Schools (a)... 5 037 5 037 Country Areas... 10 228 9 809 Children in Residential Institutions... 2 289 2 289 Severely Handicapped Children... 3 738 3 738 Professional Development... 11 301 11 301 Education Centres... 2 393 2 393 Projects of National Significance... 1 818 1 818 Total... 252 246 223 983 (a) As these programs operate on a per capita basis, final costs will be subject to actual enrolments each year. (b) Amount to be transferred from Department of Community Services in 1986. An amount has also been included in 1985 for reasons of comparison. Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Senate. These tables reveal that funding for a large number of programs in 1986 will be less, in real terms, than it was for 1985. Educational programs in a large number of areas will be less well funded. For example, capital funds for programs in government schools will be down from $165m to $151m. Capital funds for programs in non-government schools will be down from $60m to $54m. Turning to specific government school programs, funds for the participation and equity program will be cut in half. I will come back to that in a moment. Funds for the general support component of the English as a second language government program-one of the great opportunity programs in our community-will be reduced from $42m to $40m, a reduction, by the Labor Government, for those needing to learn English as a second language. Special education recurrent funding is being reduced from $18.845m to $18.072m. Funding for the integration component of the special education program is being reduced from $1.4m to $1.36m. Funding for non-government programs in the same areas is also being reduced. Funding for the English as a second language non-government program is being reduced from $17.9m to $17m. Recurrent special education funding, integration funding, participation and equity funding, multicultural education funding and funding for country areas programs are all being reduced this year. The Government has to explain why it is reducing funding for so many of the educational programs, many of which I have listed operate to the benefit of disadvantaged Australians or Australians in special need. How is it possible that the Government can announce at Budget time new concessions for racehorse owners when it cannot even keep up the funding for the English as a second language program in real terms? Senator Teague —They are real cuts on all these special programs. Senator PETER BAUME —They are real cuts. I am talking in constant dollar terms. My comparisons have already made allowance for inflation. These are real cuts in programs for the needy while we pander to the racehorse owners around Australia. The Government has to answer why it has set priorities this way, why it is willing to put public money, for example, into the defence of the America's Cup when it is not willing to maintain in real terms its support for the English as a second language program or the special education programs and the many other programs which are used by the poor and disadvantaged. I turn finally to the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill 1983. Again, as we have said many times, the reduction of this scheme represents one of the great tragedies for young Australians. The participation and equity program was announced by this Government as `the centrepiece of our youth policy'. It is the kind of centrepiece which is now being cut in half without an effective replacement being established and put into operations. Sure, there has been an announcement about a new program-Priority One: Young Australia. But show me around the country where it is taking the place of the participation and equity program. A project has been announced by Ansett Airlines of Australia to take some people under the Priority One program but, apart from that, the program is not running at all yet. The participation and equity program, par excellence, was directed at the disadvantaged, particularly to the educationally disadvantaged, to the long term unemployed and to those who lacked the skills to become winners in society. Whereas we increase the funds for higher education by large amounts-by hundreds of millions of dollars-set out in the legislation which is part of this cognate package, we have cut in half funds for the participation and equity program for the long term unemployed, for the disadvantaged and for those in special need. The obvious question is: What are these people supposed to do? What are they supposed to do now as their opportunities are reduced, as their chances to participate are lessened and as their opportunities to become winners are diminished? Why did a Labor government adopt this set of priorities? Is this the new Labor Government which will cut child care and educational programs for the needy, the disadvantaged and the long term unemployed-programs such as the English as a second language program which goes to the help of those who need special education-but which will provide new concessions for racehorse owners for taxation, will provide lavish funding for the cultural preferences of honourable senators such as me who go to the ballet, will provide lavish support of sport and put money into all the circuses around the place? It is disgusting, but it is a statement of priorities which those in the educational area know and understand. They have heard the message. I have not discussed the provision for new non-government schools. My colleague Senator Teague will do so. In anticipation of what he is to say, I move: Leave out all words after `That', insert: `the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985 be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for- (a) the removal of constraints imposed on non-government schools, or on non-government school communities, which will in any way destroy their independence or opportunities for expansion or interfere with the special character of non-government schools; and (b) a basic per pupil grant for each child for the basic necessities of schooling, adequate capital provision, and special additional funds for special educational disadvantage'. I indicate that when we come to the Committee stage of the consideration of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985 we intend to oppose a number of the clauses which put into effect changes in relation to non-government schools, again, in ways which my colleague will make clear to the Senate. Senator PARER(Queensland)(12.40) — Today, the Senate is debating cognately a package of education Bills. I wish to confine my remarks to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985. Among other things, this Bill gives effect to the Government's decision announced on 22 March to permit higher education institutions to charge full cost fees for overseas students over and above those subsidised overseas students who are subject to the overseas student charge. The latter charge has recently been amended by the Government in the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill. The Opposition supports the introduction of full fee courses for overseas students, just as it supported the general thrust of the Government's decision to increase the overseas student charge. The two arms of policy relating to the position of overseas students at our tertiary institutions were developed by the Government in response to the reports of two committees-the Goldring Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy and the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program. It is disappointing, though perhaps not surprising, that the Government has chosen largely to adopt the recommendations of the Goldring report and to ignore the findings of the Jackson report. I say `not surprising' since, unlike the Jackson report, the Goldring report is unwilling to allow tertiary institutions to break free from their rigid bureaucratic chains and costly taxpayer-funded subsidies. The Government's credentials in the area of overregulation in education are well known. Australia has an opportunity in the tertiary education area to establish a viable export industry that would not cost Australian taxpayers a cent. It would help developing countries overcome problems that are caused by lack of education and training. It would have important economic spin-offs for Australia and would encourage friendly links between Australia and the countries in the fastest growing region in the world. Only a Labor Government could throw away all these opportunities by burdening tertiary institutions with unnecessary restrictions which will serve only to slow the development of this potential export industry. Some of the restrictions to which I refer are mentioned in the March statement of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). For example, the Government proposes, firstly, an annual overall ceiling on overseas students. Secondly, institutions will have flexibility-this is the Minister's expression, not mine-to enrol up to 10 per cent of their total number, and up to 20 per cent in any course. Thirdly, an overseas student office will be established within the education bureaucracy to do a job that tertiary institutions could do better themselves. The Minister said that this office would have the responsibility for policy development and co-ordination. Those are simply bureaucratic terms normally reserved for functions which are not needed. Fourthly, there will be a separate student quota for individual countries. In addition, the Minister's guidelines lay down some ground rules for institutions seeking to charge full fees for overseas students. I understand that institutions will not be allowed to retain any of the capital component of fees paid by overseas students nor will they be allowed to use recurrent funds for the purpose of attracting fee paying overseas students. These absurd restrictions, endorsed by Goldring but rejected by Jackson, will deny freedom of choice to incoming students and will tie the hands of teritary institutions which may have a comparative advantage in a specific field or may be able to offer courses of great interest to particular countries or regions. Needless to say-again this is not surprising-the restrictions will serve simply to maintain the stranglehold of the bureaucracy and the Government on Australia's tertiary institutions and to prevent the development of independence and entrepreneurship in the more innovative and enterprising of our institutions. But, the Minister and the Government are not in the business of allowing our tertiary institutions to become independent of government and to compete with one another in order to better serve the students, parents and employers either in Australia or elsewhere. The Minister, like the Goldring Committee, adopts the defensive approach that to make educational institutions accountable to their clients is somehow to debase education or to treat it like any other commodity. Such statements about marketising education show ignorance of both education and markets. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to his answer yesterday to Senator Collard's question, when he said that the quantum of superannuation claims would be dependent on the decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission next year. He said: . . . it is not appropriate to claim or estimate quantum at this stage. How does the Minister suggest that transport companies, facing a demand for agreement to a $12 a week claim within the next two weeks, respond to that claim? Does the Minister suggest that these companies advise the union threatening industrial action that now is not the appropriate time to discuss the quantum of the claim? Senator BUTTON —The question directed to me yesterday was in the context of the Transport Workers Union of Australia claim. I answered it in the light of that context. I am not in a position to advise the transport companies. The Government has indicated a view about this claim and how its processing should be facilitated by negotiation, not by the sorts of methods which have been threatened. I guess that will be dealt with in the context of the discussions which will take place next week. Senator CHANEY —As a supplementary question, I ask whether the Minister stands by his words of yesterday that it is not appropriate to be claiming or estimating a quantum amount at this stage. If he does stand by them, does that apply to the claim which has been made upon these transport companies? Senator BUTTON —I answered the question yesterday in the context of an estimated amount to which Senator Collard referred in his question. The only context in which quantum has been discussed by anybody is the estimated 3 per cent productivity increase, which I suppose is a basis for discussion, but no more than that. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Under what circumstances does the Government agree to allow tax deductibility for donations to school building funds? Is tax deductibility provided for both Government and non-government schools? In the case of State government schools, does tax deductibility effectively mean that the Federal Government is paying for 50 per cent of the cost of facilities which the States are not prepared to fund? If so, is the Federal Government concerned about this practice? Senator WALSH —I thought I might have had a note on this question, but I do not, so I am unable to give precise details of what qualifies for a tax deduction and what does not. Given that, I had better not attempt to answer. Of course, to the degree that donations are tax deductible and on the assumption that most of them would come from companies or people on high incomes, it would be broadly correct, as Senator Colston suggested, that the Government is indirectly funding something like half of the cost of contributions to schools. Senator SHEIL —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to reports that the Transport Workers Union of Australia has banned the movement of Mayne Nickless Ltd parcels through Tullamarine Airport in what that company says is part of the union's campaign to force it into accepting a union superannuation claim well ahead of the Government's time-table. What advice or protection can the Government give to this company facing industrial blackmail which is delaying the passage of up to 10,000 parcels a day? Senator WALSH —I do not know of that dispute; I have not heard about it before. Therefore, I will seek a response from the Minister. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I notice that he reassured Senator Colston on 11 November that delays in determining repatriation pension claims and appeals will be reduced to an average of 90 days by the middle of next year. However, I point out that I and, I am sure, other senators are still receiving complaints from veterans about excessive delays in finalising their claims. Can the Minister indicate what progress has been made to date in reducing the delays? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that members of parliament, as well as Ministers, are still receiving complaints about the determining system. That arises because of a number of factors that have evolved over the past decade, which prompted the Government to change to the new determining system that came into operation on 1 January this year. There has been a 130 per cent increase in claims lodged by veterans since this Government came to office. That has arisen largely because of the age component of veterans, the previously cumbersome, top heavy determining system which prompted the previous Minister and me to take steps to introduce a new system, and the staffing restrictions imposed by the previous Government. However, since the new determining system has been operating there has been an 11 per cent increase in staff of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The backlog of entitlement claims has been reduced from 30,000 to 24,000 and assessment claims from 15,000 to 10,000. We were well on the track, until the Senate took some action last week in respect of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, of achieving the 90-day objective by 20 June next year. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill, which is in limbo, has created some difficulties in respect of the new determining system. I have sought some legal advice as to where the Government is as a result of the failure of the Senate to pass the legislation. Undoubtedly it will affect the determination of claims and assessments. I am not in a position at this stage to indicate what effect that legislation will have upon the claims, because the Veterans' Entitlements Bill will not come back to the Senate for its consideration until the autumn session. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. It follows an answer in the Hansard of 11 November to an earlier question of mine concerning the attitude of the Australian Government to the dispatch of Australian troops to the Philippines in the event of a major insurrection there. Can the Minister understand that the Australian people would wish to know clearly and definitely whether or not Australians could be committed to what might well be another Vietnam in the Philippines? Does the Minister agree, in view of the fast deteriorating military and political situation there, that the statements in his answer to me that `Australia's response to hypothetical situations cannot be determined in advance' and that `the nature of any support it might give would be a matter for decision by the government of the day' represent a clear abdication by the Hawke Government from a vitally important decision as far as all Australians are concerned? If Article 4 of the ANZUS Treaty appears to oblige Australia to send troops to the Philippines, as the Minister's reply indicates, will the Government negotiate immediately to change it so that there can be no question of Australians being committed to fight a war in support of the Marcos regime? Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the first question, yes; as to the second question, no. If the issue should cease to be hypothetical, the Hawke Government will respond appropriately to Australia's national interest, as indeed it always has done. As to the third part of the question, I have nothing whatsoever to add to my answer of 11 November given on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Since the New Zealand Government did not interpret the underlying assumptions of the ANZUS Treaty to mean that it was obliged to host visits of United States nuclear powered and armed ships, as the governments of the United States and Australia apparently do, does the Australian Government now consider that the outmoded and outdated Manila Pact of 1954 is in the same way inoperative, given the decision of the Philippines Government no longer to allow Australian military flights access to Clark Air Base? Is it the Government's intention to cease to become a party to the Pact by giving 12 months notice of denunciation as required under Article X? Senator GARETH EVANS —If I can untangle the core of the question from some of its penumbra, might I simply say first that the Manila Pact, more formally titled the South East Asia Collective Defence Treaty, does remain technically in force and, as a party to the Treaty, Australia still formally subscribes to its provisions. However-this is a very crucial however-for all practical purposes that Treaty is moribund and is so regarded by us and everyone previously associated with it. As far as the Philippines itself is concerned, it, like Australia, does also remain a party to the Treaty but its Government is on record as stating that in its view the Treaty effectively terminated with the winding up of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation in 1977. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer him to the Treasurer's speech today to the Euromoney Conference in Melbourne where Mr Keating said that as a matter of broad principle the Government believed that employer and employee groups `should share the responsibilities of fund operation and management'. In that context he was speaking about superannuation funds. Does this mean that existing company schemes will have to be opened up to joint control with the unions? Despite the Treasurer's reference in his speech to possible ceilings on fund assets invested in any one company, what is to stop unions with holdings in a company getting together to exercise effective control of major business organisations? Senator BUTTON —It is easy to take one paragraph of Mr Keating's speech out of context. If the honourable senator wants me to I will read the lot, but I think that would be unproductive at Question Time. It is quite clear what the Treasurer is saying in his speech. The ratio decidendi-if I might use an expression more likely to be used by my colleagues Senator Durack and Senator Gareth Evans-is simply that the Government is about, as I said in Question Time, negotiating with companies, their representatives and unions about the guidelines which will apply to superannuation schemes under the Government's new proposals, that those negotiations will take place next week, and that a number of things which are listed in the Treasurer's speech are on the agenda for discussion at those meetings. Insofar as company schemes are concerned-as mentioned in the hypothetical situation which Senator Messner referred to-that clearly will be a matter of discussion if it is a matter of concern. I would have thought that the companies and their representatives that will take part in those discussions would be much better placed to represent their interests than Senator Messner. Senator MESSNER —Mr Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Are we to assume from the Minister's answer that in fact the information that I was seeking is part of the discussions going forward next week with business groups? Senator BUTTON —Yes, all those issues are subjects for discussion next week and any concerns which people have will be articulated, I have no doubt. Senator Messner —So it is a union grab? Senator BUTTON —No, it is not a union grab. Senator Messner sought to ask a second supplementary question by way of interjection. I will qualify the previous answer which I gave in this way: If Senator Messner wants to assume those things I say that he is entitled to assume anything. If he does he is walking the plank, and I will make that quite clear to him in the next few weeks. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories. Has his attention been drawn to the ill-informed criticism from Opposition senators which is being levelled at the Government's recently announced proposals for an Australian Capital Territory Council? Would the Minister please clarify those proposals in the light of this criticism? Senator GIETZELT —I think honourable senators on both sides of the House would be aware of not only the ill-informed but also the misdirected criticism that has been levelled at the Government which would appear to be contrary to the general public acceptance of the principles of moving towards self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. It appears the Opposition has not even taken the time or the energy to understand the Minister's proposals before trying to score some cheap party political points. The Government believes it is high time for the people of the Australian Capital Territory to have a measure of responsibility for their own affairs. The Government is of the view that most of the residents of Canberra will welcome the Government's move in this direction. The proposal is for the establishment of a 13-member council elected from single member constituencies. Far from being a gerrymander, as claimed by Opposition senators-who seem to forget that there are such things as gerrymanders in Queensland-it is the fairest and most representative way to elect local representatives. Those who are criticising the single member constituencies are obviously scared stiff that they or the candidates whom they support do not have sufficient electoral attraction to ensure their election to the Council under a fair electoral system. I should add that the electoral system proposed for the Australian Capital Territory is the same as that used for all Australian lower Houses or single chambers, except Tasmania's, and was supported by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform considering the type of electoral system most suited for the House of Representatives. The proposals include the basic principles of self-government. This is part of an evolution that the Government believes will ultimately be in place. The new system has both legislative and executive powers and goes way beyond the limited powers that local government has in the various States. In the effluxion of time the Government is confident that the citizens of Canberra will have the opportunity to take on board all of the municipal and State-like functions which the Government proposes over a period of time to transfer. The Council will operate its own treasury and accounting system and, as with the States, the Commonwealth Grants Commission will conduct regular reviews of its financial relationship with the Commonwealth. The Opposition should at least have some understanding of what the Government's intentions are and should give the proposal a chance to be understood by the residents of the Australian Capital Territory. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer him to today's restatement by the Acting President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, Mr Justice Williams, that industrial action by unions in support of superannuation claims is inconsistent with the prices and incomes accord mark 2. Does he accept that this is also consistent with the view put last week by the Prime Minister to the Confederation of Australian Industry? If so, why did the Treasurer, Mr Keating, in speaking to an international finance conference in Melbourne this morning, reportedly say that he did not believe that the Australian Council of Trade Unions was breaching wage guidelines by backing industrial action in the push for superannuation? Why is the Treasurer defying both the Prime Minister and the Commission by the reported remarks that the ACTU was not breaching wage guidelines in its support for industrial action over superannuation? Senator BUTTON —The statement made by Mr Justice Williams is quite consistent with the statement made by the Prime Minister. Senator Teague did not have to point that out as the two statements are in almost identical language. I do not know why he is addressing this question to me because-- Senator Teague —You are representing the Prime Minister. Senator BUTTON —He addressed it to me as representing the Prime Minister. The point of his question really goes to what the Treasurer has said and what he meant by it. I think that Senator Teague should appropriately have addressed the question to the Minister representing the Treasurer-who, of course, would not have been able to answer him anyway because the question relates to something which was allegedly said this morning. I will tell Senator Teague what I will do. I have the Treasurer's speech here. I will have a look at it during Question Time-on the basis of the questions I have had today I will have plenty of time for reading for the rest of this hour-and give Senator Teague an answer at the end. The answer may well be that I will have to consult with the Treasurer about that, and if that is necessary I will do so. Senator Teague should not get too upset about it. I will give him an answer at the end of Question Time. Senator TEAGUE —I ask a supplementary question. I am not getting upset about it. I just want to make it quite clear in Senator Button's mind that the question I ask is: Why is the Treasurer defying both the Prime Minister and the Commission in the speech Senator Button has indicated he will read? Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in today's Sydney Morning Herald entitled `Documents put lives at risk, say Muslims'? Is it a fact that the release of a document which named two individuals has placed their lives in danger? Is there provision in the Freedom of Information Act to prevent such occurrences and, if not, does the Minister agree that this needs to be rectified? Senator GARETH EVANS —My attention was drawn to the article in question two minutes ago by Senator Robert Ray. There is a claim made in the article by certain people that their lives have been put in jeopardy as a result of the release by the Department of Immigration of a document critical of the leadership of a particular Sydney mosque-a document, according to the article, which apparently was handed over in the context of an interview with the Minister by the people concerned, who were happy enough apparently in that context to make their accusations public to that extent. The document was, as the article further goes on to say, released by the Department on the basis that the Department had no indication that confidentiality was being claimed in respect of the document or that the document was of such a nature that confidentiality was apparently of the essence. There is a provision, of course, in the Freedom of Information Act-- Senator Puplick —It was sloppy work on their part to release it. Senator GARETH EVANS —Maybe so, but I cannot make any judgment about that until I know more about the facts of the particular case, rather than the report of what may or may not be the facts of the case, as appears in the newspaper. I am simply retailing my recollection of what I read a couple of minutes ago. The further point is apparently made by the Department in its defence that, although as well as a confidentiality provision there is a provision in the FOI Act allowing exemption and non-release of documents where such release would in fact prejudice life or safety, there was again nothing on the face of the document or the circumstances of its being obtained to indicate that any such physical risk was involved in the circumstances of that case. It may be that there is some more to be said about this. I am happy to refer the question to the Attorney-General for him to make such further inquiries as he thinks appropriate. I will give a further answer to the Senate accordingly, if a further answer is possible. Senator JESSOP —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I refer the Minister to the blatant political pork-barrelling of the Minister for Defence, who has made the outrageous suggestion that a change of government in South Australia might jeopardise that State's chance of gaining work from the submarine replacement program. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the article in the Australian yesterday headed `Beazley ties sub deal to ALP win'? I ask whether he has noted in that article that the Minister is reported to have said: You don't have to be a political scientist to realise that if you throw out the team you obviously must affect your chances. Can we expect similar statements of support for Premier Burke next year? In view of the concern expressed today by the Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria, will the Government give the Senate an unequivocal undertaking that merit, not politics, will decide the allocation of work for the submarine project? Senator GARETH EVANS —If the calibre of any possible future Olsen government is anything like the calibre of South Australian representatives of the Liberal Party in this place, the conclusion drawn by Mr Beazley would, I think, be an entirely apt one in terms of the likely capacity of any such government to deliver any kind of credible package in this area. Senator Chaney —That is no way to talk about Senator Maguire. Senator GARETH EVANS —Liberal representatives. Senator Chaney should get his interjections straight. I appreciate that it is a bit difficult for him to manage even that these days, such is the condition of his nerves and the nerves of those behind him. The situation is that Mr Beazley said no more publicly or to any journalist than he said in the House of Representatives on 27 November in answer to Mr Jacobi, when he made the point that, while obviously the selection of a site was a process that is still in its comparatively early stages and that no final decision either had been made or could possibly be made, nonetheless both the calibre of the existing Government in South Australia and the quality of the effort that had so far been put into site identification and package preparation had created a situation where the South Australian Government, under the leadership of Mr Bannon, would be streets ahead of any conceivable alternative in that State. Senator MORRIS —Has the Minister for Community Services seen the report in today's Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial that a children's services campaign meeting at the Collingwood Town Hall asked public service unions to ban work on processing funding changes and also encouraged child care centres to defy any government request to provide budget estimates for such centres? Does the Minister believe that these groups will succeed in frustrating the changes to child care funding? Senator GRIMES —I did see the article in the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial, surprisingly. Senator Lewis —Oh, did you? Senator GRIMES —I would not have missed it for a minute. The answer to the final question is no, I do not think this group will be able to prevent either the Government or the child care sponsors from providing the services which will be funded by the Federal Government. In fact, a large number of public servants-all good unionists, I am sure-worked on the restructuring of the funding and the fee relief system which is to be introduced now that the legislation is through. They are committed to a fairer and more equitable system, and I am sure they accept that the changes that were made had to be made. They are confident that the changes that are made will be easy to administer and that they will enable us to expand the number of child care places, as we have in the last three years, so that we have greater access than the 7 1/2 per cent coverage we have of children under five now. I am concerned that this meeting was addressed by and called by children's services development officers from Victoria who are funded by the Federal Government and have been for many years. One of their functions is to provide encouragement and assistance for the development of children's services in Victoria. If they are going to take action to counter government policy, if they are going to take action contrary to the spirit and the letter of their employment, and in fact contrary to the terms of their employment, if we have a group like this paid for by the Commonwealth Government which is frustrating the service that the Commonwealth wishes to conduct, I think it will be a reprehensible situation. They will bear a heavy responsibility in those circumstances for disrupting parents' and children's aspirations. I am sure that neither this Government nor any government in those circumstances would allow this to continue to happen. We will increase child care places by 20,000 in the next 2 1/2 years. We have policies in place to do that. We will build those places and fund them in a more fair and equitable way, and I am afraid that small self-interest groups will not prevent us from doing so. Senator MacGIBBON —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Defence to a question in Question Time yesterday in reply to which he confirmed that there had been a leak to HDW-IKL of questions to be put to prospective submarine tenderers at a combined meeting of the Caucus industry and foreign affairs and defence committees. I draw the Minister's attention to the letter from the head of the Department of Defence, Sir William Cole, to the Acting Commonwealth Ombudsman, in which he said: As I understand it, the questions were prepared at the request of the Minister's office and were made available to the Secretariat of the Caucus Committee, through the Minister's office, some 24 hours before the company concerned met with the Caucus Committee. First, is it a fact that although the departmental team had completed its recommendation before the leak occurred, Caucus, and later Cabinet, had still to select two from the then six tenderers? Secondly, given the potential of the leak to influence the final decision at the political level and the denial of the members of the project team that they were involved, has an inquiry been conducted, either by the Minister himself or the Australian Federal Police, into the leak, which obviously occurred from the Minister's office? If not, will the Government order such an inquiry? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no specific information in front of me to answer that question. I will seek such responses as the Minister might care to make to it. Certainly, I repeat what I said yesterday, that is, that the whole question of possible inappropriate behaviour by someone in the context of the tendering process which may conceivably have led to some sort of bias or distortion in the outcome of that process was specifically and elaborately addressed by the Ombudsman in response to the request for an inquiry put to him by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. As I read out in this place yesterday, the conclusions of the Ombudsman were that the processes were such, and his examination of the documentation was such, that it is inconceivable that there could have been any possible bias or deliberate distortion in that process which would not have manifested itself very conspicuously and very obviously, such were the numerous checks and balances built in. That reasoning would, I am sure, equally apply to the decision-making process that subsequently occurred, certainly since that process involved no more than an endorsement, as one would expect, of the recommendations coming forward from the Department of Defence that were themselves based on such an exhaustive process. Had there been any difference between the two, I suppose one might contemplate the possibility of other forces being at work, but no such suggestion has been made in this case, and I am sure that any of the suggestions that Senator MacGibbon is making in this matter will prove to be utterly unfounded when the matter is looked at. I will seek a reply from the Minister and satisfy his concerns accordingly. Senator MacGIBBON —Mr Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. I was not implying that there had been any bias here. I read the two documents very carefully-the document tabled on behalf of the Acting Ombudsman and the one from Sir William Cole as head of the Department of Defence. I come back to my first question, which relates to the fact that the departmental team had completed its recommendation before the leak occurred and that the Caucus decision and the Cabinet decision followed later when the selection was technically still open. I refer the Minister to the final part of Sir William Cole's letter in which he outlined a chronology of what happened. He said that the Defence Source Definition Committee preceded the Defence Force Development Committee, and that the Caucus meeting preceded the Cabinet meeting. That is the point I am concerned about, not the one of bias. Senator GARETH EVANS —I heard Senator MacGibbon's question the first time. I answered it the first time and I have nothing further to add. Senator DEVLIN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and the first home owners scheme as they affect South Australia. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the amounts of money that South Australians will receive under the agreement and scheme and how the distribution of funds compares with other States? Can the Minister advise the Senate of the effect of the South Australian Opposition's election policy statement which provides for the sale of public housing to tenants at a subsidised price? Senator RYAN —I am advised that in 1985-86 South Australia will receive $73.096m from the Federal Government out of the total of $654.4m, compared with only $34.881m in 1981-82. The total Federal and State funding available for public housing in South Australia on a per capita basis has increased from $116 in 1981-82 to $224 in 1985-86. Total dollar expenditure on public housing in South Australia was $246.2m, second only to New South Wales with $334.6m, yet South Australia has the second lowest population of all States. In South Australia the first home owners scheme has attracted 18,549 applications since its inception. Of these applications 16,058 have been approved at a total cost of $75m over five years. The average benefit per approved applicant has been $4,671. I am further advised that the South Australian Opposition's election policy statement provides for the sale of public housing to tenants at subsidised prices. I point out to honourable senators that this would be in breach of the 1984 Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, which requires that any sale of public rental housing be at either market value or replacement cost. This provision was introduced by the Fraser Government when the 1978 CSHA was negotiated. Such a policy would lead to a dramatic rundown in the stock of public housing in South Australia at a time of high demand because insufficient funds would be available for replacement stock. But, of course, I am sure that all honourable senators will agree that the South Australian Opposition's policy on public housing is irrelevant because it certainly will not be in a position to implement it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of former Senator Lajovic. On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome him back to the Senate. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Senator Peter Baume —It is not another dorothy dixer, is it? Senator HAINES —No, it is not. Following the completion of the first Australian Grand Prix in South Australia recently, can the Minister say whether it is correct that Kerry Packer's Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd has billed the Grand Prix Board for an extra $1m because of a loophole in the contract between the two parties? Has the Grand Prix Board met to discuss the proposed increase in its costs and, if so, what was the result of that meeting? What was the loophole in the contract that allowed PBL to make the additional demands, and what effect will the Board's payment of any extra money have on the overall cost of the Grand Prix to the South Australian taxpayers? Senator RYAN —Although the Commonwealth Government provided $5m towards the capital cost of staging the inaugural Australian Formula 1 Grand Prix-and very successful it was too-responsibility for the conduct of the recent Australian Formula 1 Grand Prix in Adelaide rests with the South Australian Government's Formula 1 Grand Prix Board. In this context, and given that the Federal Government is not privy to the contractual arrangements between the Grand Prix Board and PBL Marketing Pty Ltd, it is not possible to provide a definitive answer to the honourable senator's questions. Such information would be more appropriately obtained direct from the South Australian Government. However, I have been able to obtain some information which may assist the honourable senator. Whilst there are current negotiations between PBL and the Grand Prix Board regarding continued involvement in future events, no additional sum has been billed by PBL outside the 1985 arrangements. The Grand Prix Board continually monitors the cost of the event and will meet the undertaking to remain within the $1.5m to $2m net cost set by the South Australian Government. In conclusion, I am sure that all honourable senators will agree that the people of South Australia regarded it as money well spent. Senator GILES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Has his attention been drawn to West Australian reports of constant verbal and physical attacks on people of non-Caucasian appearance and background? One such recent report referred to two Perth Asian families which are living in a virtual state of seige, terrorised by vandals they believe are trying to force them out of their homes. This, unfortunately, is just one in a series of most regrettable incidents. What measures are available to the Commonwealth Government to educate and otherwise persuade the community that the incitement of racial hatred will not be tolerated? Senator GARETH EVANS —To the extent that the problem involves physical violence against persons or property of the kind reported in Perth then, of course, the ordinary processes of the criminal law are available and, I hope, would be effectively used against the perpetrators of such indefensible behaviour. As to the measures which are available to persuade the community that the incitement of racial hatred will not be tolerated, I have seen the letter to the Prime Minister from the Chairman of West Australians for Racial Equality suggesting intensive community education to combat racism and also legislation to prevent incitement to race hatred. Senator Lewis —Why did you take the Vietnam veterans' benefits away last Thursday? Why didn't you support the Vietnam veterans? You sat down here and voted against them. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Lewis. Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate that this sort of question jangles Senator Lewis's nerves. I am well aware of that. He goes to pieces whenever he hears any sort of concern expressed about racial discrimination in this country. Like the rest of his Party, Senator Lewis has no commitment whatsoever to legislative solutions to resolve this problem. Senator Chaney —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The Minister opposite voted against an anti-racist amendment moved by the Opposition last week, in common with his colleagues. He should not misrepresent the position of the Opposition. The discrimination that occurred against Asians-- Senator GARETH EVANS —I was not even here last week. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I ask both honourable senators to resume their seats. There is no point of order. I call Senator Evans. Senator GARETH EVANS —I draw Senator Chaney's attention to the fact that, far from voting against anything last week, I was not even in the country. That is yet another demonstration of his capacity to get things right. Under the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 the Human Rights Commission has, of course, the functions of developing, conducting and promoting educational programs to combat racial discrimination. That role will pass to the proposed new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission when that body is established early in the new year. The question of legislation to proscribe incitement to racial hatred and racial propaganda is of course a very difficult area. It is now a much more difficult area and one with which successive Attorneys-General in this country, including now Mr Lionel Bowen, have been wrestling. Such legislation has to be balanced against claims to freedom of speech. It is also the case, as has become apparent in Canada and New Zealand, that the criminal prosecution of persons who defame ethnic groups does often given them a platform for obnoxious views which would not otherwise be available. Therefore, it is a vexed and difficult question and one which I think will take us some time still to resolve, although with the usual sensitivity with which the Opposition addresses these matters, I do not expect we will have any help in resolving it from that side. However, I will ensure that the honourable senator's question and the letter to which I referred are drawn to the attention of the Attorney-General for him to give such further consideration to it as is appropriate. Senator LEWIS —My question which is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs concerns the misleading telegrams he has been sending to ex-service organisations claiming that it is the Opposition's fault that the Veterans' Entitlements Bill is `stalled in Parliament until at least the autumn session'. Is it not a fact that the Bill is stalled in the House of Representatives and has not been brought back into the Senate, the only House of Federal Parliament still sitting at the moment? Is it not further a fact that this is because the Government adjourned the House of Representatives last Friday without bringing the Bill before the House of Representatives for debate? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that the Veterans' Entitlements Bill is not able to be completed because the amendments that were moved in the Committee stage of the debate in the Senate last Thursday and Friday meant in effect that an impasse was reached in respect of the views of the Senate and those of the House of Representatives. The result is that it is not possibel for the Government to proceed having regard to the fact that 16 amendments to the Bill were passed-the overwhelming majority of which were not acceptable either to the House of Representatives or to the Government. There is no possibility of the 20 additional improvements and benefits to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill being put into effect before Christmas, as had been promised by the Government in its commitment to the veterans' community. We were criticised during the debate when it was said that there had not been consultation with the veterans' organisations. However, consultation produced a Bill which was passed by the House of Representatives. This Bill was emasculated by the Senate, despite the extensive consultation that took place with the veterans community. Consultation showed there was not unanimous agreement between the Government's position and that of the veterans community on only two major questions. Those two matters could have been resolved if there had not been a view taken by the Senate which was distinctly different from the view taken by the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs who informed me and my office on many occasions that there would be speedy passage of the Bill through both Houses. In the House of Representatives in fact it was supported by most Opposition speakers. However, when the Bill came to the Senate it showed a pigheaded and cussed position in respect of the Bill. Consequently, that Bill will not now be able to be brought back either to the Senate or the House of Representatives until the autumn session. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware that it still costs the same for a Cherry Ripe as it did four months ago? I found this out at the cinema on Saturday night. Is it a fact that sales tax on confectionery was reduced from 20 per cent to 10 per cent in the Treasurer's September package? Is it a fact further that at a cost of $91m to revenue sales tax was reduced from 32.5 per cent to 20 per cent on items such as records and tapes? Again, is it a fact that, at a cost of $66m to revenue, sales tax was reduced from 32.5 per cent to 30 per cent on a range of items including cameras, radios, televisions and record, tape and disc players? Can the Minister inform the Senate to what extent these cuts in sales tax have been passed on to consumers, if this information is available? What has been the effect of this part of the reform of the tax system? Senator WALSH —I am sorry I do not know the price of a Cherry Ripe either now or in the past. I would think it probably varies a bit anyway from shop to shop. However, in regard to the other questions asked by Senator Tate, that is on the changes to the sales tax rates and the estimated revenue effect of those changes, the answers are as he suggested. So far as the extent to which the sales tax reductions have been passed on in retail prices, there is no official information on the extent to which they have been passed on. Indeed, there is no information on the extent to which the price increases on some other items have been passed on. However, on the assumption that all wholesale sales tax changes were passed on in consumer prices, the net effect of the changes to the sales tax system would be to add 0.1 percentage points to the consumer price index. The purpose of making those changes was to simplify and rationalise the wholesale sales tax system; although it is always a matter of some dispute at the margin as to whether some items ought to be in one category or another category or, indeed, whether they ought to be in the exempt category and therefore attracting no sales tax at all. That was part of the Government's taxation package. The effect on the CPI-assuming the reductions were all priced on and known-was quite small. That is in contrast to the Opposition's tax policy-whatever that is. The CPI effects of that of course are completely unpredictable because the Opposition has announced it will oppose the fringe benefits tax, negative gearing, quarantining of farm losses, foreign tax credit, capital gains tax and so on which will cost about $1 billion to the revenue. To raise an equivalent amount by way of increased consumption taxes would add almost as much to the CPI as has been added by the depreciation of the Australian dollar which the Opposition says is catastrophic. Senator PUPLICK —Does the Minister representing the Attorney-General accept that few people in Australia are as well qualified as Mr Athol Moffitt, former judge and royal commissioner, to comment on the problems of organised crime? Has the Government's attention been drawn to Moffitt's recent book A Quarter to Midnight? Specifically, what is the Government's response to Moffitt's claims, in addition to there being persistent Government inaction on royal commission recommendations, that, first, the National Crime Authority is a lame duck and powerless substitute for decisive action; secondly, the lack of racketeer influenced and corrupt organisation statutes assists organised crime; third, that the ethic of makeshift and uncompromising solidarity, especially in the trade union movement and the Australian Labor Party, hampers the war against organised crime; and, finally, that the appointment of former Labor candidates to positions such as Director of Public Prosecutions prevents there being public confidence in the independence of such office? When will this Government declare a proper war on organised crime rather than protecting its little mates and abandon its current posturing which Moffitt rightly describes as merely `electorally cosmetic'? Senator GARETH EVANS —If the evidence of all our eyes and ears in recent weeks is any guide, there are many more people qualified by ability, experience and up-to-date knowledge to comment plausibly about the current state of organised crime in this county and the effectiveness of the Government's measures to deal with it. I say nothing about the former Mr Justice Moffitt's competence and performance in conducting an inquiry many years ago, as he did. He was one of the first to address this particular question. But I have had occasion to experience the quality of his contributions to the debate since, in the conference that was held in this chamber a couple of years ago and more particularly in his book and the quite extraordinary things he has been saying publicly in recent weeks. Any lingering contribution he might usefully make to this debate that could be expected to be taken seriously by any government in this country no longer exists. I take as just one illustration his extraordinary and disgraceful outburst against the capacity and professional integrity of Mr Temby as Director of Public Prosecutions. Any of us who have been dealing with Mr Temby as Director of Public Prosecutions since his appointment would know all too well about the fearless independence that he brings to his office and the way in which he has exercised that independence of judgment in ways that were often difficult for successive Attorneys-General. As to the charge of bias in appointments made to bodies, of which Mr Temby was apparently the prime exhibit, I refer specifically to the composition of the National Crime Authority, which includes not only two entirely apolitical personalities in the initial appointments, Mr Justice Stewart and Mr John Dwyer of the Melbourne Bar, but also of course Mr Max Bingham, QC, former Liberal Attorney-General of Tasmania. Is Mr Moffitt suggesting that Mr Bingham, by virtue of his partisan bias, is incapable of behaving in a way that is honourable, decent and appropriate in the fight against organised crime? I think it was a quite disgraceful set of contributions by Mr Moffitt. I think it is disgraceful that Senator Puplick should take advantage of his presence in this place to put forward this farrago of nonsense as having some kind of credibility. He should be ashamed of himself for raising this matter in this place in the way he has. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and also the Minister for Defence. The question refers to the Philippines Government's decision to withdraw the use of the facilities at Clark airfield from Australia, supposedly because of critical comments made by Foreign Minister Bill Hayden. In view of the recent critical comments on the situation in the Philippines by leading United States legislators, including Senator Luger, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, can the Minister inform the Senate why Australia has been singled out in this way by the Government of the Philippines? What effect will the action of the Philippines Government have on Australia's military capacity? Senator GARETH EVANS —As was said by a departmental spokesman a few days ago, the Australian Government is surprised at the withdrawal of the occasional use of facilities at Clark airfield in view of the relations that have previously obtained between the two countries. The withdrawal was stated to be in response to statements on the Philippines made by Mr Hayden in his address to the House of Representatives on 26 November, but it has been the case that a number of commentators have interpreted that decision by the Philippines Government as primarily an indirect response to recent critical statements made by the United States and perhaps intended as some message to the United States about the future of the Clark airfield base as a result. The Australian Government has viewed the situation in the Philippines with concern for some time and has maintained a very close interest in these problems. It will no doubt continue to maintain that interest in the light not only of the forthcoming election and the events associated with it but of yesterday's acquittal of General Ver and his fellow defendants, a matter that is being studied by the Foreign Affairs Department now. The statement by the Foreign Minister in the House of Representatives on 26 November was simply the most recent expression of Australian concern that the aspirations of the Philippine people be met peacefully and constructively with respect for democratic processes and human rights. Australia's concerns have always been framed in the context of our close relations with the Philippines as a country sharing the same values of democracy and the rule of law. As to the particular question-a question to which the Minister for Defence is better able to respond and has briefed me accordingly-of the implications of the withdrawal of those facilities for our military capacity the situation, I am advised, is as follows: The Royal Australian Air Force does not make extensive use of Clark. It has participated in a United States air exercise there code-named `Cope Thunder'. The last `Cope Thunder' exercise was held only recently, in September this year, and RAAF participation included 12 Mirages, three F111s and one C130 aircraft. The next occasion we would have sought participation in a `Cope Thunder' exercise would have been in the second half of 1986. The exercise series to which I have referred has been a valuable exercise opportunity for the RAAF but RAAF training requirements can be adequately met by alternative means. The Government hopes that in this respect the Philippines will review the decision it has made. Senator KILGARIFF —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of a report in the Bulletin of 26 November entitled `Peaceniks Silent as Soviets Test Super Missiles in the Pacific' in which Leslie Kemeny, a senior lecturer at the School of Nuclear Engineering at the University of New South Wales, gave details of Soviet nuclear weapon testing confirmed by the Department of Defence and which was carried out on 10 and 11 July, 8 and 9 August, and 6, 17, 18 and 25 December, 1984, near Midway Island, and earlier tests carried out in the vicinity of the Cook Islands? In view of the Federal Government's condemnation of the recent French nuclear tests at Mururoa, has the Government similarly condemned the Soviet testing? If not, will the Government now publicly condemn the Soviet testing? Senator GARETH EVANS —I would need more authority than a Bulletin article by Mr Kemeny or anyone else to condemn anything. Senator Kilgariff —He quoted the Department of Defence. Senator GARETH EVANS —He may well have quoted the Department of Defence. Senator Durack —Are you saying that the Russians are not testing in the Pacific? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have some recollection of seeing the Bulletin article in question. I have no knowledge whatsoever of the facts on which that article purported to be based. I will refer the question immediately to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and see what response he cares to make. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. Is the Minister aware of a call by the Melbourne tourism authority for more direct international flights to Melbourne? Will the Minister respond to such criticism, especially in light of figures recently released by the Australian Tourist Commission which purport to show a 25 per cent expected growth in the number of tourists using Melbourne? Further, has the Minister considered directing Qantas Airways Ltd to increase its capacity on the route as an inducement to other airlines to increase their capacity to match it? Senator GIETZELT —Since the Labor Government came to office in March 1983, there has been a remarkable turnaround in the Australian economy. This is reflected in the increased demand in airline passenger traffic both domestic and overseas. Senator Zakharov asked me whether the Government can direct Qantas in respect to some increased market demands for services from Melbourne airport. The Government cannot direct Qantas. It is an independent government owned business undertaking, but it does respond to market demands. I am advised that Qantas has taken significant steps to increase the level of direct international air services to Melbourne. It will have increased that capacity by over 47 per cent in the five-year period since 1981. In comparison, all other international airlines will have increased their gateway capacity by only 7 per cent in the same period. So clearly Qantas is not only responding to market demand but also getting a larger share of the market. Qantas has recently introduced a range of new services from Melbourne, including improved services to Europe, Asia and New Zealand, and the introduction of its new B767 aircraft has given the company greater flexibility to improve both services and frequencies. By the middle of this month Qantas will offer Victorian travellers access to 20 more overseas cities than has previously been the case. Of course the Government, in keeping with its policy on statutory authorities and government owned business undertakings, leaves with Qantas the decision to serve international passengers wherever the demand exists. We believe that this approach is more conducive to competitive decision-making and is in the best interests of consumers generally. So overall I think that Qantas is responding to the demand, and is meeting that demand very successfully. Senator BUTTON —Earlier in Question Time Senator Teague asked me about some comments attributed to the Treasurer, Mr Keating, in Melbourne. I said that I would consult the Treasurer's speech. The paragraph which seems to me to be most relevant to Senator Teague's question is at the bottom of page 6. It states, in relation to superannuation: There has been much uniformed and alarmist talk on this matter and the Government is concerned to ensure that a constructive process of dialogue takes place in a calm and rational environment. I do not know what else in that speech Senator Teague could have been referring to but of course it would be inappropriate for me to comment on interpretations or other scuttlebutt. If I can obtain a copy of any other text that might substantiate that matter I will seek an answer from the Treasurer. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Chipp asked me a question about Australia's defence co-operation program with the Philippines and sought an absolute, unequivocal, vigorous, thrusting and comprehensive denial of any suggestion that we had had any pressure put on us by the United States of America on this matter. I have been now given a response from the Minister for Defence in the following terms, which ought to satisfy even Senator Chipp: The Australian defence co-operation program with the Philippines supports Australia's defence interests in the region by assisting the Philippines to develop capabilities for self-defence. The United States has no role in the planning, conduct or operation of the defence co-operation program with the Philippines or with any other country. The Minister is able to give an assurance that `no instruction or suggestion whatsoever has come from the United States of America to Australia on this matter'. Senator GIETZELT —A few weeks ago Senator Sheil asked me a question in respect of the aerodrome local ownership plan as it applied to Queensland and I offered to get him a response. I have now been advised that arrangements are being made to provide additional funding for the aerodrome local ownership plan, particularly for maintenance commitments in Queensland. Properly substantiated claims from any part of Queensland will be met on a fifty-fifty basis as provided for in the present arrangements. There will be no backing away by the Government from commitments associated with the ALOP. It is true that the administrative procedures for the plan are being reviewed and there will be further discussions on its administration between Department of Aviation officials and the aerodrome owners, wherever they may be. The Government believes that the administrative effect of the aerodrome local ownership plan, as in all other areas, will be kept at the highest level. We give that assurance. Senator WALSH —On 28 November Senator Foreman asked a question about the performance of Australia Post in comparison with its Canadian counterpart. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the further information I have obtained. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Senator Foreman referred to the performance of Australia Post compared with that of its Canadian counterpart. Before commenting on this comparison I must point out that comparisons of the quality, cost and efficiency of postal services with other countries have to be made with caution because of the very substantial differences between countries in terms, for example, of population size and density, geography and the methods of pricing and cost recovery. However, it is true to say, in broad terms, that the postal service provided by Australia Post compares more than favourable with its overseas counterparts. In terms of services, Australian customers benefit from air transportation of a very large part of the mail across the length and breadth of the country. The service standards which apply provide for delivery of most letters within one or two days of posting. Australia Post is required to raise, through its charges, revenue sufficient to cover all its operating expenses and to fund at least half of its capital expenditure. This has been achieved consistently. Moreover, Australia Post has continued to provide value for money by ensuring that the rate of increase in its charges has been kept below the CPI in the past ten years. There would be few, if any, overseas postal administrations which could claim a better record, particularly in view of the fact that postal charges in Australia are not subsidised from the Budget, or cross subsidised from Telecommunications revenues, as is the case in several overseas countries. Relative to overseas services such as the Canadian postal service to which the honourable senator refers, which incurred a deficit of C$300m last year, I suggest the record speaks for itself. Senator WALSH —At Question Time Senator Colston asked me about deductions from taxable income for contributions to schools. The answer is that under section 78 of the Income Tax Assessment Act donations paid into a fund which is maintained exclusively to fund the acquisition, construction or maintenance of a building used as a school by a government, a government authority or a private non-profit association of individuals are deductible. So therefore it is available to both government and private schools. The effective tax subsidy depends on the marginal tax rate of the donor, which in the case of a company or middle rate private taxpayer would be 46 per cent, or 47 per cent if we count the Medicare levy, or in the case of someone on the highest rate 60 or 61 per cent. The provision has been in existence for many years and the Government is unaware of any basis for concern about that particular provision. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I advise the Senate that earlier today I received a letter from Senator Sanders proposing an urgency motion, pursuant to standing order 64. As the proposed urgency motion was not received within the time allowed under the sessional order, the matter will not be proceeded with unless the Senate otherwise determines. Suspension of Sessional Order Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(3.06) —I move: That so much of the Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Senate considering forthwith the matter of urgency, in accordance with standing order 64. I do so firstly because of a feeling of compassion, having found in Senator Sanders someone who is apparently more forgetful than I, and secondly I was convinced that I should do so by the advocacy of Senator Chaney, who informed me that if we did not debate this matter we would have a matter of public importance every day this week. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The letter from Senator Sanders reads: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- `That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Government's betrayal of trust in failing to protect World Heritage forests, in particular the Queensland wet tropic wilderness areas and the forests of Western Tasmania, from State governments and forest-based industries motivated by the reckless pursuit of short-term economic gain.'. Yours sincerely, (Norm Sanders) Senator for the State of Tasmania Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(3.12) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Government's betrayal of trust in failing to protect World Heritage forests, in particular the Queensland wet tropic wilderness areas and the forests of Western Tasmania, from State governments and forest-based industries motivated by the reckless pursuit of short-term economic gain. I must apologise for my lapse in this matter; I am new in this business. The motion refers to short term economic gain, and that is what is involved. There is tremendous lack of foresightedness, of care for the future. The woodchip industry dates back some 15 years. It was brought in at a time when people did not appreciate the native forests of Australia, when in fact the native forests were considered as something to clear away so that pines could be planted. Another argument for woodchips was that woodchipping would be a way of utilising forest waste from the sawmilling industry. That does make sense; however, the tail is now wagging the dog. I go back to my original point: People now do appreciate native forests; they appreciate the eucalypts and the rainforest in a way that they never did before. In fact, 82 per cent of people polled in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane said that they did not want woodchipping to continue. Using woodchipping is a way of taking away sawmill waste but at the moment sawmillers are reduced to using waste from the woodchip mills. The situation has changed to the point where the best logs are now going to the woodchip mills and the small sawmillers have to make do with what is left. The export woodchips go solely to Japan and Australia-and Tasmania in particular-supplies the great proportion of the hardwood woodchips used in Japan. It is ironic that 66 per cent of the Japanese land mass is covered with trees. Here in Australia we are down to 5 per cent after having a 15 per cent cover at the time of Captain Cook. Quite frankly, the Japanese think we are bananas; they think we are nuts for giving away our forests. We are not even giving them away, but as honourable senators will see, we are subsidising the Japanese to haul them away. The jobs are not here; they are in Japan. Senator Walters —On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: There must be something in Standing Orders that requires a senator to tell the truth. Senator Sanders is not telling the truth at the moment and this should be looked at in the light of the Standing Orders. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —There is no point of order. Senator SANDERS —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. That is an illustration of the type of rejoinder that we get from certain Tasmanian senators who really do not know the facts and can resort only to personal vilification in their debating tactics. As I was saying, the jobs from woodchipping are not in Australia; they are in Japan. Whole industries have been set up in Japan where whole cities depend on Tasmanian woodchips for their livelihoods. Yet, we are told that we must woodchip more in Tasmania. In fact, Tasmania already has two thirds of its land mass covered in woodchip concessions. In terms of the activity that now goes on, there are some 20,000 hectares a year being woodchipped in Tasmania. That is a large area. What does it really mean? Let us talk in terms of football stadiums-Australian rules, if you wish, or rugby, if you come from another part of the country. That 20,000 hectares is equivalent to approximately 120 football stadiums being woodchipped each week in Tasmania. That is a lot of woodchipping. We are told by the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Gray, that this is a Tasmanian issue and that the Federal Government and mainlanders in general-those people who live on the other side of Bass Strait-should keep out of this. Let us look at who owns the woodchip mills. First of all, we already know that the woodchips go to Japan, which is certainly not Tasmania, although Japan does seem to own a lot of it. The woodchippers themselves are North Broken Hill, which owns Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd and Tasmanian Pulp and Forest Holdings, and the Adelaide Steamship Company Ltd which holds Petersville Sleigh, which runs Northern Woodchips. So, we see a Premier of Tasmania who himself is from Victoria, saying that this is solely a Tasmanian issue, but in fact all the major partners in it are from the mainland or overseas. The Premier of Tasmania is pulling the same type of demagoguery that he pulled in the Franklin Dam issue. He is exploiting the workers in the forest industry to his own political ends. He is telling them that their jobs are on the line and that they must take action. That is not so at all. Let us look at the jobs in the forest industry. Tragically, it turns out that 4,000 jobs have been lost in the forest industry since woodchipping started in 1973. Senator Walters —On a point of order, Madam Deputy President-- Senator SANDERS —Oh! Another fatuous point of order. Senator Walters —No, it is not. I refer to standing order No. 418 which says that a senator shall not be offensive or make any offensive remarks about any members of another House or a State parliament. Senator Grimes —You would never make a speech. Senator Mason —Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy President: I think you should regard that point of order as purely frivolous. I have been listening to Senator Sanders's remarks and I thought they were very moderate indeed by the standards of this place. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —I hope that Senator Sanders will remember to keep standing order No. 418 in mind. I hope he will not make any remarks that are offensive to any other members of the Senate. Senator SANDERS —I will attempt to do so. It seems as if everything I say is offensive to some member of the Senate, but I will do my best. I wonder whether this is a tactic by Senator Walters to chew up my time with frivolous points of order. I point out that 4,000 jobs have been lost in the forest industry in Tasmania since 1973, 1,300 of them in the sawmilling industry, 700 in the pulp and paper industry, 1,900 in the forestry and logging industry and 100 in woodchip mills themselves. These job losses have been due to structural and technological changes and a lot of them have resulted from the fact that the woodchip industry itself does not really hire people; it uses heavy machinery. Three hundred and fifty people work in the woodchip mills in Tasmania, whereas the pulp and paper mills use 3,200 people. The Forestry Commission has 700 people and saw mills and wood products have 2,300. These figures relate to 1983-84. Therefore, the woodchip industry itself does not employ a lot of people although woodchip exports accounted for 2.6m cubic metres in 1983-84, whereas sawmilling took 0.8m and pulp and paper mills 0.9m. There has been an impact on jobs in Tasmania as a result of the woodchip industry and there has also been a major impact on such things as roads, the tourist industry and the workers who remain in the industry. The roads are constantly battered by the woodchip trucks. The unfortunate thing is that the woodchip truck drivers themselves are forced to work long hours, far longer than they care to, because of the demands of the woodchip mills. In the Hobart Mercury on 2 October 1985 there was this headline: `Truckie forced to drive 18 hours a day, court told'. The article says: A Buckland log truck driver told the Hobart Magistrate's Court yesterday he was forced to spend at least 18 hours a day on the road to meet a quota imposed by a Triabunna woodchip mill. He would lose money if he failed to meet the minimum quota of 15 truck loads every fortnight, he said. Kelvin John Wiggins, 24, told the court he drove more than 1,000 kilometres on a good day, making two trips to haul logs from Strathgordon to Triabunna. The workers are certainly not happy and the councils which have to pay for the roads are certainly not happy. There has been a threat to close the roads in Circular Head by the Circular Head Council. The tourist industry is also worried about the impact of woodchipping on the trees which the tourists come to see and also about the impact of the log trucks on the tourists' cars which is perhaps more violent. One of the facts that keep coming up is that the cost of woodchipping to the taxpayer exceeds the benefits to the taxpayer. In other words, the taxpayers themselves are subsidising the woodchip industry. This has been estimated variously at $20m a year by the University of Tasmania and more recently at $15m by the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the Australian National University. In a paper by Paul Parker it is pointed out that in 1984-85 the price of $45 per green tonne equalled only 75 per cent of the prices received in the early 1970s. In other words, we are getting less for our woodchips now than we were in the early 1970s. The paper continues: After gaining a large share of the Japanese market with high prices in the early 1970s, Australia has continued to lower its prices. The Japanese woodchip trade was studied to determine whether or not trade injuries might arise which would enable other suppliers to complain of Australia adopting practices prohibited under GATT and subsequent agreements. Price undercutting and market displacement are the two features used to detemine a prohibited or `unequitable' market share. Australian prices undercut those of other suppliers in both the hardwood and total woodchip trade. In the early 1980s Australian prices per tonne of hardwood woodchips were ten dollars or more below those of American suppliers- we are selling our woodchips at a price of $10 a tonne below our American competitors and that is not a very good deal in anybody's terms; even Senator Walters must admit that- and approximately five dollars per tonne below those of other suppliers. Australia dominated the hardwood woodchip market with two thirds of the supply, but institutional factors are likely to prevent any further increase in the market share. In the total market Australia surpassed the United States as the largest suppliers in 1983 and steadily increased its market share. Both increased market share and price undercutting were demonstrated indicating that other supplies may have a legitimate basis to complain of Australian practice. In fact we may be in violation of international agreements with our woodchip subsidies. The paper continues: It was accepted by both industry proponents and critics that subsidies exist. An estimate of 10-15 million dollars annual subsidy was calculated for the early 1980s. This equals five dollars per tonne or ten per cent of the value of the woodchips. Woodchipping is subsidised. It is a drain on the public purse. When we are talking about woodchipping there is another consideration besides money and jobs. That, of course, is the effect on the environment. A woodchipped area is not a pretty sight. The Forestry Commission claims that these areas are regenerated. I have flown over Tasmania on numerous occasions and I have taken members of the media and members of Parliament. I or any other pilot could show them numerous areas which have simply never been regenerated, where the erosion has been so severe that there are no trees at all, just scrub or perhaps some wattle. So the environmental damage is great. Other damage is to the animals in the area, which suffer greatly due to loss of habitat. Additionally, some 250,000 animals are killed in Tasmania every year because of woodchipping. Let us see what the Australian Labor Party says about the significance of these Tasmanian areas we are trying to save. The ALP's environmental platform for 1984 states: A Labor Government will- * * * * Recognise the national and international significance of Western Tasmania Management Area consisting of the existing National Estate areas of the South West and Central Highlands of Tasmania together with the boundary revisions recommended by the Tasmanian Panel of the Australian Heritage Commission. * * * * Assist the Tasmanian Government to research and implement economically viable alternatives to continued forestry operations in the Western Tasmania Management Area. It has done neither of these things. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Barry Cohen, tried to stop logging in the National Estate areas, but the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, wants to allow logging in the National Estate areas. He wants to turn the decisions over to the Premier of Tasmania, Robin Gray, and his Forestry Commission. The Tasmanian Forestry Commission will have control of these areas. What about the Forestry Commission? In an article in the Australian Forest Industries Journal of February 1980 entitled `Forestry Protects Sawmillers in Tasmania', Mr Paul Unwin, the Forestry Commissioner, was asked by the editor: So if you have a Minister or a Cabinet not deeply interested in forestry this could cause a lot of trouble for the industry? Mr Unwin replied: Exactly so, the Commission could be forced to accept the amendments. So, to overcome this problem we have introduced into the Bill a clause which says that the Minister cannot-quite categorically-cannot make an alteration to a Forest Management Plan unless he has received a certificate from the Forestry Commission stating that the proposed amendment will not in any way affect the rights of the forest industries. To achieve acceptance of an amendment the industry has to approve it in writing. This is clear proof that the Tasmanian Forestry Commission works for the industry in Tasmania, not for the people. It works not for the Government but for the industry. This is what the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, is going to give the Tasmanian Forestry Commission, which works expressly for the industry. I now turn my attention to rainforests-the unique forests in Queensland that are remnants of the once great forests of the world, which are rapidly dwindling. Time is running out for the world's rainforests. Even the mighty Amazon rainforests are being cut. The rainforests have unique flora and funa and unique tourist values. All these things will be destroyed by the logging which is going on precipitately. It is very necessary that the north Queensland tropical rain- forests be listed as World Heritage areas. A number of experts have looked at these areas and have come up with the opinion that, if this is not done this year, next year the virgin rainforests of Queensland will no longer exist; there will no longer be any areas of virgin rainforest. Yet this Federal Government is dragging its feet. This World Heritage listing has to be done by 31 December. The Federal Government either refuses or is afraid to tackle Joh Bjelke-Petersen on this issue. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment does not want to fight with him, as he does not want to fight with Robin Gray. But this listing is essential. The ALP's platform 1984 states: Given Labor's recognition of the environmental significance of Australia's wet tropical rainforests, carry out the appropirate scientific research to evaluate the Greater Daintree Region's eligibility for World Heritage status. The ALP's platform spells it out. People in Queensland-State ALP people at least-understand the difficulties. Last Saturday in Brisbane a Queensland State ALP member, Mr Pat Comben, who is the MLA for Windsor, said that the nomination for World Heritage listing is an electoral advantage, not a disadvantage. There is an astute Queensland politician. He accused Mr Cohen of producing a litany of inaction, passivity, default and neglect. This is an ALP person speaking. He sent a message to his ALP colleagues in Canberra which stated that their political survival would depend on the survival of the wet tropics. This is a closely parallel situation with Tasmania, where the ALP is trying to downplay any woodchip reforms. It wants woodchipping to continue unabated because it feels that it will be an electoral disadvantage if it takes a stand. I am here to tell members of the ALP that if they do not take a stand they will go down the drain in the next election because people are sick and tired of the ALP making grand promises in its platforms and then not adhering to them when it comes to election time. It is time that the ALP in Queensland, Tasmania and the Federal Parliament, bit the bullet. Not only its political survival is at stake-this will be a massive issue, like the Franklin issue-but the existence of some of the most unique areas on earth are also at stake. It is time for the politicians to stop playing games. It is time they earned their salaries and did something for the benefit of all Australians-living and to come. We must stop woodchipping and logging our priceless heritage. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.27) —Right from the start we realise that the Australian Democrats are not very well organised. For the first time in my 10 years in this Parliament a matter of urgency has been brought down which has not even been done properly. The matter of urgency brought down by the Australian Democrats is in the following terms: The Government's betrayal of trust in failing to protect World Heritage forests, in particular the Queensland wet tropic wilderness areas and the forests of Western Tasmania, from State governments and forest-based industries motivated by the reckless pursuit of short-term economic gain. First of all, only one forest area is on the World Heritage listing and that is in western Tasmania. It is also a Tasmanian national park and it is not being logged. The Australian Democrats cannot get their act together in the terminology of their matter of urgency and they cannot get their act together in getting it into the Senate offices on time. This matter of urgency has been brought down by the disorganised senator from Tasmania who, I might add, said in his maiden speech that he was the founder and proprietor of the Sanders Hot Prospect Stove Co. I cannot for the life of me think what the Sanders hot prospect stoves would burn other than wood. I have driven around Tasmania looking at these things and most of this wood comes from residues from the forest areas. Be that as it may, I am a little cynical and maybe the honourable senator is little hypocritical. Senator Sanders —Madam Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. The honourable senator is casting personal aspersions on my commercial activities. He said that I was hypocritical. If Senator Walters can rise to a point of order on an issue such as this I believe that I can do the same. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! There is no point of order. Senator COLLARD —We have established that the honourable senator runs a commercial activity which relies completely on wood that comes as a residue from the forest areas of Tasmania. One would think that the Australian Democrats were the only persons who had ever had anything to do with conservation. Most of the conservation ideas, strategies and all the rest of it were as a result of the Liberal-National Party coalition when it was in government. It might be handy at this stage if we were to look at the definition of `conservation'. Indeed, I had the definition recorded in Hansard once before and I will do so again. The definition, which has been accepted as part of the world conservation strategy and the national conservation strategy for Australia, states: Conservation is . . . the management of human use of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations. Thus, conservation is positive, embracing preservation, maintenance, sustainable utilisation, restoration, and enhancement of the natural environment. Living resource conservation is specifically concerned with plants, animals and micro-organisms, and with those non-living elements of the environment on which they depend. Living resources have two important properties the combination of which distinguishes them from non-living resources: they are renewable if conserved; and they are destructible if not. As I said when I read those words into Hansard on a previous occasion, I do not disagree with that definition of conservation. I think all of us can live with that definition although, undoubtedly, there will be conflicts when it comes to determining what the definition means. However, as I have said before, man has had an effect on the environment ever since he came out of the cave. For better or for worse, whether we like it or not, man is part of the environment. I guess what I am saying and what we in the Liberal and National parties are saying is that conservation is all about the proper management and husbanding of what is in many cases a sparse natural resource. Senator Sanders made numerous wild assertions in his speech, none of which could be substantiated in any shape or form. First of all, he said that the timber residue is being used for saw logs and the good logs are going into woodchipping. I am not saying that that has not happened in the past. Of course mistakes have been made. But our foresters are learning more and more and sawmillers are getting saw logs and the residue is going to the woodchip industry. The honourable senator mentioned the large forest areas in Japan. However, he did not say that 60 per cent of Japan's woodchips come from within Japan, the rest being made up by imports from countries such as Australia and, I think, the United States of America. Senator Sanders —But you don't understand- Senator COLLARD —When I hear Senator Sanders braying across the chamber I am reminded of what was said by Ignatius Donnelly. The Democrats in the United States have a mule as their symbol. Senator Haines —He is giving some facts to help you with your arguments. Senator COLLARD —The braying that is coming across the chamber very much reminds me of the fact that the Democrats have a mule as their symbol. Ignatius Donnelly said once: `The Democrats are like a mule-without pride of ancestry or hope of posterity'. I think that what he said really holds true in respect of the Australian Democrats. Senator Sanders mentioned that jobs are being lost in the woodchipping industry. I would likehim to name an industry in Australia that has not suffered job losses because of the technological revolution, the high cost increases and the high wage structures which have led to the need for capital expenditure and more machinery. The honorable senator also mentioned that 250,000 animals a year have been killed because of woodchipping. How does he know? Has anybody ever asked him how he knows that this is the case? Who goes out there and counts them. He just would not have a clue. These are the sorts of assertions that he makes on radio, in this chamber and elsewhere. It is well known that the number of animals in any habitat is completely dependent on the food resource. We know that animals return in abundance to felled areas which have been regenerated. No one would say that there is not an animal mortality rate in areas where industry is involved. Of course there would be. We are saying that the species are really thriving in areas which have been regenerated. Yet Senator Sanders gets up and makes these ridiculous assertions. I do not know how anyone could believe his claim that there will be no rainforests left in Queensland next year. Senator Sanders —Virgin rainforests. Senator COLLARD —Or even virgin rain- forests in Queensland. He would not know. What he said was a complete exaggeration. He made wild assertions with no substantiation whatever. I have never at any time heard Senator Sanders substantiate anything that he has said in this chamber. Senator Sanders —I said this in Parliament. You can read it. I think you are capable of reading it. Senator COLLARD —He is braying again. He does so all the time without pride of ancestry or hope of posterity. That is the mule coming out in the Australian Democrats. Of course this country and every other country needs timber. We need timber for the production of pulp and paper. We need it for construction purposes. We need it as a prime cabinet material and a lesser type of cabinet material. We need timber such as hoop, bunya and kauri pine. This country is facing every month a massive current account deficit which is having a deleterious effect on our economy, the value of our dollar, interest rates and everything else. Yet Australia is a net importer of timber. According to the latest figures I have, in 1982-83 we imported timber to the value of $666,881,000. The Democrats are trying to destroy this industry at a time when we have a massive current account deficit problem and we are importing nearly $700m worth of timber products. The timber industry is a major economic factor. This is no more so than in the honourable senator's home State of Tasmania. The honourable senator mentioned jobs. The timber industry and its ancillary industries are the second largest employer in Tasmania. The forest-based industries in Tasmania earn aroung $250m a year. The woodchip industry alone earns about $100m a year. Senator Sanders raved on-or brayed on, if one likes-about a so-called subsidy. The honourable senator got his information from the Centre for Environmental Studies at the University of Tasmania, which really has no economic expertise. In fairness, a proper economic study was carried out in Tasmania. The statement of the Centre for Environmental Studies was looked at and was found to be based on a pretty false premise. Senator Sanders —I am quoting from the ANU study that has refuted that. Senator COLLARD —I am talking about the study undertaken by Dr Bruce Felmingham, an economist in Tasmania. The Centre for Environmental Studies has not answered his queries. He has answered its questions but neither the Centre nor the Australian National University has answered the questions put by him. First of all, the claim of an $8m road usage subsidy is false. The $6m component in the Forestry Commission deficit attributed to the industry cannot be substantiated and, indeed, was not substantiated by the ANU or by the Centre for Environmental Studies. It is acknowledged that there is an interest component in respect of the Forestry Commission. However, that interest was incurred really before the woodchip industry got going. So the claim about the subsidy of $20m is entirely false. Even if it were not, a $250m return is not a bad investment on a $20m subsidy. However, this claim is entirely false. Royalties are paid by the industry. Senator Sanders mentioned roads. A road toll is paid to government. An ex gratia payment is made to local government. The foresters maintain many of their own roads. Indeed, both Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd and, I think, Forest Resources are responsible for a road which bypasses Launceston and which is used by trucks involved in the woodchip industry in the Tamar River area north of Launceston. So much for the unsubstantiated allegations of Senator Sanders. I understand that the forestry industry and associated industries in Queensland are worth around $900m per annum and employ about 16,000 people in 800 primary and secondary manufacturing establishments. As I pointed out, conservation is concerned with using and at the same time preserving for future generations. If one were to listen to the lunatic fringe of the conservation movement-I put Senator Sanders in that category-one would think, as he indicated, that there will be very little rainforest area left in a couple of years time. In Tasmania 26 per cent of the land area is reserved from logging in national parks, conservation areas, forestry reserves and other crown parks. That has been due to the responsible action of the Tasmanian Government in putting away that area. Recently, on that very subjective program Quantum-I wish that Hansard could pick up the inflection of one's voice-we had the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Environment give gratuitous advice to Queensland, saying that if we do not do what New South Wales has done, there will be no rain- forest left. New South Wales has locked up its total rainforest area of 250,000 hectares. Queensland has locked up three times that much in national parks and forestry reserves that will not be logged-stream sites, scientific areas and the like. There we have Queensland's responsible action in locking up that area. All the New South Wales Minister is telling us is about his own inability to manage his resources. He locks them away so that nobody can get at them. I do not know where he gets his timber from, but it would have to be imported from somewhere else where resources are better managed than in New South Wales, such as from Queensland or Tasmania, or from overseas where we do not know how they are managed. Queensland has 750,000 hectares locked up in national parks or areas that will not be logged. I suppose one of the most emotional arguments running in Queensland at this time is that of the Daintree, mainly for the fact that a road was put through an area that is in neither a forestry nor a national park reserve. The area was excised when the surrounding area was made a national park. The road was put through for the deliberate purpose of giving access to people up the coast, from Bloomfield to Cape Tribulation. I have put on the record before, but I will do so again, that it saves the people of Bloomfield about a 400-kilometre round trip to Cairns. The road actually runs through 1 1/4 kilometres of prime, pristine, primeval rainforest. Of the 27-kilometre road, only 1 1/4 kilometres runs through prime rainforest. None of the unique scientific areas is within 10 kilometres of that road. The road was put through an area that is naturally a high stress area because it faces the eastern seaboard and it is totally at the mercy of cyclonic winds and all the rest of it. So it is a high stress area. Once one passes those 1 1/4 kilometres, one starts to see eucalyptus trees and then on to hardwood ridges and what was once open grassland. In total, 75,050 hectares of rainforest is included in the Daintree National Park and the Cape Tribulation National Park. Thus, 75,050 hectares is in national parks that cannot be logged. The total area is 190,000 hectares and of that 750 hectares is available for logging. There is only one small operator. I think his total take is about 3,120 cubic metres a year and he has not achieved that result. The history in Queensland of looking after rainforests is a tremendous one. The trouble is that that is not being recognised because we get the ridiculous statements from the lunatic fringe such as: `There will be nothing left in one year or two years'. We have to take a positive look at our conservation methods. We do need timber. Everybody accepts that we need timber in many ways, shapes and forms. We are a net importer of timber to the value of about $700m a year, in an economy which has a massive current account deficit. Our foresters, particularly those in Tasmania and Queensland, on which States the debate has centred today, are good foresters. At the same time as they are selectively logging, they are maintaining the areas for future generations. Senator Sanders has not yet ever told us where we are likely to get our timber from in the future, except from massive imports. We have a natural resource which, because of the expertise of our foresters, is being selectively logged and thus preserved for future generations. So we have a very good record. This is important. As I have said, whether we like it or not, we have an effect on our environment. It is a question of how we regulate that effect, how we maintain those resources for future generations. As I said when I put down that definition, I do not disagree with it. It states that at the same time as maintaining our resources for the future we can selectively use them so that we make the best use of those resources now and ensure that they are preserved for future generations. Both the Tasmanian and Queensland governments have a tremendous record in husbanding and farming those resources so that we can use them and at the same time preserve them and also lock away the areas that are unique and of scientific value. As I have said, 750,000 hectares in Queensland will not be logged. Twenty-six per cent of the land mass in Tasmania will not be logged. Such is the responsible attitude taken by those two governments, at the same time as providing a much needed resource for this country, a much needed industry for Tasmania, much needed jobs in Tasmania and much needed timber for present and future generations. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(3.47) —Although I was elected on the single issue of nuclear disarmament and some senatorial colleagues may be surprised to hear me speaking in this debate, I want to point out the close link between nuclear disarmament and the protection of our fragile environment. I cannot let go unchallenged Senator Collard's remarks that the Queensland and Tasmanian governments are carefully managing their environments. The record in both of those States is abysmal. As well as making sure that there is a future for our children, their children and so on by ensuring that we do not self-destruct by using nuclear weapons, we need to guard our natural heritage for the benefit, in terms of livelihood and enjoyment, of coming generations. Trees have long been recognised for their positive attributes in providing fresh air by the process of photosynthesis and by providing food and shelter for the world's people. In addition, we must acknowledge that trees are a joy to behold. We should not be so short-sighted as to consider short term gains as more important than the protection of our forests which are such a valuable, limited and fast diminishing resource. The Federal Government has already lost the support of the youth of Australia because of its lack of resolve on nuclear issues. On environmental issues the Government still has a chance to appeal to young people. But, if it sells out on woodchipping and the Daintree, there will be little hope of recovering youth support. I wish to quote the opening sentence in the foreword of a booklet `Environment, Conservation and Heritage' released by the Hon. Barry Cohen last week. In it the Minister states: Since it came to office in 1983 the Government's strong commitment to the protection and conservation of the nation's natural and cultural heritage has been reflected in many important initiatives, most notably preventing construction of the Gordon-below-Franklin dam in South-West Tasmania. Indeed, that was a very welcome initiative. What a great tragedy it would be if, having saved the Franklin, the Federal Government did not carry out its obligations to help preserve this unique wilderness area that mainland woodchipping companies are wanting to destroy. There are four major wilderness areas in question. They represent only 10 per cent of the available timber resource. Surely the companies should be content with having the other 90 per cent. The southern forests in South West Tasmania represent Australia's largest forested wilderness. Their loss would be a disaster comparable to the flooding of Lake Pedder. The Western Tiers, the Lemon-Thyme and the forests of the Douglas and Apsley rivers are all unique areas that must be protected. The decision on Tasmanian woodchipping will have repercussions in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. It is unacceptable that this part of our precious environment, our forests, which we have a duty to caretake for future generations, should be reduced to woodchips for sale overseas. In regard to the other forest area that is threatened by careless development, I urge the Government to ensure the protection of the Daintree by recommending its listing as part of the world heritage area. The same insanity that is threatening this planet with nuclear destruction is threatening our unique environment. I hope that the Government is sincere in its claims that it intends to protect these areas. The people of Australia want more than words; they want action. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(3.50) —I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Government in this debate this afternoon because I feel that I am probably uniquely qualified to discuss the issues that have been raised. As a fourth generation Tasmanian I have some understanding of some of the concerns that were raised earlier, and I can certainly appreciate those concerns. However, I cannot accept a number of misrepresentations that have been made in the Senate this afternoon. I think that the Government's record speaks for itself and it is quite clear that the urgency motion, as has been detailed for us by Senator Sanders, has not even been addressed by any of the speakers. It is quite clear that in regard to the urgency motion today we are supposed to be debating the Government's apparent betrayal of trust in failing to protect world heritage forests. That is what we are supposed to be debating. Senator Sanders —Do they mention what Minister Kerin is doing? Senator REYNOLDS —The honourable senator seems to have a very close knowledge of what Minister Kerin, Minister Cohen and, indeed, what the Federal Cabinet are about to discuss on 16 December. Senator Sanders —They released the statement. Senator REYNOLDS —Never mind, Senator. I suggest he should be patient and await the outcome. The Government's record is abundantly clear and indicates that there has been no betrayal of anyone by the Hawke Labor Government. In regard to rainforests, the report entitled `Objectives, achievements and priorities in Environment, Conservation and Heritage' states that the Federal Government has: Offered the Queensland Government a package of proposals for the protection of the rainforests of the wet tropics of north-east Queensland which include the rainforests in the Daintree and Downey Creek areas. Co-operated with the New South Wales Government in nominating areas of New South Wales rainforests for World Heritage Listing. Convened in 1984 a conference in Cairns involving representatives of Commonwealth, State and Territory governments, conservation groups, unions and the timber industry to discuss the development of a national policy on rainforest conservation. Established a Working Group, comprising a broad spectrum of rainforest interests, including government, industry, conservation and union representatives, to advise the Government on the development of a Commonwealth Rainforest Conservation Policy. The report by the Working Group to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has been made available for public comment. I ask you, Mr Acting Deputy President: Does that really sound like a betrayal? That sounds like action. Of course, the Australian Democrats do not like the fact that the Hawke Labor Government has taken very significant steps. They do not like the fact that we are acting. They would rather put forward this very misleading urgency motion this afternoon. Let us look at this betrayal that they are so concerned about. I would like to read briefly from a Press release of 15 March 1985 which shows how much betrayal is going on between the Hawke Labor Government and the Gray Government: The following statement was issued after the first meeting of the Ministerial Council on the Management of the World Heritage area in Hobart yesterday. The meeting was chaired by the Premier of Tasmania, the Hon. Robin Gray. . . . . In introductory comments opening the meeting both the Premier and Mr Cohen indicated a mutual wish by their governments to work together to develop one of the best national parks in the world and to maximise benefits that would be derived for Tasmania. Mr Gray said that the Council reached agreement on a range of matters which formalised the consultative and management structures that would operate in the administration and development of the World Heritage Area. It seems that the Democrats, in particular Senator Sanders, are not very happy when governments try to co-operate. They would rather that we had on-going confrontation. Frankly, I can sympathise with Senator Sanders because I appreciate that his view is very different from Premier Gray's view, just as I have moments of absolute frustration in trying to deal with the Queensland Government. Nevertheless, the Federal Government has a responsibility to try to negotiate. Negotiation is the option that Minister Cohen has adopted. Lo and behold, it seems that his option is successful. In regard to the extent to which this betrayal is going on in Queensland, I refer to a headline. Certainly, I almost fainted when I saw the headline, but it seems that Minister Cohen has been able to get the Premier of Queensland to negotiate. The headline of an article which appeared on 2 November 1985 reads: `Sir Joh willing to negotiate on forests plan'. Let us be positive for a change. Let us look at whether it is possible on occasions to negotiate and get some sort of co-operation with the Gray Government and the Bjelke-Petersen Government. The article reads: The Queensland government was willing to negotiate on a $200m federal plan to save Australia's rainforests, the Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, said yesterday. The plan, prepared for the Federal Environment Minister, Mr Cohen, by the Rainforest Working Party, involves acquiring forests to ensure their preservation. Most of Australia's rainforest is in northern Queensland. Sir Joh said he spoke with Mr Cohen in Cairns on Tuesday and asked for the proposal to be put formally in writing. Mr Cohen is still to take the plan to Federal Cabinet for approval. Sir Joh said he had made it clear that he would not be a party to joint Commonwealth/State ownership of the acquired forests. This would be a serious erosion of State rights. There we find the Queensland Premier resorting to his usual tactics. But I ask Senator Sanders: Where is this betrayal of trust? Senator Sanders —Right here in this document entitled `Rainforest Conservation in Australia' which has been tabled in this Parliament. You have betrayed this trust. Senator REYNOLDS —I cannot see how Minister Cohen has betrayed anybody in regard to rainforests. Let us turn to what has actually been said in this place this afternoon. We had a dissertation on the Tasmanian woodchip industry by Senator Sanders. I must admit that I have some agreement with some of the concerns that he raised. However, I place on the record very clearly some misrepresentations that he made in regard to the Hawke Government. He presented his urgency motion so hurriedly that he presented it to the wrong person and we nearly did not have this debate this afternoon. But he was obviously in such a hurry that he did not quite get the wording right. It is quite clear that the forests in the existing World Heritage area in Tasmania are not under threat. That is the whole point of this debate this afternoon. The Tasmanian world heritage area consists entirely of three national parks gazetted under Tasmanian legislation. There is no intention on the part of the State or the Commonwealth governments to log them. If there were an intention on the part of Robin Gray, the Federal Government states categorically that it would not allow logging in world heritage areas of Tasmania. Let us turn to the area to which Senator Sanders was referring. He was referring to areas other than existing world heritage areas. Certainly, in regard to western Tasmanian National Estate forests outside the world heritage area, the Federal Government is seeking to ensure that National Estate values, including wilderness, are not downgraded. Cabinet will make a decision on how to do this on 16 December. We have heard this alarmist nonsense from Senator Sanders long before the decision has been made. Senator Sanders obviously believes that he is privy to the thoughts of Minister Kerin, the thoughts of Minister Cohen and the thoughts of the entire Cabinet. The decision has not yet been made. The Federal Government has indicated that it would prefer to proceed through consultation and discussion. That is the preference of the Hawke Labor Government. It has built its reputation on consultation and consensus. It has had to deal with some very intransigent State governments. The Tasmanian Government is one and the Queensland Government is another. Nevertheless, the Hawke Government is a particularly patient government and keeps trying to negotiate and consult and get those governments to see reason. The Minister has advised quite clearly that we will proceed through consultation and discussion with the Tasmanian Government. Several meetings at an official level already have been held. Mr Kerin has met with Premier Gray. Furthermore, he has stated that where forestry options conflict with National Estate values forestry operations will not proceed. That was reported in the Hobart Mercury. I am not in a position to read the Mercury these days, but I presume that Senator Sanders would be able to find that statement by Minister Kerin if he bothered to search it out. Let me now turn my attention to rainforests in north Queensland. I take exception to Senator Collard's statement about the lunatic fringe of the conservation movement. The conservation movement in this country is a very responsible group which does not contain lunatics, either on the fringe or anywhere else. It is important that that be stated quite clearly. We should respect the conservation movement. We should be acknowledging the very fine work it does. Its members should not be dismissed, because they have a point of view different from that of Senator Collard, as lunatics. That is certainly a description I could apply to a number of members of the Queensland Government, but on this occasion I would be far too polite to do so. In regard to the Daintree issue, I have been well placed to follow the confrontation. Of course the Queensland Government has been intransigent. Of course the Daintree road should never have been built. I worked very hard, along with a number of other Government members, to try to stop that road being built. But it was a State prerogative. Minister Cohen offered funding for an alternative route but the Queensland Government was not interested in protecting and preserving that unique area. It was more concerned about confronting the Federal Government. Therefore, it refused all reasonable overtures from the Hawke Government. It was more interested in confrontation. To give credit where credit is due-it hurts me somewhat to have to accept that the Queensland Premier is at last talking a little sense-if the Queensland Premier is prepared to negotiate on Minister Cohen's excellent rainforest management plan and if it is true, as Senator Collard indicated to us, that the Queensland Government is anxious to protect its last remaining rainforest area, the responsibility goes back to the State Government to nominate those areas for World Heritage listing. The Queensland Premier has moved several steps forward. He wants to co-operate with Canberra. We should all be celebrating. If he is genuinely prepared to co-operate with Canberra, he should make that official by nominating the north Queensland rainforest area for inclusion on the World Heritage List. That would be a nice seasonal gesture. It would show that the Hawke Labor Government and the Bjelke-Petersen Government on occasions can agree. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Watson —Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek the leave of the Senate to make a statement to try to correct some of the highly inaccurate and misleading views that have been deceiving a great majority of people as a result of Senator Sanders's statements. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! There can be no debate. The question must be put. Original question put: That the motion (Senator Sanders's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Chipp, D. L. Sanders, N. K.Haines, J. Siddons, J. R.Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Vallentine, J.Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Archer, B. R. Harradine, B.Aulich, T. Jessop, D. S.Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C.Baume, Peter McIntosh, G. D.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McKiernan, J. P.Black, J. R. Maguire, G. R.Bolkus, N. Messner, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Missen, A. J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Morris, J.Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G.Childs, B. K. Ray, RobertCoates, J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Reynolds, M.Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ryan, S. M.Cooney, B. Sheil, G.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.Evans, Gareth Vanstone, A. E.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Georges, G. Walters, M. S.Giles, P. J. Watson, J. O. W.Grimes, D. J. Withers, R. G.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Zakharov, A. O.Hamer, B. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation because I claim to have been misrepresented by an article in the Sydney Daily Mirror of last Friday. Leave granted. Senator MASON —I refer to an article headlined `Lunch-Tax Rebels Put Bite On Chipp' on page 3 of the Sydney Daily Mirror. I might say that that is a typical Sydney afternoon headline. The article states: Two rebel Australian Democrats are set to renege on party leader Don Chipp over his controversial lunch-tax deal with Treasurer Paul Keating. The mutineers, angry because the package has done nothing to halt the entertainment tax . . . threaten to vote against it. . . . . That party is hopeful of winning over one of the dissidents. But defiant New South Wales member Colin Mason is thought certain to cross the floor of the Senate to vote with the Opposition against the so-called nasty elements of the legislation. I do not normally like to indicate in advance how I will vote on legislation, but this article is so blatantly wrong and so completely opposite to the views that I have put consistently at all meetings and to the media that it positively staggers me. I will be voting with the Government for this legislation, and I have always made that view clear. Two points arise which I would like to make as a result of this article. I think they are of concern to honourable senators. The first point is that the authors of the article made no contact whatsoever with me or with my office before this story was written. The second point is that on Sunday-- Senator Townley —I raise a point of order. Senator Mason is talking about something that is on the Notice Paper. Why the heck should he be allowed to stand up and say what he will do? We do not know what the Democrats will do. One can never tell. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Mason has been given leave to make a personal explanation. The discussion of the behaviour of others is not relevant to the personal explanation. Senator MASON —I am obliged to my friend and colleague Senator Townley for his very sage intervention. The second point I would like to make is serious, and it is something that the Senate ought to consider. A reporter from the Mirror rang me on Sunday night at my home and canvassed this story with me. At that time I had not seen Friday's Mirror. The reporter said: `This rumour is around'. I said that it was absolutely untrue. I set out the situation and explained my reasons. Since that time, no statement has appeared in the Mirror. I talked to the editor of the Mirror today and, as far as I can gather, something will appear in that newspaper tomorrow. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.15) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Opposition parties welcome the statement that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made last week in the House of Representatives. It is a pity that we each have only five minutes to speak to it now. There is no doubt that the history of women in Australia has been one of repressed economic, social and political status. The agenda which the Prime Minister has put down is an attempt to overcome some of the disadvantages faced by women. For the last decade the governments of the world have joined together to acknowledge and to alleviate this problem. The Prime Minister's statement comes soon after the official ending of the United Nations Decade for Women. For much of that decade the Liberal and National parties were in government in this country. Our record is one of contribution towards overcoming some of the problems and the achievement of some of the goals which many women have sought. In our society, women have traditionally taken on the responsibility for the young and for the family-the role of carer and of nurturer. Our parties maintain that a recognition of the maternal and child caring and rearing role which women have undertaken is very important not only to society but also because it has a very important cultural, economic and social significance of its own. We recognise those facts, but there is no doubt that women have found it more difficult to achieve equal opportunity because of the role which they have taken on. I refer to the double role which many women are forced to undertake if they wish to discharge their duties and to participate fully in other avenues which society can offer. The maternal and caring role has led to special social and financial burdens for women. The Opposition understands this and wishes to be part of any reasonable steps which can overcome those problems. These burdens have not always been adequately shared by men. For example, the role of home maker, the nurturing role and the caring role are often left to women, and those roles are not seen as something in which many men need to be or should be involved. I am proud to belong to a party which has had so much involvement over the last decade in the advancement of women's opportunities. It was the Liberal Party which in 1976 which established the Office of Child Care, introduced the family allowance scheme which moved money from the wallet to the purse for the first time, set up special women's units in a number of government departments, altered the Superannuation Acts to make new arrangements for equal provisions for women public servants and established the women's film fund. In 1977 it was the Liberal Government which established the National Women's Advisory Council, and in 1978 it established the home rehabilitation services section in the Office of Women's Affairs. We established shop-front information offices between 1979 and 1983 and we increased and improved the benefit for supporting parents, most of whom are women who have become supporting parents as a result of family breakdown. The Party to which I belong at the moment happens to have women presidents in its two largest divisions. I refer also to Jenny Adamson in South Australia. She has been a Cabinet Minister and is one of the prominent members of the South Australian Parliament. Many women have been active politically in our Party. The only thing I want to say in the few seconds remaining is that we are aware of the strains of the double role which many women bear. We are aware of the importance of providing adequate child care. We are aware of the issue of equal employment opportunity. All of these issues need to be addressed if some of the goals laid down by the Prime Minister are to be achieved. As Mr Howard said, and as I want to say now, the Opposition wishes to participate as far as it is able in the achievement of those goals. There will be disagreements on detail, but to the extent that we can establish a bipartisan approach on some of the goals of equal opportunity for women, the Opposition wishes to be part of that effort. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I call Senator Crowley. Senator Georges —Show him that you can be magnanimous. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(4.20) —The advice flowing is to be remarked. I take note of Senator Peter Baume's comments, which are a matter of record. We would be clear, though, that this Government would take issue with what he regards as small points of detail on some of the issues. One has only to recall the Opposition's difficulties in the sex discrimination legislation to appreciate that matters of difficulty can become major obstacles when it comes to debating and passing legislation. Senator Peter Baume —How did we vote? Look at the voting divisions. Senator CROWLEY —It is a matter of note that, as Senator Baume says, during the time in which there was a Liberal government in the past decade some achievements were made for women, but it is a matter of considerable pride and satisfaction to be part of a government that has achieved so much in the past three years, on top of what Senator Baume claims to have been some of the gains and achievements for women before that. It is clear also as a matter of political record that there is considerable dissension in the Opposition ranks about how far and in what detail support for women's movements and women's requirements should go. Whilst Senator Baume has mentioned some women in South Australia, particularly Jenny Adamson, I am reminded also of another significant South Australian woman, Judith Roberts, one time member of the National Women's Advisory Council, who resigned from the Liberal Party of Australia because of its failure to act in support of achievements and legislation for women. The National Agenda for Women is a record of the considerable achievements of the Government. More importantly, it points to what the Government has set out as the headlines of the agenda for its proposals up to the year 2000. As the document points out, it follows on from the conference in Nairobi to mark the end of the Decade for Women. A couple of points need to be made about that conference. In particular I remark, as I have on a few previous occasions in this chamber, on the interesting and very remarkable response to the Australian Government's presentation of its report on the achievements for women in this country over the past 10 years. That presentation was given by Senator Patricia Giles, the leader of our delegation. Many people were particularly interested to take up some of the comments raised in that report. In particular people were interested in the governmental machinery in Australia to provide, at the Federal level anyhow, the overview from the Office of the Status of Women for keeping an eye on all of the portfolio areas with regard to achievements and needs of women. Australia does not have, as other countries do, a department of women's affairs. It has been seen as very important not to allow the hiving off of women from the mainstream considerations and deliberations of government. Many other governments were interested to discuss that with our delegation. Another very significant point was our reporting that there had been last year, and was to be this year, a fuller women's Budget program. The comprehensive document released at the time of the Budget addressed every portfolio area of the Budget with regard to its effects, directly and indirectly, on women. South Australia this year has produced a women's Budget document with its Budget Papers and one other State-I think Victoria-has produced a women's Budget paper. Again, that document was regarded with considerable interest. I understand that no other country in the world has taken that step on behalf of women and on behalf of helping everybody in the community to focus on the importance and needs of women. It is a matter of considerable satisfaction and significance that that document has been produced. It goes very much to the core of reminding us not only of the things Senator Peter Baume listed that had been achieved in times past but also of the things achieved during the life of this Labor Government. The significant steps that need noting, despite Senator Walters's claims to the contrary, are the importance of the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act in 1984 and the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Those are things that go to changing attitudes as well as behaviour. We cannot move too slowly or far enough in moving to change attitudes about women, women's achievements, and their rights in this community. I am sure that more will be said on the National Agenda for Women up to the year 2000. The document essentially works for women to have a choice, to have a say, to have a fair go. Under all those headings the document spells out the proposals this Government will set in place so that all those areas will be covered and achieved for women. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.25) —It is with pleasure that I speak on this National Agenda For Women. I am very disappointed that I have been unable to find in the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) any words in support of women who choose to stay at home. Senator Crowley —Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I have to refer to that comment by Senator Walters. It is a blatant untruth; it is in the document. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! That is not a point of order. Senator WALTERS —There is no mention of that section of women who choose to stay at home during their children's formative years and to act as a stabilising influence for their families. There are 10 points outlining what the Government has done, but not one of those 10 points that have been put forward has supported women at home. The Government padded out the points and talked about all sorts of things, such as the Sex Discrimination Act, to which Senator Crowley referred, but it did not mention that the whole of the Sex Discrimination Bill had to be rewritten at the instigation of the Opposition. Indeed, the Government still has not got it right because the Sex Discrimination Commissioner has been forced to discard certain sections of that piece of legislation. The Government then referred to affirmative action, but it did not mention that the unions have not yet fallen into line and that there are still some sections where sons of union members are the first put on. I will not go through all of this because I do not have time, but there is no reference in that 10-point plan to women who stay at home and bring up their children during their formative years. On page 3 of the National Agenda for Women the Government talks in a derogatory way about women who stay at home. The wording states that we must be free to achieve economic independence through employment to escape from poverty and dependence. I do not believe that this is the way that women generally see their role in our community. I believe that we do not see ourselves as victims of a male-dominated society. I believe that we see ourselves as partners in a family team and in a work force team. Our status is gained, just as the status of men is gained, via our contribution to that team. Our status derives from the quality of our work, the quality of our family, and the quality of our social life. I believe that most women see their children as a parental responsibility, not as the Government's responsibility or an employer's responsibility. We do not accept that a woman's status is diminished or her contribution to society lessened by making a choice to join the part time work force or by making a choice not to enter the paid work force. I believe that the current feminist ideology makes it look as though women are in some way inferior if they work fewer hours for less money than men. That is a veiw which assumes, or pretends, that women in the part time work force, no work force or a lower paid work force are being discriminated against. The view held by women is that they are making their choices and they are balancing their degree of responsibility in the paid and unpaid work force with responsibility to their families. The view of the feminists denies the concept of choice and freedom of choice. It has always been Liberal Party philosophy to support equal opportunity, along with two other basic tenets-freedom of choice and the value of individual choice. The Government does not understand the concept of real choice. If the Government did understand the need for women to have a real choice it would introduce income splitting and allow women to have a real opportunity to make a choice as to whether to stay home and bring up their families or to enter the paid work force. For the Prime Minister to say, in a derogatory fashion, that economic independence is the most important thing for women to enable them to escape from poverty and dependence, I believe, is a disgrace. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.30) —One of the difficulties with addressing papers in this manner is that the period of five minutes is not long enough to enable honourable senators to deal with all of the questions with which they desire to deal. I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) would be the first to acknowledge that the trade union movement has been responsible for a substantial lift in the status of women in Australia. I recall very well taking one of the first equal pay test cases in this country. It was very hard fought. I also recall putting the argument that it was much more difficult for a woman to sell a pair of shoes to another woman than it was for a man to sell a pair of shoes to another man, yet at that time men were getting paid almost 40 per cent more than women. I turn to the report. I am concerned about the fact that, although the report deals with some non-economic matters, it does not deal with a matter which is of concern to a large number of women, if my correspondence is any barometer of that. That is the problem that women see for themselves and for their status with the commercialisation of pornography, as was allowed by this Government from 1 February last year. I am concerned that the report of the Senate Select Committee on Video Material has virtually been ignored by the Government. Many, if not all, of the women who have written to me have expressed concern that they are being treated simply as objects and that the nature of this pornography is a violation of the honour that is due to them. Let me deal with the subject that Senator Walters raised, which is of great concern to me and must surely be of great concern to the Senate and the people of Australia. Those women who do arguably the most important job in society-the raising and nurturing of the future generation-have been virtually ignored. Senator Crowley —Nonsense. Senator HARRADINE —Let us look at the facts. As of now a mother with four children is $55.35 a month worse off than she was in 1976. Family allowances have lost their value by 50 per cent. In fact, a one-income family on average weekly earnings now pays $785 a year more in tax than a two-income family on an equivalent income. After the much heralded tax package that one-income family will be paying $809 a year more than a two-income family on an equivalent income. If that is giving due recognition to the mother at home, I do not know what the language is all about. I am happy to see that the Prime Minister at least acknowledges the problem on page 7 of his printed statement, when he says: It will never with any truth or justice be said of the Labor Government that we are unaware of the tremendous contribution to our national well-being made by women in the home. Without the work they perform the economy would not function as smoothly. At present women's unpaid work in the home and in voluntary activities for the community is not measured and thus tends to be undervalued. In 1988 the Australian Bureau of Statistics will carry out a major time use survey which will provide sound statistical data on women's multiple responsibilities. I acknowledge that the Prime Minister has finally woken up to the fact that there is a real problem, but something besides this survey needs to be done. Let fairness reign and let the Senate acknowledge that the Prime Minister has indicated that, and we look forward to that result. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(4.35) —I rise for only two minutes in order to refute the quite blatant misrepresentation by Senator Walters of this very important statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) setting the National Agenda for women. I would have to say that Senator Walters's misrepresentation was not only blatant but also deliberate in that there were quotations-- Senator Peter Baume —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I imagine it is quite in order for the honourable senator, if he thinks there has been an error of fact, so to determine it, but he has imputed a motive to Senator Walters and that is clearly contrary to standing order 418. He said that it was a deliberate misrepresentation. Senator TATE —I withdraw. Rather than make the imputation myself, I leave it to others to judge. What Senator Walters refused to do was to acknowledge the fact that the Prime Minister said: We want to give women the opportunity to contribute to the full to the future development of our nation, whether in a domestic setting, in the workforce, or in any other aspect of life. After speaking about the opportunities for women in employment he went on to say: Women must also feel free to choose to be full-time mothers without the fear that their contribution to family life is somehow of a lesser status than work outside the home. He went on to make other points, stating: Increasingly Australian women choose different roles at different stages of their lives. Many women want to leave the workforce to nurture their young children and then be able to return to employment without having to start at the bottom again. In the past, economic factors and social prejudices have constrained women's choices and women have often been seen only in their familial roles as wives or mothers. Nevertheless- I quote this for Senator Walters's special benefit- family life is the central focus for very many Australian women and the Labor Government is committed to giving support to families, and recognises the wide variety of family structures now chosen by Australians. Finally, just to reinforce the point made by Senator Harradine, it is one thing to express those sentiments, and they have to be acknowledged as having been expressed, and it is another to have the statistical base to form government policies to implement the consequences of that acknowledgment. Here the Labor Government has said: At present women's unpaid work in the home and in voluntary activities for the community is not measured and thus tends to be undervalued. He points out: In 1988 the Australian Bureau of Statistics will carry out a major time use survey which will provide sound statistical data on women's multiple responsibilities. I put those facts on the record as a complete refutation of Senator Walters's partial quoting and blatant misrepresentation. I leave it, as I say, to others to judge as to the accuracy of her contribution. Debate (on motion by Senator Ryan) adjourned. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(4.40) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. My criticism of the statement by the Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden) on the Australian overseas aid program is not about what is in the statement but what is not in the statement. The response by the Minister deals more with the general approach and philosophy of aid rather than with the specific recommendations contained in both the report of the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program and the findings of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the Jackson report. Positive matters in the report include the acceptance by the Government of a `commitment to work towards achieving the equivalent of 0.7 per cent of gross national product on overseas aid', and the decision `that the Government has decided that the real level of official development aid will increase yearly in the future'. The Government has accepted the basic assessment that aid is given primarily for humanitarian reasons to promote development, but it also complements our strategic, economic and foreign policy interests. In regard to Papua New Guinea-our largest aid recipient-the Government will provide continuing high levels of aid but with a 3 per cent real annual rate of decline. The Joint Committee, while supporting the goal of reducing the dependence of Papua New Guinea on Australian aid, referred to the importance of an adequate level of dialogue. This dialogue would maintain the close relationship which currently exists between our two countries. Other initiatives which I welcome are the upgrading of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau to make it more professional, which will mean that administrative costs will rise from 1.54 per cent to 1.7 per cent. That upgrading is overdue, especially if it leads to increased efficiency. Another initiative which I welcome is the recognition of non-government organisations, which will receive $18.2m in 1985-86. Activities to assist women will receive $500,000 in 1985-86 and development and initiatives in education and development research will receive $149,000. My major disappointment with the Minister's response is in relation to the African Development Bank. In his statement, the Minister announced. We have taken steps to look into the possibility of membership of the African Development Bank. However, let me quote from the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the issue of the African Development Bank: 5.54 A strong case has been put forward for joining the AfDB on procurement grounds alone. Australian companies cannot compete for contracts awarded by the AfDB until we become a member. It has been put to this Committee that a number of Australian companies `have had first hand experience of lost business in consulting and supplier opportunities because of Australia's non-membership'. The Department of Trade although not expressing any opinion on the merits or otherwise of joining, informed the Committee that: [the consultants industry, in particular, see membership] as being another opportunity for them. They argue that if we did join they would be able to do better than our contribution in terms of the contracts won, because of the nature of the contracts being let by the AfDB. The Department of Housing and Construction also endorsed the Jackson recommendation noting that Australian industry has the talents and expertise that could be used in African development given an appropriate entree. 5.55 The Treasury drew attention to a United States Treasury report which, in 1982, inferred that the AfDB, although ranking high on humanitarian grounds, was not as efficient as the other regional development banks. This Committee is advised that the AfDB did face considerable problems in the early stages of its operations and, by comparison with what are regarded as three of the most efficient development institutions in the world (the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), AsDB and IDB), it was not regarded as having the same level of performance. However, since that report was issued, a new management structure has been established with the accession to full Bank membership of 21 non-regional members. Non-regional membership includes all of the western donors with the exception of Australia and New Zealand. 5.56 The AFDB is increasingly recognised as a soundly functioning institution. A recent study by Kidder, Peabody and Co. (a major USA firm of Corporate Financial Analysts who have prepared a series of studies on the international financial institutions for submission to the United States Congress) concluded that `from our analysis of the Bank's capital structure, financial condition, operating history and member country support together with its conservative loan operating and liquidity policies, it is our opinion that the AfDB is among the premier financial credits in the international capital markets. Moreover, we are confident that the African Development Bank will continue to strengthen its fine operating performance in the future and continue to fully merit the premium credit ratings assigned to its securities'. This conclusion is reflected in its current credit ratings which are now directly comparable with those of the Asian, Inter-American and World Banks. As a result, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence recommended that positive consideration should be given to seeking early membership of the African Development Bank. If Australia was to request membership immediately, we could not join before 1987 because there is a waiting list. I am afraid that the Treasury view will win out despite the fact that it gave misleading or at least out of date evidence to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Therefore, I believe that the Government should join the African Development Bank as soon as possible. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(4.45) —The statement of the Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden) on the Australian overseas aid program is, of course, a direct response to the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program. The response to the Jackson Committee report has been entirely bipartisan in the chambers of Parliament, as has been reflected by Senator Sibraa's remarks and also by my own. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The time has expired for the consideration of Government Papers. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-Mr Acting Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. Because I did not want to take up the half hour for debate on Government Papers, I left my explanation until now. As I said when I first started I had, indeed, looked at the 10 points that the Government has put and not one of those 10 points refers in any way to women who are in the home. Senator Ryan —I raise a point of order. The honourable senator is not making an explanation concerning a misrepresentation; she is arguing the case, which she had ample opportunity to do earlier. Senator Peter Baume —I wish to speak to the point of order. I have not heard enough of what Senator Walters is saying to know whether that is correct. I do not think it is fair to take a point of order so quickly. She should be given a fair go. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! There is no point of order. At this stage I have not heard enough myself, but I ask Senator Walters to put her case and finish. Senator WALTERS —I do not intend to debate it. I purely wish to say that if honourable senators read the statement put down by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) they will find that in those 10 points there is no reference to the women at home, and that is what I am referring to. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —by leave-The fact is that Senator Walters not only quoted from the 10 points, she quoted from page 3 and she read a paragraph which purported to put in the mouth of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) a sentiment that the only worth that women had was in the work force to drag them out of poverty and despair. The next paragraph firmly sets out the Prime Minister's view of the worth of women in the family and in the home. Senator Walters deliberately chose not to mention that following paragraph and in that way I believe that she was not misrepresented. 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 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 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 HARRADINE(Tasmania) —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 CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(4.49) —I seek leave to move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator Missen —I intend to speak on this matter in the adjournment debate tonight and this may stop me from doing so. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —It will not stop you from speaking. Senator Missen —According to my reading of the Standing Orders, it may. Therefore, I would like to move that leave be not granted. The Opposition does not want to move to take note of this paper at present. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I ask your advice as to whether the motion I have sought to move inhibits Senator Missen from speaking on this subject in the adjournment debate tonight? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I understand that it will not inhibit the debate unless the matter raised is specific. Senator Missen —It will be specific. I will challenge the ministerial statement. I think the motion will have the effect of inhibiting my remarks. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —If the honourable senator wishes to be specific, the motion will inhibit the debate. Senator Georges —Refuse leave. Senator Missen —I refuse leave. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Leave is not granted. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I seek leave to make a statement on behalf of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts concerning its inquiry into computer acquisition. Leave granted. Senator GEORGES —The Parliament is aware that the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts has been given a standing reference to examine and report on major automatic data processing acquisition proposals which exceed $5m before they proceed to Cabinet for funding approval. When examining these proposals the Committee seeks to ensure that they are properly planned and justified. However, it also recognises that if the Commonwealth is to get value for money from these proposals, subsequent purchasing action must also proceed in line with approved procedures. The Committee has been conducting an inquiry into the job seeker computer acquisition and related aspects of the ADP operations of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. The job seeker project is intended to provide storage and update facilities for job seeker registration records through a network of computers located in Commonwealth Employment Service offices throughout Australia. This inquiry resulted from advice to the Committee of an unusual level of disquiet in the computer vendor industry about the conduct of this tender and from serious criticisms made by the Auditor-General in his September 1985 report about the adequacy of planning, cost-benefit justification and financial management supporting a previous ADP project in the Department, job bank. The Commonwealth's purchasing procedures are there to ensure, among other things, that public tendering is conducted in a thorough and impartial fashion. If these procedures and their purpose are not respected, the reputation of the Commonwealth in the market-place for fair and responsible purchasing practices will be at risk. Responsibility for the proper observance of these procedures rests primarily with the purchasing department although the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services, as the Commonwealth's contracting authority, also has a clear responsibility for ensuring that government purchasing procedures are followed. The Committee has been concerned to avoid unnecessary delay in its examination of the job seeker acquisition. It has therefore expedited its inquiries and is now in a position to provide a statement to the Parliament about its conclusions. The Committee's concerns about the job seeker computer acquisition are twofold. Firstly, the Committee has serious concerns about several documented instances during the evaluation of tenders, where proper procedures were not followed. The Committee has also noted some unusual and, in its view, unacceptable features of the recommended tender and proposed contractual arrangements with the recommended tenderer. Secondly, the Committee is not satisfied that adequate planning and evaluation was undertaken to support the particular implementation strategy chosen for the job seeker project. It has also noted the serious criticisms made by the Auditor-General of the Department's past performance in the conduct of proper planning and evaluation for the job bank project. The Committee will be providing a full report to Parliament on these matters in due course. The Committee has concluded that the tendering procedures may have compromised the impartiality of the tender recommendation, but it has also given careful consideration to the considerable costs resulting from tender cancellation and the consequent delay in the implementation of the job seeker project. Reluctantly, it has concluded that these costs would outweigh the benefits resulting from the conduct of a new tender. The Committee is, therefore, recommending that the job seeker purchase proceed, subject to certain amendments being made to the proposed contract with the recommended supplier. The Committee is also recommending that before any further ADP procurement action is taken by the Department, it undertake a comprehensive re-evaluation of its future ADP needs and represent the outcome in a revised ADP strategic plan. This should be supported by full documentation of the planning and justification for all proposed ADP acquisitions over the next three years. Of course, the Committee would expect that any ADP acquisition proposal costing more than $5m would be referred to the Committee for examination and report under its standing reference. The Committee will be communicating its recommendations on these matters in greater detail to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. Debate resumed. Senator PARER(Queensland)(4.57) —Prior to the suspension of the sitting for lunch we were discussing the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985 and the Bills which we are debating cognately. I was concentrating my remarks on the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3). I mentioned the restrictions placed on tertiary institutions by the Minister's guidelines which ignore the reality that there is already a great concentration of overseas students at a few institutions in Australia. This may occur for good academic reasons and need not be discouraged. One contentious issue relating to the entry of overseas students into Australian tertiary institutions is the extent to which such students keep Australian students out. This is the cause of bitterness and misunderstanding. It conceals the real reason why some Australians who otherwise qualify for tertiary places are denied entry. The reason is that funding restrictions by the Government and increased demand force universities and colleges to impose more and more rigid quotas for entry. They, like hospitals under Medicare, are forced to ration places in a free system. As a result, many potential students miss out. Estimates vary but the number may well be as high as 30,000 for Australia in a year. There are certainly many thousands in my State of Queensland. The figures vary between 8,000 and 20,000 students who will miss out. These are deserving students. In such circumstances it is most unfortunate, but understandable, that those who miss out are upset when they see many overseas students coming in. Their reactions will only be reinforced when they observe that from now on overseas students will have two chances of gaining access to our tertiary institutions. They will qualify either as subsidised students who pay the overseas students charge or as full fee paying students. Our own students are to be denied the latter opportunity for reasons that are not apparent. It is odd under the circumstances that the Minister claims, as she did in her March statement, that the new program will safeguard the rights of Australian students. I doubt whether those students or their parents will believe her. Perhaps the only way that some Australian students will be able to study the course of their choice will be to emigrate and then apply for entry as fee paying students. It is strange that at the same time as some Australian students are missing out others are continuing to be subsidised to drop out half way through their courses, without any financial obligation, while others are allowed to take many more years than necessary to complete their courses. However, as the Minister says: `Don't let anyone tell you that our education system is inequitable or inefficient'. The problem is not that overseas students are allowed to pay full fees; the problem is that Australian students are not. Yet in a remarkable Press release on 17 October last entitled `Shack misses the point-again' the Minister claimed: He is asking for the impossible. Our higher education system is merit based. He is calling for a policy that would replace merit by ability to pay. This ignores the fact that under such an arrangement students would still be required to fulfil academic entry requirements. The Minister does not seem to realise that those currently missing out are qualified for entry already. The Minister's statement is even more remarkable when it is realised that many overseas students coming in at present are not selected solely on merit. As the report of the Jackson Committee to Review the Overseas Aid Program stated: Students from developing countries applying for Australian Government scholarships must satisfy a multitude of requirements in their own countries and in Australia. They must be approved by their own government and are often selected on grounds other than academic merit. The criteria of the more influential government departments in developing countries tend to prevail. In practice, the process is something of a lottery because students and officials in developing countries are usually poorly informed about the range of courses available. This makes nonsense of remarks about merit. It also reveals the rigidity of an education system which is monopolised by government and which prevents institutions from seeking their own levels of excellence. It is ironic that many overseas students who choose to come to Australia do so because of the parlous state of education policies in their own countries. In each case presented to me, subsidised students were studying here in Canberra at the Australian National University because of the inability to gain entry to a tertiary institution in their own country. Various reasons-political or whatever-were given for that. It is all very well to seek education export markets. In fact, I think I indicated earlier in my remarks that that is a very praiseworthy thing to do. Usually however a country exports goods surplus to its own domestic requirements. We have the curious situation of seeking exports when we have an untenable education deficit which is of concern to thousands of young Australians and their parents. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.03) —Usually about this time each year we look at the States grants Bills. It is a useful opportunity to review the position of education in Australia and where the education system might be going, particularly from a point of view of funding at the Commonwealth level. Of course, the Commonwealth being a major funder of education either directly or through the States grants is a major determinant of what is likely to happen to education and how it is likely to happen in the ensuing years. To put it into some perspective, in 1976-77 Budget expenditure on education constituted 9.2 per cent of total Budget outlays. In 1982-83 this dropped to 7.9 per cent. In this year's Budget it dropped to 7.1 per cent. Fairly obviously the operation we are seeing in Australia is directed at a decreasing priority for education vis-a-vis other priorities which both this Government and the previous Government have had. From 1974-75 through to 1982-83 the total Commonwealth expenditure on private schools increased by 107 per cent in real terms and expenditure on public schools increased by 18 per cent in real terms. I think those figures, which are contained in the Quality of Education Review Committee report, are interesting. When one looks at the total expenditure one sees the same type of expenditure pattern in both Commonwealth and State education expenditures. Of course, State governments are the major funders of public schools. Thus we see the same relative increase in private school and public school expenditure. An economist, Ross Williams, has estimated that the private dollar spent on private schooling has fallen. For example, the 1981-82 expenditure level was less than one third of the 1968-69 level. In other words, over the years the amount of money which has been able to be placed in the private school sector by those people attending private schools has dropped. It is Ross Williams's estimate that the rise in the number of people attending private schools can be explained very well by this change in expenditure of the private dollar. The reason I raise this issue is that it is a component of the major education debate which took place in Australia this year concerning educational standards. A large component of that debate revolved around the differences between private and public schools. In general that debate was not of course of a terribly high calibre. One of the major contributions to that debate was made by Greg Sheridan writing in the Bulletin magazine. Amongst a variety of statements he said: All around the country teachers are giving our children a diet of intellectual poison. That debate was fuelled by Professor Chipman when he said: An Australian Education Council of Education Research survey done a few years ago reported that one sixth of the 14 year olds sampled were unable to read a single sentence. No doubt he was referring to the 1975 Australian Council for Educational Research survey of numeracy and literacy. If one refers to that survey one finds the statement: From the evidence available we have estimated the proportion of students in normal schooling at the ten year old and 14 year old levels who were unable to read simple sentences to be 3% and .8% respectively. Of course there is a considerable difference, as most people would realise, between 0.8 per cent and one sixth-which is of course 16.7 per cent. That type of cavalier attitude to available research, saying whatever one wants to say about schooling, flows very much from the attitudes to schooling within our society. All people in society assume themselves to be experts on schools and how they ought to be run. Unlike most other professional areas, schooling is something most people have had a very heavy dose of; many are intimately involved because their own children are at schools. During their formative years they have imbibed a model of how that professional activity should be run. Hence while people would be loath to go into a long discourse on how dentists should run their practices or how doctors should perform medical operations, they feel happy to divest themselves of opinions as to how teachers should teach. That is probably invigorating within our type of community, but those who comment on education and educational matters should pay some attention to what actually happens in the classroom and to the problems faced in schools in our society in 1985. Let us examine some of those types of problems. The major difficulty in terms of the standards debate to which I have referred previously is that people seem to believe that, no matter when they did their education, nothing has changed in the general social structure. Every time I have raised this matter in debates, discussions and public arenas I have tried to point to some fairly radical changes that have taken place in Australian society in the last few years. Perhaps I can refer to some hard data. When I grew up, presumably when the majority of senators who are now in the chamber grew up-most of them are looking older than I am but it may be just the effects of the end of the year-there was no television. Let us look at what happens to a child today. Some 98 per cent of Australian homes have television sets. The average student in a school career views 15,000 hours of television while consuming 11,500 hours of education. I repeat that students view 15,000 hours of television while they are getting 11,500 hours of contact in the school. That is totally different from what happened to me and to any honourable senator here, and indeed to most parents in Australia today. Let us take that single item and try to work through the types of ramifications that must have for the classroom environment. Let us have a little understanding of the changes that have taken place and the impact of those changes outside the classroom, outside the school, on what happens in the classroom and what happens to teachers. While students are viewing those 15,000 hours of television, they are watching 500,000 advertisements. It may be a bit too harsh to say that all those advertisements undermine the logic that schools attempt to teach, but what we do know about them is that many advertisements are pitched at certain types of value structures in our society. That is another constituent part of this whole debate about standards, about dropping values, about the problems when teachers are no longer imposing discipline on pupils-as though discipline were applied by only teachers in our society. The constituent parts of our society, such as the home, church, the school but also the media, surely must bear part of the blame at least for any of those types of changing social values. If parents are content to allow their children to watch 15,000 hours of television, should not the home perhaps accept the effect of some of the changes that might take place as a result of that viewing? Let us have a slightly more sensible debate in 1986 about education and what is going on than simply to say: `It is the schools and the teachers that are responsible for what is happening'. If our society wants an advertising industry and supports such an industry, we have to accept the problems of the advertising industry and what it does to young people. So do our families, the churches and every other organ in our society, and so does the media. Senator Teague —No one is denying all this. Senator MACKLIN —If one reads those advertisements and the types of articles that appear in the media, one would think that the media had absolutely no influence on the type of values in our society. The mass media have reduced every authority that exists outside themselves in terms of what has gone on, yet they wish to criticise every other function in society except themselves. I believe it is about time that we tried to get some balance of those various competing sections of the society that we have and what they do to the general value structures in our society and what those value structures do to the education system. We cannot have a weakening of the family, the churches, or of all other groups within society without there being concomitant results in the classroom. One cannot have exploitation of sex to sell consumer products in this society without there being some type of backlash in the classroom and without pressure in the classroom to try to go into various courses on human relationships. It is all very well then for people to ask, as did Greg Sheridan in the article he wrote in the Bulletin, `What about these mushy courses on human relationships?' without at the same time condemning the exploitation of sex that takes place in the Bulletin. It is that exploitation that leads directly to demands within our society to have those human education courses. Schools are responding to the demands placed upon them. Those demands arise out of the changes in our social structures. Let us have a little fairness in these matters, when those types of things are talked about, to try to pinpoint the origin of the types of value structures and changes that take place rather than the simplistic mush that is churned out as though it were some type of education debate. I hope that in 1986 we may see some strengthening of the genuine types of debates. I have already pointed to the exploitation of sex. There are other aspects, such as the programs of daily news and current affairs which are churned out to our young people, which was not the case in earlier days. This gives rise to a whole range of discussions-for example, in regard to acquired immune deficiency syndrome. What is a teacher to do in the classroom when children present controversial problems of this type? Is the teacher to sweep such matters under the carpet? Of course not. Yet when I grew up, matters of that type were outside our understanding. We just did not come across them unless we were avid readers of the newspaper. I grew up in a small country town and I am sure that our newspaper would not have carried such material. What one got was what one heard on the radio, and that was it. That was not so long ago and these changes have taken place since then. Let us try to understand the changes that have taken place and understand how they have affected our family structure in our society. Let us understand how schools are struggling to cope with those changes. It is the schools that first feel the impact of any changes of that type. Let us not all be hypocrites by saying that we support advertising when we fail to see the types of problems that advertising has created in our community. The facade of value neutrality in the classroom has undoubtedly broken down. It is no longer possible for a teacher to hold to that type of facade; namely, that a teacher has neutral values. What is a teacher to do when confronted with somebody who says: `My father says that black people are inferior'? Is the teacher to say one thing on the one hand and something different on the other? Teachers no longer are in a position to be able to skirt round those real, hard, controversial issues. They feel these issues and feel them more than anyone else. It might be useful in 1986 for society to give more support to teachers in all schools than it has given them in the past. Through that debate on standards ran a thread which I would like to pick up, that is, the rather odd view of comparing and contrasting private and state schools. I have taught in both types of schools, as has my wife. I have spent a fair amount of my professional life visiting both types of schools and looking at people teach in them. Those people who have had that opportunity can say fairly comfortably that the pedagogy in those schools is remarkably similar. I think that is an acceptable statement; I do not think anybody would contest it. However, the choices that people seem to be making are based on some fallacious arguments which pick up the values of credentials as they float around, and undoubtedly credentials from some of the top private schools are more valuable than those from most of the public schools. The reasons for that have nothing to do with education but a lot to do with our social structure. I do not intend to pursue that, but it seems to me to be very odd that people can then generalise from some private schools to all private schools on the one hand, and from some state schools to all state schools on the other hand. I think it would be better if some more discriminating judgments were made between various schools. We have good and bad private schools; we have good and bad public schools. In many ways, those schools respond to their environments, they respond to the teachers who are in them; and they respond to the problems of the children and their families. In areas where those problems are overwhelmingly ones of economic deprivation, fairly obviously the problems the teachers face are far more difficult than those faced in our more affluent suburbs. When one is confronted at secondary school level with the problem of teaching people to read and write one knows that such difficulties have been compounded over a number of years, not through any fault of the education system but because of the inability of the education system to meet the ever-increasing demands that are placed upon it. I hope that in the credentialling debate-which I think is the real debate with regard to public and private schools-we can be a little more discerning in making those types of distinctions. I am worried that many of the items pointed to in the Quality of Education Review Committee's report seem to have been missed in the debate this year. For example, in an interesting reference on page 29 of the report-this is something which most people in the education community have known about for a long time-the Committee points to the fact that it is very difficult to come up with hard evidence from employers about students being inadequately prepared for work. The QERC report says that it is mainly anecdotal evidence. We all have a drawer full of anecdotes but the hard evidence is very difficult to get. In respect of the general debate about declining standards, where do we find the hard evidence? When we look at the articles that have been published in the serious journals which attempts to review all the educational research in this area, we see statements such as this one by Graeme Little in Standards of Education in Australia: The fact remains that the hard data we have refutes the decline theory . . . This is not to say that we do not know whether there has been a decline. We do know that there has not been a decline. It does not matter how many times we refer to these studies, this hoary myth seems to hang around. That is a pity because there are many other areas of the education debate that need urgent attention. We can do without the constant reiteration of that type of material. We have already debated the problem of exiting from our secondary schools. For example, we find that 45 per cent of Australians in the 15 to 19 year-old bracket are engaged in full time post-compulsory education compared with 75 per cent in the equivalent age group in the United States of America. Why should this be the case? Is it that our students are not as academically bright, not as capable of undertaking post-secondary education? Of course it is not. It is a legacy of the attitude the community in general and successive governments have taken to the funding of education in this country. I think that has to be made top priority next year. Senator Peter Baume in his speech during the second reading debate referred to our odd priorities-looking at racehorses and a number of other matters rather than at the education of our own citizens and their future. Undoubtedly the Government can say that if it leaves the educational structure as it is, if it maintains the funding in roughly the same configuration as it is at the moment, there probably will not be any electoral backlash arising out of this. I hope that we might go beyond that rather thin political debate and point to the fact that the problems we faced in Australia in the last few years have stemmed directly from the neglect of education in the post-war years. Our States having constantly underfunded their schooling systems and the fact that we have constantly underfunded schools in the public sector and, probably more heinously, in the private sector, including our research efforts, have led to the present parlous state of the economy. We know that money invested in education provides the best return on money invested anywhere-and that includes hole in the ground mining, agriculture, and every other possible industry. We know this and we have known it for a long time, yet we constantly neglect it. The tertiary sector has suffered a series of blows this year. The various top priorities enunciated by the Government are being shunted into the background. A decision was made in May to cut the capital works funding in technical and further education by $12m and a campaign is running at this time which suggests that youth is a top priority. I am not sure how all those things go together. I do not think they do. A rigorous pursuit of the needs in this area is necessary to maintain the level of funding, to increase the level of funding, and hopefully to take it back to where it was even in the late 1970s. That seems to me to be a priority in education that must loom large in 1986. I would not like to finish on the topic of money because I consider that, whilst money is absolutely necessary, it is not the only element. As I have already pointed out in the first part of my speech, I believe that social attitudes to education are probably far more important. If I might link the two together at this point, it is social attitudes to education which provide the political wherewithal to get a reasonable education budget out of whatever government happens to be in power. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), who is at the table, presumably knows that all to well. In the arguments that go on between the various departments on the various priorities that present themselves to government, education can assume a top priority only if it is a top priority within the community at large. If the community at large does not view the education of its youth as important, then doubtless the Government will not fund it as important. I think that in the end it is important to get away from the rather odd notion that seems to have crept into the debate in recent years in that we see the result of education as being the credentials that apply to our children who leave primary and secondary school and to our young people who leave tertiary institutions. In other words, we attach the value of education to the degree or diploma or whatever else the person receives. Essentially I believe that value of education must be attached to the value of learning itself, what that gives the individual and what the individual is then able to give to the community because of his learning. Let us not fall back into that way of thinking which has sometimes crept into statements made by Prime Ministers over the past few years and which seems to suggest fairly clearly that the value of education is in those types of credentials. The value of education is a community value. A person's individual education undoubtedly will provide that person with a better chance in life and will also provide the community with a better future. It is interesting to note the standing of teachers as revealed in a recent gallup poll. It rated them highly for honesty and professional ethics at 54 per cent. There were some categories higher than the teachers, but I am interested in those that were lower. Among them were Federal politicians, who were rated at 13 per cent, and journalists, who were rated at 11 per cent. It seems to me that it might be about time that those politicians and journalists who in 1985 have engaged in an unceasing denigration of teachers might better look at themselves because presumably they might be the people who need a lot more work done with them than the teachers. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(5.32) —The Senate is debating the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985 and five other education Bills. Senator Macklin, who is the only speaker in this debate for the Australian Democrats, chose not to mention any of the six Bills but to speak at a tangent in a rambling fashion about education generally. He spoke about the Sheridan articles which appeared in the Australian earlier this year on the Quality of Education Review Committee, on retention rates, on post-war years of underfunding and on the Government's Priority One youth campaign. I am surprised that the Democrats have not applied themselves to the details of the six Bills that are before us. These six education measures appropriate more than $2 billion of taxpayers' money and not only appropriate it in the usual forms to schools and tertiary education institutions. These measures also amount to a cut in the participation and equity program, which has been halved, and a $30m cut in technical and further education. Also, there has been a new departure, which the Opposition has welcomed in a bipartisan approach with the Government, on nurse education through colleges of advanced education. In particular, in the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill there has been a radical departure from policy on the funding of new non-government schools and the expansion of these schools. My colleague Senator Peter Baume has referred to five of the Bills already and in order to save the time of the Senate I concur with all that he has said. In my remarks I wish to discuss for the first time on the Opposition side the provisions in the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill for the funding of new non-government schools. Let us recognise from the outset that this Bill is not in the usual form of the past 10 years because the Hawke Government has chosen to put down an eight-year program for schools funding in Australia. The standing legislation in this matter has committed four years-half of that eight-year program. The legislation before us, which is in this form for the first time, will amend that standing legislation to provide updated schedules of funding for all the different programs that relate to schools. In this respect the financial impact of this Bill appropriates $1,495m for these school programs in 1986. This appropriation is a real reduction in overall schools expenditure of 1.3 per cent. It is a real reduction in program expenditure on government schools of 2.7 per cent and it is a real reduction in joint government and non-government schools programs of 3.3 per cent. In particular, it is a $20m reduction in the capital grants program for government and non-government schools. The main objection that the Opposition has to this measure is that it is linked with an elaborate mechanism which is, in fact, the implementation of the Connors report-the report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission Panel on Planning and Funding Policies for New Non-Government Schools. It is these cutbacks, particularly in capital grants, that we oppose so vehemently. In those terms we have moved a second reading amendment, as Senator Baume has outlined, and we will continue to move amendments during the Committee stage. In fact, half the Bill is taken up with measures that implement the Connors report. Let us put into some context the role of non-government schools in Australia. The fact is that 25 per cent of Australia's children attend non-government schools. We in the Opposition believe that there should be the greatest freedom of choice for parents between government and non-government schools. We want to make sure that there is good provision of education for the 75 per cent who choose government schools and equally good provision for the 25 per cent who choose non-government schools. At the moment $1 billion of recurrent money is saved to the taxpayer because 25 per cent of our children attend non-government schools. If these children all changed their enrolment to government schools the taxpayer would be required to come up with an additional $1 billion. Senator Georges —How do you arrive at that figure? Senator TEAGUE —That figure is based on the fact that in 1982-83 alone $818m was saved to the taxpayer because only a proportion of the cost of a government school place was received in respect of non-government school students. The grants from the States and the Commonwealth, when added together, amount to proportions varying between 25 per cent and 70 per cent of the cost of a government school place. There is a reduced commitment in relation to every enrolment in a non-government school. If $818m is the figure for 1982-83, given the rate of inflation and the cuts, that figure will be more like $1 billion in this current financial year. When the present Government was first elected in 1983-I will not be tedious; I will try to be very brief in going over the 1983 record-there was an attempt by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) directly to attack non-government schools. There was a so-called hit list of non-government schools that would receive no funds from the Commonwealth for attendance by their students. There were meetings all over the country at which people protested this abolition of the concept of the basic grant and at the same time they protested the abolition of the percentage link between the subsidy given to non-government schools and that which is received by government schools. As a result not only of the work of members of the Opposition in this Parliament and of the mass meetings around the country but also of back benchers within the Government parties, worried about their marginal seats, we urged the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to act. In 1984 the Prime Minister stepped in, and defeated this direct attack by putting down the eight-year plan. He said: `Be assured that you will have eight years of defined levels of funding for the 12 school levels'. So much for the initial response to the direct attack. What we have now in this legislation is the second approach by Senator Ryan and the Labor Government-what I call the indirect attack-to place in this legislation machinery that will stop capital grants going to new non-government schools, that will stop recurrent grants going to new non-government schools and expanded places in those new non-government schools and also have a mechanism for limiting those schools-- Senator Macklin —You just said all of them. Senator TEAGUE —I will come to that now. Instead of the 12 levels that the Prime Minister's eight-year plan envisaged we now have 13 levels. There is an additional one from 1986 on for the first time. Some students enrolled in non-government schools will receive no recurrent grants per capita in respect of their enrolment if they do not meet several barriers or requirements that are spelt out. Senator Ryan —Criteria. Senator TEAGUE —The Minister chooses to call those requirements criteria. What are the 10 requirements or criteria that the Minister refers to? They can be summarised in this way: First of all, a school must give two years notice of its introduction of an expansion or on becoming a new school. Secondly, a school must be registered by the State. Thirdly, it must meet the minimum enrolment guidelines. Fourthly, it must be financially viable. Fifthly, it must give notice to education authorities in the region of the school and, subject to their views, it should not be in conflict with other plans for the expansion of government and non-government schools. Sixthly, it must fit into the projected characteristics of the locality concerned and its provision for education. Seventhly, a proposed new school must be of such priority that it be given funding by the Commonwealth. Eighthly, a school must then continue without significant change in its structure, purpose, the number of students, its location or the range or levels of studies. If there are any changes in these respects the Minister by this legislation may intervene and deny recurrent funding. Ninthly, a school must maintain an adequate level of funding from private sources. Tenthly, a school must not be excessive in increasing fees and charges. All these ten requirements are set out in the legislation. A number of the early requirements are called initial criteria. Other requirements in this legislation are set out for systemic schools and non-systemic schools. It is my contention and that of the Opposition that, firstly, by this machinery-implementation of the Connors report-the Minister has the means to deny capital grants to newly established non-government schools or expansions of those schools. Secondly, it also has the machinery, for the first time, to deny any per capita grant to those students who do not meet this criteria in any expansion of a school or in any new school. Thirdly, these 10 rules, particularly the last two, give machinery to the Minister to shift a school's level of funding from, say, level six up to level four, or from level five up to level two, and so reduce the per capita grant that may go to a school. In contrast with these 10 requirements that the Minister is defending that the Government has placed in this legislation, it is the Opposition's approach that there be one condition; that is, the one that Senator Colston referred to a moment ago-the registration of a school by a State. If a school is initiated by parents or by a community we believe that it needs to be able to be registered by the State as an approved education institution. With regard to all other matters-whether it is financially viable, whether it is in the right location, whether it is the right size or structure and whether it has the right fee level or will change fees up or down-these are entirely matters for that school to determine. Some of those matters may be relevant if a school wishes to gain more than the basic grant or it wishes to receive some needs-based supplement to the basic grant. Under a Liberal-National Party government there will not be this interfering or intervening legislation that will require that a new non-government school has to meet 10 requirements before it might gain some support from the Commonwealth. An enormous contrast is again demonstrated between the Government's and the Opposition's policies in this respect. I point out that, if a school fails to follow just one of these 10 requirements, it can be denied Commonwealth financial support by this legislation. If a school trespasses on one of the first eight of the 10 requirements that I have outlined in this legislation, there would be no capital or recurrent funding. If a school transgresses one of the last two of the 10 requirements, it will have reduced recurrent funding. I believe that this is outrageous legislation and the Opposition regards it as outrageous legislation. When the Connors Committee was set up, using guidelines in a letter sent by the Minister to the Schools Commission in October 1984, it was in the mind of the Prime Minister a couple of months prior to a Federal election. This Connors inquiry was instituted at the same time as the Prime Minister's eight years of guaranteed recurrent funding to schools and it was left as something to be dealt with after the election. The Connors Committee reported in February and the Minister tabled the report in March. At the same time that the Minister tabled the report-there was no ability for anyone in Australia to be consulted about the Government's response to the Connors Committee findings-the Minister made an announcement to the effect that the Government had totally accepted the Connors report. We now have before us, in December, legislation embodying all the findings and conclusions in the Connors report. When the implementing legislation came before the House of Representatives in mid-November it was a matter of a few days before it was then debated. At that time the Connors report was not available in Government bookshops. There still has not been any Press analysis and discussion of the legislation. When this legislation was debated in the House of Representatives it was given one and a half hours-between 10.30 p.m. and midnight on 20 November-and something like five members spoke in the debate. It was vehemently opposed by the shadow Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack). There have been complaints about the time given to debate at a late hour important legislation which is based on a radical and sharp change in the Government's policy on non-government schools. The Senate is now in the final week of its sittings and time restrictions have been placed on debate. Beginning in 1986 and for all the years thereafter this legislation sets out the criteria on which any new non-government school or extension of a non-government school will be judged. That judgment is based on the 10 odious requirements that are set out in the Connors report and are now implemented in this legislation. In October this year the Minister announced that some 68 new non-government schools would receive capital funding. In fact, 37 of these were existing schools. Although the majority were not fully new, they are new in the new education-speak of the legislation which redefines a new non-government school, or an extension to a government school, in terms of a change of location or in terms of a change in structure-for instance, a boarding school becoming a non-boarding school; a single sex school becoming a mixed school; two schools amalgamating; or a school going to a new level of education by, for instance, adding on a secondary school to its primary base. These new departures have led to 37 of the 68 schools funded this year to be described as new non-government schools. In fact, 31 of them were entirely new and they received that part of the capital funding which was able to escape the $20m cut this financial year. Twenty-one new schools were in fact denied any support at all. So of the 52 schools that were in fact new, 40 per cent were denied any capital funding-that is, 21 schools out of 52, a 40 per cent failure rate on the criteria that is set in this legislation. Moreover, this legislation was acted upon by the Minister prior to its being debated in the Parliament. The Minister may argue that the Government's policy was clear from the time of the March declaration that the Connors report would be fully implemented but it is not in fact the law of the land. If we had been able to persuade the Australian Democrats to take a greater interest in this legislation and to agree to our amendments, we would have amended this legislation. The Minister would have had to write to all of the schools to say that the decisions do not apply. I believe that a 40 per cent failure rate is only the beginning of a trend of denying capital money to new non-government schools. But not only capital money is being denied. From 1986 unsuccessful new non-government schools will also be denied recurrent funds in respect of students they enrol. I think this is disgraceful. As I say, it adds a thirteenth level to the 12 levels that the Prime Minister so reassuringly announced to Australian schools. He gave an assurance before the last election that all of the schools would be receiving a per capita grant. That is not the case any more. It is no surprise that as schools are learning about this outcome they are protesting vigorously. To save the time of the Senate, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard two letters, one from the Australian Parents Council and the other from the Victorian Parents Council. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- AUSTRALIAN PARENTS COUNCIL INCORPORATED Telephone: (02) 92-7091 92-1250 National Secretariat P.O. Box 272 North Sydney. N.S.W. 2060 28th November 1985 Dear Senator, I wish to confirm lettergram of today's date sent to you reading: ``The States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985 will give to the Minister power to deny federal recurrent funding to children in some non-government schools which are new or expanding although such schools may be approved by State or Territory Governments. The non-government school community was promised by the Hawke Government in the August 1984 Schools Commission Guidelines that all children in all non-government schools would receive at least a twelve or thirteen per cent minimum federal recurrent grant. Would you ensure that the Bill is amended so that every child in a non-government school registered or approved at State or territory level is guaranteed at least a minimum federal recurrent grant. Margaret Slattery, Secretary, Australian Parents Council.'' I would be grateful if you would let me know what action you are taking to ensure that the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill, 1985 provides that all children in all non-government schools receive at least the 12 or 13 per cent minimum federal grant for recurrent expenditure promised by the Hawke government in its 1984 Guidelines to the Schools Commission. I look forward to hearing from you on this issue. Yours sincerely, (Mrs.) Margaret Slattery National Secretary VICTORIAN PARENTS COUNCIL 20 Brunswick Street Fitzroy Phone 419 3693 G.P.O. Box 2463V Melbourne 3001 Hours 10 a.m.-1 p.m. Wed.-Thurs. 27th November 1985 Senator B. C. Teague, Parliament House, Canberra. A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator, The Victorian Parents Council, representing 100,000 non-government schoolchildren and their parents, is outraged that, at midnight on 20th November, the Government pushed through the House of Representatives the State Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1985, allowing no time for informed debate. The Government's use of the ``guillotine'' to stifle debate is an affront to all Australian citizens. We are disgusted that the Hawke Government has seen fit to write into legislation the power for the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, to breach the undertaking given to non-government school communities in the 1984 School Commission Guidelines that all children in all non-govenment schools will receive a minimum Federal recurrent grant. The right of every non-government schoolchild to a basic recurrent grant from government is a fundamental principle of the Victorian Parents Council. The definition of new non-government schools incorporated in the legislation is quite dishonest as non-government schools already operating cannot in truth be called ``new'' schools just because Senator Ryan has sanctioned a formula which says they are ``new''. They should be properly described as established schools which, together with new non-government schools, are endeavouring to meet the enourmous demands from Australian parents for non-government schooling. The Victorian Parents Council regards this Bill as a blatant attack on the prior right of parents to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children and the right of all Australian children to just and equitable treatment by Government in the distribution of public funds. The Victorian Parents Council looks to the Senate to rectify this grave injustice. Yours sincerely, Graeme Davis Hon. Secretary Senator TEAGUE —I thank the Senate. I also want to refer to the outcome of the application by the Torrens Valley Christian School in South Australia for a capital grant for 1986 and beyond. The two relevant letters in this instance are a letter from the school to the Schools Commission dated 15 July 1985 and the response from the Minister for Education's office dated 1 October. I seek leave to have those letters incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- TORRENS VALLEY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL 1227 GRAND JUNCTION ROAD HOPE VALLEY, S.A. 5090 POSTAL ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 14 HOPE VALLEY 5090 (08) 265 2818 Ms A. Dwyer, Director, Schools Commission, 208 Greenhill Road, Eastwood 5063 15.7.1985 Dear Ms Dwyer, re. Building Project plans for 1986 and beyond. With reference to the letter of 6th July 1985, written by the school principal, Mr P. van der Schoor, please find enclosed the building plans for the next stages of development at the Torrens Valley Christian School. These plans have been submitted for approval by the local council and will need to be implemented immediately following this approval. The first stage of the project is essential to meet urgent basic needs, especially the required secondary facilities as we expand to Year 9 in 1986. Next year an additional 55 students will be attending the school, bringing the total number of students close to 200. We submit these plans for your approval in order not to prejudice our level of recurrent grants as our debt repayments will be considerably increased. We look forward to your earliest response. We would herewith also draw attention to the fact that, contrary to the S.C.'s Planning and Finance Committee's representatives' own expectations, we have thus far not been successful in ever obtaining a capital works grant from the S.C. With increasing enrolments in the secondary area our needs are increasing quite drastically, and the school board, in order to honour the parents' trust in the education we offer, has no choice but to proceed with further building developments. The S.C.'s Planning and Finance Committee's guidelines on debt servicing make it quite clear that the financial burden will become almost unbearably heavy for the school community. We would point out also that our initiatives, both in the past (acquiring land and building toilet facilities and classrooms) and in the plans before you now, should not be interpreted as affluence but rather as dire necessity, so that our submissions for grants in the future will not be in jeopardy. If you have further information regarding this we would be most interested in receiving it. If you require any further details please contact us. We hope this will meet with your favourable response. Yours sincerely, B. VAN WAGENINGEN (Brian van Wageningen, Chairman) MINISTER FOR EDUCATION Parliament House Canberra A.C.T. 2600 (062) 73 1343 1 October 1985 Dear Mr van Wageningen Senator Ryan has asked me to thank you for your letter of 15 July 1985 regarding an application for capital funding by Torrens Valley Christian School under the Commonwealth Government's Capital Grants Program for non-government schools. Although the reasons for your concern are understood, it may assist you to know the priorities and procedures involved in assessing applications for assistance of this kind. The Commonwealth's primary objective in assisting non-government schools with their capital projects is the achievement of improved schooling services and outcomes, expecially for students in poorer circumstances. In this context, priority is given to the provision of new places in developing areas. If applications for assistance are in accord with the Government's priorities, they are then assessed for their relative educational and financial need. A school's systemic or non-systemic status has no bearing on its eligibility for a capital grant. You will appreciate, however, that because the financial value of applications received far exceeds the funds available it is not possible to fund all priority projects. Your school's recent application for a capital grant for the construction of additional facilities at the school was assessed as being in accord with the Government's priorities and as having both educational and financial need. In the light of limited amount of funds available, however, the priority given to it was not high enough for a grant to be given. The Minister has asked me to advise you that she regrets that in the light of the assessment made she is unable to offer any prospect of assistance for the project at your school at this time. Yours sincerely Gregory Holland Assistant Private Secretary Mr Brian van Wageningen Chairman Torrens Valley Christian School Board Senator TEAGUE —These letters speak for themselves. However, it is clear from the reply by the Minister's Assistant Private Secretary that although this school met all the criteria-the letter reassures the school that it was in the right location, it was financially viable, it was well planned, it fitted in with the educational needs of the community of which it is a part and it was not duplicating government or non-government schools-it was denied capital funding and has not received one dollar of capital assistance during the period of the present Government purely on the ground that it did not have high enough priority as a result of a $20m cut in capital provision for non-government schools. This school, which was established as a result of an enormous commitment by parents, is one of 46 schools which make up the National Union of Associations for Christian Parent- controlled Schools. There is an explicit criterion in the legislation that a school must be of sufficient priority-the emphasis is on the word `priority'-to be accorded Commonwealth financial support. The Minister under this legislation has the mechanism by which to make inadequate provisions in the capital area. As a result we find that this year only 60 per cent of new applications could be approved. What is to happen next year? It is always in the hands of a government to determine the Budget and to make such provisions. But what happens if all of the non-government school proprosals around Australia are developed conscientiously, planned carefully and meet all the criteria? What if they meet all of what I would call the nine unnecessary and even odious criteria and then in the end find that they are not considered to be of sufficient priority, given the low provision of capital funds by the Government? The Government can deny schools which otherwise conform with worthy concepts such as need, priority, accountability and planning. These criteria reflect all of these good concepts and the Opposition has no argument with proper planning, proper accountability or priority of need. But we believe that those words are used to defend this kind of legislation in an inappropriate and disgraceful way. The Opposition opposes the way in which those good concepts and words have been used as an excuse for the high handed action that has been taken in this case. I ask the Minister why it is that a school such as the Torrens Valley Christian School should not be granted capital and recurrent funding. Finally, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table of schools which, together with the Torrens Valley Christian School, belong to the National Union of Associations for Christian Parent-controlled Schools. Senator Ryan —We have not sighted it. What is the source of it? Senator TEAGUE —It is a tabulated summary of school information produced by the National Union of Associations for Christian Parent-controlled Schools. I will give it to the Minister to examine. Senator Ryan —I want to look at it first. Senator TEAGUE —The list shows that, of the 46 schools in this Association alone-and they represent perhaps only one quarter of the new non-government schools that have developed since 1980-only 18 have progressed into secondary classes. This legislation will deny the majority of these schools the same fair chance to extend themselves into secondary levels as they expected when they set out. Why should these primary schools be denied their original intention to extend into years 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12? Why should not similar schools be able to live up to their original intentions, to meet the desires of their enrolled students and the communities they serve? I can only say that in this repect the Opposition is diametrically opposed to the Government. We will not support the parts of the legislation which place these objectionable criteria as barriers to the freedom of choice of Australian parents with regard to schools. We will oppose those matters at the Committee stage and we will seek the Senate's approval for the amendment that we have moved to the second reading motion. I seek leave for the incorporation of the table in Hansard. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Is leave granted? Senator Ryan —I and my officers have looked at it. I really cannot agree to its incorporation. It is a very long and complex table. I am advised by the Senate officers that Hansard would have a great deal of difficulty in reproducing it, if it could. At this stage we have no way of substantiating the figures in it. Senator Teague has already put on the record the major points he is making about it so at this stage I am unable to agree to that. Leave not granted. Senator TEAGUE —I will read it into the record at the Committee stage to make sure that it is in Hansard. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(6.03) —I will speak very briefly in this cognate debate, not because there is not a great deal that I would like to say in support of these Bills but because time is very short and the listening public should be aware of this. The lack of speeches from Government senators on this and many other Bills that we have before us this week in no way indicates a lack of or even lukewarm support for those Bills. I therefore intend to confine my remarks to one of the Bills, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill, about which Senator Teague has been speaking at some length. This Bill covers four matters: Adjustments to funding to allow for increases in price levels, provision for the extension of annual program allocations to 1986, provision for the transfer of certain special education responsibilities from the Department of Community Services to the Commonwealth Schools Commission-that is something that meets a long-felt need-and provision for the implementation of the Government's policy on new non-government schools. I wish to address my remarks mainly to the last aspect and the response it has brought from some quarters and groups in the community representing some sections of the non-government school sector which have vehemently opposed the Government's policy in this sector from the outset and which continue to oppose it against all ideals of equity. The funding policy now being implemented was developed in full consultation with both the government and the non-government sector. In fact, some of us on the Government side were critical of the Schools Commission consultation process in early 1984, when the Commission travelled around the States, because it seemed to give more time listening to the non-government sector than to the government sector. Those consultations have continued and I understand are continuing. The recommendations of the Schools Commission and the Government's response to them have been available for some months. During that time I have certainly received material from the same bodies as has Senator Teague-the Australian Parents Council and the Victorian Parents Council-often misrepresenting the historical facts of the case and the Government's position on the proposals embodied in this legislation. But I have not been approached, and I think this is significant, by individual schools or parents in my State, which I would have expected had there been widespread dissatisfaction as my interest in and experience in education is well known. I think I am the only Victorian senator who has a professional background in education. So I would have thought that, had there been dissatisfaction, as there has been sometimes on previous occasions, I would have heard about it. Senator Teague —But even those representations came on 28 November. The Australian Parents Council was only as recent as 28 November. Senator ZAKHAROV —Certainly, I agree, but I have read the material and I do not give it any credence. I believe that some staff bodies in the non-government sector have in fact welcomed increased accountability, as indeed have some parents who are well aware that in some non-government schools there has been in the past little accountability for spending, even to their own school communities. Before going on to discuss the need for accountability in this as in all areas of government spending, I make the point that the non-government sector also benefits from funding on special programs, including programs to meet special needs. I remember that in the debate in the House of Representatives that was a point which was certainly distorted by the Opposition. Indeed, this very legislation provides for funding for special education projects in non-government as well as government schools. That is set out in the Schedule at the back of the Bill. I am genuinely surprised, although I have grown more cynical over the last three years that I have been in the Senate, that the Opposition is so upset about accountability in this area of government expenditure when it is so anxious to track down what it sees as misspent expenditure on social security or even, as was the case last week, on the printing of a government report. As the Minister, Senator Ryan, noted in Question Time yesterday, the same senators who spend days assiduously seeking accountability from departments and from the Government during the examination of the Estimates are now complaining that the Government is asking the non-government schools to account for their large sums of taxpayers' money-an increase this year alone of $12m. I do not believe that the information being sought is intrusive. Indeed, it is much less intrusive than information sought, for example, about the living arrangements of a supporting parent beneficiary. I would expect that most schools would be perfectly willing to supply this information, which should be readily available if the school is accountable to its own community, including its parents and its staff, as it surely should be. Accountability is not just an end in itself. It is also a check on how public money is spent. But it is essential also to proper educational planning. Schools have been established in the years since the Schools Commission was set up, schools which clearly were not viable. An example, and there are many of them, in my State is a relatively new school whose total enrolments rapidly fell below 20 before it finally closed. When this happens there is a loss to the parents as well as to the Government but, more importantly, there is disruption to the education of the students concerned, particularly as in this case they were primary school students in a country area. In other cases new schools have threatened the viablity of existing schools in their area. There needs to be greater accountability than this legislation provides and in broader areas than the financial one. I find it anomalous at the very least that the Government is providing funds in some cases to schools whose educational practices are working against the achievement of Government policies. For example, schools which teach, supposedly with a biblical justification, that females are necessarily subordinate to males must surely run counter to the aims of equal opportunity and anti-sex discrimination policies. I have said it before in debates on education, and I will continue to say it while there is a need, that the States have a responsibility in the area of quality of education which they are not always meeting. The Government is funding schools which I believe carry out an educational program and use educational practices which are in fact anti-educational. At some of these are schools which include the word `Christian' in their name-this should concern all Christians-children spend long periods of the day receiving programmed instruction of very doubtful value based on literal interpretation of the Bible, often supervised by untrained staff, with little opportunity for discussion and none for the development of a critical attitude to what is presented to them. This is not education as it should be available in a democratic society. I urge registration authorities in the States to look more closely at educational accountability. I have concentrated on one part of one Bill because this is the one that the Opposition seeks to change. But I certainly commend all the Bills for their contribution to quality and equity in education at all levels. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.10) —I will spend the majority of my time discussing the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985 because this is certainly the most contentious of the Bills in this cognate debate tonight. This amendment Bill implements many of the recommendations of the Connors report on Planning and Funding Policies for New Non-Government Schools. I believe it will create a number of problems for independent schools if it is passed unamended. The legislation virtually gives the Minister the power to deny Federal recurrent grants to children in some new or expanded non-government schools. This Bill also incorporates the bogus definition of `new' schools; that is, schools which change location, add new levels of schooling, amalgamate, separate, or change their status to single sex or co-educational schools, boarding schools or day schools. These grants could be refused if a school expanded its operation in any area which is classified as being already adequately served by non-government schools. The Government has reneged on its promise of August 1984 in its guidelines to the Commonwealth Schools Commission that all non-government schools would continue to be eligible for assistance. The Connors report defines a new school as one coming into existence or one having a change which results in a significant increase or a change in clientele, therefore giving the possibility of a number of schools amalgamating. I refer, for example, to a Catholic boys or girls school combining their higher school certificate campuses for the greater benefit and advantage of their students, or otherwise upgrading their services. Such a school technically could lose its funding or at least be denied funding for any extra places. There is the possibility that not enough funding would be given to new non-govenment schools or that some schools would not be given any funding at all. This is because the recurrent funding for the funding of students and teaching places is at present a necessary pre-condition for eligibility for capital grants. By this expedient measure of denying recurrent funding to new non-government schools, or an existing school seeking to expand its activities, the Government will be able to relieve itself of the need to consider such a school for capital grants. Therefore, the recommendations of the Connors report, as implemented in this Bill, strike at the very heart of independent schools and threaten to deprive parents of the basic right to choose the kind of eduction that they want their children to receive. I think this question must be asked: Why are so many non-government schools being set up? Surely, it is because of a dissatisfaction with the government system. There is also the question as to whether this system of regulation of schools is best left to the State level rather than the Commonwealth level. So the development of new non-government schools will be controlled by fiscal means. Until now Commonwealth recurrent grants were paid automatically to all non-government schools which were granted State or Territory registration. But under the scheme proposed in this Bill the Commnwealth Government will decide which new non-government schools will be approved for the purposes of recurrent funding. I believe that this legislation will make it more difficult for small schools, especially non-Catholic schools, to be established. The new planning guidelines will incorporate existing constraints requiring two years notice, minimum enrolments of at least 20 in a primary school or 70 in a secondary school and documented proof of financial viability. Indeed, these are very high standards for small groups seeking to establish a school in the future. They will be required to prove that there will not be an adverse effect on schools in the same area before they are eligible for Commonwealth support. While the Opposition acknowledges that planning is essential and that resources must be allocated for the best effect, we are worried that the Connors report recommendations, the so-called planned educational provision having regard to such factors as rationalisation of educational services and facilities in an area, could be used to reinforce the Government's bias against non-government schools which has already been revealed in the Budget allocations. This is worrying because we can see that more and more parents are choosing to enrol their children in non-government schools; the numbers of enrolments in non-government schools have increased by 17 per cent in the last decade, while enrolments in government schools have grown by only 3 per cent. Catholic education authorities have accepted the principle of planned educational provisions. They have stated they would find it unacceptable if the Government could restrict, by a Budget limit alone, the number of students in new non-government schools. The proposals in this Bill have been attacked by the Australian Parents Council because they will increase the controls which will make planning for new non-government schools a nightmare for non-government school authorities. The Opposition does not oppose the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3). The Government claims that this Bill supports extra tertiary education places. The fact is that at the moment we have an inadequate number of places. In 1983-84, 56,000 students did not receive an offer from the university or college which they were interested in attending. This sort of measure, I believe, will not make much of an impact on this sort of waiting list. The Government will soon be creating a second access route for overseas students; yet Australian students are still competing within quotas against fellow Australians on scholarships and private overseas students. I refer to the creation of full cost recovery in regard to overseas students who have been denied entrance to institutions. If overseas students were placed totally outside the quota, as is recommended in the report of the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program, and the overseas aid component were made explicit, some places at least would be available to Australian students. Again, the recommendations of the report of the Jackson Committee, if implemented, would have balanced our international aid component and our responsibility to prospective university students in Australia. The presence of overseas students on our university and college campuses, unfortunately, has become a politically sensitive issue over the last few years. Because budgetary constraints have imposed limitations on tertiary entry, many capable students are denied entry to degree and diploma courses each year. Unfortunately, many of those who have been unsuccessful in gaining a university place often feel that overseas students have benefited at their expense. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.18) —The best thing that could be said about this debate, I suppose, is that time constraints have been imposed on all senators. I will oblige by restricting my comments, although I would have liked to talk in particular about the measure which deals with tertiary education. However, it appears that the Senate will divide on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985, particularly the question relating to the new procedures that have been established by this legislation for so-called accountability for independent schools. My first comment is that it would be best if this particular measure were deferred. After all, the Connors report on Planning and Funding Policies for New Non-Government Schools came before the Parliament only in March and then there was a follow-up statement in October, I think on 15 October. Of course, the measure that is before us takes that one step further. I believe this measure does go further than simply addressing the question of financial accountability. The Minister or the bureaucracy is able to intrude into the affairs of non-government schools and thus affront the rights of parents of students attending non-government schools. Details of enrolment policies, information on policy-making structures and statements on educational objectives are all to be provided by the schools. The definition of a new school, incorporating as it does a bar on expansions of existing schools, I believe should create grave concern. It certainly goes far deeper than the question of accountability. I believe that the effect would be to restrict the number of children able to attend non-government schools if that were the parental choice. It is disconcerting if accountability is to be equated with servility, particularly if this servility is to be imposed upon the independent schools system in respect of having its curricula conform to the social objectives of whatever government is in power or whatever Minister happens to control the education portfolio. I believe that matter should be clarified. I have not spoken on these measures for the last 12 or 15 months, since they became matters of very great concern to a large number of parents throughout the length and breadth of Australia. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), after a series of meetings, gave some guarantees. The measures that are currently before us may be seen by parents and, indeed-I emphasise this-by some systemic schools, as undermining the undertakings that were given by the Prime Minister. I believe the Government will probably hear more about this matter. It is a question which will be with us for some considerable time. I do not know what the haste is to proceed with these parts of the Bills. After all, they attempt to establish the guidelines from now until 1990. I consider that it would have been better for the Government not to have incorporated these measures in this Bill but to have allowed further debate and discussion with both the systemic schools and the various representatives of the parents before incorporating the measures into legislation. The legislation passed through the House of Representatives at midnight one night. There was very little debate on it. It was part of the legislation that was guillotined. Senator Macklin —They never debate anything down there. Senator HARRADINE —If they have a chance, they do. I have actually heard them debate one or two matters down there. However, on this occasion they did not have a chance to debate fully this measure. I consider that the Minister should be prepared, once representations have been made to her, to come back with suggestions, further refinements and amendments, as required, to ensure the true independence and freedom of choice of parents in this very vital area. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.24) —There has been a quite lengthy debate on the six education Bills which are before the Senate this evening. Substantially, the Bills have been supported by all sides of the chamber. Measures such as the supplementary funding of tertiary education which, together with the Government's other policies, will achieve an increase in the vicinity of 28,000 new places in higher education, have been approved. The legislation enabling the funding of college of advanced education based nurse education has been generally supported. Other measures concerning the capacity of institutions to take in extra overseas students on a full cost basis also have been endorsed. All honourable senators are aware that we are under time constraints. Whilst I would very much like to expound the benefits of the six Bills before us tonight, I will not take the opportunity to do so because other opportunities will present themselves. The one aspect of the legislative package which has been opposed by the Opposition concerns the new criteria for the approval of new non-government schools. I understand that there is to be some discussion about this matter during the Committee stage. However, I simply say this: Senator Teague's contribution was, unfortunately, rather confused. He seemed to be suffering a very fundamental confusion in regard to the difference between capital and recurrent funding. I remind the Senate that approval of new non-government schools for recurrent funding by the Commonwealth is granted according to a report by Lindsay Connors, the Commonwealth Schools Commissioner, and brought down by a panel of commissioners. The non-government schools representatives have a majority on the panel and there was absolutely extensive consultation with non-government parent organisations, non-government school authorities, non-government teachers, and also, of course, with State education authorities who are, naturally, vitally concerned with the development of non-governmental schools in their States, teachers and parents. It was a very extensive consultation process. After I received the report on behalf of the Government I had further consultations with major non-government school groups and with the Prime Minister. So any suggestion that there was not adequate consultation and discussion about this report is quite wrong. I would say that it was one of the most extensively discussed new policies ever brought in by a Commonwealth government in the education area. All non-government authorities support the idea of the proper planning of new non-government schools. The reason is that those of them who have experience in the development of the administration of schools know that unplanned developments can be very bad for educational opportunities for the children who may go into schools which subsequently collapse. Unplanned developments can have a very deleterious effect, as I think Senator Zakharov pointed out very lucidly-even though she was under constraints of time, too-on existing commitments that already have been made by State governments, parents and non-government schools authorities to government and non-government schools. It is simply irresponsible and very inexperienced to suggest that any group that wants to establish a school anywhere, regardless of financial and other commitments that already have been made, should be funded. That is not our policy and it has never been our policy. To conclude this stage of the debate, I say that the fact that 68 new schools have been approved by the Government is a demonstration that our policy is one of planned, fair and equitable growth. If honourable senators addressed themselves to the range of schools that have been approved amongst the 68, I think they would find nothing to criticise in terms of the capacity of parents to exercise choice within reasonable parameters of responsible planning under our policies. A very large variety of religious schools-schools based on major religions and minor religions-have been funded and schools based on non-religious but other educational philosophies, such as the Rudolf Steiner and Montessori schools, have been funded. Very small schools have been funded. Large, conventional schools have been funded. Single sex schools, co-educational schools-in fact, virtually every type of school that exists in our extremely diverse system-have been able to attract funding. Not all applications were successful, but those applicants which were not successful have rights of appeal. The applications were assessed not by bureaucrats, as has been charged by Mr Shack, or by politicians until there was final advice, but by representative committees where non-government schools authorities and State authorities worked together to make the best decisions as they saw them in terms of the needs of a particular State or area. I commend the Bills to the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —By resolution of the Senate the four States grants education Bills are being taken through all stages together. There is an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985. I put the question on the other three Bills: That the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985, the Commonwealth Education Institutions (Overseas Students) Amendment Bill 1985 and the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The original question was: `That the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill be now read a second time', to which Senator Peter Baume has moved that all words after `That' be left out with a view to inserting other words. The immediate question is: That the words proposed to be left out by Senator Peter Baume's amendment be left out. Question put. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Missen, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Carrick, Sir John Sheil, G.Collard, S. J. Short, J. R.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Harradine, B. Walters, M. S.Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W.Knowles, S. C. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P.Bolkus, N. Macklin, M. J.Button, J. N. Maguire, G. R.Chipp, D. L. Morris, J.Coates, J. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reynolds, M.Cook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F.Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W.Elstob, R. C. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. AGiles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O.Haines, J. Hill, R. Coleman, R. N.MacGibbon, D. J. McClelland, DouglasRae, Peter Gietzelt, A. T.Chaney, F. M. Childs, B. K.Jessop, D. S. Button, J. N.Townley, M. Grimes, D. J.Durack, P. D. Robertson, E. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Bills read a second time. STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1985 Clauses 1 to 6-by leave-taken together. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(8.08) —During the second reading debate I sought leave to incorporate a table, which was still being discussed when I concluded. I have been able to have some discussion with the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) and with other honourable senators in the chamber and I now seek leave to incorporate this table in the Hansard record. Senator Ryan —In order to facilitate the debate, I will agree to the incorporation sought by Senator Teague, but I do so with the qualification that neither my officers nor I have any way of verifying the data put forward. However, I will agree to its incorporation. Senator TEAGUE —I am assured that it is a bona fide table, produced by the National Union of Associations for Christian Parent-controlled Schools. It is the 1985 summary of the 46 schools in the Association. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Senator TEAGUE —I have some questions with regard to clause 6. I ask the Minister why the date of 15 October 1984 is mentioned in the Bill that is before us. In proposed new sub-section 6 (1) (c) there is reference to the Minister being satisfied that the change meets the criteria for acceptable changes to existing schools, and that phrase is picked up in the existing Act. I ask whether the original criteria still operate in the Act or whether they are modified by the Bill that is before us. In any event, is it confirmed that those criteria are superseded in respect of 1986 and beyond? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.11) —The date of 15 October 1984 was the latest date we could make available for schools that were to be approved for 1985. In answer to Senator Teague's question about the criteria, I inform him that the criteria are set out on pages 10, 11 and 12, of the Bill. In other words the criteria are the provisions in the new policy which the Opposition's second reading amendment sought to delete. They are the criteria for eligibility. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.12) —This might be the appropriate stage to ask a question because it refers to the application of those criteria. I did inform the Minister's office that I would like to discuss an example of a school which has been denied funding to give the Minister an opportunity to detail more than has been detailed to date in the debate of how precisely a school might be denied funding when, on the surface, it certainly seems to be a reasonably acceptable case for funding. The school I notified the Minister about was a school in New South Wales called the Daystar School for Rudolf Steiner Education, a school which has been operating for two years. It is fully certificated by the Department of Education in New South Wales. It has 20 students going from kindergarten to classes 1 and 2 and it is looking at an increase in enrolments, probably to 25 or 30. This school is in an area where there is a demand for education following the Rudolf Steiner philosophy. There does appear on the surface at least to be reasonable growth in the local area. If one looks at the enrolments in public schools one will see that in the last four years there has been an average growth of 15 per cent. The Connors report on Planning and Funding Policies for New Non-government Schools mentioned that the figure of 2 per cent had been canvassed. That would seem to fit into that particular criterion. On the surface it would seem to be a school which ought to have received more favourable consideration than it did. I would also be particularly interested in how the interim committee-the Minister might like to comment on that committee with its three non-government school representatives out of six committee members-collects the detailed information on the various criteria set out in these clauses. It is my understanding that this actual school was not visited. There does not seem to have been any visit to the region, at least not to the school's knowledge and not to the regional director's knowledge, by anyone from the Commonwealth Schools Commission within the last two years. How is the on-the-ground material assessed? By whom is it assessed to feed to the Schools Commission that which is fairly obviously information which has a large subjective factor? I think that is admitted in the Connors report. Although the criteria do have that objective air, there is still a subjective factor that has to be taken into account. Lastly, can the Minister tell us how a school which has been denied funding might be able to be included in the round for the following year rather than having to wait 24 months? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.16) —I will answer the last part of Senator Macklin's question first. It is an answer that I have given to several members of parliament and senators who have come lobbying on behalf of particular school proposals. The first and most important answer is that a school whose proposal was not accepted by its State committee and which was not recommended by the Commonwealth Schools Commission for funding has the opportunity to appeal against that decision. In order to appeal against that decision it should go back to the Schools Commission. The Commission, in co-operation with the State committee, will advise the school what additional information it seeks. I would like to state as a matter of guidance to senators who are interested in particular schools that it is not appropriate for senators to rush off and immediately lobby me-the Minister-as to why a school did not get funding or what is going to happen to that school when that school has not gone through the proper appeals procedures. Appeals procedures are laid down. An appeals committee has been set up precisely for this purpose. Schools have been advised of this and I am a little bemused when schools choose not to follow the established procedure, about which they have been carefully advised by the Schools Commission, but choose instead to go the route of political lobbying. I do not make any decision on information other than information that comes forth to me through the appropriate channels. Therefore, the best thing that school can do is the same as any other school which feels that it has additional information which may result in a more favourable assessment of its proposal-it should go through those channels again. They were advised of this from the start and they were advised by letter when they were advised that their proposals were not agreed to. They were advised straight away that they had the opportunity to appeal and they were advised how to consult the Schools Commission to find out what additional information they needed to give. I do not have the precise information relating to the particular school referred to by Senator Macklin. It has not yet come to me by way of appeal. Under the new policy there is a decentralisation of decision-making to some extent so that the representative State committees get the information regarding the particular projects and assess it according to the criteria laid down by the Government. Because of the time frame involved, unless there are some very obvious reasons for questioning the judgment of State committees, the judgment of State committees was accepted. I think Senator Macklin would understand that if one is going to delegate and decentralise decision making it does not make any sense to second guess all of the decisions made by those State committees. They are representative committees and, of course, as a very important part of the whole process, they have on them representatives of the State governments. One of the very important features of the new procedures is that the State governments, which have the responsibility for their own school systems, are very much involved in the planning process because it is quite often the case that it is State schools which are disadvantaged if unplanned new non-government schools are allowed to develop in the vicinity of State schools with declining enrolments. So given that those decisions were delegated, given that those State committees were representative and given that there were appeals procedures, I am generally confident about the nature of the advice coming from the State committees. My confidence is increased by the fact that any school that was not successful in that first round has been informed from the outset that it may appeal and what information it needs to conduct that appeal. I am not aware that the particular school that Senator Macklin is interested in has lodged an appeal, but if it believes that by providing further information it can be established that the school falls within the criteria, it ought to be busy appealing. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.21) —I thank the Minister for that. I assume that in circumstances such as this local, on the spot information would be provided by the State department or State department people. Is that the general way in which the program is working? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.21) —Yes; the local information about existing school facilities, planned government developments in the area, demographic developments and so forth, would be provided by representatives of the State system, although the State committees, of course, have broad representation of the non-government systems which would also be providing their information along those lines. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.22) —In view of the answer given by the Minister a moment ago when she advised Senator Macklin that it was generally not appropriate for the Minister to interfere with the recommendations of the State committees, why did the Minister interfere with the recommendation of a State committee in relation to a school in the electorate of Lowe, a marginal Labor electorate? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.22) —Senator Baume has asked this question before. I do not know how many times he wants the answer since he was given a very full answer at the time when the estimates for the Department of Education and the Schools Commission were being discussed. I will repeat the answer briefly: Further information came to me from the Catholic Education Office; that is, from the State body that has the responsibility for the administration of Catholic schools in New South Wales. It volunteered further information to the effect that the particular school would be able to attract an adequate number of students to justify a further development without detracting from other schools in the area because it was offering a particular service not being offered by other schools in the area; namely, it was a single sex girls school planning to offer single sex girls classes in years 11 and 12. That information was taken into account by me when the decision was made. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(8.23) —When the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) was summing up in the second reading debate she encouraged honourable senators to address themselves to the 68 schools that had gained approval for their capital grant applications in the last few months and, no doubt, the 21 schools that were unsuccessful. I ask the Minister whether a summary of the 68 successful schools and the 21 unsuccessful schools is available to honourable senators so that we may address ourselves to the range of schools that were successful and not successful. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.23) —I certainly have some information on the schools that were not successful and I am willing to make what information I have available to the chamber. But I point out that the proponents of schools that were not successful may not be particularly enthusiastic about having the defects in their applications widely broadcast. I can give the honourable senator the list of those proposals. I will make it available. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(8.24) —I take it that after this debate I will receive from the Minister a summary of those two lists. My question relates to clause 6 (7) on page 9 of the Bill. Is it correct that this sub-clause is entirely retrospective in that any application that has been received already, that related to 1986 or a subsequent year, is to be dealt with under terms set out in this Bill that are, in fact, quite different from those in sub-section 6 (3) of the principal Act under which it otherwise would have been considered? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.25) —The criteria set out in clause 7 are the criteria that were applied in the assessment of proposals for 1986. When the Connors report on Planning the Funding Policies for New Non-Government Schools was accepted by us in March this year that was made quite clear. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(8.25) —I am referring to sub-clause (7) of clause 6 on page 9 of the Bill. The relevant words are: Where notice of a proposed change to a school, being a change proposed to be initiated during the year 1986 or a subsequent year, was, before the commencement of this section, given to the Minister pursuant to sub-section 6 (3) of the Principal Act, sections 6A and 6B of the Principal Act as amended by this Act apply in relation to the proposed change as if the notice had been given under sub-section 6A (1) of the Principal Act as so amended. Is that not entirely retrospective in that the clauses that are before us tonight are to be deemed as governing applications that the Minister has already received in the months preceding this debate before any application has its effect in 1986 or thereafter? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education (8.27) —Yes, that is the case. Senator Teague ought to understand that the Government announced its new policy in March this year and schools were advised accordingly. The process of putting that new policy into legislation has taken some time. So there are no new provisions here about which schools were not aware. Schools were advised from March that these were the provisions, and it has taken up to this time to put them into legislation. Senator Teague —So no school was taken by surprise by these provisions? Senator RYAN —Certainly not; they have known since March. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 7 and 9-by leave-taken together. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(8.28) —In the summation the Minister brought to the second reading debate she referred to what she called a confusion in my speech between a capital grant application and recurrent funding on a per capita basis to a school in respect of students enrolled in the school. Under clause 7 of the Bill before us, is it not the case that the Minister, expressly by this proposed new sub-section, has the power to specify a maximum number of students in respect of any school receiving recurrent funding; indeed, to alter a maximum to another maximum; or, where there is not a maximum specified, to introduce a maximum? I put it to the Minister that I was not seeking to confuse the Senate or the Minister; I was wanting to make it crystal clear that, for the first time, in 1986 there will be some schools that do not receive a per capital recurrent grant in respect of all the students enrolled in the school. That is, if the Minister by this power declares a maximum number of students then those enrolments beyond that maximum number will not receive a recurrent grant. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.29) —The Minister does not declare a maximum. The school applies for increased enrolment to a certain number. If that is a large change, then that school comes within the provisions of this new part of the Bill. The school seeks approval for a certain number. The school itself puts forward the number of students it wants to have. Once that is approved as part of a planned expansion, then the school attracts recurrent funding for that number of students, but not beyond. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(8.30) —I understand that part. Let me read from page 10 of the Bill: . . . the Minister may, by determination in writing, vary the list of systemic schools by- going to paragraph (c)- specifying a maximum number of students. It is certainly the case that a school may apply for a maximum to be declared or to be varied, but it is the power of the Minister, according to this Bill, that will determine the matter. The Minister will say `having heard your submission, I declare that your maximum is confirmed according to your application', or that it is not. Is it the case that if the Minister does not approve the criteria, for any one of the reasons set out in the Bill, a maximum would be set and that if the school enrols students beyond that maximum, it would not receive recurrent per capita funding in respect of those enrolments beyond the maximum? Is that not so? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.32) —Senator Teague seems to be grappling with some of the basic concepts of the Westminster system. At a certain point the Minister has to approve all expenditures, and the legislation reflects this. Perhaps Senator Peter Baume could instruct his colleague as to the nature of the Westminster system. When a school seeks expansion, it does so by the procedures laid down here. When the Commission advises me that that is in order, then, yes, I approve payment of recurrent grants for that maximum. The purpose of this kind of planning provision is to ensure that a school does not suddenly change its enrolment from 200 to 2,000 without going through appropriate planning procedures. Once those procedures are gone through, approved and agreed to, the Minister has to agree to the funding. A Minister has to be responsible for all expenditures of money on behalf of the public. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(8.33) —I thank the Minister. I am familiar with the Westminster system and the responsibility of Ministers. Let me give a concrete example. Let us say that a primary school has planned for some years to extend in 1986 to include in the school enrolments year 8 and year 9. Let us say that the school makes application for approval for a capital grant for the extra classrooms with respect to the year 8 and year 9 enrolments. At the same time it makes a second application that the maximum number to gain a per capita recurrent fund in respect of that school be increased to take account of the additional enrolments in year 8 and year 9. Let us say that for one reason or another the Minister denies the capital grant. Will this Bill give the Minister the power automatically to allow the increase in the maximum number of enrolments so that the school willy-nilly in respect of all its enrolments, including year 8 and year 9, will get a per capita grant? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.34) —I must advise the honourable senator that the applications for capital grants are separate from the applications for recurrent grants. It is quite possible-it has happened on a number of occasions and will probably happen increasingly-for a school to get approval for a recurrent per capita grant for students. A school which has a high income and which is in a stable area or perhaps an area of declining enrolments may for various reasons get approval to expand numbers. Given that capital funds are finite and have to be allocated according to need and various other criteria, it may be successful in its application for an expansion of 500 students for recurrent purposes, and it then may proceed to make an application for capital but because capital is a finite amount it may not be successful. It is quite possible for a school to get recurrent per capita funding for a body of students but not to be successful in seeking a capital grant associated with that expansion. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(8.34) —Does the Minister envisage that in the 1986 calendar year any school will be denied a maximum for the per capita grant that will at any time be less than the number of enrolled students for which it is seeking a per capita grant? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.35) —If a school chose to enrol students beyond the agreed maximum, it would be putting itself in that position. We are not aware of any schools having done that. Most schools are responsible and understand the system. They are pretty much continually advised by the Commonwealth Schools Commission on how to proceed in these matters. So the schools achieve approval for a maximum enrolment of, say, 1,000 students and they get recurrent funding for that. If a school achieved an approval for a per capita enrolment of 1,000 students and then suddenly decided without any approval or consultation to add several hundred more students-this is a hypothetical case-it would be in difficulty with its recurrent funding for those extra students; it would have to come back-- Senator Teague —They would not get it. Senator RYAN —It may get it, but it would have to apply; it would have to go through the procedures again. If that growth were within the parameters laid down by this policy the school would get it; if it were not, it would not get it. As yet, we know of no schools having chosen to enrol students beyond their approved maximum. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.37) —by leave-I move: (1) Clauses 7, leave out proposed new sections 6A and 6B. (2) Clause 9, leave out proposed new sections 7A and 7B. The Committee is considering clauses 7 and 9 together, by leave. These clauses put into effect the new Government policy for the funding of non-government schools, which has been the subject of some questions. The two clauses are almost identical, clause 9 putting into effect for non-systemic non-government schools what clause 7 puts into effect for systemic non-government schools. The Opposition's objections relate to matters of detail, some of which my colleague Senator Teague has raised, but they relate more to a disagreement concerning the threshold question of the principle which the Minister is seeking to enshrine. The Minister is seeking to have a planned provision of school funding. Her policy seeks to place at a high premium provision in a geographical area and the judging of new applications for schools against that provision. So one of the criteria will be whether or not a new school will adversely affect existing schools in a region. The criteria which will be built into the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act by virtue of this provision, if it is successful, include the changes which have been the subject of the exchange back and forth across the chamber in the last few minutes. For example, a school may wish to vary its number of students or it may wish to change from a single sex school to a co-educational school; it may wish to raise its level of educational offering and the number of streams it offers; or it may wish to relocate. Senator Ryan —Major changes. Senator PETER BAUME —Major changes, in part or in whole. One of the criteria against which judgments are to be made is what the effect will be on the provision of other educational services in the region. This will produce a freeze, as it were, on educational innovation in the region. The Minister for Education shakes her head but it will tend to do that. One of the few ways that some parents can get what they want for their children today-immediately-if they are dissatisfied is to try to seek some alternative form of provision. The parents involved may wish to do this in a region where the level of provision of schooling is, according to the best estimates of the planners, totally adequate, but for the parents involved, it is not adequate. I will give honourable senators an example. The demographic picture in many parts of Sydney is changing rapidly. In some of the suburbs there has been a big influx of certain ethnic communities-for example, the Arabic speaking community in certain parts of southern Sydney. The level of educational provision in that region may be quite adequate in terms of public schooling but as a result of demographic changes there may be a desire to open up a new school, say an Arabic school. There may be a desire in some areas to open up a new Catholic school even though there is quite adequate provision of public education in that area. There may be a desire to open up a school which does not fit in with the total provision. The criteria which are laid down would mean that any such application would be given a lower priority because of the educational provision in that region. There then comes a value question which must be determined, that is, whether the restriction of educational choice, as it were, to the existing schools, which may help the efficient use of resources and suit the planners, will provide parents with the kind of choice they feel is needed for their children today. Although I drew attention to the fact that the Minister intervened over a school in the Lowe electorate, I must point out that she was making a choice which met parental demand for extra educational choice, even though the State committee had made a judgment, based upon the criteria which are laid down here, that that school should get only a low priority. We believe that the proposals will prevent and lessen innovation and choice in educational offerings. We believe that they will, in effect, move towards the provision of an educational cartel-and I use the words loosely-where those that are already in the field will remain there and will be protected because anyone else attempting to move in to make extra provision will find it difficult to get the approval that is wanted. If, in fact, parents are dissatisfied and they wish to start their own school, I believe that they should be able to attract the funding to do so. When their application has to be judged, as provided in the Bill, against the plans for future education, both government and non-government in the State and in that locality, it gives ample opportunity for those who are already running schools, whether they are government or non-government schools, in the State and in the locality, to put a spoke in their wheel because if a new school opens it may mean fewer enrolments in the existing schools. That may be a necessary precondition to improvement in the quality of education because there is no doubt that the movement of children from an existing school may have both good and bad effects. One of the good effects is that it may put that existing school on notice that it needs to re-examine its method of operation, its educational offerings and practices. The emergence of new schools helps to do that. The Opposition believes that the changes in clauses 7 and 9 are unwelcome. The value position which the Government has taken is unfriendly to non-government schools and unfriendly to the wishes of parents in non-government schools. If a school wants to increase its numbers because enrolments are pouring in, we believe that it should be able to do so and that the subsidy which it attracts should be enrolment based rather than centrally planned. We do not think that central planning has been good for tertiary education and we do not think it will be good for the provision of non-government schooling. I go no further than that. I thank the Minister for having given leave for the amendments to be moved together. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.44) —The amendments moved by Senator Peter Baume are not acceptable to the Government and I think Senator Baume's explanation of why he moved them was a very clear and lucid exposition of the philosophical difference between his Party in opposition and our Party in government. Senator Baume laid out a principle of total freedom of choice with no regard to cost constraints, existing planning provisions and so forth. That is not a position that we support. We are willing to fund freedom of choice and any examination of the records would demonstrate that we do that very extensively, but we also believe, as a government in charge of scarce public resources, that a point must come beyond which choices cannot simply continue to be funded. The logical extension of a totally libertarian position is that the same group of parents could ask every year for new funds to start yet another new school. In a totally unrestricted world that might be possible; but in a world where existing schools can be badly affected and, therefore, the choices of those children and their parents badly affected by the proliferation of schools in their areas, and where the government must account for the expenditure of public funds and has many demands on the public purse, we simply do not accept that the basic position should be that, wherever the parents choose to go, and no matter how many times they choose to change and start something new, public funding ought to be forthcoming. Public funding is forthcoming, very generously, and it enables a huge diversity in this country. Having had the opportunity of examining other school systems throughout the world, I believe that Australia has more publicly funded diversity in schools than any other country. I think that is a good thing but it is not a policy which can prevail without any recognition of the need to plan and the need to make responsible choices about the allocation of public funds. So I appreciate Senator Peter Baume's clarity in explaining the philosophy which has led him to put forward the amendments. They are unacceptable to us for the reasons that I have given and I reject them at this stage. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.46) —I indicate that the Australian Democrats will not be supporting these amendments. The thing which is of interest to me is that Senator Peter Baume has moved them. I remember two parliaments ago, when Senator Baume was the Minister for Education and I was complaining about a shortfall in the funding of a particular part of education, Senator Baume telling me that there was not a limitless purse. He knew that when he was Minister and I think he knows it now. A dollar that is removed from one area within the total education cake is a dollar which is unable to be provided in another area. What does this mean under a policy which says that if a group of parents gain certification that their school meets the basic requirements within a State that school should be registered? We all know that, unfortunately, those registrations vary enormously from State to State and that the education Ministers are working towards an agreement to try to get a more uniform basic set of rules with regard to registration. We already know that the rules are still fairly diverse throughout Australia. But upon a school gaining that basic minimum, the Department of Education is committed in its budget to supporting that school. That means that it is not possible for the Minister or the Department to have any regard to their primary role of funding because they must respond to those types of initiatives. This also raises a question concerning Australian schools that have been established. Any school, no matter how small, is a costly venture. A school can be established, it can go on for one or two years and it can then collapse. That money has gone from the public purse, it has gone from education and it has been wasted. Members of Senator Peter Baume's Party have been talking about the fact that we must face up to our obligations in the economic world, the fact that we must face up to a whole range of things, and the possibility that we have been living beyond our means. I hardly think that these amendments fit in with that type of approach. At some stage or another we have to recognise that when we run a dual system there are additional costs. The community has said that it is willing to bear those costs. Fine. We all acknowledge that the dual system has those costs in it and that we are paying more for education than we would if we had a single system. I believe that the Australian community has indicated quite clearly that it desires a dual system. If that is the case we have to be careful that we operate that system in a way which is reasonable and effective for all concerned. The original proposals in the Connors report are not dissimilar to those which are used by the systemic school systems themselves to make their decisions about where they will place their schools because they also have to meet a very rigid budget constraint. Everybody is hemmed in by this and I do not think the objections are really reasonable. I remember Senator Peter Baume, when Minister for Education, quite specifically looking at ways and means by which some type of cap could be put on the proliferation of schools. In fact, a number of proposals were floating around at that stage which I admit never came to fruition. However, I believe there were discussions at that stage to try to achieve some of the results that we are now discussing. I believe that what we have before us is a compromise. Certainly it does not meet everything that everybody would want. But at least it says that if there is a Catholic school established another school will not be established straight off down the road without any respect for what that Catholic school is doing. Students will not suddenly be drawn away from that Catholic school. We are all very much aware that Catholic schools often take in other than Catholic students. Let us say that an Anglican school suddenly materialised in the next street. Such a move could destabilise a small school; it could cause it problems. I think the criteria that are set down in the legislation are not only directed at public schools; they are directed at all schools. The legislation seeks to ensure that there is some sort of predictability. I have expressed the view of my party that we believe that the state system requires a shake-up and ought to be much more flexible than it is. We also believe that it ought to give expression to a much greater diversity than it currently does. Senator Ryan —Especially in your State. Senator MACKLIN —Especially in my State. That is a long term goal which can be achieved only by State governments. I think when one looks at some of the innovations that have been taking place in the state systems one sees that this type of thing is starting to occur. There is a recognition that there is a demand for diversity of schooling, that there is a demand for specialisation and a concentration on the particular talents that children have. In my State centres are being set up in state schools for artistically talented children. This is something that would not have occurred three or four years ago. It is occurring now in state schools and I believe this is something to be welcomed. We are hoping that many of the aspirations of students can be fulfilled within the state school system. I hope that these types of developments will lead private schools and state schools working basically much along the same lines. But until that happens, the problem of damage that can occur as a result of proliferation is such that both private schools and state schools will be well served by a steady, predictable growth in both the public school sector and the private school sector. We can see that growth in terms of the schools which have been established already this year. Hopefully, that growth will continue in a reasonable way. I think probably all we can ultimately ask of any policy is that it fulfils a basic approach, that everyone knows the criteria on which they can make their applications and, hopefully, based on those criteria, that judgments made are just and equitable to all. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(8.54) —In advocating the omission of some parts of clauses 7 and 9 the Opposition does not advocate an unrestrained expenditure or, in the words of Senator Macklin, a limitless purse. I think the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) rightly summed up and responded to Senator Peter Baume's clear definition of the Opposition's approach. The Liberal Party of Australia and the Australian Labor Party have differences of approach. I will not bore the Committee by adding to that very well understood difference that has been summed up tonight by Senator Peter Baume and the Minister. I just wish to say that our approach, whilst giving greater freedom for schools to emerge in the community, to express parents' choice, is not to give an unrestrained approach, which were Senator Ryan's words, or a limitless purse. which were Senator Macklin's words. It cannot be denied by anyone that, when a student enrolled in a government school leaves to go to a non-government school, the recurrent funding in respect of that student is less costly to the taxpayer. In terms of capital provision, there may be a submission from such a group of students for the formation of a new school, but that is governed again not by a limitless purse but by a budgeted capital provision each year for new schools. We do not wish to overthrow that; we are just complaining that this Government has cut the capital provision by $20m. In seeking the omission of those proposed new sections, we are not being irresponsible. We are recognising that there is a limit to taxpayers' money but that, in respect of any one student moving from the government sector, where the taxpayer funds 100 per cent of the cost of the government school place, to the non-government sector, which is funded by less than 100 per cent-as low as 12 per cent-from the Commonwealth, there is less recurrent call on the taxpayer. Two questions arise from page 11 of the Bill. In proposed new sub-section (5), the Minister is unable provisionally to approve a proposed change to a school if there is a significant increase in or alteration to the school's clientele. I ask the Minister: What is an example of a significant increase and what is an example of a significant alteration to a school's clientele? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.58) —Examples of significant increases are set out in the administrative guidelines which are made available to schools. A significant increase would be, for example, a 10 per cent increase. There is some flexibility in the administrative guidelines. Perhaps Senator Teague should address himself to those guidelines. I must correct a couple of things Senator Teague said in his preamble to those questions. He has said several times in the course of this debate that the Government has cut the non-government schools capital program by $20m. In fact that is not right. There has been no reduction in the general capital funding for government or non-government schools. The amounts have been maintained in real terms. The decision that was made in May was to discontinue the libraries element of the capital program. That represented $5m for the non-government school sector. The reason for that was that that program was set up in order to assist schools to upgrade their libraries. The Government was advised that this had substantially been done-that libraries in government and non-government schools throughout Australia had been substantially upgraded-and that the justification for that special element was no longer as strong. That is not to say that use could not have been made of the money, but the original intention was that there be an upgrading of the libraries, and that has substantially been achieved. The actual amount for normal capital projects has been maintained in real terms in every year of this Government's operation. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(8.59) —I wish to raise the question of Radford College and the continuation of its program to include years 11 and 12. I am sure that the Minister for Education in particular and honourable senators will recall that there has been a fairly troubled history to Radford College, which opened with years 7 and 8 in 1984 and has grown since then. Its intention is to proceed with year 11 in 1987. I am wondering whether the decision has been made as to whether the funding will be extended for this purpose, as it is fairly necessary for the school to get on with its arrangements to be able to open in 1987 and accommodate its year 11 students at that time. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.00) —The application from Radford College to expand to years 11 and 12 is being treated in exactly the same fashion as every other similar application throughout the country. A new schools committee has been set up locally and has met to consider new applications, of which Radford's is one. I understand that at this stage it has not made a recommendation with regard to Radford. I think there are several others awaiting recommendations. When the local committee does make its recommendation to the Commonwealth Schools Commission, those recommendations will go to the Commission along with recommendations from State committees throughout Australia. Advice will come to me from the Commission in about January next year. Decisions will be made then. So Radford is in exactly the same position as every other non-government school throughout Australia seeking a similar expansion. It will receive its decision at the same time as all others-in January 1986. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(9.01) —I have two questions. Firstly, I refer to the phrase `recognised by the State Education Minister'. Does that mean registered or does it mean something in addition to registered? Secondly, on page 12 of the Bill, schools are required to have a minimum acceptable number of students for a level of schooling. In the administrative guidelines which have been referred to by the Minister are those minimum acceptable levels set out for every year from kindergarten to year 12? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.02) —The answer to the first question is yes. Recognition means registration by the State education authorities. In regard to the second question, the minimum enrolment guidelines are actually set out in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. I point out to Senator Teague that those minimum enrolment guidelines were endorsed by the Australian Education Council and ought to be now a requirement in each State for achieving State registration. I am not sure that they are being applied quite precisely in every State, but they were endorsed in general by all State education Ministers. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator F. I. Bjelke-Petersen) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Michael Missen, A. J.Baume, Peter Parer, W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Puplick, C. J. G.Boswell, R. L. D. Reid, M. E.Brownhill, D. G. C. Sheil, G.Carrick, Sir John Short, J. R.Collard, S. J. Teague, B. C.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M.Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Harradine, B. Walters, M. S.Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W.Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G.Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. Macklin, M. J.Black, J. R. Maguire, G. R.Bolkus, N. Mason, C. V. J.Chipp, D. L. Morris, J.Coates, J. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reynolds, M.Cook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F.Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M.Devlin, R. Sanders, N. K.Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Siddons, J. R.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Georges, G. Vigor, D. B.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.McIntosh, G. D. Zakharov, A. O.McKiernan, J. P. Question so resolved in the negative. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 8 and 10 to 26-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 27 and 28-by leave-taken together. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.10) —There are no actual amendments to the two clauses, but I indicate that the Opposition opposes them. They are part of the package of arrangements about which the Committee has been speaking. The reasons that we opposed proposed new sections 6A and 6B and 7A and 7B are the same reasons we will oppose clauses 27 and 28. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(9.11) —The reasons for our opposing these clauses should be fully understood from our earlier remarks. I have one questions to ask the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). Is it the case that nothing in any current legislation would limit a per capita grant being allocated to every student enrolled in a non-government school, whereas, for the first time, clause 27 and likewise clause 28, will introduce a completely new factor? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.12) —As I explained to the Committee at an earlier stage, if a school has the procedures to seek approval to a maximum enrolment and goes beyond the approved enrolment and is not able to get approval for the extra students it would be in that position; but as far as we know, no schools are intending to do that. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(9.12) —My point is that that is a new procedure. I understand what the Minister has just said, but at the moment, it is not possible to limit per capita grants for any school to the maximum enrolment; rather, all students enrolled do receive the per capita grant. These clauses bring in a new limit that creates what I have called a thirteenth category in the levels of funding for per capita grants to non-government schools. That means that some students now will get a zero recurrent fund. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.13) —I am advised that there are no schools which have enrolled students beyond their approved limits. If they did that and were unable to gain approval subsequently they would not attract the per capita grant for those extra enrolled students. To this point, that has not occurred. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.14) —I have already stated the reasons for the Australian Democrats not supporting the amendments moved by the Opposition to clauses 7 and 9. For the record I state that on the basis of those reasons, we will also be supporting clauses 27 and 28. Clauses agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985, Commonwealth Education Institutions (Overseas Students) Amendment Bill 1985 and States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No.2) 1985-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 29 November, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.17) —I want to raise the question of the nurses course which is being introduced at the Canberra College of Advanced Education to commence, I am glad to say, in 1986. It is a course that seems to have been thought through and planned most carefully. I think it answers the concerns that many people have as to whether under this system nurses will still be caring for people or whether they will merely be academics. The course, over three years, will comprise some 1,500 hours of educational training, most likely at the college for most of that time, but in addition there will be some 1,200 hours when the students will be in hospitals or in the place of community nurses, out and about learning the sorts of skills that most people would expect that nurses should have. It is certainly my hope that it works out well. I wonder whether the course which has been prepared has been accredited as a degree course. Can the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) tell us whether that has been announced and conveyed to the college? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.17) —The accreditation for the course described by Senator Reid has not been finally approved yet. There was an application from the Canberra College of Advanced Education to have a degree level course approved. However, the decision of the Australian Education Council, which has the responsibility for the development of college based nurse education, is that the undergraduate courses in nursing be diploma courses, and the CCAE course will be accredited as a diploma course. That process has not been completed yet. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.18) —Can the Minister tell us how many other courses at the Canberra College of Advanced Education are diploma courses? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.18) —There would be a number of courses that are diploma courses and there are also degree courses. The particular question is the level of accreditation to be afforded to basic nurse training. The Australian Education Council has decided collectively that basic nurse training will be at diploma level. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.19) —I wonder whether we can be told what criteria the Australian Education Council has taken into account in coming to that extraordinary decision, having gone to the trouble to take nurses out of hospitals to give them tertiary training. The Canberra College of Advanced Education is a very well respected, competent institution. This course has a very high science component-the same science subjects that are taught in the other degree courses at the college. Why is this nurse training course being downgraded to the status of a diploma course? What is the point of it all if they cannot do better than that? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.20) —I think Senator Reid has misunderstood the nature of the new development. There has been no downgrading. It was in the State of New South Wales that basic nurse education in colleges began on a large scale. That State introduced it at diploma level in 14 colleges. Since that time all of the State authorities have agreed that that is the level at which college based nurse education will be taught and no State has departed from this. I am sure that Senator Reid will agree that it is very important as far as possible to have a uniform level of training so that nurses can have mobility between State and Territory hospitals. As far as I am aware there has been no criticism of this from the Royal Australian Nursing Federation or the other bodies representing nurses. I think it would be quite wrong to interpret this as a downgrading since clearly the move to college based basic training is regarded by the nurses themselves as an upgrading of their professional status and cerainly the Government regards it as such. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.22) —I wonder whether the Minister could get a list of the courses at the Canberra College of Advanced Education which are still diploma courses so that we can have some idea of the way in which the Government regards the nurse training course, so we have some comparison between the courses which are regarded as diploma courses and those which are regarded as degree courses. I ask for this course to be re-examined in the light of the subjects that it contains, which come from the science faculties at the college. I also ask her to tell me why it is that the same subjects being taught in one area as in another are accredited to a degree course in the one case but only to a diploma course in the other. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.22) —I am happy to provide that information to Senator Reid. I simply repeat that what is being developed here is a national system of college based basic nurse training. It is a system that has been developed by the States themselves and by the State institutions for colleges, with a very high degree of consultation with nursing organisations. I think it would be inappropriate to compare particular basic nurse training courses at the CCAE with other courses there. After all, we do not wish the CCAE to be an island. It is part of a system in which nurses will be trained to work in Australian health services generally. If Senator Reid would discuss this matter with nursing organisations I am sure she would find that they are entirely supportive of this development. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.23) —The two Bills before us deal with nurse education. I place on record the Australian Democrats support for the Government's move in this area and our support of the State government initiatives in the co-operative development of college based nurse education which we, as a party, have always supported. I believe it is long overdue. Some of the comments made in the House of Representatives on this debate I think show an appalling lack of understanding of what is going on. I am thankful that at least in this chamber it is possible to have a more detailed debate and a more balanced representation of the views that exist in the community about nurse education. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a third time. Debate resumed from 27 November, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a first time. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(9.25) —I wish to take advantage of the first reading of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985 and allied Bills to mention matters which are not relevant to the Bills, something we are allowed to do on the first reading of this type of Bill. Last Saturday Mr Wallace Brown in the Courier-Mail expressed the opinion that any proposal to use Federal legislation to override the Queensland electoral redistribution was all rhetoric and little else. He also said in relation to the Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen: The Premier can also rest easy about Canberra on the issue, and he knows that. It doesn't have the guts. I have known Mr Brown for a long time and I have such a high respect for him as a journalist that I do not intend to argue with him publicly. Time will tell whether the rhetoric over the gerrymander is indeed all rhetoric and little else. Time will also tell whether Mr Brown's assessment that Canberra-I presume he means the Hawke Labor Government-does not have the guts, to use his words, to tackle this denial of electoral justice in Queensland is correct. In 12 months time it will be interesting to look back to see whether Mr Brown was correct. I certainly hope that by then he has been proved to be incorrect. There seems little, if any, prospect that anything can be done about the Queensland gerrymander before the next State election. However, the new electoral boundaries are so obscene that we must look forward to the election after the next one. We must make sure that that election is fought on fair boundaries. I have made my position clear on the need for Federal legislation. No Australian government can stand back and allow a significant number of citizens in any State to have second class voting rights. I will press for and I will expect this Parliament to pass legislation to embody one vote one value as a basic principle of parliamentary electoral systems in Australia. On a previous occasion I provided an analysis of the 1985 State redistribution in Queensland. That appears in the Hansard of 14 November 1985 at pages 2154 to 2157. This evening, however, I shall again outline why the system in Queensland is unacceptable. The 1985 Electoral Districts Act is the basis of the latest gerrymander of Queensland's electoral boundaries. This Act establishes a total of 89 electorates in four electoral zones. This is an increase of seven seats over the existing 82 seats in the Legislative Assembly. The most populous of these four zones is the south-eastern zone. This has 51 seats with an electorate quota of 19,357 voters. It is based on Brisbane, the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast, Ipswich, Toowoomba and adjoining regions. The next most populous zone is the provincial city zone. This has 13 seats and an electorate quota of 18,149 voters. This zone is based on Bundaberg, central Queensland, Mackay, Townsville and Cairns. The third zone is the country zone. It has 17 seats and an electorate quota of 13,131 voters. This zone is base on the rural hinterland of coastal provincial centres running in a narrow belt from north Queensland to the Brisbane valley. The zone with the least population is the western and far northern zone. This has eight seats and an electorate quota of 9,386 voters. It comprises the remainder of the State. I defined the term `gerrymander' in a previous speech to this chamber. The particular gerrymander which has resulted in the latest redistribution in Queensland is the manipulation of State electoral boundaries to the political advantage of the National Party. Based on previous State election results, the National Party has used the redistribution to give itself a head start. Even if the majority of Queensland voters want the National Party thrown out of office, this task would not seem to be achievable unless there is a shift in voting patterns. I believe that such a shift is possible, but why should any party be allowed to manipulate boundaries to try to keep itself in power in spite of any desire of the electorate to the contrary? The whole concept of the right to vote hinges on the equality of citizens' votes. Parliamentary democracy is based on the principle of equal voting rights for all people. In failing to uphold this principle, a National Party government is guilty of electoral cheating. It is not as if sound electoral principles have not been discussed previously. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example, states: The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government. This will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote, or by equivalent free voting procedures. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity . . . to vote and be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage, and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors. Finally, Mr Justice Warren of the United States Supreme Court had this to say in 1969 on the subject of gerrymanders: Legislators represent people, not trees nor acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. To the extent that a citizen's right to vote is debased, he is that much less a citizen. The basic principle of representative government remains and must remain unchanged. The weight of a citizen's vote cannot be made to depend on where he lives. The National Party has advanced two justifications for its gerrymander. These are that the recent redistribution provides for balanced representation and that it incorporates the principle of electoral weightage to benefit residents in far flung parts of the State. Let us examine both these attempted justifications. The argument of balanced representation does not stand up to scrutiny. It represents an admission by the National Party that under an electoral system not rigged in its favour it would practise discrimination against residents of non-metropolitan areas of Queensland. The gerrymander has not contributed one iota to decentralisation in Queensland. To the contrary, the National Party State Government, which has been in office since 1957, is yet to implement a decentralisation policy. This absence of policy has been verified in a report commissioned by the Government itself. The 1984 report on decentralisation, undertaken by Professor C. P. Harris of the James Cook University for the Department of Commercial and Industrial Development, stated: The Queensland Government has no explicit decentralisation policy or set of policy measures to favour the establishment or expansion of industries in non-metropolitan parts of the State. The gerrymander has not created any new jobs, investment or development in Queensland. It has not stopped the drift of population from the country to the cities. It has not arrested the declining per capita income in country areas. It has not led to the National Party State Government, which supposedly represents rural interests, contributing one cent towards the joint Federal-State assistance package to the sugar industry. The gerrymander is designed solely to preserve the National Party in government. I mentioned earlier that the National Party attempts to justify the gerrymander on the grounds of giving greater representation to the far flung parts of the State. In reality, electorates which are the greatest distance from Brisbane and those which are the largest geographically are given no significant advantage under the gerrymander. What has resulted is that Labor and Liberal votes are bottled up in zones with high quotas, while a predominance of National Party seats are found in the two zones with the small quotas. The very existence of the country zone, based on areas only a few hours drive from the State's major population centres, refutes the National Party's arguments about the need for electoral weightage. I would like to outline a few examples of the anomalies and inequities that abound under the National Party's latest gerrymander. A person's vote in Winton or Longreach is worth 50 per cent more than a person's vote in Mount Isa. Winton and Longreach are in the electorate of Gregory, with 8,347 electors. The city of Mount Isa is in the Mount Isa electorate, with 12,678 electors. Both seats are in the western and far northern zone. A voter in the central Queensland mining town of Moranbah is a constituent of the Bowen electorate, a country zone seat with 12,275 electors. Just under 100 kilometres away by air or about 120 kilometres by road, a voter in the central Queensland mining town of Blair Athol is a constituent of the Peak Downs electorate, a western and far northern zone seat with 8,362 electors. A resident of Nanango is one of Deputy Premier, Bill Gunn's 19,152 constituents in the south eastern zone seat of Somerset. Drive 24 kilometres up the road to Kingaroy and meet some of the 12,865 voters in the Premier's country zone seat of Barambah. In other words, it has 19,152 voters as opposed to 12,865 only 24 kilometres away. Chinchilla on the Darling Downs is in the country zone seat of Condamine, which has 12,236 voters. Less than 50 kilometres away by road, the neighbouring town of Miles is part of the western and far northern zone seat of Roma, with 8,304 electors. Again, there are 12,236 voters as opposed to 8,304 voters with only 50 kilometres between the two. The electorate with the highest quota of voters is Townsville East-1,570 kilometres from Brisbane-yet distance from the State's capital is meant to be one of the justifications for having seats with small enrolments. The electorate of Warrego stretches from the South Australian border to Springsure in Central Queensland. That is like having a resident of Ipswich in the same electorate as a resident of Mackay. The Warrego boundary conveniently skirts the Labor voting town of Cunnamulla, which is now lumped incongruously in the safe National Party seat of Balonne. The Aboriginal settlement of Wujal Wujal is completely surrounded by the electorate of Barron River, held by the National Party. But Wujal Wujal itself is deemed to be part of the Cook electorate, held for the Labor Party by Bob Scott. It is a land-locked island that exists in the provincial cities zone, but has been drawn as part of the western and far northern zone. For the record, the seat with the fewest voters is Balonne, with 8,162 voters. It is about a four-hour drive from Brisbane. However Townsville East has the most voters, with 20,837. The National Party State Government's gerrymander is an indefensible denial of Queenslanders' most fundamental democratic right-the equality of their votes. The Labor Party will not relent or retreat in its campaign to bring about electoral justice in Queensland. Whilst the Labor Party in Queensland will be educating the public about this grossly distorted electoral system, I hold that the Federal Government should take legislative steps to safeguard the electoral rights of the citizens of Queensland. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(9.39) —I wish to speak in this debate on a matter which likewise is not connected with subject matter of the legislation but concerns a matter which happened today, namely, the tabling of a report on a code of conduct for Australian companies operating in South Africa. This is a matter which has quite a long history in this Parliament. I think it is time that we realised what is being done in relation to it. Honourable senators will recall that on 18 April 1985 the Foreign Minister, the Hon. Bill Hayden, put down an Australian Code of Conduct for Companies with Commercial Interests in South Africa which was understood by all to be near enough to a final document, but subject to some discussion with companies. In the course of the Foreign Minister's speech in setting down that document Mr Hayden said, among other things: The code incorporates, in its reporting format, a requirement for companies adhering to it to report annually to the Australian Government on their compliance, which will be monitored. The codes requirements related to all non-white employees of Australian companies with operations in South Africa reflecting the Government's concern about discrimination against all non-white people, of whatever racial or ethnic background. Its provisions are based on widely accepted international and domestic principles and are consistent with the basic human conventions of the International Labour Organisation and Australia's Racial Discrimination Act. It may be said that generally the Code as then put down did comply in that way. Further, Mr Hayden pointed out: The Code does not require companies to take action outside what can reasonably be considered normal commercial activities or industrial relations practices, nor are companies expected to breach South African Laws. For these reasons the Government expects and hopes that the maximum number of companies would agree to adhere to the Code. That being a reasonable document, one would have expected it to remain substantially in place. There was no suggestion that it was to be substantially bowdlerised by further discussions with Australian companies. In detail the Minister set out the provisions of the Code. He said: As the Code will be a voluntary undertaking it is desirable that there be consultations with relevant Australian interest groups, prior to the Code's finalisation, in order to obtain maximum domestic support for it. He then said: Following the consultative process the Code will be widely publicised and I shall issue both general and individual invitations to Australian companies to adhere to it. What has happened is that it has not been widely publicised. It was sneaked into the House of Representatives at the end of last week, and has now been put in among a group of documents this morning which have not even been debated. One sees that it has been substantially changed in the meanwhile, substantially vitiating the importance of that document. Some little time after putting down this Code, an article appeared in the Australian by Alan Fewster headed `Government bows on Code for South Africa'. This was mentioned in my speech on the adjournment on 9 October 1985 at page 943, and I do not propose to repeat what is said there, save to say that practically all that was said in that article has come to pass and has now been excluded from or changed in the Code of Conduct. Yet when I put this document down and expressed concern the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who I am pleased to see in the chamber, offered me the embargoed use of the Code and alterations and said I would then be able to see what was in it. I was unwilling to do that because a term of the engagement was that I was not to use it. A little later when Senator Vanstone sought also a concession on the same terms, she was refused by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) any possession of the amended Code. So at that stage we did not know what alterations had been made to the Code. I wish to draw attention to other things Senator Gareth Evans said in reply to my speech on the adjournment. He said: It is regrettable that Senator Missen should have chosen to foist his indignation on us tonight, following the story in the Australian this morning because there is no foundation for either; that is to say, there is no justification for Senator Missen's indignation because there is no justification for the terms of the Australian story, with its heading `Government bows on code for South Africa'. That has turned out to be entirely untrue. One must read what appears in the Code of Conduct to see those things that were thought to have been deletions from the Code-- Senator Gareth Evans —Read the rest of my very long reply on 9 October explaining why it was that it was not a watering down. Senator MISSEN —I read the rest of the Minister's reply. The only thing that I can see different in the new Code is the provision that there is to be a person who is to be the commissioner or the person to investigate. Apart from that, all the things that were put in the article are correct. Senator Evans goes on to say: I am advised that the Code, which is still in draft form and is the subject of discussions with business and trade union representatives, most certainly has not been watered down in the manner suggested in the article. I will give chapter and verse to show that it has indeed been watered down, as the article said. If one compares the article with what is in the Code, one sees that this is so. In addition, the new Code, the altered Code, has come forward. A statement dated 29 November 1985 by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Bill Hayden, sets out in glowing tems what the Code is doing. The statement does not refer to the alterations that are made to it but it does say, at page 2: Speculation that the Code has been watered down is without foundation and is quite wrong. Indeed, the most significant change has been the introduction of an impartial and independent Administrator to monitor the Code. I might say that that is the only alteration I can find whatsoever, not just the most significant. In fact, there were provisions in the Code before that it be monitored. Companies were required to answer questionnaires, to give details, and now that is all to be eliminated from the Code. Let me go quickly through what appears in the present Code and what is to be deleted. I will not refer to the article, which also sets that out. Under the heading of `Desegregation at places of work', we see the following expression in the new Code: Except where the law of South Africa otherwise requires, companies should integrate the workplace, canteen, recreational, educational, training and other company-provided facilities. That is what the present Code says. I do not know what it means. In the draft document first tabled, we find: Except where the law of South Africa otherwise requires, companies should abolish the practice of segregation, which is a particularly offensive form of racial discrimination . . . That has been cut out altogether by this new superficial provision. In regard to what companies will do in training and management there has been a considerable deletion from the draft Code. For instance we find in that draft Code the provision that companies should deal equally with all employees: . . . companies should appoint and promote personnel solely on the basis of their qualifications and ability. To implement this provision fully the educational disadvantages of non-white employees may need to be compensated for. That has gone from the new Code. Then it is stated: To this end company training and development programs should be implemented to facilitate the employment of non-whites at all levels of the company. That has gone from the Code; it is no longer to be found anywhere in it. So there has been a considerable displacement of requirements in that respect. A great many deletions from the draft Code will be effected in relation to labour restrictions. In particular, companies will be required to assist non-white employees to achieve and safeguard their basic rights. It was stated originally in the draft Code: . . . employers should provide advice and or aid relating to legal matters . . . . That has gone. Aid is not necessarily to be provided. It said also: Because it denies non-whites freedom of movement and freedom of choice in employment, the system of migrant labour creates inequitable hardships for non-whites and their families. Surely that is a truism, at the very least. That has gone from the Code. We find a real deletion when we come to the expression of quality of life. A substantial amount has gone from that. We see a cutting down of the provisions which were designed to help the people who work for Australian companies gain a greater living environment than they had. Companies had social as well as commercial responsibilities in these circumstances, but they have gone. The draft Code goes on: Australian companies therefore should concern themselves with the quality of life of their employees and their families. That also has gone. The draft Code then sets out a series of matters which should be considered. The provision that companies should be able to provide fringe benefits equally to all workers and, if not already available to non-white employees, should seek to introduce them has gone. Then there is a whole clause (b) which runs into something like three-quarters of a page. I summarise the points raised: Companies might assist in the housing of employees, the promotion of the welfare of the employees' families, the transport of employees, the provision of leisure and health service facilities, the provision of library and educational facilities, and the provision of subsidised nutritious meals to lowly paid employees. That has all been absolutely deleted from the Code as it now stands. There is also a difference in the question of monitoring. There is to be a provision now for a person who will investigate these matters. That person is to be an independent and impartial administrator and the idea of a questionnaire has gone altogether. Overall, the Code of Conduct that we now have bears no resemblance to the previous one. The Minister, in his statement, gave no idea why these vast changes were made, why people had not had the opportunity to discuss them, why it had been left entirely to business and why the Parliament did not have some foreknowledge of the changes before they were declared to be the code in existence. There are many people who say that a code of conduct is not very effective but surely this will be said even more so when it is seen that this Government has resiled entirely from the provisions of the original Code and now seeks to foist a new code on us. I think it is time that the people knew this, even though this change comes at the end of the parliamentary session. We need to draw the attention of the people to this change because it shows once again the false nature of the Government's promises. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.52) —I do not want to detain the Senate, given the state of our program. However, Senator Missen has leapt into the breach, taking advantage of the procedures and forms of this place in order to make the speech that he has just made on the first reading of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985 and cognate Bills. I simply wish to make it clear that the Government rejects absolutely-as I did in the adjournment debate in this place on 9 October-the claims that have been made by Senator Missen that the newly redrafted Code which has just been made public by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in the past few days represents any kind of watering down at all of the previous Code of Conduct. It has been very substantially redrafted and a great many of the deletions to which Senator Missen referred are simply changes that have been made in the course of redrafting in order to reshape, tighten up or more clearly express some of the concepts involved. I will not take the time of the House now to go through the Code chapter and verse but, as an illustration of the kind of thing I am talking about, I refer to just one example. Senator Missen made much-as did the original article in the Australian on 9 October on which he relied so much-of the alleged removal of a provision in the original Code which said that companies should also take reasonable measures to assist in various matters and there followed a list which included housing of employees, promotion of welfare of employees' families, transport, the provision of leisure and so on. Senator Missen failed to mention that the new Code does not just talk in terms of reasonable measures to assist but actually makes provision for all those matters in the form of an encouragement to companies to actually set aside funds for those particular purposes. I refer to a paragraph on page 9 of the revised Code which says: The Australian Government also encourages companies to participate in, and to set aside funds for, the development of programs which address transportation to and from work, health services, housing and education-especially for the dependants of employees. Inevitably, the nature of this document is hortatory and encouraging in tone. It does not set a series of legal requirements or obligations upon companies. It cannot do so any more here than it can in South Africa itself. It cannot require companies to do things which they are not able to do under the terms of South African law. The essence of the arrangement is a voluntary agreement by companies to observe these particular standards and I can assure the Senate that the standards set out here are no less rigorous than was the case before and in fact in many instances they are even more rigorous. For example, companies are now required to actually support changes to South African laws which adversely affect their employees. That is something which I understand was not in the original Code. Senator Missen has selectively picked and threaded his way through this document, drawing attention to language which he cannot find repeated in the same terms in the original Code and drawing conclusions from that which are simply not justified. This Government's credentials on matters to do with South Africa are, as I hardly need to repeat, impeccable. We have gone much further than even the Fraser Government went-much to Mr Howard's disgust-in creating, imposing and agreeing to impose economic sanctions on South Africa. Of course we are now participating in the international exercise under the auspices of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting designed to encourage and in various other ways draw the South African Government towards a more civilised stance on this particular matter. We have not ruled out the possibility of substantially tougher measures in the future, should that appear on review in six months time to be the appropriate course to take. We find it offensive that Senator Missen should come into this chamber and endeavour to outmoralise the Government, as it were, on this issue. There is no foundation for that contribution and no foundation for that claim. I shall take an appropriate opportunity, I hope later in the week, if the time enables me, to give a more substantial and detailed reply to some of the other criticisms Senator Missen has made. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.56) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1985 This Bill will amend the Taxation Laws in several ways. It represents a start to the Government's Legislative Programme to give effect to the measures the Treasurer announced on 19 September for reform of the Australian Taxation system. In that regard, amendments of the income tax law in this Bill will provide for undeducted exploration and development expenditure incurred by petroleum and general mining companies to be treated as transferable company group losses. Other amendments will withdraw the rebate and deduction for Capital subscribed to petroleum and afforestation companies, and reduce the taxation concessions available for investments in Australian Films. Another reform measure to be given effect by this Bill will ensure that owner-builders of larger domestic building projects commenced after 30 June 1986 make deductions of tax under the prescribed payments system from payments made after that date. Together with two other Bills that I will introduce shortly, this Bill will also finalise the implementation of the Government's 1985-86 Taxation Budget Proposals. One of the three Budget measures designed to assist the Horse Racing Industry-the provision of a more generous livestock valuation option for Horse Breeders-is contained in the Bill. The Bill will remove the exemption from tax for payments to Students under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme and the Adult Secondary Education Assistance Scheme. As part of the Budget proposal to align A.C.T. taxes more closely with those of the States, the Bill will provide for the imposition of A.C.T. Stamp Duty on Loan Securities and on Transfers of units in unit trusts. Finally, there are two measures in the Bill unrelated to the Budget of Tax reform. First, the Bill will give effect to the proposal-announced on 21 May 1985-to amend the income tax secrecy provisions to permit greater use of taxation information by a Royal Commission. Secondly, the Bill will give the Force of Law in Australia to a new Comprehensive Taxation agreement and a related protocol with Finland that were signed in Canberra on 12 September 1984. A number of Technical Amendments of the Taxation Laws are also to be made by the Bill. Mr President, I now turn to outline in greater detail the more significant amendments contained in the Bill. Petroleum and General Mining Company Losses As announced in the Treasurer's Tax reform statement, an annual election is being made available to General Mining and Petroleum Companies to enable them to have undeducted exploration and development expenditure treated as transferable company group losses. Under the Existing Law, the deduction allowable for such expenditure cannot create or increase a Mining or Petroleum Company's deductible carry-forward loss. One result of this is that any such expenditure not offset aganist the company's income may not be transferred to another company in the same group under the group loss transfer arrangements. Measures in the Bill will allow a Mining or Petroleum exploration company that is part of a company group to elect that any excess deductible exploration and development expenditure incurred in the 1985-86 and subsequent income years forms part of the company's carry-forward loss available for transfer to another company within the same group. A separate election will be available for each year of income. The Estimated Revenue cost of the measure is $70 million in 1986-87 and $65 million in 1987-88. Capital Subscribed to Petroleum and Afforestation Companies In giving effect to another tax reform proposal, provision in the Bill will withdraw the Tax Concessions in respect of moneys paid on shares in Petroleum or Afforestation Companies. First, there is the tax rebate of 27 cents in the dollar for moneys paid on shares in an eligible Petroleum Company. This is available where the Company lodges a declaration that it has expended, or will expend, the moneys on prospecting, Exploration or Mining for petroleum in Australia. There is also a deduction for one-third of calls paid on non-redeemable shares in a Company whose Principal Business is Afforestation in Australia, where the call moneys are for use in that Business. Both the rebate and deduction are being withdrawn for moneys paid on shares after 19 September 1985, other than moneys paid by a person on calls made on or before that date on shares then owned or beneficially owned by the person. Withdrawal of these concessions is estimated to result in a gain to revenue of $10 million in 1986-87 and $15 million in 1987-88. Investment in Australian Films As the Treasurer announced on 19 September 1985 in the tax reform statement, the tax concessions for investment in the production of Australian films are to be reduced as part of the restructuring of assistance to the film industry. For eligible expenditure contracted for after 19 September, the special income tax deduction will be 120 per cent of the expenditure, in lieu of 133 per cent. The associated income tax exemption in respect of the net income from a film will be 20 per cent of the eligible investment, rather than 33 per cent. The higher concession levels will, however, continue to be available to an investor who takes up an interest in an Australian film in place of an underwriter who entered into underwriting arrangements on or before 19 September 1985. This reduction in taxation concessions is to be offset by additional funding of $2 million in 1985-86 and $3 million in each of the following two years. This will be achieved through the special production fund administered by the Australian Film Commission. The estimated net saving to revenue is $35 million in 1986-87 and subsequent years. Prescribed Payments System This Bill will also give effect to the tax reform measure to impose on ``owner-builders'' a liability under the prescribed payments system to make deductions of tax from prescribed payments made in connection with domestic construction projects exceeding $10,000 in cost. Mr President, this measure represents the Government's considered response to industry representations that an owner-builder should, as far as the prescribed payments system is concerned, be treated in the same way as the professional builder. By this Bill, owner-builders are to have the same obligations and duties as are currently imposed on professional builders under the prescribed payments system. This change will apply in relation to prescribed payments made by owner-builders on or after 1 July 1986 in connection with domestic construction projects costing more than $10,000 that are commenced on or after that date. It is estimated that this measure will lead to a net revenue gain of $16 million in 1986-87 and $4 million in 1987-88. Another amendment to be made to the prescribed payments system provisions of the law will overcome a possible technical weakness in the present statutory definition of a ``householder''. This amendment will affect neither the practical operation of, nor collections received under, the prescribed payments system. It will apply from the date of royal assent to the Bill. Mr President, as the Treasurer said to honourable members when delivering his statement on reform of the Australian taxation system on 19 September, the Government is engaged in a tax reform exercise, not a tax raising one. The gains to revenue arising from the tax reform changes will be applied by the Government towards substantially easing the burden of high marginal rates of tax on honest middle income taxpayers. Together with other elements of our tax reform package, these changes will restore fairness to the Australian tax system. Live stock Valuation Option A budget measure contained in the Bill will provide-for horse breeders-an additional live stock valuation option under the trading stock provisions of the income tax law. This measure was one of the three proposals announced in the 1985-86 Budget to assist the horse racing industry. The additional option will be available in respect of a sire or brood-mare acquired under a contract entered into after 20 August 1985. Under the present law, a taxpayer may elect to value live stock on hand at the end of the year of income at cost price, market selling value or some other appropriate value. The new live stock valuation method for horse breeders is in addition to existing valuation options available. This further method of valuation will enable a horse breeder to write down the cost of a sire by up to 50 per cent per annum or a brood-mare by 33 1/3 per cent per annum-in either case on a diminishing value basis. An alternative in the case of a brood-mare will be to write down its cost to $1 on a straight line basis over, depending on the mare's age, minimum period of three years. The Bill contains safeguarding provisions that will operate to counter artificial arrangements designed to make eligible for the new option a horse that would not otherwise qualify because it was in fact owned by the breeder on or before 20 August 1985. Mr President, this measure should have no effect on 1985-86 revenue. The nature of the measure is such that a reliable estimate of its revenue effect in future years cannot be made. Education Assistance Scheme Payments As announced in the Treasurer's Budget Speech, the Government has developed a comprehensive four year plan designed to encourage young people to remain in education. Financial support for young people is one area of our strategy designed to ensure the youth of Australia share in the benefits of economic recovery and growth. Part of the Government's plan is to bring education assistance allowances for those under 18 and those in the 18 to 20 age group more into line with the benefits payable to single unemployed people in the equivalent age brackets. By 1988, students entitled to education assistance and young people on unemployment benefits will be receiving basically the same rate of payment. Unemployment benefits are already taxable. The living allowance and incidentals allowance payable under the education schemes should, therefore, also bear tax. This Bill proposes, with effect from 1 January 1986, to remove the present exemption from income tax of payments received under the tertiary education assistance scheme and the adult secondary education assistance scheme. However, any component of the allowance attributable to a dependant child will, as is the case with unemployment benefits, remain exempt. An associated amendment will provide for taxable scheme payments to be subject to regular pay-as-you-earn deductions. The estimated net gain to revenue from this measure is nil in 1985-86, $4 million in 1986-87, $23 million in 1987-88 and $25 million in 1988-99. The Government has also announced that it proposes to remove, from 1 January 1987, the tax exemption now available for payments made to parents of secondary students under the secondary assistance scheme. The conditions that apply to determine entitlement to payments under this scheme are to be changed and legislation to give effect to the decision to withdraw the tax exemption will be introduced into the Parliament after the details of the revised scheme are settled. A.C.T. Stamp Duty Together with two further Bills that I will shortly introduce, this Bill will also give effect to the government's 1985-86 Budget proposals to introduce new and increased taxation in the Australian Capital Territory. One of these proposals is to subject transfers of units in unit trusts to A.C.T. stamp duty and tax. To that end, a transfer of a unit in a unit trust is to be treated as a transfer of a marketable security. The result will be that stamp duty and tax will be imposed on such transfers at the rates applicable to marketable security transfers. The estimated revenue gain from this measure is $50,000 in a full year. Provisions of the Bill will also counter the avoidance of stamp duty on certain conveyances by way of mortgage under the A.C.T. real property ordinance. Under existing A.C.T. stamp duty law, a conveyance of a legal interest in land by way of mortgage is specifically exempt from duty-on the principle that the transfer of the legal title to a mortgagee is no more than a means of securing repayment of the borrowed moneys. In such cases the mortgagor is intended to retain what is called the equity of redemption which carries with it the right to re-transfer of the legal title on repayment. This exemption could be abused to obtain an exemption from duty in cases where there is no intention that the mortgagor will re-acquire the legal interest. The exemption from stamp duty is to be removed in relation to transfers of legal interests under the real property ordinance by way of mortgage where there is an intention that both the legal and equitable interests are being transferred to the mortgagee. Where property transferred in these circumstances is subsequently re-transferred to the mortgagor, a refund of the excess duty paid will be available. The tax on transfers of units in unit trusts and the amendments relating to duty on non-bona fide mortgages will apply to transactions occurring on or after the first day of the month following that in which the Bill receives the royal assent. While the imposition of A.C.T. stamp duty on mortgages, debentures and other loan securities is being implemented by amendments contained in the Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Amendment Bill, provisions in this Bill will set out the rules governing liability for the new duty. Under those rules, a document will be subject to duty if it is a mortgage, a company debenture, or a bond or covenant securing a loan and it is executed or issued in the A.C.T. by the borrower. Likewise, a loan security on property in the A.C.T. will be subject to duty. In these cases the person liable to pay the duty will be the borrower and the Bill sets out the requirements as to payment of duty. Other provisions of the Bill will validate the regulation-making power under the A.C.T. Stamp Duty Act, and several related taxing acts. At the time of enactment of the Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Act, the regulation-making power contained in the Australian Capital Territory Taxation (Administration) Act was thought to be adequate to authorise regulations under the Stamp Duty Act and related taxing Acts. This is because those Acts and the Administration Act are to be read as one. Regulations were accordingly made specifying circumstances in which duty or tax is not imposed. Following the recent decision of the Federal Court in Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal it is now clear that a separate power to make regulations is required for each Act. Provisions in the Bill will provide a specific regulation-making power in each of the A.C.T. Stamp Duty and Taxing Acts. To validate regulations that have already been made, the regulation-making power will, where necessary, be deemed to have come into operation on 1 July 1969. Taxation Secrecy Provisions Amendments contained in the Bill will permit greater use of information that, under the existing income tax secrecy provisions, may be provided to certain royal commissions. These amendments give effect to a recommendation made by Mr F. X. Costigan, Q.C. in the fourth interim report of the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. The amendments will allow a royal commission to make taxation-sourced information available to the director of public prosecutions or a special prosecutor, if the Commission considers that the information is relevant to an investigation of a tax-related offence. The requirements of secrecy applying to taxation officers and other persons privy to confidential taxation information will, of course, extend to persons to whom taxation information can be communicated under these amendments. The amendments will also remove any doubt that taxation-sourced information can be passed on by a royal commission to a police officer assigned to make an investigation on behalf of the Commission. These measures should have no effect on the revenue. The Finnish Tax Agreement I now turn to provisions of the Bill that will provide legislative authority for the entry into force of a comprehensive double taxation agreement and protocol dealing with all forms of income flowing between Australia and Finland. The agreement and protocol were signed on 12 September 1984, at which time details were announced and copies of the agreement were made publicly available. The Bill will insert the text of the agreement and protocol into the Income Tax (International Agreements) Act 1953 as a schedule to that Act. The agreement with Finland, as with comprehensive taxation agreements generally, has two primary objectives-the elimination of international double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion. The first of these objectives is achieved by the contracting countries agreeing to allocate taxing rights between them. There are various ways in which this is done, the particular method depending upon the nature of the income concerned. For example, some classes of income are to be taxed only in the country of residence, while others will be taxed only in the country of source. A third category is comprised of income consisting of dividends, interest and royalties which may be taxed in both countries. In this case the country of source generally agrees to limit its tax, and the country of residence of the taxpayer agrees to allow a credit against its tax on such income for the tax paid in the other country. The agreement contains measures for the formal relief of double taxation of income that may be taxed in both countries. It also contains provisions of a kind common to taxation agreements relating to the taxation of business profits, professional services, employees, public entertainers, students, pensioners and so on. So far as the object of preventing fiscal evasion is concerned, provision is made in the agreement for the exchange of information and for consultation between the tax administrations of the two countries. In these and all other essential respects, the agreement accords with the position that Australian Governments have taken over the years in relation to the negotiation of comprehensive taxation agreements. The agreement and protocol will not enter into force until all necessary constitutional processes are completed both by Australia and Finland. They will then have prospective effect in accordance with their terms. For Australia, this Bill will, when assented to, complete the constitutional processes required of us. The agreement and protocol are not expected to have any significant effect on the revenue. Mr President, a detailed explanation of each provision of the Bill is contained in the memorandum being made available to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. SOCIAL SECURITY (POVERTY TRAPS REDUCTION) BILL 1985 The Government has been concerned for some time that Commonwealth programs can interact in a way that disadvantages the people they should help, by trapping them in poverty. It has been recognised that the most savage of these poverty traps occurs when tax and social security interact. An attack on poverty traps is an essential part of the Government's tax reform package. It was one of the nine principles in the ALP's taxation policy in last year's election. It was also a commitment renewed as part of the renegotiated Accord in September. This Bill deals with the extremely high marginal tax rates faced by people receiving social security payments when they try to earn some extra income for themselves and their families. The effective marginal tax rates faced by such people can be higher than the total facing the highest income earners. This is plainly inequitable. It keeps people in poverty and it provides a disincentive to people to care for themselves through, for example, part-time work. The attack on poverty traps embodied in this Bill will have three results. First, it will leave more money in the pockets of hundreds of thousands of people on social security with some private income. Second, it will ease the transition from welfare to work for people, such as supporting parents, who are temporarily out of the permanent paid workforce. Third, it will provide an incentive to all people on social security to provide for themselves, either through part-time work or investments. Poverty traps will be attacked on three fronts. 1. The amount pensioners can earn privately before they are affected by the income test will be increased from $30 to $40 a week for single pensioners, and from $50 to $70 a week for couples. 2. The additional allowable income for pensioners with children will be doubled from $6 to $12 a week per child. 3. The very strict separate income test for rent assistance will be abolished. Rent assistance will simply be added on to payments, and be subject to the normal income test. In particular, these reforms will concentrate on groups of special concern to the Government-the aged, children in poverty, particularly in sole parent families, and pensioners and the unemployed renting in the private market. Pension ``income test free'' areas From November 1986, the basic income test for pensions will be liberalised by an increase in the free areas from $30 a week to $40 a week for single pensioners and from $50 a week to $70 a week for a pensioner couple. This means that single pensioners with incomes above $40 a week will receive an increase in pension of $5 a week, and a pensioner couple with an income above $70 a week will receive an increase in pension of $10 a week (combined). Pensioners with incomes between the old and new free areas will receive slightly less. In addition, because the pension cut-out points will increase, some persons currently not entitled on income grounds will become entitled to part rate pensions. It should be noted that the free area increases apply only to pensioners. The benefit income test will not be affected by this Bill. However, as a result of changes in the 1985-86 Budget which are included in the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures) Amendment Act 1985, the benefit free area will be increased from $20 to $30 a week from 1 May 1986. The assets test will be unaffected and will apply as it does now. The special income test applying to age pensioners 70 years of age and over will not be affected. The ``income disregard'' for children From November 1986, the income disregard for children of pensioners will be increased from $6 a week to $12 a week per child. The income disregard for children is the reduction in the income of a pensioner for each child. This, plus the increase in the basic free areas, will mean that pensioners with children will have higher free areas than currently. For example, a sole parent pensioner with one child will be able to have a non-pension income of $52 a week and still receive a full pension. These amounts are to be increased by $12 a week for each additional child. There is to be no change to the treatment of unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries with children who will continue to have no income disregard. There will also be no change to the income disregard for children in the income test for concession cards and fringe benefits. Rent assistance From November 1986, the separate income test for rent assistance will be abolished for both pensioners and beneficiaries. Currently, rent assistance is reduced by 50 cents for every dollar of non-pension or benefit income from the first dollar of private income. (Private income will now be higher in the case of pensioners with children who currently benefit from the income disregard of $6 a week per child.) From November 1986, rent assistance will be income tested like other additional payments such as additional pension or benefit for children and ``mother's/guardian's allowance''. The effect will be that people now receiving a part rate of rent assistance because of their private income will become eligible for the maximum rate, and other pensioners and beneficiaries renting in the private market who satisfy the rent test will also become eligible for the full or a part rate of rent assistance. This will mean that people renting in the private market will receive an increase in payment of up to $15 a week for sickness beneficiaries and pensioners (plus the gains from other initiatives), and of up to $10 a week for unemployment and special beneficiaries. (The latter groups will become eligible for rent assistance of up to $10 a week from 1 May 1986 as a result of changes in the 1985-86 Budget, which are included in the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures) Amendment Act 1985.) There will be little change to other aspects of rent assistance. In particular, the rent test will remain as it is. Where a pensioner is being assessed under the assets test, the pensioner will now be eligible for rent assistance on the same basis as a pensioner assessed under the income test. Persons renting public housing will not be eligible for payments. However, the existing savings clause covering public housing tenants will remain. The categories of unemployment beneficiaries eligible for rent assistance from May 1986 will not alter. Some examples of what the new measures will mean are as follows- (a) A sole parent with one child and modest earnings of $80 a week will receive an increase in pension of $8 a week. If that sole parent pensioner is renting in the private market, his or her social security payment will be increased by $23 a week. (b) An unemployment beneficiary renting in the private market and with modest income from part-time earnings will become eligible for additional rent assistance of up to $10 a week. (c) A single age or invalid pensioner with $100 a week in private income will receive an increase in pension of $5 a week. If the pensioner is renting in the private market, the increase in pension could be $20 a week. The Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Bill contains the text of the Treasurer's statement concerning these matters together with details of the financial impact of the measures. These measures mark a significant development in assistance to those members for our community who are in greatest need and who want the opportunity to break free of the social security system and become self-supporting. The measures will encourage their efforts in a positive way, and the reduction of poverty traps will assist those pensioners and beneficiaries, their children and the wider community. Mr President, I commend the Bill to the Senate. AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY STAMP DUTY AMENDMENT BILL 1985 In association with the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985 just introduced, this Bill will give effect to the 1985-86 Budget proposal to impose A.C.T. stamp duty on loan securities. It will also increase the current rates of A.C.T. duty on conveyances of real property. These measures are part of the wider proposal to better align A.C.T. taxes with those levied by the States. The duty to be formally imposed by this Bill on loan securities will be $5 where the maximum amount repayable under, or secured by, the security does not exceed $15,000. On securities for greater amounts, the duty will be $5 for the first $15,000 and 40 cents for every $100 or part thereof that exceeds the first $15,000. Loan securities for amounts up to $500 will be exempt. The estimated revenue yield from this measure is $1.5 million in a full year. Stamp duty on real property transfers up to a value of $14,000 will remain at the present rate of $1.25 per $100 or part of $100. Where the value of the transfer is between $14,001 and $30,000, the duty will be $175 plus $1.50 for each $100 or part thereof over $14,000. In the range of $30,001 to $60,000, duty of $415 plus $2 per $100 or part thereof over $30,000 will be payable. Above $60,000, the duty payable will be $1015 plus $2.50 for each $100 and any fractional part of $100. The increased duty on real property transfers will produce a revenue gain estimated at $1.5 million in a full year. Both the new duty on loan securities and the increased rates for conveyances of real property will apply to instruments executed on or after the first day of the month following that in which this Bill receives the Royal Assent. Mr President, an explanation of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum being made available to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. BANK ACCOUNT DEBITS TAX AMENDMENT BILL 1985 This Bill will give effect to the proposal announced in the 1985-86 Budget to double the rates of bank account debits tax in the Australian Capital Territory, in lieu of the introduction of a State-type financial institutions duty. The proposal is part of a package designed to bring taxes and charges in the A.C.T. more closely into line with those that commonly apply in the States. In keeping with other A.C.T. taxes, the increased rates of bank account debits tax will apply also in the Jervis Bay Territory. The new rates will be 20 cents on debits of $1 or more but less than $100, 50 cents on debits of $100 or more but less than $500, $1 on debits of $500 or more but less than $5,000, $2 on debits of $5,000 or more but less than $10,000 and $3 on debits exceeding $10,000. Special provisions will counter arrangements to avoid A.C.T. rates of bank account debits tax by keeping accounts outside the A.C.T. The Bill also provides that cheque accounts kept in Australia but outside the A.C.T. are to be subject to A.C.T. rates of tax where those accounts have been opened on behalf of depositors with A.C.T. building societies or credit unions. The revenue gain from the measure is estimated at $4 million in a full year. Mr President, an explanation of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum being made available to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. INCOME TAX (COMPANIES, CORPORATE UNIT TRUSTS AND SUPERANUATION FUNDS) AMENDMENT BILL 1985 In line with the measures contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1985 about which I have just spoken, this Bill will amend the Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Act 1985 to declare and formally impose income tax-at the rate of 46 per cent-on the net income of a public trading trust that is to be subject to company tax arrangements. The provisions of the Bill will have effect only in relation to income of the 1985-86 financial year-the first year in respect of which any tax will be payable under the new arrangements by a trustee of an affected trust. I commend the Bill to the Senate. TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1985 With the introduction of this Bill the Government is taking another important step towards achieving our critical reform program for repairing the Australian tax system. The Bill continues our attack on the tax shelters, evasion and avoidance practices and sectional preferences that have caused our system to become distrusted by honest citizens. It contains measures to put in place four of the reform proposals announced in the statement of 19 September 1985 on reform of the Australian taxation system. One of these is to deny income tax deductions for entertainment expenses incurred after that date. Another will require specific substantiation of claims made for the deduction of employment-related expenses by employees and of car and travel expenses of employees and self-employed persons. A third reform measure removes the tax bias in favour of the use of public unit trusts as a vehicle for the participation in trading and business ventures by tax-exempt investors. The fourth will give effect to the decision to replace, with write-off over 5 years, the immediate income tax deductibility of capital expenditure by primary producers on conserving and conveying water. Some measures in the Bill are unrelated to the tax reform package. One of those is the proposal-announced on 22 August 1985-to counter tax avoidance arrangements involving the commutation of immediate annuities. Another is to extend to taxable bonuses and similar amounts received under life assurance policies issued by certain state government insurance offices the rebate of tax in respect of such amounts received under policies issued by taxable insurance companies. At the same time a technical deficiency in the rebate provisions will be corrected. Those changes were announced on 9 October 1985. The Bill will ensure that the new carer's pension introduced from 1 November 1985 is taxed on a similar basis to the spouse carer's pension it replaced. Finally it contains a number of purely technical amendments consequent on recent changes to social security and repatriation laws. I turn now in more detail to the various measures. Entertainment Expenses The Bill will give effect to the decision announced in the 19 September statement to deny deductions for entertainment expenses. As noted in that statement, the Government cannot stand by and allow the general body of taxpayers to subsidise through deductions for entertainment expenses the frequently social activities of a group of usually well-off people. The Government recognises that this measure will mean that in some cases deductions will be denied for genuine business expenses. Nevertheless, the fact remains that certain sections of the community have abused the availability of deductions for entertainment expenses. That abuse has been possible because of the inherent difficulties in distinguishing between genuine and non-genuine entertainment: difficulties that have proved intractable despite suggestions that have been offered to us. The extent of that abuse and the lack of a viable alternative to restrict deductions to genuine business entertainment have confirmed that the Government has no option but to act across-the-board in disallowing entertainment expenses. There are also equity considerations. The vast majority of taxpayers do not benefit from the current law which is available only to a limited class of persons. The fact that lunches are deductible for the business person eating with clients or colleagues in an expensive restaurant, but not for the ordinary worker, has added to the public's perception of the unfairness of the current taxation system. There has been much public comment on the impact of the measures on the restaurant industry. While that industry will be affected by the Government's decision, it would be wrong to justify a continuation of the present system on that ground when it is clear that the present level of activity has been achieved through the utilisation of an unintended subsidy, financed by the general body of taxpayers. In assessing the extent of that impact it should also be remembered that the restaurant industry will be one of the beneficiaries of the increased community spending power that will result from the reduced rates of tax that are to be introduced as part of the overall reform package. The amendments proposed by the Bill will deny deductions for entertainment expenses incurred after 19 September 1985. Typical kinds of entertainment that will no longer attract deductions include business lunches and drinks, dinners, cocktail parties and staff social functions. Deductions will also be denied for expenses incurred in providing entertainment, such as tickets or boxes for sporting or theatrical events, and sightseeing. Hostess allowances paid by employers to spouses or other relatives of senior executives to offset the cost of attending or hosting company-sponsored functions will also no longer be deductible. The entertainment deduction prohibition will not, of course, apply to expenses incurred in operating a business for the provision of entertainment. As a general rule, expenditure on entertainment for promotional or advertising purposes will also continue to be deductible provided it is made available to the public generally and not confined to selected guests. The costs of overtime meals of an employee governed by requirements of an industrial award will also be unaffected by the proposed amendments, as will the cost of a person's meals while travelling on business away from home. Special rules will apply to ensure that the costs associated with in-house dining and recreational facilities for employees will be unaffected by the amendments. However, as announced by the Minister Assisting the Treasurer when introducing the Bill in another place on 15 November 1985, expenditure incurred after that date in entertaining non-employees in an in-house dining facility will, broadly speaking, no longer be deductible. The Bill will also ensure that the cost of meals that are reasonably incidental to a person's attendance at a seminar will continue to be deductible, although the cost of any associated recreational activities will come within the scope of the disallowance provisions. The Bill also contains a number of safeguarding provisions to ensure the intended operation of the measures. In this regard I note that there are already indications of moves to substitute entertainment allowances presently paid to senior executives with what are said to be overtime meal allowances payable on the basis that it is normal for these executives to work long hours. The specific exception in relation to overtime meals I referred to earlier is to apply only to the cost of overtime meals provided pursuant to an industrial award, with the result that the disallowance measures being introduced by this Bill will apply in relation to privately negotiated meal allowances. Substantiation Rules A further measure announced in the 19 September statement which is being introduced by this Bill is the requirement for the substantiation of employment-related expenses of employees and car and travel expenses of employees and self-employed persons. These measures will correct a deficiency in the existing law which, while specifying the type of expenses which qualify for deduction, fails to specify what proof is required to substantiate those claims. Subject to the exemptions outlined below, the proposed amendments will make it a requirement for deduction that appropriate documentary evidence be maintained. For this purpose, the general rule will be that an expense will be regarded as substantiated only where a taxpayer is able to produce a reciept, invoice or other documentary evidence that evidences the amount, date and essential character of the expense. More detailed substantiation requirements will apply in relation to car and travel expenses. In addition to the basic substantiation rules which will apply to verify actual expenditure, taxpayers seeking to deduct the whole or any part of care expenses are, subject to alternatives I shall outline, to be required to maintain daily log books or similar records in which details of business trips are recorded. For travel expenses, taxpayers will be required to substantiate the business purpose of overseas travel and extended domestic travel by maintaining a dairy of the business activities conducted during the trip. A further measure will ensure that deductions are not allowable for the travelling expenses of a spouse or other relative who accompanies an employee or self-employed person on a business trip. The substantiation requirements applicable to employees will be subject to two exclusions. Under the first of these, the general substantiation requirements will not apply to claims within the limits of reasonable domestic travel or overtime meal allowances. The second exclusion will apply generally to exempt from the substantiation requirements claims which in aggregate do not exceed $300 in the particular income year. Concurrent with the introduction of substantiation requirements for car expenses, the Bill will authorise alternative arbitrary bases of deduction depending on whether or not business use during a year of income can be expected to exceed 5,000 kilometres. Where business use exceeds 5,000 kilometres a taxpayer is to be entitled to claim a deduction equal to one-third of the vehicle costs or, alternatively, a deduction equal to 12 per cent of the purchase price of a motor vehicle. Where the vehicle is acquired under a lease agreement, the 12 per cent deduction will be based on the market value of the vehicle at the time the lease was entered into. The value on which the 12 per cent deduction is to be based will be subject to the limit under the existing law on the cost price of cars for depreciation purposes. For cars with an estimated annual business use of less than 5,000 kilometres, a taxpayer will be entitled to a deduction based on applying standard rates per kilometre. Public Unit Trusts The draft White Paper on the Reform of the Taxation System drew attention to the marked erosion of the company tax base over recent years, caused partly by the use of both public and private trusts in substitution for companies as a mechanism for conducting business activities. A further study of the matter was undertaken in the context of possible changes to the company tax system which were also being considered by the Government. The problem was that although the very significant changes to company tax arrangements ultimately decided on by the Government will reduce the incentive to use trusts, considerable advantages in using the trust form would still have remained for tax-exempt bodies investing in large business undertakings. Given the very favourable treatment already given to such bodies that would have been an unacceptable situation. The Government therefore decided, as announced in the Tax Reform Statement of 19 September, that company tax arrangements should be extended to public unit trusts that operate a trade or business. In announcing that decision, it was also indicated that private trusts and public unit trusts of the more traditional kind that do no more than invest in property, equities, or securities would not be affected. Measures contained in this Bill to give effect to those decisions in many respects mirror the present corporate unit trust provisions. Subject to transitional arrangements, they will apply to a unit trust which, at any time during a year of income, is a trading trust that is also a public unit trust. For these purposes, a trust will be a trading trust if its business activities go beyond investing in land for rental, or investing or trading in shares, units, loans and other securities. Following the basic rules already in the income tax law for taxing corporate unit trusts as companies, a trust will be treated as a public unit trust if its units are listed on a stock exchange, if they are held by 50 or more persons, or are available for investment by the public. A trust will also be a public unit trust if units entitling the holder or holders to 20 per cent or more of the beneficial interests in the income or property of the trust are held by persons or bodies, including a government or a government authority, that are exempt from income tax. I point out that this test, which reflects the Government's underlying concern over the use of trusts as an investment vehicle by tax-exempt investors, will result in a unit trust being treated as a public unit trust where that would not otherwise be the case, for example, where units in the trust are not available for investment by the public, or are held by less than 50 unitholders. Provisions in the Bill, like those in the present income tax law relating to corporate unit trusts, will ensure that distributions made by public trading trusts are treated for all practical purposes in the same way as dividends paid by a company. Thus, a distribution received by a company or other affected trust from a public trading trust will qualify for a rebate of tax in the same way as a public company now qualifies for a rebate on dividends it receives from other companies. Similarly, where the income of a public trading trust includes dividends from companies, corporate unit trusts or other public trading trusts, a rebate of tax will be available on a comparable basis. Distributions made by a public trading trust to a resident individual will be included in assessable income in the same way as company dividends. Where such distributions are made to non-residents they will be subject to dividend withholding tax. The new basis for taxing public trading trusts and their unitholders will apply to income of the 1985-86 year of income for relevant trusts that are established after 19 September 1985. For trusts that were established on or before that date, the new measures will first apply to income of the 1988-89 income year. This will allow reasonable time for parties to such arrangements to review and change them as may be appropriate. For the purpose of this transitional provision, it will not be necessary for a unit trust to have actually progressed to the point of being a public unit trust or to have commenced trading activities on or before 19 September 1985. It will be enough if the trust was then in existence and it can be demonstrated that it was in course of meeting those criteria by that date. Consequential amendments are being made to the Income Tax (Rates) Act 1982 and the Income Tax (Individuals) Act 1985 to exclude from their operation the trustee of a public trading trust falling within this measure. A complementary amendment will be made by an accompanying Bill to the Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Act 1985 to declare and impose tax on income of affected trusts. Other consequential amendments are proposed to the Income Tax (International Agreements) Act 1953. These measures will curb the trend that has been developing in the erosion of the company tax base through such creations and which would have had more serious revenue consequences in the absence of the corrective action. On that view, I repeat the warning issued by the Minister assisting the Treasurer when introducing this Bill in another place on 15 November 1985 that, should evidence emerge of arrangements designed to circumvent these measures, the Government will propose remedial legislation to the Parliament to apply with effect after that date. Water Conservation or Conveyance Expenditure and Soil Conservation Expenditure Under the present income tax law, capital expenditure incurred on plant or structural improvements for the purpose of conserving or conveying water for use in a business of primary production is fully deductible in the year in which the expenditure is incurred. The ability to fully deduct such capital expenditure reduces the after-tax cost of improvements of this kind relative to other investments in property and can therefore encourage expenditure for tax sheltering purposes. As announced in the tax reform statement, that immediate deductibility is, where the expenditure is incurred under a contract entered into after 19 September 1985, to be replaced by deductibility in equal instalments over 5 years. A deduction of 20 per cent of the expenditure is to be allowed in the year in which the expenditure is incurred and in each of the subsequent 4 years. Such a write-off period is consistent with the General treatment of assets of primary producers and other businesses. Increased funding under the Federal Water Resources Assistance Program, which includes assistance for rural water conservation, is evidence of the fact that this reform measure does not represent reduced Government priority for water conservation. That funding is to be increased by $4.6 million in 1985-86. As announced in the 19 September 1985 statement the Government has decided against changing the immediate deduction available for capital expenditure on soil conservation after taking account of concerns over land degradation problems. In recognition of those problems the capacity to write-off expenditure on arresting or preventing soil erosion or soil salinity is, by the Bill, to be extended to expenditure on arresting land degradtion generally. Capital expenditure incurred after 19 September 1985 in overcoming land degradation in the form of soil infertility and structure decline, to give but two examples, will thus be subject to immediate write-off. Commutations of Immediate Annuities The Bill will give effect to the proposal announced on 22 August 1985 to counter exploitation of the eligible termination payment provisions of the income tax law through arrangements for the commutation of immediate annuities purchased with moneys other than retirement or employment termination moneys. Under one such arrangement, an immediate annuity is purchased with a substantial sum of money that has no source in retirement or termination payment. The moneys could be borrowed solely for the purpose. Although the annuity is expressed to be payable over a number of years, it is commuted to a lump sum after, say, one year and the greater part of the earnings are received on commutation. By this process moneys that, if invested elsewhere, would give rise to earnings taxable at full marginal rates are used to generate amounts that, when paid out on commutation, are eligible termination payments for Income Tax purposes. Such amounts are subject to tax at a maximum rate of 30 per cent. The rate would be 15 per cent on the first $55,000 if the recipient were aged 55 or more. When this proposal was announced, the Government was unable to specify comprehensively what form the necessary remedial legislation would take. Being mindful that the provisions being exploited are designed to provide concessional tax treatment for retirement pay-outs where appropriate, the Government wished to ensure that the remedial legislation could not adversely affect genuine cases. Consistent with the assurance given when announcing the proposal, the amendments contained in this Bill will not apply where immediate annuities are purchased wholly with lump sum retirement or termination payments. Nor will they apply in respect of earnings on a commuted immediate annuity that are attributable to annuity pricipal funded by retirement or termination payments. The amendments will only apply in respect of such earnings attributable to principal funded by non-retirement moneys. The commutation of an immediate annuity purchased prior to 1 July 1983, being the date from which the eligible termination payment provisions of the income tax law first applied, will not be within the scope of the amendments. However, where an immediate annuity purchased after 30 June 1983 is commuted after 22 August 1985, or its residual capital value becomes payable after that date, the accrued earnings referable to that part of the purchase moneys not attributable to retirement or termination payments will not qualify for the concessional treatment otherwise available. Such earnings will be subject to tax at full marginal rates. The ability to roll-over such earnings into, for example, an approved deposit fund and thus defer any liability to tax will also be removed. I also take this opportunity to re-iterate the Government's warning that, should the need arise to introduce additional legislation to counter any further artificial tax avoidance arrangements designed to exploit the eligible termination payment provisions of the taxation law, that legislation will also be made effective from 22 August 1985. Short Term Life Assurance Policies This Bill gives effect to the Government's decision-announced on 9 October 1985-to extend to recipients of taxable bonuses and similar amounts paid under life assurance policies issued by certain State Government Insurance offices eligibility for the rebate of tax presently available to recipients of such amounts paid under policies issued by taxable insurance companies. Under the existing law, bonuses of life assurance policies and other amounts in the nature of bonuses that are received either during the first four years or during the first ten years of the policy, depending on its date of commencement, are subject to tax. To broadly compensate for the tax paid by the policy issuer, a rebate equal to 30 per cent of the taxable bonus is allowed to the recipient. However, as State Government Insurance offices are exempt from Commonwealth tax, no rebate is available in relation to policies they issue. The State Government Insurance offices that presently offer short-term life assurance policies-those in New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia-each pay to their respective State treasuries an amount equal to the Commonwealth income tax that would be payable if they were not tax-exempt. The Government therefore recognises that the non-availability of the rebate could affect the competitive position between those offices and taxable insurance companies in relation to the issue of life policies. This Bill will remedy that situation by allowing a rebate of 30 per cent in respect of amounts paid by the insurance offices in question that are subject to tax in the hands of the recipients. In return, the relevant State Governments have agreed to reimburse the Commonwealth for the revenue forgone. By another amendment, a technical deficiency in the relevant rebate provisions of the law is being rectified. It will extend the rebate to the trustees of taxable superannuation funds and ineligible-that is, taxable-approved deposit funds in reciept of taxable bonuses. Both these amendments will generally be effective from the date that the rebate provisions were first applicable-that is, 27 August 1982. Carer's Pension Effect is being given by the Bill to the income tax implications of the Budget announcement to subsume, from 1 November 1985, the former spouse carer's pension into a new carer's pension. The previous pension was payable to a man not receiving a pension in his own right who was providing constant care and attention for his aged, service or invalid pensioner wife for an extended or indefinite period. The new pension is available to people who provide constant care and attention to a severely handicapped, aged or invalid pensioner spouse or near relative on a long term basis in the private home. Measures contained in this Bill will extend to the new carer's pension the same basic tax rules that applied to the former one. That is, the carer's pension will be exempt from tax except where either the carer or his or her handicapped relative is of pensionable age. Where the new carer's pension is payable under repatriation legislation it will also be exempt from tax if the relevant handicapped relative is in receipt of a service pension equivalent to a social security invalid pension, and neither the carer nor the relative is over age pension age. In other circumstances the carer's service pension will be taxable. This Bill also proposes several purely technical amendments of the Income Tax Assessment Act consequent on recent amendments of social security and repatriation laws. Finally, it will make other formal amendments of the assessment act made necessary by proposals contained in the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 to rationalise and simplify various repatriation statutes into a consolidated Act. A comprehensive memorandum explaining in detail the measures that I have outlined is being circulated to honourable senators. I draw attention to the schedule at page 4 of the memorandum which sets out the financial impact of the various measures proposed by the Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.57) —The first five pieces of legislation will not be opposed by the Opposition. However, there are one or two matters that I would like to refer to in respect of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) before I turn to other more potent matters in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4). Firstly, as part of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3), calls on shares of companies operating in the field of afforestation are to be disallowed in future. This matter has been of great concern to those industries that are engaged in forestry, and-certainly it is likely to cut back on forestry activity in Australia. It is a matter of importance not only to companies that are operating in that area but also to private individuals when one considers that there has been, as part of the Keating tax package, the introduction of quarantining of farm income losses. Taking both these measures together, people engaged in forestry will be severely restricted in the future from carrying on that activity. As a result, we can expect some very serious shortfalls in timber production in the years ahead. I worry about the Government's attitude in this matter as it does not appear as though it has taken fully into account the actions which are characterised, firstly, by this item of the disallowance of calls, and secondly, by the quarantining of farm losses. The other matter I want to mention in regard to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) relates to clauses 24, 49 and 50, which were announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in a public statement on 21 May this year. The provisions seek to ease the current restrictions in section 16 of the taxation secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act on the use of information that has been provided to a royal commission. We can fully understand why the Government sees a need to provide information of that kind. Certainly, with the tax evasion industry as great as it has been and with criminal activity in a number of fields, we can see the logic of the Government's position. However, we draw attention to the possibility of some abuse in that area because the provision also allows the handing on to police officers in various States of information that may come to a royal commission. As we know, police forces in the various States have not been known for their leak-proof nature. Consequently, there could be some danger to the general public. We wish to draw that to the attention of the Government to consider how it might be better administered by the Commissioner of Taxation. Turning to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4), I firstly point out what role this Bill has as a total part of the Keating tax package announced on 19 September. First and foremost, at that time the Government announced future tax cuts, the extent of which is yet undetermined, totalling, we understand, some $4.5 billion. However, further legislation needs to be passed by the Parliament before those tax cuts come to fruition. So we are not discussing tax cuts at all tonight. What we are talking about is the imposition of further taxation by the disallowance of entertainment expenses and the introduction of other measures preparatory to the introduction of a fringe benefits tax. This package is part of a deal with the trade union movement. Indeed, it is not truly a reform. I think it is significant that the first activity of this Government as part of its reform proposals is to impose further taxes upon the Australian people. The first point I would like to make is that the Government and the Australian Democrats are making a great deal out of the fact that there are to be tax cuts of some $4.5 billion. As a result of the tax impositions of which this legislation is one part, the Government will be imposing taxes of $1.5 billion. That leaves a $3 billion overhang that will have to be found from fiscal drag, from bracket creep and from the Government's rubbery estimates of growth over the next two years. It is pretty clear that the Democrats have been hoodwinked by the Government into believing that in fact this legislation will result in tax cuts. Quite clearly the Democrats and the Government have no concept of where the $3 billion overhang will come from. Consequently, if the Democrats think that by not supporting the Opposition's amendments to this legislation tonight they will help to bring about future tax cuts, they are very badly mistaken. The evidence of that is quite clear from the statements of the Treasurer when he did his deal with the Democrats. For instance, he said that nothing had changed in principle. He went on to say: However, the Government has agreed that where areas of design judgment have been exercised, some adjustment can be made. So there we have it. The Democrats have been entirely hoodwinked by the Government and have decided not to support any change in the fundamental principles of tax reform which, of course, are causing such concern in the community. I would like to refer to the exact effects of some of the taxation matters before us. This legislation, in broad terms, will prevent entertainment expenses being claimed as an allowance for tax purposes. Firstly, let us examine the employment effects. We have been told from studies conducted by a reputable firm of economic consultants, BIS-Shrapnel Pty Ltd that there will be a loss of some 11,000 jobs in the hospitality industry. By the time that that spreads further into the community through its indirect effects upon linen suppliers, food suppliers and other people, such as those in the wine industry, there will be a loss of some 18,400 jobs. That means that there will be a fall of some $434m in terms of the effect on the gross domestic product of Australia. Senator Walsh —Ooh! Senator MESSNER —According to the Minister for Finance that is nothing. The most significant point of all that emanated from the Shrapnel report is that, instead of the $310m which the Government expects to get by disallowing entertainment expenses, it will get a mere $79m. That will go nowhere in allowing the Government to make the kinds of tax cuts which it proposes. Consequently this makes an even greater mockery of the Democrats' refusal to support the Opposition's amendments to this legislation. These figures have been further borne out by the figures announced by American Express International Inc. which show that since 20 September there has been a 30.6 per cent fall in the amount of business done by its clientele. Reductions are also occurring in the car industry. We have noticed already that for the first period of this financial year car production levels are down by 50,000 units. What of next year? We have yet to hear what effect the fringe benefits tax and other measures that this Government has undertaken will have on the car industry, which of course will have a substantial effect in the State of South Australia. Of course, all these new taxes and the economic policies of this Government have the support of the Premier of South Australia. I turn to the legal principles which underlie the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4). It seems to me that we have lost sight of the fact that a fundamental principle of tax law is simplicity, that the law should be easily understandable and left to the administrators to administer and to check and substantiate deductions. But what is deductible? One of the other principles is that generally speaking in business what is deductible to one person is taxable to another. In that way entertainment expenses, if they were allowed as a deduction, would be taxable in the hands of the restauranteurs or the provider of the service. So that principle, as well as the one of simplicity, is violated in this Bill. There is the principle of a so-called tax shelter, as Mr Keating and Senator Walsh continue to refer to the deduction for entertainment expenses. Of course, that is absolutely wrong because it has been and is a legitimate income earning expense. This has been acknowledged time and time again by the Treasurer; it is in no way a tax shelter. It is legitimate expenditure. If indeed we are to follow the logic of the Treasurer, does that mean that advertising is a tax shelter because it does not produce immediate income? Are travelling expenses, printing and stationery and project development costs a tax shelter? Of course not. The truth is that legitimately incurred business expenses in the earning of income ought to be deductible. That is the key issue upon which we will focus. The Government has been quite clever in its campaign in misrepresenting totally the source and the purpose of business entertainment expenses. We have seen the obsession of the Government with so-called free lunches and bludgers. That is absolutely unreal but that kind of nonsense emanates from the Government every day. It denigrates solid citizens of this country who are endeavouring to build up income, which of course provides revenue to the country. The fact is that meals or entertainment of that kind purchased in the course of earning one's income are not totally paid for by the taxpayers; more than half is borne by the individual as a taxpayer. Perhaps the greatest irony of all in this Bill is the treatment of such people as clients and employees, and even journalists and associates of the taxpayers in that they are singled out specifically as people who cannot be included in that group of people labelled generally as the public on whom entertainment expenses can be paid. It seems to me that, if there is to be any attempt to expend money in order to improve one's income, one uses the very groups of people who will be excluded by this clause. It is absolutely nonsensical that people will not be allowed to entertain those people for tax deductible purposes when those are the ones who are most likely to contribute to the income earning potential of a business. It is certainly a load of nonsense. What about charities? Those organisations which employ people and provide board, accommodation, free travel and in some cases motor vehicles for those employees, to help the disabled, the handicapped and other people in need, will find that they are to be subject to the fringe benefits tax in respect of those items. Again, the Democrats have failed dismally in their negotiations with the Government to relieve that situation. Senator Siddons —The Government is giving considerable concessions in this area. Senator MESSNER —Yes, considerable concessions. Let me tell you what those considerable concessions are, Mr Acting Deputy President. The Government has said that it will give sympathic consideration in cases of need. That leaves most charities in an impossible position, and will mean that they will have to seek further handouts from government in order to survive. That is how the Government and the Democrats have helped the charities; they have not been helped at all. It seems to me that the only conclusion we can draw from the theme and purpose of this legislation is that it is based on some totally confused idea of egalitarianism. Obviously it is meant to strike directly at business. That seems to be the objective of the Labor Party. We acknowledge its cleverness in seeking out people that it believes it can hit and get away with it. The number of anomalies that occur in this area is enormous. If one reads the legislation one understands what a frightful mess the Government has got itself into in thinking through the kinds of approaches it has adopted because of ideological thoughts. Of course, it must be acknowledged that there are some abuses in the area of entertainment expenses. Quite clearly, we on this side are striving to assist the Government in that regard and consequently will put forward tonight an amendment to the legislation in order to ensure that only those expenses which are legitimately expended and which are, of course, directly attributable to the earning or gaining of assessable income will be allowable. We believe that that amendment will deserve the support of all senators as it does isolate those expenses which should be allowable for business purposes. We do not support abuse in any way. We do support, though, the legitimate claims of taxpayers when they are incurring expense for the purpose of earning income. Of course, it surprises us very greatly that the Treasurer, Mr Keating, has already told us that the only way to control abuse is by disallowing all expenses in this area. That, of course, runs directly counter to the latest report of the Commissioner of Taxation released only the other day. He is establishing a system of self assessment for taxpayers and, further, he will be establishing a means by which there will be further auditing of the taxation affairs of taxpayers. Surely, if the Government is moving in that direction, this piece of legislation runs directly counter to that intention and consequently indicates again that it is confused about its intentions and has no idea what it is trying to achieve. Clearly, the Taxation Commissioner, through the procedures that he is instituting in his own Department, will be seeking to ensure that taxpayers are allowed to claim only legitimate expenses to an extent that it not greater than has been verified in the past. It seems to me that that is the solution to the whole process by which these claims can be justified, and ought to be the way in which the Government considers it. It has, of course, chosen the other route of disallowing legitimate expenses which ought to be properly allowed. This leads to the point that we wanted to make tonight. During the Committee stage we will move an amendment to section 51 of the present Act to provide that a deduction is allowable under sub-section (1) in respect of an entertainment expense, which is directly attributable to gaining or producing assessable income or directly attributable to the purpose of gaining or producing assessable income. In other words, this amendment lays down the principle of the law and provides for the Commissioner of Taxation, with improved audit and self-assessment procedures, to check and substantiate whether expenses are properly incurred. That seems to me to be the proper way to go. The Opposition is seeking to amend this Bill so as to ensure that legitimate entertainment expenses, and only legitimate expenses, are allowed for the purposes of determining taxable income. The Government is creating an enormous, complex mess for itself in the future administration of this law. It will live to regret it. There is absolutely no doubt about that. This Bill really should be labelled the Accountants and Lawyers Benefit Bill because they will make a fortune out of its administration. Already publicity has been given to various schemes seeking to avoid the law. The Government, no doubt, will be chasing those schemes down many burrows over the years ahead. Clearly, it has chosen the wrong track in this regard and ought to have treated the matter in a proper, legitimate fashion. We certainly urge the Government members, even at this late stage, to change their minds and support the amendment the Opposition will be moving. I mention only one other matter. This Bill includes a provision for water conservation expenses to be written off over a period of three years rather than, as previously was the case, as a 100 per cent deduction in the year in which they were incurred. We will oppose this water conservation provision on what are fairly obvious grounds, that is, that this country needs to develop its water resources and that we ought to be encouraging rather than discouraging people who are undertaking water conservation developments on their properties. The Bill is a mish-mash of very confused ideas which will clearly make it very difficult for its administrators to ensure in the future that proper deductions are allowed for other expenses. The principle that is being applied now with regard to entertainment expenses will no doubt be picked up and developed in other concepts as this Government goes on its merry way on so-called tax reform. The Bill is a horror. It is aimed at taking away as a taxation deduction legitimate business expenses which the Government acknowledges can be and are incurred legitimately in earning assessable income. We cannot see the justification for that at all. Consequently, we will move the amendment which stands in my name and which will be circulated at a later stage. The amendment seeks to allow only legitimate entertainment expenses for the purposes of determining taxable income. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(10.18) —The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1985 continues the Government's attack on tax avoidance and evasion practices, and tax shelters in particular. It contains measures to put in place four of the reform proposals announced in the 19 September taxation statement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). There are two major measures in this legislation. First there is the removal of tax deductions for entertainment expenses and, secondly, there is the introduction of substantiation requirements for the deduction of employment-related expenses by employees and self-employed persons. It is very important to note that the extra revenues raised by these tax reforms will finance taxation reductions for other Australians. As a result of these tax measures and of the Government's overall taxation package there will be no overall lift in tax levels in the community. It is true to say that for many years now the average taxpayer has been forced to subsidise the frequently social activities of well-off persons through the allowance of tax deductions for all forms of entertainment expenses. It is very clear that in recent years the practice of remuneration through allowances rather than through wages and salaries escalated. To my mind, that is a very clear tax avoidance practice. For the taxation system to become fairer and more equitable in Australia, this practice had to stop. The availability of deductions for entertainment expenses has been abused. To my knowledge, nobody who has called for changes to this legislation has claimed that there were no abuses under the system. There were abuses; the system was widely abused. I believe that the Government had no other option but to disallow altogether entertainment expenses as a tax deduction. I am pleased to say that the Australian Democrats, to their credit, realise that position now. To clear up some of the confusion that has been caused by some honourable senators on the other side of the chamber, I also place on the record that we are not putting a tax on the restaurant industry. We are not levying a new tax on that industry, as has been widely claimed by Opposition spokespersons; we are simply removing a tax lurk that was not available to most Australians. We are simply removing a tax concession which had a very narrow applicability in the community. The fact that the benefits of the free lunch were flowing to a small privileged minority can be clearly seen from the results of a recent survey published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics entitled: `Employment Benefits'. That survey, dated August of this year, shows that only 4.3 per cent of all Australian employees received an entertainment allowance. Over 95 per cent of Australian employees did not get one of these entertainment allowances. Further, 17.8 per cent of those in the top income bracket-defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as those receiving over $600 weekly-received entertainment allowances, compared with the average figure for the entire work force of 4.3 per cent. So we can see which members of the community and which members of the work force were benefiting from that measure. I go further and point out that although the taxpayers in that income bracket who earned over $600 a week constituted only 4.7 per cent of all employees in Australia, they received a whopping 19.5 per cent of all entertainment allowances. That shows how the system was distorted and how it was skewed to the benefit of the highest income earners in this country, when 4.7 per cent of all the employees in Australia received 19.5 per cent of all entertainment allowances. To put it in other words, of the one-twentieth of all employers receiving entertainment allowances one-fifth went to those in the top income bracket. That is what was going on under the previous Government. That is what was paid for by the workers of this country, and that is what this Government is cleaning up. It is clear from the survey that the higher an employee's weekly earnings, the more likely it was that that employee would have been receiving an entertainment allowance. As I pointed out, 95 per cent of Australian employees did not get an entertainment allowance. It is also clear from the very new survey published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics that very few low income earners received an allowance; in fact, the Bureau of Statistics pointed out that they were statistically insignificant. The Bureau just could not record enough people in the low income bracket to categorise them as receiving entertainment allowances. Furthermore, hardly any female employees received entertainment allowances. Only 1.3 per cent of all female employees received an entertainment allowance in 1985. I said earlier that 4.3 per cent of all employees in the work force received entertainment allowances. One can see how the position was further distorted against female employees. Very few public sector employees received entertainment allowances. In short, the free lunch was something which went to high income, male, private sector employees. I believe that there was absolutely no justification for that allowance on either efficiency or equity grounds. Other countries in the world have realised that for many years. There is no comparable allowance in the major countries with which we normally compare ourselves. I instance the United States of America, where there is an allowance for business lunches only in a purely business setting, so there is absolutely nothing in it for the restaurant industry. In the United Kindom, a country with which we have been compared often by those honourable senators on the other side of the chamber in recent weeks, there is no comparable allowance. Senator Messner knows that for many years there has not been a comparable allowance in Thatcher's United Kindom. We have been told that we are taking discriminatory measures against a particular activity in this country and that we are somehow out of line with the major countries with which we normally compare ourselves. The fact is that those countries have never had such allowances. I am very pleased to say that in this area the Hawke Government has had the guts to bring Australia into line with other countries. As a result of the Hawke Government taking this measure, the Australian tax system will be much fairer and more equitable. The Opposition is barking up the wrong tree. It is supporting a privilege received by only 4.3 per cent of the work force. In the second half of the 1970s and later, we heard Liberal gurus from around the world, and Mr Howard himself, telling the community week after week, month after month, year after year, that there was no such thing as a free lunch. Yet we find now, with this legislation, that Mr Howard, Senator Messner and all the other members of that raggle-taggle gang are saying that they want to have subsidised lunches. For years and years they told the Australian community to tighten their belts because there was no such thing as a free lunch, yet now they want to perpetuate a system of tax subsidised lunches for a mere 4.3 per cent of the Australian labour force. The other 95.7 per cent of the work force does not want the free lunch to continue, and that is why the Government's taxation package has been so well received and why it is so popular in the community. It has been reported daily by our candidates in the South Australian election that the removal of the tax deduction for free lunches is the most important and equitable thing this Government has done. I think that shows the enormous common sense of the Australian electorate. The removal of the free lunch is seen as being equitable by that 95 per cent of the community who have never received it. Unfortunately, the free lunch had become an institution for some Australians. While those people dined in expensive restaurants at the taxpayer's expense, the ordinary employee took his or her paid-for sandwiches to work in a brown paper bag. The difference was that some people were dining in expensive restaurants while lower and middle income Australians paid for their lunches out of their own pockets. Where was the equity in that arrangement? How can we justify the poor paying and the rich getting a free lunch? Of course these changes may have some effects on the restaurant and hospitality industries. Some restaurants may lose business, but I believe that to the extent that that occurs it will demonstrate very clearly to that other 95 per cent of the population that most free lunches were not necessary for business operations, as some people would have led us to believe in recent weeks. In fact, what has happened in Australia is that the restaurant industry has been supported by unintended government subsidies, financed, I regret to say, by the general body of taxpayers. 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 REYNOLDS(Queensland)(10.30) —This evening I wish to raise a matter of some considerable concern to me regarding the fact that the Royal Australian Air Force is conducting training exercises for its Tactical Fighter Force over Townsville at the moment. These exercises have been conducted for approximately a month. I regret to say that there have been a number of considerably alarming incidents for the community of Townsville and I wish to place them on the public record. On Friday, 29 November 1985 a Mirage fighter with a full load of bombs and drop tanks hit a large bird on take-off over the town common. The engine was damaged and the aircraft lost power. The pilot managed to jettison the bombs and some fuel before returning to Townsville and landing safely. There are some conflicting reports as to where the bombs and the fuel were actually jettisoned. The official report is that these were jettisoned at Cordelia Rocks. However, unconfirmed reports suggest that this may not have occurred as the aircraft was forced to drop before reaching Cordelia Rocks, which is approximately only 15 kilometres from Townsville. There were also reports that the affected aircraft returned to Townsville with a bomb still in place but only half lodged. I am sure honourable senators would agree that this incident serves to highlight the need for the Department of Defence to investigate seriously this incident and, furthermore, that it illustrates that the Department should not be taking risks with civilian populations by flying jet aircraft, loaded with live bombs, over built-up areas. I do not know whether any such exercises have ever taken place over Canberra, but I doubt very much that the people of Canberra would put up with them. Because the people of Townsville are remote from where all the decisions are taken, it seems as though some of the concerns that have been expressed, not just recently but over a number of years, have fallen on deaf ears. As if this particular incident were not alarming enough, just 48 hours after it there was a second incident. It occurred on Sunday, 1 December, when another Mirage aircraft was flying over the suburbs in Mount Louisa, which is a residential area. It was reported that the engine failed temporarily as a result of a countersunk screw being ingested. I am sorry that I cannot explain precisely what that means but it certainly sounds alarming. It was reported that the pilot lost control momentarily and considered ejecting even though the plane was carrying live bombs. The unconfirmed rumour circulating in the city today suggests that the pilot, on realising that he was over a built-up area, managed to get the plane under control. The official report of these two incidents was contained in only a small-five-paragraph-statement in which it was reported: . . . it was unlikely that the mirage with an engine badly damaged in an incident such as a bird strike would crash land in a built up area. Yet within 48 hours we have had two most disturbing incidents in relation to RAAF operations around Townsville. I want to make my position in regard to the RAAF and its base in Townsville abundantly clear tonight. It is a very important base both to the community of Townsville and to north Queensland and northern Australia. I certainly do not want anybody coming forward and saying that I am criticising the RAAF or that I have ideas that the RAAF base is inappropriate in that location. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, I do believe that when we have such an obvious conflict between a community-a city of over 100,000-and the needs of the Department of Defence, it is time that such an issue was taken seriously. I have raised doubts about some of these safety procedures before and I must say that I am particularly concerned that a local reporter has been banned from the base because apparently that reporter was making too many inquiries about these two latest incidents. I would say that it is very much in the interests of that community that full facts be known and, furthermore, that the RAAF personnel make an absolutely definite statement that there will be no further flights over built-up areas, especially with live bombs on board. There have been other incidents. Earlier this year a Skyhawk jet overturned on the Townsville tarmac and domestic and charter air traffic was disrupted for half of that day. There was another incident in which earth tremors were blamed for certain damage around the city, including a Catholic community school and a day later unexplained tremors resulted in 25 calls of complaint to a local radio station. I believe that this latest incident must be fully investigated. The RAAF needs to reassess completely how it is going to carry out such exercises in the future. I believe that as a first step, it is imperative that a meeting be held in Townsville-not Canberra-of the RAAF, the Department of Aviation, the Bureau of Meterology, representatives of commercial and charter pilots, the two councils and the Trades and Labour Council to discuss a range of professional and community concerns. Furthermore, as a start, I will detail just some of the questions that are being raised with me in the city, questions that I am not able to answer which I think have to be clearly spelt out in terms of policy in regard to future exercises. Those questions are: What are the future plans of the RAAF in regard to training exercises? How much longer is a city of 100,000 inhabitants going to have to accept the flight of Mirage and FA18 aircraft over the area at hours between 6 a.m. and up to 6 p.m.? There is the noise factor. There are the vibrations that have on occasions caused damage. How much longer- Senator Collard —We will take them in Rockhampton if you do not want them. Senator REYNOLDS —If Senator Collard went to one of his local schools and said that there was a chance that they could have the kind of damage that occurred at the Ryan school, if he went to the pensioners and suggested to them that because of the noise factor they could be woken at different hours during the day when they are trying to catch up on a little sleep or if he were to say to the citizens of Rockhampton that there was a chance of either of these incidents over the city, I wonder whether he would have very much support. I think that it is completely irresponsible for a member of this Parliament to treat these two incidents in a frivolous manner. Senator Collard —Not as irresponsible as going on with the drivel you are going on with. Senator REYNOLDS —I see. The honourable senator thinks that the possibility of Mirage jets crashing on built-up areas in a city is drivel. I thank Senator Collard. I will make sure that the people of Rockhampton and Townsville take note of the honourable senator's comments. I would like to know where else in Australia such training exercises are carried out in such close proximity to a major city. I also want to know how the RAAF liaises with the Department of Aviation to ensure that there is a clear definition of priorities between civilian and defence use. What is the Department's policy on RAAF aerobatic exercises being conducted over a civilian airport when domestic flights are arriving? This is another aspect of the whole issue that happened last Friday, the day of the first incident. Is it appropriate for FA18 jets to perform low flying exercises over a civilian airport when two commercial aircraft are on the tarmac awaiting unloading procedures? Why is one of only two runways at Townsville closed at the moment to allow for the parking of the visiting jets and to enable them to bomb up in readiness for training exercises? Is the one other runway adequate to cater for international, domestic and charter flights in all circumstances? Are traffic control operations adequately staffed and equipped and are staff members adequately trained to cope with the demands of those exercises which have started to occur at this level only over the last few weeks? Domestic flights have been delayed by up to 20 minutes by these exercises. Is that reasonable? To what extent are private charter flights rerouted to accommodate these exercises? It could well be, as Senator Collard seems to think, that this is an unnecessary issue for the concern of the Senate, but I imagine that in the event of a major tragedy over a city in Australia Senator Collard would have rather a different view. I am not saying that either of these incidents would have necessarily resulted in a major tragedy, but the risk of something happening is there. This needs to be investigated and we need to be absolutely sure that there will never be an accident over a built-up area. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.43) —I draw the attention of the Senate to some matters relating to the Australian Taxation Office, particularly the matter of unpaid, uncollected tax from individual trusts and companies. The Senate might remember that when the previous Government was in office, many of the leading members of the then Opposition, who now curiously occupy responsible places in this Government, were saying the most irresponsible things about what this outstanding tax figure actually meant. I could quote, for example, the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) who said that $2.7 billion in outstanding tax was, in fact, tax that was avoided as a result of the neglect of the former Government. The Commissioner of Taxation, of course, disagreed with that view. It did not discourage Mr Dawkins from continuing to say that. In fact, the tax has been identified as being outstanding because people had objected to, and refused to pay, the great bulk of that tax. If there had been successful avoidance and evasion arrangements the Taxation Commissioner would not have been aware of that tax being outstanding. It is a total distortion and an attempt to mislead the public. The reason it is interesting to note that now is that the figure of $2.7 billion to which Mr Dawkins and others referred, has now grown to a record $3.2 billion. It has now, I stress, reached a record level and has increased by 17 per cent over the level that existed at a time when the Australian Labor Party was saying that the outstanding amount of tax was a disgrace and was evidence of indolence and incompetence by the then Government. I suppose that if Mr Dawkins were sitting in Opposition he would be able to say the same thing now, just as incoherently and incompetently and improperly as he said in opposition. I will concede that, in fact, as a proportion of outstanding tax the amount unpaid has diminished from last year's record level of 25.74 per cent to 22.5 per cent. Of course, this is because of the massive increase in tax raisings under the present Government. As the people of Australia know, this is the biggest taxing, biggest spending government in Australia's history. The taxing element is certainly to the fore now. I would like to mention another matter which follows from this level of unpaid tax collections. I refer to the level of staff in the Australian Taxation Office. The recent report of the Commissioner of Taxation went into this matter and outlined in particular that there had been an increase in the staffing level in 1984-85 of about 727 people. The interesting thing is that included in that are 100 members of staff in the Taxation Office to assist temporarily in the collecting of outstanding tax. They are to go. Of course, next year the staffing level will be reduced by that number of people. However, it is interesting to see that the Taxation Office faces substantially increased tax burdens on its staff as a result of changes being made in the tax structure of which the Senate is particularly aware and which, in fact, it was discussing before the adjournment. As there will be an enormous increase in pressure of work imposed on the Taxation Office one would have thought that the Government would take some appropriate measures to assist the Taxation Office in handling the added burden which the Government will be giving it. It is interesting to notice that this assumption would be supported by the May 1985 Forward Estimates, in which the number of people then expected to be in the Taxation Office in the 1986-87 financial year was 16,929. However, the latest Forward Estimates which came out in November have revised that figure downwards to 16,389, which is in fact a fall of exactly 100 from the current year's level. The May 1985 Forward Estimates showed that for 1987-88 the number of staff in the Taxation Office would rise to 17,469. This has now been revised down in the latest Forward Estimates to a constant figure of 16,389. That is a reduction of 1,080 from the Forward Estimates. In fact, that is a reduction of 6 per cent. How on earth the Tax Office will handle the enormously increased burden it will face while in fact having to put up with a cut of 6 per cent in staff from original Forward Estimates intrigues me. I think the Senate would be justified in saying that it raises questions about the integrity of the Forward Estimates. There is no doubt that when we look at the enormous cost-benefit that emerges in the Tax Office-no doubt the Taxation Office will be arguing this case with some vigor-no doubt there will be strong arguments for increasing the capacity of the Tax Office to apply additional people these tasks. I am not necessarily arguing that the Tax Office should be massively increased in size, largely because I think the reasons for the increase in size are unnecessary and unwarranted. I think that the great bulk of the tax changes now being introduced under the false term `reform' could be done without. The essential point is that either the Government is deluding itself or misleading this Parliament by saying in its Forward Estimates that in fact there will be no increase in numbers in the Taxation Office or it is misleading the Taxation Office or it does not know what on earth it is doing. Let us recognise that it already has volumes of staff problems in the Taxation Office. The annual report of the Commissioner of Taxation says on page 33: Recruitment of large numbers of qualified and suitably experienced staff has proved to be difficult . . . resignations, retirements and the recent rapid expansion has depleted the levels of experience in the office. In recognition of this `experience gap', staff training methods were reviewed in detail during the year. That is part of the problem the Australian Taxation Office faces. That the problem manifests itself is also clearly shown on page 54 of the annual report, where it says: A particular problem that has been experienced concerns delays in the processing of income tax returns in which the prescribed payments system credit is claimed. One of the factors involved is: . . . a number of internal system deficiencies have thrown up discrepancies between the amount of credit claimed by taxpayers and the amount recorded as available in Tax Office records. I suppose members of the public could say to the Taxation Office and to the Government: `It is just too bad if inadequate staffing levels mean that the Office does not collect the tax it should be collecting, but it goes a little far when inadequate staffing levels mean that people are not getting their rebates appropriately and adequately'. I would like to make a few other brief remarks about the Taxation Office in these circumstances. It seems that lately some of its court cases have been going badly. The Taxation Office has had judgments in relation to the Sahhar case which, briefly outlined, mean that there was no need to pay penalties on incorrect returns in certain circumstances. There was a failure to succeed on matters relating to tax shelters. Certainly the Brayson Motors Pty. Ltd case was no help to the Commissioner in terms of sales tax. Nonetheless, there is one matter which is of major interest, and that is the Office's determination to proceed, as Mr Gyles the Special Prosecutor recommended, with section 260 prosecutions in relation to vendor-shareholders and bottom of the harbour matters. This will underline another matter on which the Australian Labor Party behaved most inappropriately in opposition and even more inappropriately in government. I refer to the claim that because of the previous Government's activities people who had been vendor-shareholders got away with multi-millions of dollars. The fact is that, if section 260 is alive and well, that money has the capacity to be sought, along with penalties. Senator Peter Baume —Under existing law. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Under existing law; that is exactly the point. The Office is at present testing that. There are 27 vendor-shareholders who received assessments last September who have appealed against them. Those appeals have been received and obviously are going through the legal system. The essential element is that the allegations made by Labor when in opposition that the previous Government had failed to perform properly will be proved to be wrong by the use of existing law. All we were doing when in office was clearly defining, so that there could be no scope for confusion, what we believed the law should be. The fact is that the existing law was there; it was capable of various interpretations by various courts, but the law had been there for a long time. I am glad to see the Taxation Office doing what Mr Gyles recommended, something the Taxation Office itself had resisted with great vigour. While on the subject of Mr Gyles, I hope that the Taxation Office, or whoever is involved in one of Mr Gyles's recommendations, is not dragging the chain on a matter of some significance. Mr Gyles noted in his final report, presented to this chamber on 20 March, that one of the matters he has drawn to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions concerns the possible implications of a small number of former tax officials in aspects of company stripping. I am glad to see that the Minister in the chamber is the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who represents the Attorney-General, because it would be appropriate if this Government gave the Senate an assurance that something was being done about this report of Mr Gyles. I must say that I have heard nothing further about the small number of former tax officials who were possibly implicated. The Government has to get off its tail and the Prosecutor has to act so that these people, who presumably are identifiable, are either cleared as quickly as possible or prosecuted as quickly as possible. This report, which covers the period to 21 September 1984-in other words, a period over a year ago-has not been able to encourage the Government or the prosecutor to tell us what on earth is happening. I hope that the Minister will take that on board and encourage the Prosecutor to proceed as quickly as possible with this matter. In conclusion, it is interesting to see now that the Australian Taxation Office no longer lists at the end of its report defaulting taxpayers. The points made about it being a double penalty in many cases may be accurate; there is a case for and against listing these people. It is interesting to see that the Government has accepted this view of the Taxation Office, which seems to be in conflict with its previous view that people involved in bottom of the harbour schemes, including innocent vendor-shareholders, should have their names publicised. Only a year ago that was an essential part of the Government's previous legislation; yet here the Government is taking a totally contrary view. I am glad to see that experience in government has obviously demonstrated to the Australian Labor Party that most of what it has been saying about tax over the last five years has been utter bunkum. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.57) —Last week I asked a question of Senator Grimes, the Minister representing the Minister for Health, about the nurses strike in Canberra. The Minister commented on the preamble to my question but he did not really deal with the substance of it-that is, what will happen to my constituents? I need to raise this matter again because the nurses strike has escalated since then. Only last Friday evening, I am led to believe, there was a strike at Canberra airport at 5 o'clock, in support of the nurses. That may have inconvenienced some people; it is a time which is quite busy at Canberra airport. In that sense, of course, only those who were able and fit were inconvenienced. The ones I am really concerned about are those who are sick. In this morning's newspaper we learned that the crisis had intensified as a result of the decision last night of the Royal Australian Nursing Federation to halve the staff that had been working in critical care areas. What I really want to ask the Government is whether it is aware of the worsening crisis in Canberra due to the nurses strike. What contingency plans are there to provide this community with a health service? As an aside, I mention that we are all continuing to pay our Medicare levies but we really are not getting the universal coverage we have been promised. It is particularly the plight of those in nursing homes to which I wish to refer. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a Press release issued on 29 November 1985 by Dr Peter Sinnett, the Director of the Rehabilitation and Geriatric Service in the Australian Capital Territory. Leave granted. The document read as follows- PRESS RELEASE 29 November 1985 Among the responsibilities of the Rehabilitation and Geriatric Service, is the care of 250 residents in Allambee and Jindalee Nursing Homes. These elderly people are among the most frail, the most disabled, and indeed the most defenceless members of the Canberra community. For them there is no alternative to Nursing Home accommodation. Whatever the issues in the present dispute, it is the care of people, especially the frail elderly, that must remain the primary concern of the community. A measure of a society's values is the care that it provides for its aged and handicapped people. Certainly, this group should not be exploited in a conflict between management and unions. Ideally, the parties should have excluded the Nursing Homes from the present industrial dispute, the more so as at the time of the present strike there was no dispute existing between the Royal Australian Nursing Federation and the Rehabilitation and Geriatric Service in relation to staffing or any other issue. It was particularly disappointing therefore, to learn on Thursday 28 November 1985, that the Royal Australian Nursing Federation had withdrawn the Grade II Supervisory Staff from the homes. This action seriously reduced the nursing cover available at Allambee and Jindalee Nursing Homes, and therefore increased the risk to the residents. In addition, it placed an excessive burden on nursing staff who have continued to man the homes, as well as on the relatives of the residents who have been given support by the Council on the Ageing and the Salvation Army to provide care during this difficult period. We pay tribute to the level of care that has been maintained through the dedication and commitment of staff, relatives and volunteers. In order to provide an adequate level of care for the vulnerable elderly residents of our two nursing homes, we ask that nursing homes be excluded from the present dispute, or at least that the Grade II Supervisory and Charge Sisters be allowed to return to duty. PETER SINNETT Director Rehabilitation and Geriatric Service A.C.T. Health Authority Senator REID —Dr Sinnett refers to the 250 residents in the two nursing homes as `the most frail, the most disabled'. He asks that they be excluded from the strike and that normal nursing services continue. The other statement which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard is a copy of a letter written by the Chairman of the Australian Capital Territory Council on the Ageing, Mrs Kath Bourke, to the Secretary of the Royal Australian Nursing Federation again seeking that nursing homes be excluded and that normal services return. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 3 December 1985 PRESS RELEASE The following letter was delivered to the RANF today. The Secretary Royal Australian Nursing Federation (A.C.T.) 3 Lonsdale Street Braddon, A.C.T. 2601 Dear Ms Power I am writing on behalf of the A.C.T. Council on the Ageing to request that the Jindalee and Allambee Nursing Homes be excluded from the current industrial dispute between the RANF and the A.C.T. Health Authority. Council has been reluctant to comment while the matter is before the Arbitration Commission, but our growing concern for the residents who are the real victims of the dispute compels us to appeal on their behalf. It is regrettable that frail, elderly people who have no means of making their voices heard, many of whom cannot even feed themselves, are being denied the basic human right to appropriate care and attention. This Council has over many years been the one community group which has actively pursued with the Minister for Health and the Capital Territory Health Commission (now the A.C.T. Health Authority), the issues of adequate accommodation and resources to provide appropriate care of the elderly. We therefore appeal to your Federation on behalf of the 250 frail and dependent residents to exclude the two Nursing Homes from the current industrial action. Yours sincerely Mrs K. A. BOURKE Chairman Senator REID —In her letter Mrs Bourke makes it plain that she does not want to get involved in any dispute, but she does make a plea for the frail elderly people who are in the nursing homes. I join in that plea. I felt myself that the nurses could have gone back to work last Wednesday after the Arbitration Commission hearing. Certainly at that time they had not won the things that they were seeking, but they had massive public support and support from doctors. They could have said: `We have not actually got extra staff yet, but there is to be a work evaluation of nursing services. We will go back and provide the service and we will rely on the public to see that the evaluation goes ahead and is honoured'. The nurses would not have won what they had been on strike for, but at least the services would have been resumed. Even now I ask that the nursing homes be attended in the normal way. I repeat my question to the Government: What contingency plans does it have, and is it making any attempt to negotiate with the Royal Australian Nursing Federation to resume normal nursing in the nursing homes? We have had services in the nursing homes and the hospitals. In the nursing homes in particular the Salvation Army and members of the Council on the Ageing have been working and families have been giving support where they are able to do so. However, those who have been working there since the strike began are becoming rather jaded and they may not be able to keep it up for much longer. They are, of course, volunteers. In addition, there have been nurses working who are members of the Hospital Employees Federation but some of the nurses who have been provided by the RANF in the critical care areas have been cut back. In addition and prior to this there were problems in the community health area. I needed to refer to that as well. The reason for that is that the community nurses made their points known in a letter that they sent to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), the four local Federal members of the Parliament and the House of Assembly. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter written about the community health services. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Dear Sir, As a Community Health Nurse in the A.C.T. I wish to inform you of the staffing situation currently causing great stress to me and my colleagues. For example: (i) No holiday relief has been available to our work area this year, with the result that each team member has had to carry an extra load of work to cover community needs. (ii) There has been no sick relief within our area since March, adding further stress as a second workload is distributed amongst team members. (iii) Children who have been screened and found with defects have not yet been channelled via the Child Health Medical Officer for appropriate action because of lack of staff, and many more children referred by teachers are still waiting to be seen. This situation has been particularly compounded as a result of the first two points. Staff have for some time been manifesting physical as well as emotional signs of stress, and sick leave has in fact been accelerated. Members of our teams are seriously contemplating resignation. There has been a high turn-over in Community Nursing staff because of these above-mentioned work stresses and the comparatively low pay for highly skilled and demanding work, when better salaries are available elsewhere. I, for one, have considered a change in occupation for this very reason. I request your understanding and practical help in representing our cause to the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority, and the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, in a manner that will evoke a positive outcome in as short a time as possible. None of us wished to see a continuation of the hardship which has been imposed upon many of our clients in recent months, if not years. Your faithfully, (Miss) Jill Clingan. Copies to: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke The Minister for Health, Dr Blewett Senator Susan Ryan Senator Margaret Reid Ros Kelly, M. P. Mr Jim Leedman, House of Assembly. Senator REID —The letter refers to there being no holiday relief and no sick leave relief available. It also refers to the stress that the nurses are working under and the high turnover in staff. Since the hospitals have virtually closed down, this situation has been heightened by the number of patients who are at home and are calling on the community health services they would not otherwise have done had they been in hospital. I and other local members are beginning to get phone calls from patients who would have been expecting surgery. I just mention one case. A man who has been expecting to undergo upper spinal surgery since last June has now been told that he is not likely to get it before next April. He is obliged to go to clinics regularly in order to receive pain killing injections and other treatment. Other patients are also becoming distressed. The nurses have a case. There is no doubt about that and this community believes in what they have to say. That is quite apparent. But there are consequences resulting from what has occurred. Again I ask the Government to attend to the questions that I have posed as to what will happen and what plans it has in mind. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.04) — I am drawn into this adjournment debate briefly by the remarks made earlier by Senator Reynolds-- Senator Gareth Evans —We will forgive you. Senator COLLARD —It is only the second time that I have spoken in the adjournment debate. Senator Reynolds raised a few of the problems associated with the joint user base at Garbutt in Townsville. I am drawn into the debate because I am concerned about the alarm that could be generated by such remarks in a forum such as this. I do not think that raising the alarm in the community, unnecessarily or otherwise, does any good. Townsville is not the only joint user base in Australia. Indeed, Fairbairn in Canberra is one, as are Darwin and the Mirages' home base of Williamtown. While Richmond is not a joint user base, the aircraft there come in and take off over built-up areas. So the problem, insofar as there is a problem, is not peculiar to Townsville. I think it reprehensible that we can build up unnecessary alarm in people's minds. If these people do not want the Royal Australian Air Force base-Senator Reynolds said that they do-they should remember that they cannot have their cake and eat it. Obviously, it is of great economic value to any community to have a base that size with exercises and transiting crews. If a community is going to have that and the economic benefits which flow from it, it has to live with the fact that, if the defence forces are to be any use at all, they have to train regularly. One of the problems that I worry about is that, because of Budget restrictions, our defence forces do not train hard enough and often enough. If there is a problem, I would much rather it were dealt with a bit more judiciously and quietly than by raising unnecessary alarm in people's minds. Mention was made of bombs falling off aircraft. I guess that there would be more danger from a civilian airliner with full fuel tanks crashing into a built-up area than there would be from explosive bombs which are not armed falling from a military aircraft in a built-up area. The whole purpose of not arming bombs is that they will not explode in a situation such as this. Let me deal now with low level operations over airports. Our F111s at Amberley are very close to a major population centre. They train all over the Lockyer Valley and the Darling Downs area using their terrain following radar at very low altitudes. We have an agreement with the United States of America in regard to the B-52 bombers. Admittedly, these aircraft fly over very sparsely populated areas but they train at very low altitudes at Cape York. I have travelled in one of those aircraft on a exercise such as this. I do not think it does anybody any good if we raise unnecessary alarm in one city where our defence forces are training-they are not getting enough training overall-because this happens to be a joint user base. When the Garbutt Airport was first established I do not think there were any houses under the flight paths of these aircraft. There certainly are not any houses under the flight path over the common out towards the sea. There are houses inland and that is unfortunate but it is a case of caveat emptor. Those people built their houses well after the airport was established. I end as I began. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. We have a Defence Force which has to train. It has to use bases where they are established. Nobody would suggest-in fairness, I do not think even Senator Reynolds suggested this-that we should spend a massive amount of money in building a base a bit further away and for the town to move towards it. We have very limited bombing ranges in this country and our defence forces have to use what sparse resources they have. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.03) —I noted what Senator Reynolds had to say on the activities of the Royal Australian Air Force over Townsville. I will, of course, refer her concerns to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). I am, no doubt, obliged also to refer Senator Collard's contribution on the same subject to the Minister for Defence but I do not think he will derive quite the same nourishment from it. I think that probably is what can be said of Senator Michael Baume's contribution on the subject to taxation. I doubt whether the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will lose much sleep over Senator Baume's miscellaneous neuroses in this respect but, notwithstanding that, I will refer them to the Treasurer. Senator Reid —I hope you are going to be more gracious about the nursing strike. Senator GARETH EVANS —All right. Senator Reid made an admirable contribution to an ongoing debate of some considerable complexity, difficulty and sensitivity. Again, whether the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) will regard it as admirably as I do, since she kept it so short, is something that remains to be seen. But I will at least ensure that he is aware of what Senator Reid has had to say. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.10 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Canned Fruits Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 314-(In substitution for previous Regulations tabled on 29 November 1985). Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 321. National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 320. National Measurement Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 315. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1985- No. 61-Evidence (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 62-Crimes (Amendment) (No. 5). No. 63-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 7). Specification of Fees made under the Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products) Ordinance, dated 20 November 1985. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATIONS-COMMENCEMENT OF ACTS: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Act and sections of an Act to come into operation on the dates specified: Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Act 1985-Sections 5, 8, 38-2 December 1985 (Gazette No. S 506, 29 November 1985). Registration of Deaths Abroad Act 1984- 1 December 1985 (Gazette No. S 506, 29 November 1985). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 15) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: (1) Are there any aspects of the operation, functions, or otherwise of the United States' Base at Nurrungar that are not classified information to the United States Congress. (2) Is there any such information which is classified within Australia. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Joint Defence Space Communication Station at Nurrungar is a joint Australian/United States facility, not a United States Base. Information concerning its operations and functions is afforded equal protection by both Governments. Some aspects of the functions of the joint defence facilities are public knowledge and I refer the honourable Senator to the Prime Minister's statement in Parliament on 6 June 1984 dealing with these matters. Accordingly, the answers to the honourable senator's question are: (1) Yes. (2) No. (Question No. 421) Senator MacGibbon asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: (1) How many Australian delegates attended the Nairobi World Conference which marked the end of the United Nations Decade for Women. (2) On what basis were the delegates to the Conference chosen. (3) How many members of the delegation have previously attended Conferences and meetings held outside of Australia in relation to the United Nations Decade for Women. (4) How many members of the delegation and staff (if any) are members of a political party, and which party are they members of. (5) How many staff went to Nairobi with the delegation. (6) How many spouses or partners accompanied the delegation. (7) What was the duration of the Conference. (8) How many delegates and staff (if any) extended their visits beyond the duration of the Conference, who were they, what was the extension period for each, and to what other areas did they travel. (9) What is the estimate for the overall cost of having the delegation attend the Conference. (10) What allocation was made for fares for Australian delegates, staff (if any) and spouses (if any) who travelled to and from Nairobi. (11) What accommodation costs were incurred. (12) If delegates and staff did receive a travel allowance, what was the total allocation. (13) Did delegates and staff (if any) receive a travelling allowance; if so, what was the daily allowance. Senator Ryan —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 18. (2) The Delegation was carefully chosen to provide the necessary range of backgrounds and skills essential for Australia to make the best possible contribution to the work of the Conference. (3) 6 members of the Delegation attended preliminary Conferences, and all overseas based Delegates attended a number of local meetings. (4) 3 Federal Senators and 1 Member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, all of whom are members of the Australian Labor Party were members of the delegation; the political affiliations, if any, of other Delegates are not recorded. (5) 2 support staff from the Department of Foreign Affairs. (6) No spouses accompanied the delegation, although the spouse of one delegate later arrived in Nairobi on a private visit. No expense was incurred by the Government. (7) 2 weeks. (8) 8, as follows: Senator R. Crowley; 28 July-4 August; Addis Adaba, Harare. Senator O. Zakharov; 27 July-5 August; Zurich. The Hon. F. Arena; 27 July-5 August; Rome. Mrs T. Shand; 27 July-5 August; Geneva. Ms G. Pincus; 29 July-16 August; Geneva, Strasbourg, London. Ms J. Hamilton; 27 July-5 August; Nairobi, Bombay. Ms H. King; 27 July-4 August; Dar Es Salaam, Harare. (9) Overall estimated cost is $119,580. (10) $55,600 for 16 Australia based and 2 New York based Delegates, $2,350 for a Stenographer from Lisbon and $281 for an Administrative Officer on short term mission to Rome and Athens to be diverted to Nairobi. No allocation was made for spouses. (11) Final costs are not yet available. (12) 16 Delegates and (2) staff received a travel allowance based on the expected costs of travel enroute (and return) and total periods in Nairobi. The total allocation was $56,000, but costs are not yet completely finalised. (13) All Delegates and staff received a travelling allowance advance. The allowance was $154 per day for Executive Level (including Parliamentary) members and $140 per day for 3rd Division Officers. (Question No. 656) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 November 1985: (1) How many servicemen in each of the three services apply for the education allowance each year. (2) How many applications are approved. (3) What is the total number of servicemen currently receiving the allowance. (4) How does this compare with the public service departments such as Foreign Affairs. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Numbers vary from year to year depending upon posting circumstances. Service personnel posted overseas for long-term periods are eligible for Child Education Allowance; eligible Service personnel on long-term posting within Australia receive Education Allowance, generally restricted to the two years preceding a secondary school public examination or assessment. In certain cases, where circumstances justify, provision exists for payment over a longer period. As a representative figure, numbers from 1985 are quoted. For this school year, 26 RAAF, 46 Army and 26 Navy personnel applied for either Child Education Allowance or Education Allowance. (2) Of these, 26 RAAF, 41 Army and 26 Navy applications were approved. (3) Allowing for carry over of some applications approved in previous years where personnel are still in receipt of the allowances, currently 67 RAAF, 41 Army and 23 Navy Service people receive one or other allowance. Three Navy personnel have ceased to be eligible during the year following either return to Australia or discharge from the Service. (4) The Australian Public Service has identical provisions in respect of overseas service and similar provisions for service within Australia, but normally restricted to the last two years of secondary schooling. Verbal inquiry of the Department of Foreign Affairs indicates that 89 of their personnel were receiving APS Child Education Allowance for the 1985 school year. Senator Walsh —On 27 March 1985 (Hansard, page 876), Senator Chaney asked me the following question without notice: In the light of the need for the community to understand the difficulties and the necessity for the restraint in government expenditure, will the Minister release the details of the forward estimates of income and expenditure for 1985-86, as the Government did for 1983-84? When Senator Chaney asked this question, I indicated a tentative intention of releasing details of forward estimates of outlays in May, and on 9 May I made that release. I also undertook to seek the Treasurer's advice on that part of the question relating to the publication of the forward estimates of receipts. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: Forward estimates of receipts have been published on only one occasion-in 1983-84. Publication was necessary on that occasion to dispel misinformation distributed by the former Prime Minister and his Treasurer concerning the deficit in prospect for 1983-84. For electoral purposes the former Government stated that the prospective deficit was officially estimated at $6 billion and declined to disclose official advice that the deficit in prospect was in fact $9.6 billion. The Government did not publish such Forward Estimates for 1984-85. The intervening twelve months have not changed the arguments that lead to the conclusion that Forward Estimates of receipts should not be published. There are inherent uncertainties attached to the preliminary estimates of Budget receipts, relying as they do almost exclusively on forecasts of underlying economic parameters. The forecasts of these key parameters are themselves subject to great uncertainty. In the period leading to the Budget, these forecasts are subject to very frequent revision in the light of actual receipt collection, new economic data and the continuing reassessment of the economic outlook. The publication of such estimates could result in misleading signals being conveyed as to the Budget stance and to the future course of developments in the economy more generally. Given these considerations, the Government does not believe that it is appropriate to publish the forward estimates of Budget receipts.