Tuesday, 21 October 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft operational standards for superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 33 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: (i) the welfare of many employees and their families depends upon a healthy, expanding gold mining industry; (ii) the success of many small businesses in gold mining towns also depends upon the continued profitability of gold mining and prospecting operations; (iii) the Federal Government's proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining and prospecting represents a threat to the profitability of these industries and will therefore cause widespread unemployment and depression throughout the whole gold mining industry. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Federal Government to reject any proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining or prospecting thereby ensuring that the spectacular growth of the industry over recent years is continued. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 56 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: (1) Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia and (2) Ban the import of Cobalt-60 and Caesium 137 and Caesium 134 to be used to irradiate food products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 80 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. Parliament House Canberra-A.C.T. We the undersigned petitioners of the State of Western Australia request you, as our representatives responsible for the overview of the introduction of new Legislation, to vote against the Bill of Rights currently before the Senate for the following reasons; The Bill will erode State and Local Government rights. The Bill is hostile to the traditional family which is paramount in our Christian way of life. The Bill erodes parental authority in the family. The Bill does not give parents the right to send their children to the school of their choice, and could be used against religious schools who only recruit teachers who meet the schools religious and moral criteria. The Bill in certain cases denies the right to legal representation and therefore is contrary to natural justice. The Bill is silent on the right to own property which is basic to the Australian way of life. The Bill denies the right to life to those who are not `Natural Persons'. The Bill recognises the right of criminals at the expense of their victims. We therefore pray that you as our representatives will take into account our concerns as outlined above and see fit to vote against the Bill aforementioned. by Senator Robertson (from 42 citizens). To the President and Honourable members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: We the undersigned residents of Australia totally reject any move to cut funding to Australia-wide English as a Second Language programs in schools. We request that the Australian government restore funding to the 1985 level in the 1986-87 budget. by Senator Robertson (from 42 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: (1) The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap terminates on 19 October 1986. (2) In the event of war between the United States and the Soviet Union, access by the United States to Pine Gap's facilities makes it a probable nuclear target. (3) Access by all nations to Pine Gap's capacity to monitor and verify compliance with existing and future nuclear limitations treaties could contribute to world peace and security. (4) The people of Australia are entitled to be consulted, through their representatives in Parliament, on any extension or modification of the Agreement affecting their lives, security and welfare. And your petitioners humbly pray that: (1) The Agreement between the United States and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap not be extended beyond October 1986. (2) Public discussion and inquiry be instituted into the feasibility of negotiating a new agreement with the United Nations during the International Year of Peace offering the verification facilities of the Pine Gap base to all nations. (3) Any agreement concerning the future use of Pine Gap be referred to Parliament for ratification. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 83 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ask the Federal Government to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Sir John Carrick (from 14 citizens) and Robertson (from 40 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australian Card' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Senator Robertson (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill: 1. Offer nothing more than is already available under law, 2. deny some Human Rights and do not include others, 3. give dangerously wide powers to an unelected body, and 4. could cause far more damage than they could possibly cure. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Senate should: completely reject the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 27 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament will legislate, or act in accordance with the present legislation to replace the current members of the Film Censorship Board who have admitted to Senator Harradine on 12th December, 1984 as reported in the Senate Select Committee on Video Material, (see attached extracts), that they are not applying either the blasphemy or obscenity tests as required under the provisions of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations, and that these persons be replaced by persons who will apply these and the other related test in accordance with the said Regulations. Your petitioners humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 236 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. That following the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 26th April 1986, the Soviet Union has not yet adequately explained to its citizens or those of the Soviet-occupied Baltic States, Ukraine and other areas affected by the radiation fall-out the potential short-term and long-term health hazards and the available modes of prevention or reduction of radiation poisoning. Neither have the appropriate medicines for substitution therapies to minimise bodily accumulation of radioactive elements been adequately provided. 2. That the Soviet Union operates many nuclear power stations without the elementary structural safeguards against radioactive spillage regarded as mandatory in the West. Of particular concern is the safety of the largest Soviet nuclear power station at Ignalina in Soviet occupied Lithuania, of similar design to Chernobyl, which already has a record of operational problems. Radioactive spillage at Ignalina would quickly contaminate the whole of Latvia, Lithuania as well as vast areas of Europe. We request that the Australian Government will, 1. Through the World Health Organisation, provide medical aid and broadcast medical information to the victims of radiation exposure following the Chernobyl disaster. 2. Through the United nations Organisation request the Soviet Union, (a) to close down all nuclear power stations similar to Chernobyl till protective structures are built. (b) permit international inspection of such safety structures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 152 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned that in the International Year of Peace, young Australians face an uncertain future due to: 1. a continuing arms race between the super-powers which threatens to extend into outer space; 2. military expenditure continuing at ridiculously high levels; 3. continuing testing and stockpiling of nuclear weapons; Your petitioners therefore humbly call upon the Federal Parliament to do everything possible to make our future more certain, by: 1. encouraging peaceful dialogue through diplomatic channels as a means of solving issues; 2. persuading all developed countries to spend less on armaments, and more on basic needs like food, health, shelter and education for all people of the world; 3. promoting the extension of agreements to reduce testing and stockpiling of nuclear weapons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Tate (from 5,545 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Parliament of Australia assembled. The petitioners of certain citizens of Australia draw the attention of the House- To information that-a known terrorist organisation is operating from Australia under the name of African National Congress, with quasi diplomatic status, and with the support of the Australian Government. Your petitioners therefore request that: The Australian Government will take appropriate action to- 1. Withdraw Government support for this organisation; 2. Expel any officials of this terrorist organisation resident in Australia or visiting under visa conditions. by Senator Alston (from 34 citizens). Petitions received. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of subsidy on the production, or in respect of the importation, of certain cultivation machines and related equipment, and for related purposes. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, nine sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Advisory Council Ordinance 1986, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 62 of 1986, and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Wool Corporation-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to section 90 of the Wool Industry Act. 2. Steel Industry Authority-Annual Report 1985-86 -Pursuant to section 31 of the Steel Industry Authority Act 1983. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Minister re-presenting the Prime Minister to a criticism by the Treasurer of Mr John Elliott's comment last week on the unfavourable investment climate which currently exists in Australia, a situation which is reflected in the Government's own Budget forecast of a further drop in private business investment over the course of this financial year. I ask the Minister whether he noted yesterday's comments by Mr Charles Fitzgibbon about the investment outlook in Australia when he said that there was no way at present that he would put his money in Australian companies. He said: People will put money into a concern when they consider that they will get from that enterprise a return for their money which equates what they can get somewhere else. Does the Minister agree that, while the Government maintains its present high interest rate policy, investment in the manufacturing industry, which is essential for Australia's economic recovery, will not take place? How long does the Government intend to maintain the high interest rate, high tax regime which deters investment and which has produced the situation referred to by both Mr Elliott and Mr Fitzgibbon? Senator BUTTON —I have not seen Charlie Fitzgibbon's comment about his personal investment predilections. I will certainly look them up, though, because I have a high regard for what he says. I think he is a very genuine Australian concerned about the fundamental issues confronting this country. I will certainly read his view which, in my opinion, is quite distinct from the view which was expressed by Mr Elliott on Thursday last week, which was totally inconsistent with views which Mr Elliott put in New York a fortnight before and at a seminar in which I participated six weeks before that. In saying that, I do not detract from the validity or the sincerity of any of those people in putting those opinions. I just say that they are very different from opinions which have been put in previous forums and on previous occasions. I will certainly look at what Mr Fitzgibbon said. Senator Chaney referred to the investment outlook as predicted in the Budget statements. That is not an encouraging investment outlook. I do not have with me the figures in respect of manufacturing investment-those which are most recently available-but last year's figures for manufacturing investment were considerably better than the investment pattern as a whole. I will certainly get those figures. The implications of the last part of the honourable senator's question were that investment had been retarded by high interest rates and taxation policies. That is a matter of considerable argument and I do not want to debate the issue here in answering a question. But I have conceded on previous occasions in the Senate that I thought that the interest rate regime was more difficult for small businesses than larger businesses. It has probably had a greater impact on investment in that area than on larger businesses which, by and large, have had record profits out of which investments have been made and can be made. I do not see much point in debating the taxation part of the honourable senator's question at Question Time. It has been the subject of long, tedious and boring debates in the Senate over the last week or two, and I do not think I have anything to add in respect of this answer. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister for Education seen the article by Professor Don Aitkin in last Friday's Age in which he points to the need for universities to be accountable to the community? Does the Minister agree with the professor on the need for applied as well as pure research to be carried out in universities? How does the Minister see universities becoming more involved in the community and how could they make the community more aware of their work? Does the Minister agree with the assessment of universities by Professor Aitkin and, in particular, his claim for the importance for Australia of an educated and skilled community? Senator RYAN —I had the opportunity to read Professor Aitkin's article and found myself in general agreement with much of it. I would not like to put the seal of approval on every comment he made. But certainly Professor Aitkin, like an increasing number of leaders in our academic community, is aware that universities are publicly supported and, therefore, the community needs and wants to know more about the work that is done within them. There has been a tradition among universities in Australia and to an extent in other countries to see themselves apart from the community and to feel no need to communicate with the community generally as to what they are doing. I do not think this has been in the interests of universities and, certainly in this day and age of restrictions on public expenditure, it is not acceptable for the community. Professor Aitkin and other leaders in the academic community are increasingly accessible-and I think the appearance of a series of articles such as this is a good sign-to talk about what happens in universities in the teaching and research programs. One thing about which I agree with Professor Aitkin specifically was that public funding of universities cannot, and will not in the next few years, be adequate to meet all of the legitimate needs of research and that it is time that the private sector made a greater contribution to research programs in universities. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures on university research funding show that Australia has the lowest level of many OECD countries of research funding but the highest level of public funding, which points the finger fairly clearly at industry, which has not until recently played an active role in funding university research. However, I am pleased to report that our Government has made some very successful moves to bring the universities and particularly the research communities, closer to the business communities. As well as that, we have provided for a 150 per cent tax concession for industry funds going into university research. These sorts of measures are starting to bring more private funding into universities. This has a dual benefit. It means that the overall level of funding for the very important research work done in universities is increased, and not just at the expense of the public purse. It also means that university research programs are themselves more responsive and more reactive to the needs of the economy. Overall, I welcome articles of the kind written by Professor Aitkin. I believe that the general movement towards improved co-operation between business and universities is in the interests of both. Senator VANSTONE —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Territories to the occupation of the public area outside Parliament House by demonstrators opposed to Australia's defence alliance with the United States of America, and the action taken by the Department of Territories in April 1985 physically to remove a small group of Vietnamese who were peacefully protesting outside Parliament House. I ask: Why has no similar action been taken against the present demonstrators, who have behaved in a much more intimidatory and violent fashion? How is it that the demonstrators have been able to obtain exclusive use of public amenities such as electricity? Will the Government now act to ensure that these public facilities and this public area are available for the use of all Australians? Senator GIETZELT —Mr President, yesterday you were asked, as the Presiding Officer of the Senate, to examine the issues raised by Senator Vanstone about the precincts of Parliament House. As I understand it, you have that matter under review. I have no particular advice from the Minister for Territories, but I am sure that he is aware of your inquiries into this matter. However, if there is any way in which the Minister can co-operate with you in this matter, I will certainly draw it to his attention. Senator ELSTOB —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security aware that investigations undertaken by the Muscular Dystrophy Association of South Australia have revealed that many disabled people lack information about government benefits, disability services and their own disorder? Is the Minister able to comment on this matter? Will he consider investigating information programs for the disabled to ensure that potential beneficiaries are not missed? Senator GRIMES —I am not directly aware of the survey to which Senator Elstob referred, but the results of it do not surprise me at all. It is one of the problems of the social security system and the system of government benefits in general in this country that frequently the information about details of those services does not get through to those who need them the most. We have had some glaring examples of this. I remember that we had a subsidised health scheme in 1975-76, information of which did not get to a very high percentage of people. Even the family income supplement, it has been variously estimated, gets to only a very small percentage of those who are eligible. The best way to overcome this, I believe, is to do what the Government has been doing, and that is to concentrate assistance for disabled people in self-help groups of the disabled themselves. In doing so, we can ensure that they spread the word to their members about what services and benefits are available. They can assist their members better in applying for those benefits and services and ensuring that they get their full eligibility. They can act as advocates for the groups and give governments a better idea of what services and benefits are appropriate. Certainly, as all governments have done, the Government continues to advertise the availability of services and benefits, but in a country as geographically and demographically diverse as ours this is not the most satisfactory way of distributing such information. We will continue to work on it. I am certainly disappointed if an organisation such as the Muscular Dystrophy Association has such a finding. One can assume that there is also then some difficulty with the medical profession and other caring professions in distributing the information that they should be playing their part in distributing. However, I will look at the matter. I will refer it to the Minister for Social Security and, I suppose, the Minister for Health to see whether I can get any further information for the honourable senator. Senator SANDERS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What steps has the Commonwealth Government taken to ensure that the Government of France is aware of Australian concern about environmental degradation due to the construction of an Antarctic air base at Dumont d'Urville? Is it a fact that the Minister received advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs that the Antarctic Division, Hobart, be recommended to refuse assistance requested by the French Government in transporting earth moving equipment to Antarctica aboard a vessel under charter to the Division? If not, what advice did the Minister receive? What reason can the Minister give for the Australian Government's decision to allow French earth moving equipment to be loaded for shipment to Antarctica on board the MS Nella Dan? Finally, can the Minister assure the Senate that Australia maintains its opposition to environmental degradation at Dumont d'Urville? Senator GARETH EVANS —Allegations that France has been contravening its obligations under the Antarctic Treaty system in constructing an airstrip at the French Antarctic station Dumont d'Urville have been discussed between French and Australian officials on a number of occasions over the past two years. The French position is that France is not in breach of its obligations and that it is taking steps to monitor closely any work related to the airstrip in order to act to mitigate and minimise its environmental impact. It is not the usual practice to provide details of advice given to Ministers, but in this case the Minister for Foreign Affairs agreed to a request for the use of the Australian chartered Antarctic vessel Nella Dan to transport some plant and equipment from Europe to Hobart by Expeditions Polaires Francaises, EPF. How was that? Senator Ryan —French as a second language. Senator GARETH EVANS —I did Latin at school, so honourable senators will have to forgive me. That is the government agency responsible for France's Antarctic program. A French chartered vessel will then take it from Hobart to Dumont d'Urville. Senator Ryan —Oh! Senator GARETH EVANS —That is all right, is it not? Senator Ryan —Terrific. Terrific. Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government's decision reflects the spirit of co-operation-- Senator Ryan —Tres bon. Senator GARETH EVANS —Tres chic. The Government's decision reflects the spirit of co-operation which prevails amongst operating agencies of all nations active in Antarctica. In the past the Antarctic Division has given and received logistic support from other nations including its French counterpart. Australia's agreement to assist France on this occasion, therefore, is consistent with past practice and with normal co-operation under the Antarctic Treaty system. The Australian Government's attitude towards the project for construction of an airstrip at the place in question is a separate matter. The Australian Government is continuing to follow closely the environmental effects of the airstrip construction. I should add that it has been reported that French budgetary priorities have affected the pace of the airstrip construction. Our understanding is that a review of the project has recently been requested by the French Government. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women aware of statements made last week by a Liberal member, Mr Downer, in which he described the programs of the Office of the Status of Women as `unscientific' and directed more at `vote winning' than anything else? In particular he referred to the national agenda for women campaign as a `waste of money'. Is there any basis for Mr Downer's comments? Can the Minister indicate to the Senate the range and volume of responses received on the national agenda for women? Senator RYAN —I do not think there is any basis to the suggestions by Mr Downer except for his suggestion that we may win votes. It is my firm conviction that by taking the women of Australia seriously, by engaging in very detailed consultations with them and by being prepared to tailor policies to reflect what the women of Australia want, we will, in fact, win votes. We have done it before. We did overwhelmingly in 1983 and the Liberal Party of Australia knows that to be the case. We sustained the support of women voters in 1984. I believe at the next election we will again have the confidence of Australian women. But the purpose of the Office of the Status of Women is to ensure that all government policies have input, particularly from the women's point of view. The reason why our Government put the Office of the Status of Women in with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet instead of in a smaller outside department was that we were determined that all our policies and legislation would benefit Australian women. Indeed, we have an outstanding record of achieving that objective. As to the particular criticism that part of the consultation exercise involving the sending in of questionnaires by Australian women is unscientific, let me say this: That part of the exercise was never intended to be a methodologically sophisticated way of determining any particular trend. What it did do was to give Australian women from all walks of life-country women, women in isolated areas, women confined to the home through physical disability, women from non-English speaking backgrounds-the opportunity to make suggestions, recommendations and comments direct to the Government. Hundreds of thousands of those questionnaires have been returned and they are being analysed in a very careful fashion. The views expressed will be added to the views expressed personally to me, to Senator Zakharov and other members of the Government and to members of the National Women's Consultative Council as we engage in this consultation exercise. I can confidently say that no government has gone to such pains to consult women about their views on any manner of policy areas. The results of all of this consultation will appear in a draft policy document which will be available for further public discussion at the end of the year. As for Mr Downer's scepticism and disappointment, I think we should remind him of what happened to the Liberal Party's vote among women in 1983 and suggest that, if he is really interested in improving the fortunes of the Liberal Party, perhaps he could take a leaf out of our book and actually listen to women and take note of what they say. Senator TEAGUE —I refer the Minister for Education to the statement today by the New South Wales Minister for Education, Mr Cavalier, on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's World Today program. It states: The hard, inescapable truth is, incredible, that the amount of money spent by the Hawke Government on government school education is less than, in real dollars, than was spent by the Fraser Government when it went out. Will the Minister confirm the facts as stated by her State colleague? Senator RYAN —I am unable to confirm these statements because they are not true. I suggest that Senator Teague and Mr Cavalier, my friend and comrade from north of the border who seems to be in a somewhat excited state at the moment, have a close look at the Budget Papers. From memory, I can say that during the seven years of the Fraser Government there was a real negative-a loss in real terms-in the amount of funds going to state schools. Under our general recurrent program for state schools-leaving aside other programs which benefit state schools, such as the disadvantaged schools program-there will be a 50 per cent real increase at the end of the eight-year funding period. For example, this year there will be in the vicinity of a 17 per cent real increase in the per capita general recurrent grants going to state school children. That is just one program I can point to that demonstrates a very different shape in funding. Senator Teague —What about the total provision? Senator RYAN —I do not know what the honourable senator would like to take into the total provision. For example, would he like to include the Austudy payments which go more substantially to children in government rather than non-government schools? There has been a monumental increase in the money spent for student assistance for children from poorer families. The participation and equity program also provides a global increase to government schools compared to the situation that preceded it. So really Mr Cavalier ought to be a bit calmer and pay a little more attention to Budget documents and a little less attention to some of the self-interested groups that he is dealing with at the moment. Senator COLSTON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the tragic death in an air crash of President Machel of Mozambique. What is the Government's reaction to this sad event, and does the Government as yet have any evidence as to who or what may have been responsible for the crash? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government was deeply shocked and saddened to hear of the tragic, as Senator Colston said, and untimely death of President Samora Machel of Mozambique. President Machel was a leading figure in the Frelimo Liberation Movement. He led his country to independence in 1975 and guided its destiny throughout the subsequent period until his death on Sunday evening. President Machel was at the forefront of the frontline state campaign for majority rule in South Africa, as he was some years ago an important supporter of the struggle to end white minority rule in neighbouring Rhodesia. He enjoyed the respect of African, Eastern bloc and Western leaders alike. At home he remained a popular leader commanding widespread support, despite the economic and developmental problems, exacerbated by civil war, which wracked his young country. President Machel was facing a worsening internal security situation in recent times, as the activities of the rebel Renamo guerrillas increased. It is widely accepted that Renamo's activities are encouraged and backed by the South African Government. President Machel was returning from Lusaka, where he had been consulting with President Kaunda of Zambia and leaders of the African National Congress over the deteriorating security situation in his country, when his plane crashed on South African territory. We have no evidence to hand as yet as to the cause of that crash, nor is there evidence at this stage that there was any South African involvement in causing the crash. The Australian Government extends its deepest sympathies to the Mozambiquan Government and people and to the families of President Machel and other victims of the crash. It is our Government's sincerest wish that a peaceful succession to the late President's position will be followed by a peaceful solution to Mozambique's problems and that the sudden death of Samora Machel will not serve as an excuse for external interests to exploit the situation in Mozambique to their own advantage. It must be said, finally, that with his death Mozambique has lost a strong and courageous leader and southern Africa a champion of regional peace and security. Senator KNOWLES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories. Have police in Canberra been instructed not to intervene in incidents involving the demonstrators who are occupying the lawns opposite Parliament House? If so, by whom? If not, have any charges been laid following yesterday's clashes between the demonstrators, members of the media and members of the Senate? Senator GIETZELT —One of the fundamental tenets of our democratic society is the right of persons to present themselves and demonstrate to the Parliament about issues with which they are concerned. In the 15 years I have been a senator I have seen groups of young conscripts protesting against Australia's involvement in the war in Vietnam; I have seen disabled persons in their wheelchairs protesting against the social security policies of the Liberal Government; I have seen farmers assembled out the front of Parliament House; and I have seen many other groups which have been concerned with particular interests. Therefore, I do not believe that honourable senators should get too excited about people who have a justifiable concern about the future of our society as it relates to our survival. As I indicated in the answer that I gave to Senator Vanstone, yesterday a question was asked, if my memory is correct, by Senator Crichton-Browne about the current problems outside Parliament House about which you, Mr President, undertook to carry out certain inquiries. I gather that those inquiries are still being examined by you as a Presiding Officer, in concert with the Speaker of the House of Representatives. They are adequately in the hands of responsible persons. Of course, the Minister for Territories may have some particular interest in this, based on past experiences with demonstrations. If there is a necessity for the Minister for Territories to be involved with the Presiding Officers, I am quite happy to draw his attention to the problem. The PRESIDENT —Order! I should add my remarks to those that have been made by the Minister representing the Minister for Territories. I point out that yesterday Senator Crichton-Browne asked me a question about the alleged lack of access of parliamentarians to Parliament House as a result of a demonstration that took place on the roadway on Sunday. Following that question, I have had an investigation made. I have had discussions with the Speaker and I will respond to Senator Crichton-Browne's question at the end of Question Time. Senator KNOWLES —I have a supplementary question, Mr President. I direct my question again to Senator Gietzelt and ask: Have the police in Canberra been instructed not to intervene? If so, by whom? If not, have any charges been laid following yesterday's incident? Senator GIETZELT —I am aware that Senator Knowles is a recent addition to this chamber. If she has any problems associated with the Australian Federal Police, I suggest that we direct that question to the Minister concerned. I am quite happy to do so. Senator COLEMAN —Has the attention of the Minister for Community Services been drawn to the latest issue of the NSW Nursing Homes Chronicle? In particular, has he seen claims by the Executive Director, a Mr John Gillroy, that the Government does not understand how fees are set and that the Government is to blame for causing worry and uncertainty to elderly people in nursing homes? Would the Minister care to comment on those claims? Senator GRIMES —Yes, not surprisingly, my attention has been drawn to the edition of the NSW Nursing Homes Chronicle, which is the journal of the New South Wales private nursing homes. I must say at the outset that I have been contacted by some nursing home proprietors in New South Wales who wish to dissociate themselves from the sort of campaign being conducted by Mr Gillroy and his colleagues. The latest edition of the Chronicle is in fact almost entirely devoted to attacking the Government. In my view it is another example of the way some unscrupulous sections in this group of service providers in the community will indulge in this sort of tactic to attempt to influence the Government's decision-making process. It really makes me wonder whether the eagerness to blame the Government is an attempt to divert the blame away from the nursing home proprietors for the recent fee increases in New South Wales. At the instigation of the nursing home proprietors, the Government has approved an increase in the maximum fee that New South Wales nursing homes may charge patients. That is the maximum fee; nobody, let alone the Government, is forcing nursing home proprietors to charge the maximum fee. If Mr Gillroy's members wish to charge less than that fee, they can, and in fact some of them do, but most of them do not. At this time of the year, this Government, as have previous governments since 1977, will also consider an increase in the nursing home benefit. I have made it clear in the Senate that that is what we are doing now. I have made it clear in the Senate that the deliberate untruth perpetrated by Mr Gillroy that we are to freeze nursing home benefits in New South Wales is not true, and has no basis in truth. What happened in New South Wales was that in September the New South Wales Industrial Commission granted nurses a considerable increase and a flow-on of the 38-hour week to nurses in the private sector. Normally the Department, knowing very well how to fix fees in New South Wales, as anywhere else, would consider the costs to nursing homes and increases in costs and increase the fees as a result of investigations of individual cases. In this case we accepted on the basis of the claims of the New South Wales proprietors that they would have, partially, an across the board fee increase. We could not delay granting permission to increase the maximum fee, because this would result later in higher fee increases due to fee loadings. The Government is considering increasing the nursing home benefit. We will consider that rationally and reasonably and will not be stampeded by the likes of Mr Gillroy. He would make much better use of his organisation's time and resources if he were to redirect them to the task of improving the standards and the quality of life and of care for nursing home patients in New South Wales, all of which have been under criticism from committees of this Senate, independent inquiries outside, and independent organisations of senators. He would do much better to spend his time and his organisation's time in getting those standards improved rather than in pursuing his pre-occupation of where his or some of his colleagues next BMW or Mercedes is coming from. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I address my question to Senator Button, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. What other Federal grants have been made by the Hawke Government to Women for Survival, who are presently camped opposite Parliament House, in addition to the $2,000 International Year of Peace grant awarded to them in July for publication purposes? What Government grants have been made to other bodies involved in the Women for Survival protest in addition to the Australian Council grant to Women against Global Violence, who share the same address as the Women's Employment Action Centre in Sydney, a recipient of considerable community employment program funding? Is any Federal funding being provided for the purpose of the demonstration opposite Parliament House, or can any of the existing grants be used for this purpose? Senator BUTTON —I have no idea of the answers to any of those questions. I shall endeavour to obtain answers and provide them to Senator Baume as soon as possible. Senator HARRADINE —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the document entitled `Social Security Review: Issues Paper No. 1' issued by the Department of Social Security yesterday. Has the Minister noted that the review indicates that since family concepts have been no longer considered by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission specifically since 1974, by comparison with others in the work force the disposable income of workers, whether male or female, with dependent spouses and children has fallen substantially and that these families have been saddled with an unduly greater share of the taxation burden? In discussions on the two-tier wage structure and the new accord, will the Government re-emphasise the importance of the social wage concept involving industrial tribunals and government action and take steps to redress this discrimination against the wage and salary earners at all levels under Federal and State awards? Senator BUTTON —I do not know whether it will surprise Senator Harradine to hear that I have not read yesterday's issue of the Social Security Review, but I will do so as soon as possible to try to identify the passage to which he refers. The point of the question, however, is what will be the Government's attitude in discussions with the Australian Council of Trade Unions about the wages outcome for calendar year 1987, and particularly the so-called two-tier wage system, which has been discussed quite freely in the Press. I will be taking part in discussions with the Australian Council of Trade Unions on these issues and I will certainly refer to the point which Senator Harradine has raised. It is more of a constructive suggestion than a question, to which I can provide an immediate answer. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. The Treasurer, Paul Keating, has taken the unusual step of stating publicly that there is a floor under the Australian currency. How much has this support cost the Reserve Bank of Australia since 1 July 1986? Will the Minister acknowledge that putting a floor under the dollar also requires a rise in interest rates and a rundown in reserves? Senator WALSH —I did not know that the Treasurer had said that. I do not know the context in which he said it and I would like to look at that first. I think that Senator Watson has scrambled a few things. Whether putting a floor under the dollar-if that is the way he wants to put it-costs the Reserve Bank money depends on the final outcome of its currency trading activities and that is not something that can be determined at this stage. This Government floated the dollar because under the crawling peg arrangement initiated by the Fraser Government and presided over by Mr Howard for five years, plus the fact that currency markets are open somewhere or other 24 hours a day for at least five days a week, the currency speculators' risks were being effectively underwritten by the Reserve Bank. As Treasurer, Mr Howard presided over that system for five years, but this Government changed it within nine months of coming to office. That has not eliminated currency speculation, of course, but it has eliminated the substantial underwriting of speculators' risks by the Reserve Bank. Leaving aside the question of how the Reserve Bank's market operations impact on the bank's end of year profit, I think Senator Watson also suggested that Reserve Bank intervention forced up interest rates. To the degree that it is necessary to maintain some equilibrium in monetary movements, at least in the short term, if the Reserve Bank, or any central bank, maintained a particular value for a currency, that would have the opposite effect for the same outcome. In other words, if the Reserve Bank, or any central bank, were not operating in that way in order to maintain equilibrium in monetary payments, interest rates would be higher than they are. Senator DEVLIN —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to an article in Sunday's Sun Herald in which the Deputy Leader of the National Party is reported as saying that primary producers would be forced to borrow money to comply with the fringe benefits tax? Can the Minister provide any information which would indicate whether Mr Hunt's statement is accurate? Senator WALSH —As one would expect, Mr Hunt's statement is wrong. The Commissioner of Taxation stated last week that 85 per cent of primary producers would have no fringe benefits tax liability. Senator Walters —Rubbish! Senator WALSH —I repeat that 85 per cent of primary producers will have no fringe benefits tax liability. Of course taxation experts on the other side of the Senate would dispute that, but that is what the Taxation Commissioner says and he is the person who is in the best position to know and he has no political axe to grind. Eighty-five per cent of farmers are exempt. I trust that Mr Hunt was not collaborating with the Queensland Government which recently announced that a $50,000 loan at 4 per cent interest would be made available to help farmers pay their fringe benefits tax liability. Presumably, that is just another way of opening up another window for National Party cronies to receive 4 per cent loans financed by the taxpayers. The condition for eligibility is not likely to be a liability to pay fringe benefits tax, but a solid record as a toady and a crony of the National Party Government. It is a little surprising, however, that Mr Hunt would go out of his way, apparently, to support the Bjelke-Petersen Government in that way when the Queensland National Party Government has consistently dumped on the Federal coalition on this question. It is only a few months since the National Party in Queensland was running advertisements which stated that only the Queensland National Party was totally opposed to the fringe benefits tax, thereby dumping not only on the Federal Liberal Party but also on the Federal National Party, because at that time Mr Hunt was saying that a coalition government would tax fringe benefits such as houses, interest free loans, expensive cars and free education. Since then Mr Hunt has temporarily bitten his tongue because of the babble of discordant voices that was coming out of members of the Opposition and the partially successful attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to gag them. Finally, it is absolutely untrue that farmers as a group will be affected by the fringe benefits tax. A small minority will incur a fringe benefits tax liability. Those who purport to speak in the name of farmers ought to be supporting the fringe benefits tax, not opposing it, because if the money is not raised by the fringe benefits tax it will have to be raised in some other way. A likely way to raise it, which is probably what the Opposition has in mind if it ever comes to government, is to cancel the 100 per cent rebate on distillate used on farms, because when the Liberal-Country Party coalition was in government it refused to pay that rebate. This Government has done it. If that rebate were to be cancelled, as no doubt the Opposition intends to do, that would recover about $140m of the $600m which the fringe benefits tax will raise. Senator MASON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Minister not concerned at the counter-productive effect on Australia's image in Asia and the Pacific due to the hardship being caused by the relatively small economies effected by charging university fees to overseas students? Would the Minister agree that, while there is every reason to expect students from affluent overseas families to pay fees, there is a foreign relations value to Australia in a system which would exempt or subsidise fees in deserving cases? I refer especially to students who are being forced to discontinue their education here when they are close to completing their qualifications. Will the Government give active consideration to such a means tested scholarship system? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will need to refer that question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for a more substantial reply than I am able to give at the moment. Might I just say that it is the case, even with some of the new measures that have been introduced for reasons of budgetary stringency, that we are to spend something like $88m next year in free subsidisation for overseas students. It is also the case that students coming here from Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific areas do not pay any fees at all. We are indeed conscious of the foreign relations implications of matters of this kind. I know that there are concerns in some quarters, particularly about some fee categories for post-graduate students and so on. I am conscious that the Government is conscious of that. It is just something that has been forced upon us by budgetary considerations, not something to which we are insensitive so far as the implications are concerned. Senator CHILDS —Is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs aware of recent reports which reveal an inclination in the media to depict Vietnam veterans as unstable individuals who habitually commit serious crimes? What action can the Government take to ensure that the good name of Australian Vietnam veterans as a group is not unfairly damaged? Senator GIETZELT —There is a tendency on the part of the media in court cases relating to persons who are Vietnam veterans to use rather extravagant terms drawing on the person's alleged experience in Vietnam as the reason for the action which has caused the case to come before the court. I have no wish, of course, to become involved in a debate about whether the experience in Vietnam is a factor in a particular case because that is a matter for the court to determine. However, some recent media reports that have come to my attention irresponsibly suggest that Vietnam veterans, as a group, are prone to act lawlessly without regard to the safety of others. I am concerned because a number of Vietnam veterans have drawn my attention to this. The Government takes the view, I think correctly, that the great majority of Vietnam veterans are law-abiding citizens and lead their lives selflessly, in the same way as any other citizen in this country. In fact a prison census that was carried out in Victoria in 1983 shows that the number of Vietnam veterans in Victorian prisons is only one-third of the number that would have been expected if Vietnam veterans had the same imprisonment rates as all Victorian males of comparable age. The evidence relates to the number of people serving prison sentences. There has been a tendency, therefore, to concentrate on the violent nature of crimes allegedly committed by Vietnam veterans. Two particular cases have been specifically drawn to my attention. In the two cases I am referring to, neither of the persons concerned was a Vietnam veteran. I intend, as a result of the matter that has been drawn to my attention by Senator Childs, to take this matter up with the Attorney- General to find out what action might be available to the Government to discourage misinformation of this kind. I believe that this is important because spurious claims in Australian courts concerning the status of Vietnam veterans and the irresponsible reporting that flows from that can be detrimental to the good name and peace of mind of those who served in Vietnam. To that extent, the Government deprecates the irresponsibility that flows from some of the exaggerated claims. Senator NEWMAN —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of the women's camp on the lawns opposite Parliament House? Has the Government received reports, or is it aware of and will it act on any reports on the camp, from Senator Reynolds, Senator Giles or Senator Tate? Which senator's report has been accepted by the Government as a true reflection of the behaviour in the camp? Is the Government intending to honour the Prime Minister's promise made yesterday that the Government will not tolerate the continued exclusion of the public from the front lawns of Parliament House? If so, when? In view of the fact that a men's camp has now been established on the lawns, will the Minister confirm that the men will receive equally favoured treatment from the Government? Senator BUTTON —I hope that the men will receive equal treatment to the women. After all, we are all into that in this decade and I think it would be appropriate if they received the same treatment. I know of no complaints from Senator Reynolds, Senator Giles or Senator Tate. They have not been brought to my attention. Finally, going up the honourable senator's list of questions rather than down, I am aware that women are camped on the lawns. Senator NEWMAN —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I simply draw the Minister's attention to the fact that a part of the question is unanswered. Is the Government intending to honour the Prime Minister's promise made yesterday that the Government will not tolerate the continued exclusion of the public from the front lawns of Parliament House? If so, when? Senator BUTTON —That is not a matter directly for the Government. I assume the Prime Minister to be saying that, if there is any breach of law, that will be attended to. That is all I am assuming. Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health been drawn to a statement by Mr Ashley Goldsworthy, the Chief Executive of the Suncorp Building Society in Brisbane, relating to the Australia Card? Further, Mr Goldsworthy claimed that the Health Insurance Commission would be able to delve into records of the Taxation Office, the Department of Social Security, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Australian Electoral Commission. Can the Minister outline the details of the Australia Card in light of the claims made by Mr Goldsworthy? Senator GRIMES —I did note the statement by Mr Goldsworthy and I noted that Mr Goldsworthy was the Chief Executive of the Suncorp Building Society in Queensland. I was very concerned about that. His statement was so full of inaccuracies and demonstrated such extraordinary ignorance that I would be very concerned if I were an investor with the Suncorp Building Society. However, I soon got an explanation as to why Mr Goldsworthy made these ridiculous statements when I found that in fact he is the Federal Vice-President of the Liberal Party of Australia. I dare say that it was in that capacity that he made the particularly stupid statements he has made, and not in his capacity as the Chief Executive of the Suncorp Building Society, although if he has such difficulty in determining which hat he wears-the shady one as Federal Vice-President of the Liberal Party or the other as Chief Executive of the Suncorp Building Society-I would be concerned about having my money in his organisation. Mr Goldsworthy is obviously trying to distract attention from the fact that when the Liberal and National parties were in government they did nothing much-I was about to say something rude then-about tax evasion and welfare fraud. The Liberal Party's opposition to the Australia Card-and I assume it is as Vice-President of the Liberal Party-- Senator Walters —Your intimidation-- Senator GRIMES —Will someone give that senator a saucer of milk? Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The attack which has been made by the Minister on Mr Goldsworthy is not in breach of the Standing Orders and nor is his besmirching of the commercial reputation of an organisation which happens to have engaged in it someone who dares to be a member of the Liberal Party. That sort of pathetic behaviour is not in breach of the Standing Orders. However, his comments to Senator Walters are, I think, in breach. He should be made to withdraw and apologise. The PRESIDENT —Order! As to the point which related to the way in which Senator Grimes was answering the question asked by Senator Jones, the Minister is clearly in order. As far as his comments about a senator who interjected are concerned, I suggest that his remarks were uncalled for and I ask for a withdrawal. Senator GRIMES —Of course, Mr President. Perhaps we will have no more interjections. As for Senator Chaney's remarks, I am not taking up the point of order but I point out that he implied that my remarks about Mr Goldsworthy's remarks were uncalled for. Mr Goldsworthy said: No other Western democratic nation operates such comprehensive surveillance of its citizens-as would be operated under the Australia Card. There are identification systems in France, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Switzerland, West Germany, Israel and Hong Kong, and de facto identification systems in the United States of America and Canada, all of which are and can be used for more purposes than those for which the Australia Card will be used. In many of these countries it is compulsory for people to produce their identification card on demand, whereas in Australia there will be no need to carry the card and it will need to be produced only for certain functions which are specified in the legislation. Therefore, Mr Goldsworthy's statement is untrue, and that statement, made by him as the senior executive of an organisation which may be caring for Senator Chaney's money or my money must be considered to be coming from him as the Vice-President of the Liberal Party. If he was speaking as the Vice-President of the Liberal Party, that is fine, but he put out his statement and his Press statement as the Chief Executive of the Suncorp Building Society. If he wants to be judged on his political statements, I say that if he was speaking as Vice-President of the Liberal Party I would not be answering the question; but he has claimed to be speaking as the Chief Executive of the Suncorp Building Society. If he cannot get his facts right there, what is he doing with the money of the people of Queensland? There will be no central data bank of information in Australia, as claimed by Mr Goldsworthy. All that will be on the Australia Card register is basic identification information-name, address, date of birth, sex and details of the documentation used to verify the identity. To establish the Australia Card register, the Health Insurance Commission will have access to the records of seven government agencies. This access is strictly limited to the initial establishment of the register, except in the case of records held by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. So again Mr Goldsworthy was quite wrong in the statements he made in that regard. I would ask Mr Goldsworthy what personal information he and his organisation, the Suncorp Building Society, have on their computer files. As it happens, we know. We will be interested to see whether he is willing to let people know. The personal information on the files of the Suncorp Building Society is much more extensive than anything that will be contained on the Australia Card register. Most people do not have any idea of what information on them is kept by the organisation that is run by Mr Goldsworthy and they do not have the opportunity to correct that information, as they will with the Australia Card. I have no problems with Mr Goldsworthy opposing the Australia Card's introduction. I have no problems with his speaking as a Vice-President of the Liberal Party. I do have a problem with his speaking as the Executive Director of the Suncorp Building Society and not indicating to the people of Australia his party political role. If he wants to do that, he has to cop criticism in this place, as any of us can and do cop criticism without too much complaint, with the exception of Senator Walters, of course. Senator WALTERS —I ask the Minister for Education: Is it a fact that the Dora Turner School-the school that does a wonderful job educating many intellectually disabled children-has had its funding cut by 8.5 per cent for 1986 and has been informed that it will also have a cut of approximately 10 per cent for 1987? Can the Minister tell the Senate how she expects the appropriate level of education to be continued, particularly to these sorts of children, with an 18.5 per cent reduction in their funds? Senator RYAN —Mr President, I do not have at hand in the Senate information on particular schools. If Senator Walters would like to send details of that particular school to my office, I will have the matter investigated. Senator COOK —My question, which is about Queensland, is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister seen the results of the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics survey of private enterprise investment spending in the various States of Australia? Do these results indicate that the Australian business community regards Queensland as a particularly good State in which to invest? Senator WALSH —The short answer to that question is no, but I think I should give a bit more detail. The PRESIDENT —Provided that the honourable senator does not debate the question. Senator WALSH —Certainly. Heaven forbid, Mr President. The ABS catalogue No. 5646.0, released on 17 October, refers to both actual private business investment to March of this year and the expected investment during the 1986-87 financial year as a whole. It shows that between the December quarter 1985 and the March quarter 1986 private business investment in Queensland fell by almost 27 per cent in current prices-slightly more than that in real prices-which was, of course, the worst result of any State. That can be attributed, however, partially to seasonal factors. It might be more reliable to look at the figures for the March quarter 1986 compared with the same quarter of the previous year. That shows that, in this whole-year period, private business investment in Queensland did increase by almost 10 per cent, again in current or nominal prices, but the national figure for that same period was 20 per cent. In other words, the rate of increase of private business investment in Queensland was 10 per cent lower than it was in Australia as a whole. The same sort of picture emerges if we look at the expectations of business investment during 1986-87, as compared with actual investment spending during the 12 months to March 1986. In Queensland the anticipated investment for the 12 months ended June 1987 will be more than 22 per cent less than actual investment in the year to March 1986. Some members of the Opposition have attempted to make a major issue of the fact that the Budget Papers forecast a very slight real decline in business investment spending in this financial year in all of Australia, but in Queensland the anticipated decline in monetary terms is more than 22 per cent. Just by the way, the second worse State so far as private business investment is concerned is Tasmania. But the business expectations data clearly indicate that the policies of the present Queensland State Government are not conducive to healthy private investment. That is not surprising because people-other than those who are part of the National Party crony circuit, which prevails in Queensland-do not have any interest in investing in a State like that, governed under the present Administration. Perhaps in a month or two that opinion may be changed. The prospect of private business investment in Queensland would improve appreciably if the present State Government were to be removed. Senator RYAN —Yesterday during Question Time in reply to Senator Giles, I informed the Senate that the Queensland and Tasmanian governments had attended a high level conference on legislative and award restrictions to women's employment. I regret to inform the Senate that this was not the case and that all State governments were represented, excluding Queensland and Tasmania. I also said that the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Australian Industry had issued a joint communique agreeing to resolve all issues by the end of 1988 and that the communique was supported by South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. In fact, the communique was supported by South Australia, Victoria and the Northern Territory. Senator GIETZELT —Yesterday Senator Reid asked me a question about the Australian Capital Territory Motor Vehicle Registry. I promised an early response. The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer: The question raised by Senator Reid relates to criticism of procedures by a judge of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court which was reported in the Canberra Times of 17 October 1986. The judge's comments relate to matters arising in 1984 in a case allegedly involving stolen vehicles. The matter raised has been examined and action is being taken. Since 1983 procedures have been in place to check the status of private vehicles presented for original registration. If ownership papers are not available a check is made by phone to the Australian Federal Police. Procedures relating to vehicles presented by licensed vehicle dealers are being reviewed and all States and Territories are examining how to achieve a nation-wide register of stolen vehicles which should overcome these problems. The PRESIDENT —During Question Time yesterday Senator Crichton-Browne asked me a question relating to police action in closing a road near Parliament House during a demonstration on Sunday, 19 October. I have now received a report from the Australian Federal Police confirming that on a number of occasions on Sunday police diverted traffic away from a section of King George Terrace in front of Parliament House. I am told that that action was taken by them to ensure the safety of a large number of demonstrators, estimated by them to be about 500, who were performing dance routines on the road and obstructing the flow of traffic. I am advised, however, that at no stage were vehicles prevented from having access to Parliament House. I believe the action taken by the police was appropriate in the circumstances. In that context, an item on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio news this morning stated that the President of the Senate was investigating incidents which allegedly occurred yesterday at the demonstrators' camp on the lawns in front of Parliament House. I should make it clear and I emphasise that my responsibilities as President of the Senate, together with those of my colleague the Speaker of the House of Representatives, are confined to the parliamentary precincts and the rights of senators and members to unhindered access to Parliament House. My investigations have been confined solely to the matter raised by Senator Crichton-Browne. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.10) —Mr President, I seek leave to move that the Senate take note of the statement. Senator Grimes —Do you intend this to be a long debate-like all afternoon? Senator CHANEY —No, I do not intend it to be a long debate. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. In response to the Manager of Government Business (Senator Grimes), who asked whether I proposed a long debate, I say that that is not my intention. I simply thought it would be an appropriate time to make a brief comment on the matters which have been raised in your statement, Mr President. Your statement relates to a specific question asked by Senator Crichton-Browne yesterday in the context of a number of actions being taken in the Senate including the giving of notices of motion by three Liberal senators relating to incidents which had occurred outside Parliament House. Those matters have had extensive coverage in the media. There has been a great deal of interest in them, I suppose not the least because representatives of the media themselves have been subjected to some ill-treatment, including physical ill-treatment, which has naturally excited their interest. But, Mr President, my purpose in speaking now is simply to make quite clear the concerns of the Opposition and to make it quite clear that it is not the position of the Opposition to in any way object to the people of Australia coming to Canberra and making their views known to the politicians who work in this building. We accept that over the years many different groups have done that. We have recently had very large gatherings of farmers and I think this morning we had a very large gathering of school teachers who have been here protesting about the Government's education policies. We have had people objecting to the administration of immigration laws, and on it goes. It is no part of the Opposition's stance on this matter to seek in any way to criticise or limit the civil liberties of Australians to make their protest where they believe that the Government, or indeed the Opposition, is taking stances with which they disagree. The sole concerns expressed by the Opposition related to behaviour which in the view of the Opposition infringes the civil liberties not only of members of this Parliament but of other Australian citizens who are seeking in turn to go about their lawful business. They may wish to protest on an entirely different matter. The concerns that have been expressed in the notices of motion given and the questions put in this chamber today to different Government Ministers and yesterday to you, Mr President, all relate to what are seen as attempts by people involved in this particular demonstration to trample upon the rights and liberties of others. There have been concerns about their exclusive occupation of ground and about their physical behaviour towards some senators and members of the public, and we make no apology for expressing in the clearest possible terms our objection to that and our belief that it is the duty of the Government, by means of its control of the administration of the Australian Capital Territory, to protect the rights of all Australians against interference from this or indeed any other group. I do not believe it is appropriate to discuss at great length the matters which concern honourable senators. They are expressed in the notices given by those senators yesterday and in the questions raised. But it is totally unacceptable to members of the Opposition that their right to passage across the Parliamentary Triangle should be impeded, that they should be subjected not to argument but to abuse and that there should be spitting and physical assault. Those matters are beyond the bounds of what is reasonable. They are outside the democratic tradition that we as an Opposition are committed to supporting totally and we believe that the onus is on the Government to ensure that, if people abuse the privileges which are made available to them in having access to the Parliament in that way, those abuses cease and if there are breaches of the law they should be appropriately dealt with. I hope there will be no attempt to confuse in people's minds the Opposition's stance on these matters. We are totally committed to the pursuit of peace. It would appear that our means of pursuing peace differ from those which are advocated by the women who have congregated opposite. We express their right to have a different view but we believe that in many of the views they are putting forward they are playing into the hands of those who in fact would not cause peace but would cause war. That is a very significant difference between them and us. We expect that as part of the democratic process, but I on behalf of the Opposition express our total commitment to the pursuit of peace through the policies that we have often spoken about in this chamber. In the same way I express the absolute support of the Opposition for the right of assembly and the right of protest. We say that in Australia those rights can be exercised within the law and without trespassing on the rights of others. We are very unimpressed with some of the behaviour with which we have been faced over recent days. We regard the fact that this has occurred not merely with respect to Opposition senators but indeed to at least one Government senator, who has been treated to some very difficult and unpleasant behaviour which was reported in the newspapers, and to members of the media, as showing that this is a matter on which it is utterly appropriate that the Government should not simply stand by. It should make it quite clear to those people here that there are rules that they must follow. If the Government finds that they will not follow the rules, the Government should act. I note that in the other place the Prime Minister said that, provided there was no further disruption, the women concerned would be allowed to stay. That statement was made by the Prime Minister without regard to some of the instances that occurred in the middle of yesterday and certainly without regard to things which have happened subsequently. I simply put the Government on notice that the Opposition expects the Government to do its duty within the confines that I have suggested this afternoon. We expect that not only our rights should be protected but also the rights of the many other Australians who visit Parliament House should be respected and not trampled upon by a group of women who, important as they might see their cause, seem to show utter contempt for the rights, liberties and freedom of others. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator Crichton-Browne —Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement on the same subject. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Grimes —No. This is not going to be a long debate. The PRESIDENT —Leave is not granted. Senator Crichton-Browne —It is not intended to be a long debate. I will take two minutes. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Crichton-Browne sought leave-- Senator Walters —Mr President, I take a point of order. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Will Senator Walters please resume her seat. Senator Crichton-Browne sought leave to make a statement. I asked whether leave was granted. The Minister clearly said that leave was not granted. I have ruled that leave is not granted. Senator Walters —I take a point of order, Mr President. It is not about that subject. It is purely to inform you, if you are not aware, that Senator Crichton-Browne was on his feet before Senator Grimes moved the adjournment of the debate, and indeed before Senator Chaney sat down. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator Grimes —On the point of order: Senator Chaney sought leave to continue his remarks. That calls for an adjournment motion and it is my duty as the Minister in the chamber to move that the debate be adjourned until the next day of sitting. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have already ruled on the point of order. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(3.19) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. One of the points to be noted in this report, which is very well put together, is that the demand for wool textiles increased by 3 per cent in the calendar year 1985. Another point, that the Australian sheep flock continued to increase to some 156 million in 1986, most probably gives some cause for concern and is something that Mr Asimus has been talking about over the last couple of years. For example, in the last four years there has been about a 20 per cent increase in the sheep flock. In 1983 the figure was 133 million. In 1986 it is about 156 million. In 1987 it is predicted to be about 160 million. In 1988 it will be about 163 million. That probably gives cause for restraint by some wool growers who may wish to increase their flocks. Another interesting item was the fact that trade purchases of the total clip amounted to 86 per cent. The Corporation purchased only 9.6 per cent of offerings, and we all know what the wool floor price has done for the industry. The Corporation's stocks amounted to 168.1 mkg at the start of the year and at the end of the year were 159.1 mkg. That is a reasonably encouraging position. I quote from the Chairman's review on page 14 of the report: It is more important now than ever that the Australian community realises the risk to the wool industry's contribution to the national economy of any relaxation in the promotion effort. There are no inherent loyalties to wool in the highly competitive international textile fibre markets. Synthetic fibres are developing more technical sophistication and consumer appeal, and have become the subject of integrated promotion campaigns similar to those that have served wool so well. Certainly the wool producer cannot just sit back and be complacent about the industry. Estimated world production of raw wool was 2,943 mkg, compared with the record level in 1984-85 of 2,965 mkg. The report is well set out and it is interesting to note the changes that have been brought about following the establishment of the Wool Research and Development Council and the amount of research now being undertaken. I note that some 300 projects were recommended for financial support in the last financial year, with over 230 having been funded. Mr Asimus has done an outstanding job for the wool industry. That learner shearers are being given training and that the wide comb is now generally accepted in the industry bode well for the industry's future, so long as sheep numbers are kept within reasonable proportions. I commend the report. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.23) —Wool, comprising one of the nation's largest industries, accounts for some 10 per cent of exports and in 1985-86 earned more than $3,100m. In the past financial year wool was Australia's number two export earner. The Australian Wool Corporation performs a wide variety of functions. It is responsible for the administration of a reserve price scheme, for servicing the wool marketing system, and for administering wool stores. It also promotes wool textile products and provides direction for research and industry development. The Corporation's annual report highlights the importance of the wool industry to Australia. While most market indicators have been depressed, I would emphasise that the wool industry has provided a degree of stability to the economy. The world demand for wool textiles increased by 3 per cent in 1985, and Australia's sheep flock continued to rise in order to meet this demand. I agree with Senator Brownhill that the industry could face problems if sheep numbers were to rise too dramatically. Despite these results I am concerned about the Government's lack of encouragement for downstream industries. It is not encouraging sufficiently new industries that could provide additional employment by using our natural resources. Wool, as part of our industries, has traditionally been Australia's export life-blood. However we can no longer rely on wool and on the meat and wheat industries, et cetera et cetera, as well as the mining industry to maintain our current high standard of living. The present over-supply of many primary products on world markets and the depressed commodities prices are a clear signal that Australia should be developing its secondary industries. Only by strengthening our manufacturing base can we hope to improve our standard of living. I hope that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) will take this into account when he looks at the contribution of the wool textile industry in the textiles, clothing and footwear debate and the Government's support for that industry. Australia is richly endowed with natural resources and we are technologically advanced. If we can develop our secondary industries by starting with downstream manufacturing, using our natural resources. This would be preferable to only exporting the raw produce overseas. In 1985-86 the Australian wool industry again faced the challenge from increasing overseas competition and from an unfavourable domestic and overseas economic environment. Australian growers have not only had to cope with international pressures but also with pressures created by our domestic climate. High interest rates over the past year have badly affected our markets and our producers' viability. The high rates of interest are causing hardship for farmers and businesses alike, yet the ability of the Australian Wool Corporation to come out in front despite this is an indication of the sound management of the industry. The decision that was taken some years ago by the Wool Council of Australia when it adopted a long term strategy of promotion and of maintaining that promotion in real terms has now paid off. That strategy was adopted when the cost to the industry was $61m. Now only four years later in 1986-87, the same amount of effort in overseas markets will cost more than $120m. I wish to express my concern and disappointment that an extraordinarily large proportion of the carpeting for the New Parliament House will be New Zealand produced carpet. The new House will be a unique feature and it is at odds that Australian wool, one of our traditional products, will be so underrepresented in this fine building. I also warn the Government of the damage that could be done by allowing our unique breeds of merino rams to be exported overseas. The country that is most likely to take advantage of this to our detriment is China, which is the third largest wool producer. It has a rapidly expanding sheep industry and it could prove a threat to Australia's traditional markets in the near future, especially if it is given the opportunity to develop its fine sheep breeding program at a cost to the Australian industry. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.28) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This paper was not available prior to its being tabled, so I have not had a chance to examine it as closely as I would have wished. However, there are a number of matters to which I wish to draw attention now. First, the Opposition is very pleased that the steel industry is in such an enhanced position. The report records: During 1985-86 BHP became the second most profitable company in the world after Nippon Steel. It records also: Since the commencement of the Plan there has been a steady improvement in labour productivity, capital investment and output. It is perhaps worth noting that during the period of the plan there has also been a substantial decline in the number of people employed in the industry. That is not a criticism, but too often when we look at the position of manufacturing industry, we look at it from a point of view of employment, rather than the extent to which it can survive as a modern and competitive industry. In the case of the steel industry, there will be broad acceptance that the fining down of the work force, difficult as that has been for some individuals, has been very necessary and the increase in productivity which has followed both improved labour practices and increased capital investment is typical of the changes and improvements which are necessary across a much wider range of Australian industry. I wish, on behalf of the Opposition, to express pleasure and satisfaction at the progress which has been made and to express the hope that that progress will continue. The report, however, does not contain only good news. I wish to touch on a matter which was raised in the Estimates committee with the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, and which came up again in Question Time only yesterday when Senator Button responded to a question from Senator McIntosh, namely, the worrying resurgence of industrial difficulties in the steel industry and the apparent resistance which is emerging to further improvements, not least in the work practices area. I want to raise that matter now because it seems to me from the answer which the Minister gave yesterday to Senator McIntosh and the answers he gave in the Estimates committee that he is affecting a certain lack of concern about what I think are some very worrying trends in what has emerged. Yesterday, in response to an interjection I made while the Minister was replying to Senator McIntosh's question, the Minister suggested that there was just a slight hiccup in 1986 which has taken us back to a performance which is one-seventh of the man hours lost under the coalition Government. I suggest to the Minister that that is a very exaggerated view of how good things are at the moment. Senator Button —Yes, I agree with that. It is about one-half. Senator CHANEY —The Minister now suggests that it is about one-half. I draw his attention to the figures contained at page 19 of the report, where the passage in industrial disputes starts. It is made quite clear in the tables which follow that there has been a very significant lift in the number of man hours lost. Whilst it may give proper satisfaction to the Minister to say that it is still better than it has been in some historic period, he can get very little satisfaction from a situation where at Port Kembla in the half year to June 1986 there was a 684 per cent increase in the amount of industrial disputation, a 46 per cent increase at Newcastle and only an 11 per cent increase at Whyalla, but that was after a half year to December 1985 where there had been a 397 per cent increase. Overall, in the first half of 1986 there has been an increase of 266 per cent in the number of man hours lost through industrial disputes in the steel division of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd as a whole. That is described by the Steel Industry Authority as follows: . . . an alarming increase in man hours lost through industrial disputes leading to a loss of production and wages in the second half of 1985-86, particularly at Port Kembla where man hours lost through industrial disputes increased by over 680 per cent in the second half of the year. My time has almost expired, but I simply wish to say that there needs to be acceptance at both the management and labour levels that the sorts of improvements which have occurred are not improvements which will solve the problems for all time. There is clearly a need for the increases in productivity to be continued. In this as in other industries Australia is pursuing moving targets-other countries will not stand still. The relative success which has been achieved by the steel industry over the last few years, success which we warmly welcome, is something that must not be frittered away by a return to the very bad old habits of the past. Debate (on motion by Senator Michael Baume) adjourned. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts I present the 258th report of the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator MAGUIRE —by leave-The 258th report contains the response to the 229th report of the Committee in the form of a Department of Finance minute sent to the Committee by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). The 229th report, which examined the reports of the Auditor-General for 1981-82 and September 1982, was tabled on 21 May 1985. The Committee's conclusions and recommendations concern the results of audits into matters affecting the departments of Communication, Defence, Education and Youth Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Industry and Commerce, Primary Industry, Science and Technology, Social Security, Territories and Local Government, Treasury and Veterans' Affairs. The most significant issues dealt with in the 258th report are as follows: An inactive internal audit function of the Department of Communications; the issue of audit fees between the Australian Dairy Corporation and the Australian Audit Office; and telephone rental concessions. While the Public Accounts Committee is satisfied with the responses to the 229th report, it is noted that the Auditor-General has consistently monitored and reported upon recurrent problems covered by this report. The Committee draws to the Auditor-General's attention the unresolved issues relating to internal audits and requests that in his next report to the Parliament he review the matter and the Committee will then reconsider the issue. I commend this report to honourable senators. Motion (by Senator Kilgariff for Senator Messner) agreed to: That Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 1 be postponed till 20 November 1986. Debate resumed from 17 October, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.37) —The Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill puts into effect a large number of Budget measures in the areas of social security and veterans' affairs. The provisions are mean and it is a miserable Budget in the areas of social security and veterans' affairs. It has been seen as mean and miserable in the community. I have in front of me a document entitled `Community Responses to the 1986-87 Budget' produced by the Australian Council of Social Service and two of the State councils of social service. I quote just some of the headlines in the document, which was circulated within the welfare community, which read: `Slashed deficit means unemployment growth'. This is a Budget about unemployment growth. Other headings read `No strategy for structural problems'; `No relief for poorest'; `Deferrals and broken promises'-these are the headings on each of the articles-and `Labour market programs abandoned'. Under housing is the heading `Still waiting . . . '-still waiting for housing. Under children is the heading `Women and children under attack'; and under pensioners `Learning to live on less'. Under ethnic communities is the heading `Multiculturalism betrayed'; under women `No equity for women'; and under young people `Priority what?'. This document was produced not by a conservative group in society but by the Australian Council of Social Service, the peak organisation, speaking on behalf of welfare organisations throughout Australia and it has concluded that the Budget is mean, miserable and ill-directed in the areas of social security and veterans' affairs. Because this Bill represents part of the package of Budget measures, the Opposition will not oppose the legislation. However, we do not like or approve all the components of the legislation. It is with reluctance that we will not oppose some of the matters that are in it for they impact unreasonably upon the poor, the weak and the needy in ways which actually are a betrayal of any Labor government. It is our decision that we will not oppose the legislation, however reluctantly we came to that decision. It is our belief that this wretched, uncaring, clumsy government is still entitled to Supply and to the passage of its Appropriation Bills. The main components of this Bill, first in the social security area, involve a deferral of the pension rises which pensioners could have expected reasonably in the first pay after November. The Bill provides for a deferral of new asset threshold limits and it provides for a deferral of new levels and limits for fringe benefits determinations. These have all been deferred for six weeks. The Government is proud to announce that this will involve savings of $129m in a full year. But these are savings which the Government is making out of the hides of pensioners in the Australian community. If that is the Government's priority we would like to hear it explain and tell us why it is. The Bill provides further that certain family allowances are to be means tested. We are told that this will save $49m in a full year out of the hides of families. The Bill puts into effect benefit withdrawals from pensioners and families. The Bill also provides that certain measures to reduce some poverty traps are to be deferred for eight months. This will save $147m out of the hides of those who are caught by poverty traps. The Bill actually provides also-I should acknowledge this for the Government-some new and increased benefits. For double orphans with wooden legs and groups such as that it will mean a total number of extra benefits of $34.5m in a full year. Honourable senators should note the very small amount of extra benefits compared to the very large amount of benefit withdrawals. The Bill provides that there will be new thresholds to allow people to qualify for rental assistance. That will save $10.3m in a full year at the cost of needy renters in society. It is not a very inspiring social security package for the Hawke Labor Government to bring to the people. In the area of veterans' provisions there is not much more joy. The legislation provides that war widows and one category of service pensioners will lose their access to the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme, although they will still have access to the same pharmaceutical benefits to which we all have access. That will provide some savings out of the hides of war widows and some service pensioners. War widows who also receive an age pension will have the social security component frozen at $60.05 per week. But the other Budget decision, which was announced on Budget night, to provide a reducing permanent maximum level for those people has been dropped in the face of community pressure. Nevertheless, the savings that will be made in this area will be made at the expense of war widows. This is scarcely a great piece of legislation because we can show each vulnerable group who is paying for the decisions. Provision is made under this legislation to implement the Budget decision to seek to claim certain hospital costs from private health insurance funds where veterans happen to carry private health insurance cover. It is being provided administratively that a veteran will have to sign a clearance to allow the Health Insurance Commission to proceed with requesting payment for treatment from the private health insurance funds. Under the veterans' entitlements in the Bill there is provision for deferral of the consumer price index veterans-related pension increase for three pay days-again, savings to be made out of the hides of veterans and ex-servicemen, most of whom risked their lives so that governments, such as this one, could operate in a democratic society. Under the Veterans' Entitlements Act, the Bill also provides some minor amendments to clarify existing intentions and the removal of any doubt over the eligibility for benefits of certain members of philanthropic organisations, such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army. The Bill also provides for benefits in certain deceased estate situations. That is what the Bill is about. It is mean legislation. It is mean legislation directed at the most needy, the weakest and the most vulnerable in Australian society. Its purpose is to try to help to manage the economic mess in which Australia has been placed by the incompetence of the Hawke Government. But it is designed to seek assistance in managing that economic mess by requiring the most needy, the most vulnerable, the poorest and the most dependent in society to lose, to have limited, or to have deferred the benefits and the cash they need to keep them out of poverty. Poverty is what it is all about. My colleague Senator Richard Alston produced a working paper for us on the question of the unemployment benefit. He made some comments in that paper about poverty, and I intend to quote them. He says: In Australia there are more than 2 million people below the poverty line-and the social welfare bill has doubled over the last 5 years to $21 billion. He goes on to say: . . . still there are 627,000 registered unemployed. This is in spite of all the efforts we have put into social welfare. He points out: But what is most disturbing is that whereas in 1983-the worst year for unemployment under the previous Coalition government-the average period of unemployment was 34.3 weeks, now it is 51.9 weeks. That was the average period of unemployment in one year. Poverty in Australia is what it is about. I wish to say something further on the question of poverty. We know that poverty is increasing under Labor as a result of economic mismanagement and because it has no social security policy which will help Australians in poverty and in need. It has led the Government to direct some of its economic restraint to these people by bringing this Bill before us today. At present, one in five children in Australia are growing up in poverty. The 1986 Budget offered not a glimmer of hope that those Australians living on benefits and pensions, living in poverty or on the edge of poverty, could look forward to a better life. There were no structural changes designed to come to grips with the major problems or with outdated practices. I am not alone in deciding that the Budget is deficient as a social instrument and that it contains no body of theory or purpose that would offer those in greatest need any hope. I need look no further than the chairman of the Australian Labor Party's own Caucus committee on welfare, Senator John Coates, who made his views perfectly clear. I refer honourable senators to a recent article in the Australian headed `Budget condemned by leading ALP man'. According to the Australian, that leading ALP man was Senator John Coates. He is the chairman of the Labor Party's caucus welfare committee. Senator Coates is reported as having said-I believe that the report is accurate and that he said this-that the poor will fall further into poverty under the Keating 1986-87 Budget. This is not what I am saying; this is what Senator John Coates of the Labor Party is saying. He is saying that the poor will fall further into poverty as a result of the 1986-87 Keating Budget. The second thing which Senator John Coates said, and which was reported in the Australian newspaper, was that the burden of the Budget, the economic burden in Australia, was not being shared equally, let alone equitably, as promised; instead, the greatest burden is falling upon the poor. This Bill seeks to implement some of the changes which led Senator John Coates to make those comments about the Budget. Not only this, but there has been inequality in the calls for sacrifice in Australia in the past year. There have been some crazy sets of priorities. How can a government which asks the Parliament to put off benefits for pensioners and the relief of poverty traps-to take all the measures identified in this legislation-tell us of the money it is to put into the defence of the America's Cup? That may be a very worthy thing to see, and I hope that Australia can retain that yachting trophy. But how can it have a priority for calls upon the public purse while the Government decides to defer for another eight months measures to relieve poverty traps? Last year we had the spectacle of the Government giving relief for racehorse purchase. The three measures it introduced last year for that relief came into effect immediately. Last year in the Budget the Government promised these same measures to relieve poverty traps, but while it gave immediate relief for racehorse purchase it said that people would have to wait until October 1986 for poverty traps relief. It is now telling us that people have to wait yet another eight months. Does the Government not have some sense of priorities, some sense of social justice, some sense of equal sharing? This Government cannot claim that it is sharing the load equitably. I am pleased that I can look forward to some promised tax cuts, but I feel uneasy that I am getting my tax cuts and that those who want relief from their poverty traps have to wait another eight months. That indicates the Government's set of priorities. The burden is not being shared equally. I return to a couple of the main measures in this legislation. I want to discuss firstly the proposals to defer the granting to pensioners of, first, their pension rises; secondly, their new assets test threshold, which of course would ease the application of the assets test for many of them; and, thirdly, their new income limits for other benefits, which again would ease the burden upon some of them. This will mean for that class of Australians-a very large and dependent class-less cash in hand, less cash than they were promised by this Government when it was seeking a mandate at the polls, and a lesser ability to qualify for benefits, to satisfy the assets and income tests for various benefits. Australian pensioners do not enjoy a comfortable or an affluent standard of living. It is a careful and austere living standard that is provided by our social security system. It is true that if the nation faces an economic crisis, we should all share in the battle for Australia's economic survival; but we should share with some kind of equality. It seems a bit sick that these deferrals are to apply to pensioners while those of us who are lucky enough to have jobs can look forward to receiving our tax cuts immediately. There are also other kinds of inequality. I mention in passing, that while the pensioners are asked to do without, some very substantial pay rises in the public sector have been granted in the past year. In the past year, the head of the Department which has been responsible for preparing this legislation-the permanent head of the Department of Social Security or the Department of Veterans' Affairs-has had a pay increase, as a result of Remuneration Tribunal determinations, from over $81,000 to over $84,000. While we are telling the pensioners that they have to wait and do without, while we are telling people that they cannot have relief from their poverty traps, that permanent head has taken an extra $3,000 and the heads of the top Public Service departments in the same year have had their salaries increased from over $88,000 to almost $92,000. Oh yes; we will talk about equality of sacrifice, will we not? We politicians have actually voted away a large part of our increase. We did this in the Parliament a couple of weeks ago; but some very large pay increases have been awarded to statutory officers and those covered by the Remuneration Tribunal at the same time as this mean, deprivatory legislation seeks to put the burden upon those who are weakest and least able to care for themselves. In relation to the assets test limits, I say very simply that we will abolish Labor's assets test lock, stock and barrel. That is on the public record and it is well known. The other issue that I wish to discuss concerns the question of poverty trap elimination and the Government's expression of priorities. These are Labor's priorities: At a time of economic crisis, one way to save money is to make those caught by poverty traps, after having made them wait from the time of the Budget in 1985 to October 1986, wait yet another eight months before they can get the relief promised by the poverty trap measure. That says something about Labor's set of priorities. It says something about its preparedness to let the weakest suffer now and suffer most. Letting people continue to suffer the cruelty of poverty traps makes it not worth while for them to try to work their way out of dependence to independence. That measure is to be put off for another eight months. It explains just how much this Government has lost its way. Not only has it lost its way in public opinion but also it has lost its sense of social priorities and its purposes. It has lost any sense of what a Labor government traditionally has been about. In the parliamentary debate in December 1985 on the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill 1985 I made the point, and I make it again, that poverty traps can operate to have people paying more than $1 by way of lost benefit and tax together on every extra dollar's income they earn. I gave examples in that debate of people who are being taxed at the rate of $1.29 in the dollar. For every dollar they earned, they lost $1.29. One of the poverty trap measures is in fact a poverty trap reduction. The other two, although they will not eliminate the poverty trap, would have helped people who want to do nothing more than to help themselves. I want to know why the Government has decided that one of its priorities in this Budget is to make people wait another eight months, until 1 July 1987, before the poverty trap reduction measures come into effect. What social good does Labor think it is achieving? What greater purpose is being pursued by making people suffer when all they want to do is help themselves? The Australian Labor Party's priorities are disgusting. As I said before, this legislation is mean and disgusting. It confirms what we know about this Government. It is a government of fixers for powerful interests. That is what it has become; that is what it does. It looks after the powerful; it looks after its mates; it looks after its cronies. But, as for the weakest, the poorest and the most vulnerable, it is too bad for them. This Government has harmed the most vulnerable. No wonder then that Senator Coates and Mr Gerry Hand-both from the Government side-have opposed these changes publicly and vehemently before and after Budget night, from within the Government. It is with very great reluctance and with no pleasure whatsoever that we are not opposing these provisions. This is October 1986; it is not October 1975, and we are not threatening Supply to this Government. Oh, no. This Government will get its money. It will get its 30 pieces of silver. It will get it now so that it can go on and attempt, as best it can, to govern this country until the next election that will tip it out. Because of the disquiet we have about this legis- lation, I move now that certain words be added at the end of the second reading, not to defeat the Bill but as an expression of opinion that the Senate condemns the Government for certain actions that it has taken. I move: At the end of the motion, add: `, but the Senate- (a) condemns the Government for- (i) its action in deferring all automatic pension increases due on 1 November 1986; (ii) its uncaring further 8 month deferral of the poverty traps relief measures; (iii) its illogical means testing of family allowances for 16 and 17 year olds; and (iv) its lifting of the rent threshold before a person paying private rent can qualify for rent assistance; (b) condemns the Government for persisting with its inequitable assets test on pensioners; (c) strongly protests over the Government's continued assault on veterans and war widows through further restricting access to the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and freezing the maximum level of social security component where a war widow is also eligible for an aged pension; (d) calls on the Government to ensure that a voluntary clearance is obtained from the veteran before proceeding with a claim on the veteran's private health insurance, and points out that this aspect of the Bill seeking recompense for veterans' hospital and medical costs constitutes a breach of the fundamental obligation to look after those who served this country in time of war; and (e) condemns the Government for taking three and a half years to do anything about social security fraud and yet doing nothing new or positive but relying merely on window dressing and public relations'. I indicate that the Opposition will not oppose the passage of the legislation, but we have nothing but contempt for the Government. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(4.02) —I rise in support of the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1986. Before I comment about and refute some of the claims of Senator Peter Baume, I will briefly speak to what is contained within the legislation. It makes a number of changes in a number of areas. The two important points that Senator Baume stressed were that there will be deferment of the indexation of increases to pensioners and beneficiaries for six weeks and there will be a delay in the implementation of the poverty trap measures until July 1987. Both of those deferral decisions come with no pleasure at all from the Government. In supporting this legislation, I certainly am not barracking wholeheartedly for it at all. In fact it is a very difficult and tough measure, and a very difficult and tough decision was taken by the Government. Even so, it must be said that this decision allows two things. The first is that it contributes to the fiscal responsibility and recovery of this Government in dealing with two enormous problems that confront it-the falling world price of commodities for this country, so we have the tremendous economic challenge that that gave the Government in the month leading up to the Budget, and of course there was the continuing need to reduce the deficit. Both of those have been addressed by the Government, and I think the social security legislation contributes its part to that economic program of the Government. The other important point that needs to be said is that, even despite those two difficult deferral decisions taken under this legislation, there are still other bits of legislation that will redistribute, thus advantaging people under social security. Even within the legislation there is a redistribution of social security dollars to those who are most in need. I will spell out some of them later in my contribution. It is a tough decision but, unlike Senator Peter Baume, I will not say it is disgusting. One of the things with which this Government has to contend is the economic realities of the world in which it finds itself. Those economic realities are partly due to the falling world commodity prices that I mentioned and partly due to this Government's continuing program to address the mess that was left to it by seven years of Fraser. Let me remind the Senate that when we came into office in 1983 we had to contend with double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment and a massive deficit. There were many people unemployed in this country. What greater way is there to create poverty than by creating unemployment or doing nothing to address it? Those things seem to have been cheerfully forgotten by Senator Baume in his contribution today. I can understand why he would forget them. I can understand why he would not like to talk at all about seven years of Fraser. He complains about the delay of this Government in introducing some of its changes. That is because this Government has to address any number of areas that had to be improved or completely fixed up consequent on the disaster left to us by those seven years of Fraser. If poverty traps are something of which the honourable senator has just become aware, where was he during the 1970s when any number of people could have told him about them? Indeed, I would have thought he knew about them, as indeed I think his colleague Senator Fred Chaney knew about them in that time. Yet in those seven years the honourable senator did nothing about them either. We have introduced the legislation, and we have given a date for its implementation. It is a matter of great sadness that there is a deferral of eight months on that poverty traps legislation, for example. But it cannot be ignored that the need for those decisions is not novel. In the seven years of the Fraser Government it did nothing about them. This Government is addressing them. The other great thing that this Government has achieved, in co-operation with the broad community, is the creation of over 600,000 jobs since it came into office-a quite remarkable achievement that seems to be blissfully and easily forgotten by people on the Opposition benches. There is no greater way of relieving poverty than to create employment and give every Australian an opportunity to take his or her part in the wealth of this country being distributed through wages and salaries. People want to work; people take every opportunity to work. This Government is to be congratulated, as is the public and private sector in co-operation with the Government, for creating over 600,000 jobs that have done so much for people in this country. The honourable senator says that, for example, there were mean tax arrangements, such as we are funding the defence of the America's Cup or something to do with tax concessions for horse purchases. Indeed those decisions were taken not this year, not in this Budget, but in a previous economic climate. I do not think I would place a high priority on them, but anyone can score cheap points by picking out the two or three items that he wants to hold up against these changes and make mincemeat of us. Why did Senator Baume not tell us about the Medicare legislation that was introduced by this Government? It is the legislation that guarantees medical provision and coverage and no financial disadvantaging to the two million Australians who, it was assessed, were outside the health coverage before Medicare was introduced. Seven years of Fraser and God knows how many medical schemes did not cover two million Australians. Those people, whether they were pensioners or people other than pensioners, in this country are now guaranteed medical coverage; every Australian is. That is a universal scheme, and it is progressive. People on very high incomes pay into the pot to provide medical coverage in this country very much more than those people on pensions, benefits or low incomes. Why did the honourable senator not talk about that? That is one part of the scheme and, in fact, every one of those pensioners enjoys the benefits of Medicare. The other great contribution of this Government-again it is in relation to a liability left by Senator Peter Baume's Government-has been the changed provisions under the education portfolio. In both the primary-secondary sector and the tertiary sector this Government is moving as fast as it can and with considerable achievement to provide educational opportunities for a much wider range of people than previously could enjoy them. Again, under seven years of Fraser, spending in education was wound down. We saw the cutback in research funding, capital and recurrent funding to universities so that the number of places on which we were building was even lower than it might have been if we had continued without those seven years of Fraser. Those advantages are there for the pensioners of Australia. Although the provisions and benefits are not directly dealing with their income needs, they are available through this Government's package of policies for all Australians. I have said before, and I appreciate, that the Government is taking a very difficult step in this legislation. This Government knows full well what track it is on, which is for full economic recovery. Steps should be taken to enable most if not all Australians to take their full place in the community. To do that we need a sound economy, full employment, an educated and skilled work force and research money. I have just spoken to a group of pensioners in King's Hall. They said to me: `Yes, the legislation is tough, but we are prepared to play our part in the ``restraint with equity'' of this Government's program to contribute to the recovery for us all. We know it is tough. We hope the Senate appreciates just how tough it is for us. It is much tougher than for anybody on a wage or salary or any kind of indexed income'. To ask pensioners to do this is very difficult, but pensioners agree that they will take their place in contributing to the recovery. They appreciate that they do have a contribution to make; they appreciate that their part in the consumer needs of this society is not unimportant at all. They do not like to be dismissed in the way that the Opposition so often readily dismisses them. It is very difficult to introduce this legislation, but we do not resile from it because we have a clear understanding of what the Government's focus is. Senator Peter Baume says, almost with glee, that his Party, if it ever became a government, would remove this Labor Government's assets tests. There goes a certain number of millions of dollars. I understand those opposite, when in government, will consider universal pensions again and will oppose the tax changes that we have introduced. I would like to know how those opposite including Mr Howard, intend to fund all of these wonderful changes. It has been claimed by Mr Howard that he could introduce changes that are assessed at about $5,900m. We hear too that Mr Howard will do away with the deficit; there will be no deficit at all. Mr Howard expects to find $10,000m. I would like to know how he is going to do it. I would like to know what Senator Peter Baume intends to do. He complains about the legislation introduced here, but he proffers no solutions and no alternatives. What are people to do? They cannot possibly choose those opposite when they have nothing to tell them. Honourable senators opposite have no proposals on tax and they are going to do away with medicare that has actually guaranteed medical coverage for two million Australians. That should be very popular. I emphasise that that is said with heavy irony. I think it will be very unpopular. I do not understand how honourable senators opposite are going to pay for all the promises that they keep on making. It is easy to come in here and complain about this legislation, but what are those opposite proposing to do in its place? What is their proposal for economic recovery? What is their proposal for education and for the creation of jobs? What are their proposals in the tax area? I hear silence from the Opposition. Just before the debate on this legislation was recommenced in this place we had some honourable senators talking about the steel industry. We have had some high words of praise of this Government and indeed of Senator Button, our colleague in this place who has largely had the responsibility for the passage of the improvements in this industry. This Government has encouraged corporations making large profits to consider investment. The previous Government seemed to do none of that. It had seven years to do it; it did not do it. Honourable senators opposite should not tell me that we are not on the right track. They had seven years and they massively fouled it up. They complain about what we are doing, and yet they offer no solutions as to what they might do in the future. I find their arguments totally unconvincing. Senator Peter Baume has claimed that he is feeling uneasy about accepting tax cuts. Well, a feeling of unease probably makes his breast warm or his heart beat faster. Could he persuade any of his colleagues to oppose that change, or are they all just going to have an uneasy feeling? I would like some more honesty and less uneasy feelings. Honourable senators should look at this legislation. It is important to note that we have the difficulty of those two deferments. When the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) introduced this legislation in the other place, he said: . . . nothing in this Budget jeopardises our continuing review and reform of the income security system. I think that is very important. The social security review is well under way. In fact, some of the documentation for that review is now being made available to the public for comment and contribution before the Government takes its final decisions on the proposed changes. Nothing in this legislation will conflict or confuse that continuing review in social security. The other important areas that I would like to pick up in the time remaining to me are some of the points that I alluded to earlier; that is, the redistribution under this legislation to those most in need. The Government is able to provide the following: additional pension or benefit applicable for a dependent child of a pensioner or beneficiary will be increased by $1 to $17 a week in November 1986; the rate of double orphan's pension will be increased by $4.30 to $60 a month from November 1986; the rate of handicapped child's allowance will be increased by $7 to $92 a month from November 1986; and the rate of mobility allowance will be increased by $1 to $11 a week from November 1986. These are measures that are a cost against government. These are measures, even within this tight economic constraint and time, that the Government is able to provide. The Government has given assistance, albeit small, to those most in need: that is, the children of pensioners or beneficiaries who are, by the previous Government's evidence and certainly by ours, some of the poorest people in this country. The Government has also provided for other measures under this legislation. For example, the compensation arrangements by which sickness benefits are either reduced or recovered will be extended to the invalid pension, unemployment benefit, rehabilitation allowance and sheltered employment allowance. This too will return some revenue to the Government. The other very significant area is the increase of rent assistance from $10 to $15 a week as from December 1986. We know that the people who are living on pensions or benefits and who have to pay private rental are very disadvantaged, particularly compared with anyone in the community, but certainly against those who have access to public housing. I think it needs to be spelt out again that despite the tough decisions that are taken in this legislation there is also considerable redistribution to those most in need under this legislation. It is, if you like, a redistribution within the social security portfolio, although that is not an entirely accurate way of assessing it. Other measures are covered in this legislation. The changes in the family allowance for student children between 16 and 18 years of age will be income tested. Families with an income of over $39,000 will not be eligible for family allowance for children between 16 and 18 years of age except under special circumstances. This sometimes leads to people accusing the Government of not appreciating the cost of rearing children. The Government is acutely aware of the cost of rearing children, but it says that people on $10,000 a year or $15,000 a year have a greater need of assistance than those people on $39,000 a year or more. These are very tough times. Those who are better able to pay are being asked to contribute to those who are less able to pay. This legislation is not totally dreadful as one might be led to believe from what Senator Peter Baume had to say. It is a thoughtful attempt to address a very tough and difficult situation. One needs to examine it very closely. It is an area where I hope the Opposition will not get about its mischievous business of misinformation. Considerable efforts have been taken by the Minister and the Government to ensure that these most disadvantaged in our community are, in these tight economic times, advantaged under this legislation. Another area which has been brought to my attention and which has caused some difficulty is the proposal for change under the payment of the new Austudy allowance to beneficiaries of social security pensions. Previously people were granted an allowance under the tertiary education assistance scheme along with their pension. That will be changed in the future. It is very important to say that no student pensioner currently enjoying provisions and assistance under TEAS will have that changed during his or her study lifetime. So there will be no changes for pensioners currently on TEAS. The proposed changes affect only those new students coming into the system further down the track-that is, I suppose, no earlier than next year. People do need to be reminded that pensioners, as I say again, currently enjoying TEAS assistance will have no change in that until they finish their studies. It also needs to be said that any pensioner or beneficiary who is in receipt of a Department of Employment and Industrial Relations formal training allowance, known as an FTA, will not have their pension entitlement changed and the FTA will be paid at a rate of $15 a week for 16- to 20-year-olds, $30 a week for 21- to 24-year-olds and $46.35 a week for those 25 years old and over. The FTA will not be changed under these provisions. Pensioners who are considering studying through this channel need to be reassured on this matter, leaving aside those areas of study that attract the TEAS benefit. The Government is concerned that a TEAS allowance which has a living component, as does a pension, could be seen as a doubling up provision in relation to public sector payments to people who apply for such benefits and want to study. Certainly, with very limited finances, it is difficult to continue to justify that. I certainly find it very hard to say to pensioners who want to study that in future they will be enjoying a smaller return under TEAS, but we do say that it is a tough economic situation. They will certainly be able to continue to study and of course pensioners will not enjoy any extra charges. They are to be advantaged in that way, so I would hope that no pensioner proposing to study will feel disadvantaged to the point of not wanting to begin or continue that study. They will be eligible for a study allowance of $15 a week and although that is less than pensioners are currently eligible for, it is still an encouragement for pensioners to study and to try to achieve the benefits that study will provide for them. One of those benefits is of course that they are more likely to be employed. They will have a wider range of employment opportunities if they have completed some form of tertiary study or training. That brings me back to the comments I made at the beginning of this contribution. Yes, it is difficult to delay poverty traps but to consider a proposal to deal with poverty by poverty traps legislation as the be all and end all is to have an insufficient understanding of the way this Government is addressing poverty. Certainly we would like to do more; certainly we would like to make no cuts in current arrangements, but the Government has the view, which I strongly support, that while the alleviation of poverty traps may be of some help, the greatest way out of poverty is through education and employment. That brings me to another great achievement of this Government, one that of course was completely ignored by Senator Baume. I refer to the Government's child care provisions. The Government has recognised that for many parents, but particularly women, the opportunities to study and to take employment are very limited if there is no provision for child care. It is this Government that has addressed the problem and has provided for the introduction of 20,000 extra child care places over three years. We are in the middle of that three-year period and these extra child care places are currently coming on stream around the country as a result of a variety of provisions, including both full day and occasional care provisions and of course the increase in places under family day care provisions through finances to the States. The Government knows that the way out of poverty is through employment, through retraining and through education. That is the best way to go. Not only is that of benefit to individuals, not only is it more than likely to relieve them of poverty and provide some real alleviation of poverty, but also it contributes to the increased pool of talents and skills upon which this country can draw. It contributes to increased productivity, creativity and imagination in the country. The alleviation of poverty traps is very necessary and important but it is not and ought not to be seen as the be all and end all. The Government is taking a hard step with this legislation. I say again, though, that the pensioners I have spoken to appreciate the tough times and appreciate their ability to contribute to restraint with equity. No, they do not like it; they do not celebrate it. Neither do we. But in times of economic constraint they are not unprepared to do their bit to contribute to the recovery that is necessary to deal with these changed economic circumstances. In some ways I do not see why we should deny them their contribution, their part in the whole restraint with equity program. Certainly that is their line; I do no more than repeat it. I also place on record, as I have said to those outside in King's Hall and to other pensioner groups I have spoken to, that I and the Government thank them for that willingness to contribute. I thank also the wage and salary earners in this country who over the last 3 1/2 years have taken cuts in real wages-another point blissfully ignored by Senator Baume in his contribution. It is precisely because of that contribution from wage and salary earners, from pensioners and from dedicated Australians that we are on the road to recovery, that things have turned around considerably since 1983. There are many more jobs, there are more educational opportunities, there is more child care and there are more ways ahead for most of the people of this country. Much still remains to be done and I do not want to sound as though I am satisfied at all with the situation but I do not believe we can take Senator Baume's contribution as the accurate description that he might want it to be seen as. This Government does have a view of where it is going; it does have a view of the contribution that is necessary from all sectors of the community. I commend the legislation. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.27) —I think it is appropriate at the beginning of my speech on the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1986-a fairly mild mannered title for a Bill that is going to have such a dramatic effect on so many people-to turn the clock back a couple of years and look at exactly what senior members of this Government said during the 1983 election campaign when they were endeavouring to get the support of large numbers of people, particularly in the welfare sector, in order to get themselves into government. As we go through the years from 1983 to the present, it is interesting to trace the change in the Hawke Government's commitment to the powerless, to the vulnerable and to the poor in Australia. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his election campaign in 1983, under the heading Social Security, stated: Together with the unemployed, the main victims of Fraserism are those who depend for their income on social welfare payments-the aged, the handicapped, the invalid, the bereaved, the single parents. It is unforgivable that after seven years of Fraserism a million and a half people on social security are admitted by the Government itself to be living in poverty. Half of the three million Australians who depend on Government welfare assistance-our aged, our disabled, our invalids, widows and single parents-are on payments below the poverty line. From his electoral platform he said: No Labor Government can tolerate that situation. We are committed to raising over a three-year period the basic pension rate from 22 per cent of average male earnings to which it has fallen under Fraser to 25 per cent. Once we reach that goal we will maintain that 25 per cent proportion by indexation until it is possible to take the pension higher. Pensions will be adjusted on the basis of the immediately prior six months CPI movement to cut the present lag of four months to one month. Pensioner fringe benefit levels will be indexed. He went on and on for a full page of glorious rhetoric promising pensioners the earth. In contrast, in 1984, after he had been leading this Labor Government for a couple of years, pensioners and people in poverty were mentioned just twice in 27 pages of election promises and campaign speeches. On page 7 Mr Hawke said that the Government's intentions included: . . . a concerted effort to attack the causes of poverty and inequality in our midst, to eliminate unemployment and to create a fairer society; On page 20 he added: The worst thing that Australian pensioners have to fear-whether they be the ninety-eight per cent totally unaffected by the assets test, or the two per cent who are in some way affected-would be a return to the level of inflation which existed under the Liberals with its devastating impact on their living standards. But we will do more than just protect the pensioners of Australia from the ravages of renewed inflation. We will continue to ensure that they all share in the new prosperity. And specifically, we will continue to work towards the goal of raising the basic pension rate to twenty-five per cent of average weekly earnings. So to the 1986 Budget and to this Bill which sets out to do a number of things, most of which will effectively make life a lot harder for some already economically disadvantaged individuals and families in the community. It is a Bill which in significant parts pays no attention whatsoever to the level of poverty that exists in Australia, particularly with regard to people who rely entirely on pensions or benefits for their source of income. Contrary to a view put about by some members of the rabid Right, which is supported by far too many members of the Liberal and National parties congregated in this Parliament, those people who are living in poverty and who are dependent on pensions and benefits of some sort or another are not dole bludgers, nor are they armies of teenage girls trying to turn themselves into millionaires by having a child each year and raising vast amounts of money from the sole supporting parent benefit, although one would think so if one listened to some of the comments made from time to time in the community by people who ought to know better but who are busy playing politics with other people's lives. The people we are talking about today who will be adversely affected by this legislation include short and long term unemployment beneficiaries of all ages and recipients of the sole supporting parent benefit, the vast majority of whom are women who are suffering from marital breakdown, whose husbands have deserted them and who are left as custodial parents to bring up their children as best they can, often without any assistance by way of maintenance from the non-custodial parent. We are also talking about age pensioners, invalid pensioners, service pensioners, war widows in receipt of a pension and anybody else who was looking forward to the normal promised and expected indexation increase that they were due to receive from 1 November this year. They have also missed out on a more recent innovation introduced by this Government some months ago and taken away from them under this legislation. I refer to those benefits that they were due to get under the poverty traps legislation-benefits that were intended to help more people get some employment and not suffer as a consequence. They have also been deprived of that benefit. It is worth emphasising at this point that, in moving the indexation increases from 1 November ironically through to Christmas Day, the legislation means a permanent loss-not a temporary one as some people seem to imagine-to the people concerned. Those changes to the date on which indexation will occur are not the temporary ones first indicated by this Government; they are permanent. Therefore, essentially, this Bill is a cynical and outrageous move by this Government, supported in fact if not in rhetoric by all Opposition members of the parties except the Australian Democrats, which breaks every promise that this Government has ever made to the vulnerable pensioners and beneficiaries who live in Australia. This is done on the very specious grounds that the Budget deficit had to be somewhat cut back in order to placate Wall Street, to make sure that overseas financial gurus did not complain about Australia being turned into a banana republic, to force the dollar up, to bring foreign investment back into Australia and, in so doing, somehow to improve the economy. I suggest that none of the desired results have yet appeared to any great extent. Even if they do, I fail to see how they will particularly benefit pensioners and beneficiaries in this country either in the long term or in the short term. Senator Crowley had much to say about how improved education, job access and child care are more important than increasing the disposable income of people on pensions and benefits. But I argue how an invalid pensioner, an age pensioner or a war veteran will benefit much from increased access to child care, to full time or part time jobs or to education. In addition, the value of the Australian dollar, if it goes up, will have very little impact on the average pensioner in Australia. Foreign investment in this country is rarely in areas that are labour intensive. It is much more in areas that are capital intensive so, even if there is a massive influx of foreign investment, we cannot guarantee that that will in any way diminish the number of long term or even short term unemployed who are in receipt of benefits and who depend on them as their only source of income. When the Government talks about improving the economy, it means improving the economy as far as big business is concerned rather than for ordinary Australians. Having said that, I have to say that the Bill does not contain only measures that will be of negative benefit to pensioners and beneficiaries. There are some pluses in the legislation, including things like increases to the double orphan's pension from $55.70 per month to $60 per month-an increase that will not exactly fund them on an overseas trip or a luxurious meal at a high class restaurant. It will increase the handicapped children's allowance from $85 a month to $92 a month. It will increase the additional benefit per child from $16 to $17 per week, which is a rather miserly $1 a week increase. Again, that is hardly something that they will be able to spend on a wildly extravagant celebration. It increases the single intermediate unemployment benefit rate from $88.20 to $91.20 per week as of 1 January next year, and introduces a number of other measures that will mean an improvement in the standard of living and the general state of things for people on pensions. But, as I have indicated, they are increases that I find it hard to get over-enthusiastic about, although I do say that they are probably better than nothing and certainly are better than the sorts of measures handed out in the rest of the legislation to millions of pensioners and beneficiaries. At least I suppose we can say that they are increases, however pitiful they may be. Almost everything else in the legislation either reduces a benefit or withdraws it. This is being done, notwithstanding the fact that pensioners are falling further and further below the poverty line, as a number of articles in recent months have indicated. The Age of Monday, 22 September, ran an article, complete with chart for graphic demonstration of the facts of what they were saying, headed `Pensions further below poverty line'. The article stated: When they get their next pension rise, some pensioner families will be $28 further below the poverty line than when the Hawke Government came to power. After the December increase, pensioner couples with four children will have to live on a payment $69.90 below the poverty line, according to Brotherhood of St Laurence figures. This is about $28 further below the poverty line than in March 1983, when the Labor Government was elected. A little later the article points out: For single and married pensioners with children, the gap widens with each extra child. After the December rise, a couple with one child will be $20.40 below the poverty line, or $16.05 further below it than in March 1983. A couple with two children will be $37.60 below the poverty line, $21.85 further behind than in March 1983. For those with three children, the gap is $53.70, wider by $21.85 . . . Single-parent pensioners will be $46.50 below the poverty line compared with $29.80 in March 1983, and those with one child will be $29.10 below it, compared with a March 1983 figure of $18.10. All this is despite the fact that the Government's rhetoric acknowledges the problem, as it did in an item reported in the Adelaide Advertiser earlier this year headed `The ``female face'' of poverty in the 1980s' and quoting the Minister for Social Security, Mr Brian Howe. That article, bylined `Brisbane', stated: The face of poverty in Australia this decade was overwhelmingly female, according to the Minister for Social Security, Mr Brian Howe. Mr Howe told the annual general meeting of Civilian Widows that a major challenge was coming to grips with the changing nature of poverty. I would say that that meeting did not exactly beat that problem and found the challenge somewhat more than it could cope with. If the face of poverty in the 1980s was female when Mr Howe was talking about the matter earlier this year, I believe it is certainly still the case now and a few other faces have been added. Mr Howe went on: The subordinate economic status of women is reflected in social security, where 77 per cent of payments were to women, 69 per cent of pensioners were women, and 60 per cent of all money was paid to women. Mr Howe said that the changing nature of poverty had brought with it different needs and different priorities. To meet these needs the Government was conducting a major review over the next two years. It is fine and dandy for governments to be conducting reviews into this, that or anything else, but when the Government accompanies those reviews into poverty with the cuts of the sort that we see in this legislation, and when it delays by six weeks or more the normal November indexation increases by putting back the introduction of the poverty trap legislation by eight months, until 1 July next year, one wonders how committed the Government is to improving the lot faced by so many families. I refer to families covering almost 800,000 children, all of whom are living in some way or other below the poverty line. It is all very well for Mr Howe and his Government colleagues to talk about government reviews-major reviews, as he called them-which are to take place over the next two years, when they are accompanied by legislation of the sort we are debating today. If Opposition members have no more concern for pensioners, the elderly, the sick and the young in our community than the Government appears to have-and they have indicated in this debate that they do not have that concern-those Opposition members should consider not just what will happen to those people in the next few months and beyond but to other sections of the community. I refer in particular to the retail sector, when it is confronted with the loss of some $200m-worth of expenditure which that sector normally would expect from those people in pre-Christmas spending. Pensioners and beneficiaries of all kinds spend, as we all do, more money at Christmas time and similar periods than at any other time of the year. It is at that time that many people living below the poverty line, who have struggled and scraped together some special event money during the year, look forward to the November indexation increases in order to buy a little extra food, something a little special, particularly if they have children, presents and special clothing in order to enjoy, as do the rest of us, a season that is supposed to be festive but which this year may well not be. As the result of passage of this legislation the shops supplying those goods will be deprived of the custom, and hence the income that is normally supplied by the hundreds of thousands of families on pensions and benefits. One wonders whether the Government or the Opposition have thought of the impact on small businesses which balance leaner times of the year against Christmas spending splurges. That applies not just to those of us who are on reasonable incomes, but to people who save money to spend over Christmas. I have in mind particularly pensioners and beneficiaries who use the November indexation increases to bolster their spending money to improve their lot for that short period of the year when everybody else is celebrating. If the Government chooses to ignore the impact of these provisions on those retailers, on the local small businesses which supply meat, turkeys, chickens, extra fruit and vegetables, even the sweets and puddings, to families who want to enjoy Christmas, I suggest that it shows a callous disregard not only for low income groups but for the businesses and seasonal employees that depend on the spending pattern traditionally produced by the November and early December period. There is no doubt in my mind that the provisions in this Bill which will implement the cuts to pensioners and beneficiaries and which break the Government's promises on the poverty traps, to say nothing of its promise to increase pensions to 25 per cent average weekly earnings, are among the most iniquitous provisions we have seen for some years, since the Fraser Government tried to starve striking workers back into the work force by depriving their wives and children of food and shelter. That attempt was resoundingly defeated, as it should have been, by the combined Opposition parties. There is no economic or social justification for the action taken by the Government. There is no logic in the Opposition's claim that it cannot oppose this legislation because it will block Supply. Opposition members know that is not true. They know that the Supply Bills are the Appropriation Bills, and they know that in 1981 when the combined Opposition parties defeated part of the Fraser Government's sales tax legislation-to the tune, if I remember rightly, of $250m-the country did not go into the sort of spasm it went into at the end of 1975. There is no connection between the Supply Bills and these Budget Bills. The implication by some Opposition members that there is some connection is a piece of chicanery that they can no longer be entitled to get away with. The act of delaying legislation of this sort inconveniences the Government a trifle in terms of its deficit. That is no big deal when looking at the deprivation what this legislation will bring to some vulnerable individuals and families. There is no justification for the Government continuing to deny large amounts of money to consolidated revenue by giving, for example, generous tax concessions to some of the largest companies in Australia which are investing off-shore or borrowing billions of dollars on foreign money markets and negatively gearing their interest repayments. There is no justification for the Government's continuing to allow those well-off sectors of the community to use the taxation system to benefit themselves, to deprive Consolidated Revenue and in doing so apparently to force the Government to take this sort of vicious action against the poor, the disabled, the elderly and the vulnerable in Australia. Essentially, the Labor Government and the Liberal Opposition are saying that people do not have to be particularly productive in this country; they do not have to do anything much for Australia's economic development; they only have to be big and powerful. Everyone else, no matter how vulnerable, is open to attack. Both the Government and Opposition parties are allowing this neat anomaly to continue, while crying crocodile tears about the difficulty of getting the economy of this country on its feet without attacking pensioners and beneficiaries. Gerry Hand, who is, I understand, a member of the left wing of the Australian Labor Party, was right when he reportedly said in the Canberra Times of 18 February this year that poverty and homelessness had continued to increase since the Labor Party won power. He said: . . . the cost of putting economics before social justice has led to a continuing erosion in the real value of some social welfare pensions. I do not believe that we have adequately addressed the claims of those demanding increased social justice. Nor do I. Mr Hand went on to advocate giving pensioners and other beneficiaries increases about the level of indexation, perhaps, for example, through a form of growth dividend. Not only did the Government not do that, but it also did the reverse. Mr Hand added: 1986 is the year in which I believe the Federal Labor Government must bite the bullet and take up the claims for greater social justice. In this piece of legislation we have seen just how this Government has chosen to ignore that bullet. Not only has the Government not bitten on it, but the Government has also sent it in the direction of people who are already hard hit by the treatment they have received in the last three years under this Government. Finally we come to the Opposition's pathetic amendment-an attachment that it wishes to move to the second reading motion. The Opposition's deliberate complicity with this Government in ensuring that this legislation was brought on for debate by agreeing to delay until Thursday or some later date, debates that we were currently engaged in, has ensured that the Government will get its legislation in place by the date that it wants it-that is, 1 November. The Opposition's amendment to the second reading motion condemns the Government for its action in deferring all automatic pension increases due on 1 November 1986. It also condemns the Government for incurring a further eight months deferral of poverty trap relief measures. It condemns the Government for its illogical means testing of family allowances to 16- and 17-year-olds. It also condemns the Government for its lifting of the rent threshold before a person paying private rent can qualify for rent assistance. If the Opposition is as outraged as it says it is by these moves, it should join us in opposing the relevant clauses. There is not much point in the Opposition's condemning the Government for a move which it is supporting. There is not much point in getting up in this House-as Senator Peter Baume did-and talking about the way in which the hides of various unfortunate individuals in this country are being attacked by certain clauses in this legislation when the Opposition could save the hides of those people by simply opposing the offending clauses. Senator Peter Baume talked about the fact that veterans had risked their lives for this country and were receiving as a reward for that the miserable and unnecessary cuts embodied in this legislation. Yet the Opposition is not even prepared to risk a minor increase in the deficit to repay those veterans who will be affected by this legislation. I repeat: If the Opposition is so outraged by these moves, it should join us by opposing the relevant clauses. This is not blocking a Budget in any way at all, it is an expression of genuine concern for and commitment to a vulnerable group of people in this country. There is a word for people who say one thing and do another and the Liberal-National Party senators in this place have earned that sobriquet over and over again this session by complaining about the damage that is being done to one sector or another of this community by one piece or another of this Government's legislation. Yet they have done nothing at all to prevent the implementation of that legislation and nothing at all to prevent the tremendous effects that some of the legislation will have on some very vulnerable sections of the Australian community. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(4.47) —I rise to support the comments made by Senator Peter Baume in leading for the Opposition in this debate today. The Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1986 amends the social security and veterans affairs legislation to implement the decisions affecting those portfolios in the 1986-87 Budget. Before turning to the main provisions in the Bill, I wish to mention certain aspects of the Bill with which the Opposition fully agrees. I mention particularly the amendments by which unemployment beneficiaries will have to be registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service in order to qualify for benefit as from November 1986 and by which beneficiaries will have to lodge their first income statements and applications for continuation of unemployment benefit in person as from 1 November 1986, and the arrangements by which beneficiaries over the age of 55 years who have been receiving social security payments for a year will have relaxed reporting requirements. Each of those three proposals-and there are some others in the Bill-have our full support; we have no quarrel with them. The question we should be asking is why on earth the Labor Government ever abolished the requirement whereby unemployment beneficiaries have to be registered with the CES to qualify for benefits. I am sure that very few people in Australia knew that that change had ever been made and are staggered that the legislation has had to be amended to bring that aspect back. We all know that some people abuse the system-not all by any means, but a small proportion does. How else can we explain the fact that there are 116 unemployment benefit recipients for every 100 who are registered? I urge the Government to monitor its latest changes very carefully over the months ahead to make sure that those it has instituted in this important area go far enough. I return to the main measures of the Bill-the deferral by six weeks of pension increases which were due on 1 November 1986, the eight-month delay in promised measures to reduce poverty traps and the deferral for six weeks of increases in pensions and allowances for veterans. Why has the Government made these changes? Why are these amendments to the legislation necessary? The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) said in his second reading speech that the Bill was `part of very large reductions in spending'. If that were true, the Opposition would have much less objection to the Government's proposals than it has, because then it may be able to say that the Government is spreading fairly and equitably the carriage of the sacrifices required by our economic circumstances. Then I could have sympathised, perhaps, with some of Senator Crowley's remarks. May I say in passing that I have never heard less of an apologia for a government's actions than was conveyed by Senator Crowley today. She quite obviously and patently did not have her heart in it, because she believes also that the Government is not doing the right thing. She justified her statement by saying that this was an equitable sharing of a burden that would be borne by the whole community because the Government, in view of Australia's desperate economic situation, had imposed upon itself very rigid disciplines in terms of Government expenditure reductions. But the Government has not been tough on its own spending; it has not had the courage of its convictions. The Government's Budget has failed totally to match the pre-Budget rhetoric. I am sure that we all remember the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the weekend before the Budget getting up and saying that in economic terms Australia was at war. I think every Australian responded to that and said: `We agree with that and we are glad that we will have some economic measures taken to fight that war'. What happened, come Budget day? We got the most wimpish Budget that we have ever had in terms of its relationship to the pre-Budget hype about it. As a result of that, the Government lost enormous support in the electorate and it was one of the major reasons why the opinion polls have turned so much against the Government in recent weeks; namely, the people thought that the Government was going to take the acton that it said it would take and which we all believed was necessary, but the Government failed patently and blatantly to do that. What was produced instead? We had further tax hikes. It is worth noting that despite all the talk about the first stage of tax reductions coming in on 1 December and the second stage coming in in July of next year, even after both of those tax cuts have been introduced, taking account of increases in inflation and average weekly earnings over the period since the Fraser Government left office in early 1983, a married couple with dependent children will be paying not far short of twice as much tax per week as they were paying in 1983. The idea of the Government having made great scope for major reductions in the taxation burden is absolute nonsense and the figures prove that precisely. Indeed, we do not even need to go back that far; we need only to look at the Government's Budget figures for this year which show that taxation as a proportion of total gross domestic product in 1986-87 will be the highest ever recorded in our history-25.5 per cent. The Government has broken the Prime Minister's trilogy commitment once again. In fact, the taxation side of the trilogy commitment has never been kept since the Prime Minister announced it with such a great flourish in October 1984, just before the 1984 elections. The Government has lifted taxes enormously and we have had a further major Budget deficit thrust upon us, with all the consequences that has for interest rates, economic growth, investment and employment. Why have those things occurred? They have occurred because the Government has failed to put its own house in order. It has failed to spread the sacrifices across the community. Indeed, it did not call on the community as a whole to make sacrifices. The Government's spending this year, it is said, will be held to a nil real increase, but when one looks more closely at that spending one finds that there will be a real increase, not a nil increase. The Government has continued, through its spending programs, to reward its mates. It has continued to spend up big on blatant and dishonest advertising of particular Government programs and it has continued to make large payouts so that left wing trade unions can continue to live off the taxpayers with programs such as artists in residence and the like. It is only in the past few days that further details have been given of another Australia Council grant of $85,000 going to a variety of organisations, mainly unions-within that category, mainly left wing unions-for so-called artistic endeavours which bear no relationship to the needs of those unions or of Australians. It is a disgrace that the taxpayers are being asked to fund, and are funding, those excessive expenditures. Who suffers because these expenditures are made? The people who suffer are those in our community who can least afford it. That is the point about this legislation and about the Opposition's very grave concern about it. The Government has not in any way tried to spread the burden fairly, equitably and compassionately throughout our community. Senator Mason —Will you be voting against the legislation? Senator SHORT —I will come to that. The Government has clobbered those people in our community who do not have the strength and support to resist the endeavours of this Government to prop up its mates and its other interests which are totally out of accord with the interests and priorities of this country. I ask the Government, through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, what value systems it has. What value systems does the Government think the community has when it imposes on contributions to housekeepers, for example, a fringe benefits tax which hits crippled pensioners living on their own who require housekeepers to enable them to try to live a partly independent life? We have seen many examples of that and similar inequities over recent weeks. What value systems does this country have when the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) in Question Time in this place on 9 October stated that most pensioners have accepted their fair share of the burden in these harsh economic times and that these measures have not been greeted with the furore and uproar anticipated? Is that the way that this Government decides its priorities? Does it decide its priorities on the basis of whether the particular group that it will get at in the community will cause a furore or an uproar? If it is, the Government deserves to hang the way it will hang, because it has thrown equity, justice and fairness out of the window and has turned a deaf ear to the cries of those most in need. What has the Government done to morale in the Services, with the reduction of 2 per cent in October this year in service pensions? At a time when we have record disenchantment amongst people in the Services, in terms of their morale-they are voting with their feet, resigning from the Services in record droves and weakening Australia's defence in the process-what does this Government do? It imposes a burden on the service pensioners which is quite outrageous when one takes into account the other priorities of the Government. What has this Government done to all those thrifty old-timers who have earned the right to a pension, all those people who have saved through their lives to provide a standard of living for themselves in their retirement, perhaps a meagre one but one of some comfort and a lack of deprivation? What has this Government done to those people? What has it done to groups such as Mrs Margaret Carter's Silver Power Action for Reform group in Melbourne, for which I have the greatest respect, which is just looking for a fair go in our community? The Government has got its priorities quite out of kilter. There is no sense of equity in this legislation. There is no sense of equity in anything that the Government seems to be doing today. I repeat that the Government has not spread any burden fairly and equitably in relation to this legislation. It has simply hit those groups in our community that have the least capacity to resist government oppression because it has not been prepared to take the necessary and the hard decisions in the other areas where it should have done so. Quite frankly, the Government has lost its way in a variety of areas, including this whole question of where we want Australia to go as a society which takes account of those people most in need in our community and which still regards equity and fairness as important priorities. The Government stands condemned for that. For those reasons the Opposition has moved an amendment to the second reading of the Bill condemning the Government for the actions it has taken in the areas that I have been discussing today, condemning it for doing nothing in three and a half years about social security fraud and condemning it for doing nothing new or positive but relying merely on window dressing and public relations. Public relations has become the hallmark of this Government. No Government can govern on public relations alone, which is what this Government is trying to do. I think that has come home to the Government through the community in recent weeks and I am certain that we will see that increasingly in the months ahead. I finish by commenting on Senator Mason's earlier interjection. The Opposition is not voting against this legislation because, when the Budget was announced, we took a very principled decision that this is the Government's Budget and the Government is entitled to get its Budget through. In doing so we have stressed in the strongest possible terms our opposition to those parts of the Budget, such as this, which are unfair, inequitable and distorting of the priorities in which we in this country believe. But that is that Government's problem. From our point of view, the solution to it is to get rid of this Government as soon as possible so that we can restore a proper balance of priorities and a sense of decency in this country. I have no doubt at all that the thinking Australian public feels exactly the same way as we do, and it will hasten that day. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(5.14) —It is certainly obvious to the Australian Democrats and it seems obvious to everybody on this side of the House who have been speaking in this debate that an iniquitous situation is being brought about by these measures. They are the first in a long line of measures to disadvantage further the poor and underprivileged in our society-that is, the people who can least afford to bear those kinds of strains. I would have thought that it was a gross perversion of any kind of justice to apply the undoubted economic problems of the community to areas that can least afford it. That is being done not only in this legislation but also in other legislation. Senator Short mentioned the discounting by 2 per cent of superannuation paid to servicemen and public servants on the basis that the Government says that everybody must share the burdens that we all suffer, whereas in point of fact that is not the case. Plenty of people in this country are making a lot of money, as the Government well knows, and a lot of them are getting that money through government connivance. It certainly goes against the grain for me to sit in this chamber and have Senator Short, who is sitting behind me, weeping copious floods of crocodile tears about how terrible this is. Senator Archer —Save the sanctimony. Senator MASON —That is what he was doing; he was weeping copious floods of crocodile tears. I have no doubt that, if the honourable senator got up and spoke in this debate, he would weep even more. He would say that the Opposition is taking a principled stand because it will not touch any Bill which it sees as being part of the Budget. The Opposition says that the Government is entitled to get its Budget through. Why then does the Opposition believe that the Australian community elected it to this place? Why does it think the Australian community, in its wisdom, has created a situation-it has maintained that situation for six years now-where no government has held control of this House? It is because the Australian community wants this Senate to be its watchdog and its safeguard. If a matter comes up where members of parliament of any party honestly believe that there is something wrong they should vote against it. It is their public duty. It is what they were elected to do. What else do members of the Opposition think their constituents require of them? They come into the chamber and say: `No, it is a matter of principle. The Government is entitled to get its Budget'. Senator Short said that if there were difficulties with the Budget that was the Government's problem. Unfortunately, that is not true. It is not just the Government's problem, as he knows only too well; it is the problem of the unfortunate people who are suffering because of these measures which the Opposition is allowing to get past. So the Opposition is in it as much as the Government. I suggest that it is not just the Government's problem, it is also the Opposition's problem, because it has contributed to it. I do not care how many second reading attachments the Opposition puts on to this legislation, the bottom line is whether it approves of things the Government is doing and, if it disapproves of them, whether it will vote against them. People in this chamber might say: `How terrible it is to miss a division. We are paid to vote'. Honourable senators are paid not only to vote but to vote honestly and they are paid to vote according to their convictions. That is what this place ought to be about. So the Opposition ought to join the Democrats when we vote against this legislation, as we certainly will, to make sure that it does not pass. By doing that the Opposition will re-establish the reputation of the Liberal Party of Australia in the community. It has a very poor reputation at the moment. The Liberal Party is now seen as a party that runs to water, that does not vote for things it believes in but votes contrary to what it believes. Senator Archer —That is something you cannot say. Senator MASON —Opposition senators are saying that. Every time an Opposition senator gets up and speaks on this Bill he or she says: `It is terrible. The Government has its priorities wrong. Everything is wrong but we will vote for it'. I just leave those thoughts with Opposition senators because every time they do that the Australian community looks at them and says: `Who are these people? What right have they got to say that they will ever be the Government or they should be the Government?'. If they go to water so regularly there will be a Democrat government in this country in the foreseeable future. Senator Archer —Never. Senator MASON —The honourable senator will see it in his lifetime if he is a good boy and he does not eat too much and things like that. If the Government is prepared to delay its consumer price index increases in pensions and defer the excellent poverty traps legislation that it introduced last year-I intend to quote from the second reading speech of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) a little later in this debate-what else is it prepared to do? I remind the community, anybody who is interested, the media, the invalid and aged pensioners, that the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, has still not answered my queries on whether the Government is considering the discounting of all pensions in a mini-Budget which it will bring on early next year. Senator Walsh, in answering a question I asked the other day, admitted to me that there was a working paper to this effect but he said that it was not going to be produced. I ask him: Why will it not be produced? What is there in it that we ought to know? What is there in it that the aged and invalid pensioners of Australia ought to know? I come back to the Opposition. When the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia connived with the Government in the passing of that legislation Opposition senator after Opposition senator got up and criticised it bitterly. I remember that Senator Newman made an excellent speech saying how terrible and how bad it was. Senator Short said again today that it was iniquitous but the Opposition voted for it. Where is the morality in that? What Opposition senators did though, and this is even more important, was open the door to the Government. By allowing the discounting of superannuation payments to service people and to the Public Service they established a precedent which entitled the Government to say: `It is terrible. We hate to have to do this but the load of our economic problems has to be spread right through the community. As from now, age pensions will not be indexed for the cost of living; they will be discounted. If there is a cost of living increase of, say, 9.1 per cent, it will be discounted to 7.1 per cent'. Senator Walsh made that point when answering my question the other day. I asked him what the Government had in mind for pensioners in future, and he would not deny that the Government was considering that aspect. I am still waiting for that denial. If the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), who is in the chamber, can stand up and deny it, I will be terribly pleased to hear it, and so will the pensioners of Australia, many of whom have written to me since that matter arose in this place, asking whether it could be straightened out. No doubt they will soon start writing to the Government about it, too. If the Government discounts pensions in that way, the situation will be even worse than the one we are contemplating now. The mere fact that this Bill is before us today and that the Government is again shuffling off or delaying consumer price index increases means that the Government is opening another little door. It is the thin edge of the wedge. The delay in the poverty traps legislation is another such matter. How far can the Government push people? The Government will try. It will push here and push there, and in the end the big push will come. Of course, then it will be too late. I have no doubt that every member of the Opposition will weep crocodile tears, saying: `This is a mini-Budget measure; the Government is entitled to have its mini-Budget. Although we are elected by the people to represent them and this measure is clearly against their interests, iniquitous and wrong, we will vote for it'. That will be a dreadful exercise. The Opposition, of course, is not traditionally considered to be particularly sympathetic to pensioners or those in the lower income groups of our society. We do not expect it to care particularly about what happens to the poor. There is something behind the Opposition's attitude which is rather more sinister than it appears to be on the surface, and it is this: If the Labor Government is fool enough to introduce these harsh, inequitable measures, why should not the Opposition go along with it? If the Hawke Government brings in all the nasties and acquires all the electoral flak in the meantime-it is, of course, as one sees from the poll figures; it is acquiring the flak all right-it is doing it on behalf of members of the Opposition, should they get in at the next election. They will just love that. This Government will have done all the dirty work and they will inherit it. That is why they are not voting against this measure now. They are using the excuse that it is a Budget measure, but the truth is that the Opposition does not want to vote against these things because deep down it wants them. That is the truth of the matter. The Australian Labor Party in the past has projected a different image-the image of a party which was sympathetic to the worker and the disadvantaged. Obviously, an image is all it was. The Government has no real sympathy for the disadvantaged in this society, as is obvious from the measures it is now proposing. Of course, it has never denied that it is considering discounting pensions on top of the delay in the CPI increase and the holding up of poverty trap reduction measures. I think the problem for pensioners is acute everywhere in Australia, but it is particularly so in the larger cities. It is particularly acute in my home city of Sydney, which is probably the most expensive place in Australia to live. Pensioners in Sydney survive. That is about the best one can say for their present situation. They look forward to indexation increases. Every bit of money that comes into their hands means a little more food and a few more necessary items. Pensioners are now living in conditions which should be considered absolutely intolerable and totally unjustified in any decent, civilised community. Every night thousands of people sleep in parks and shops. I am not speaking of drop-outs and people of that kind but of people on pensions, older men and women who simply cannot afford to live anywhere else. In Sydney the rental situation and the shortage of accommodation has now reached the stage where it is almost impossible to get any kind of accommodation at reasonable prices. The welfare agencies do their best. They provide basic survival sustenance and somewhere to sleep for thousands of people, but even they are up against it. The Smith Family or any such agency will tell us that, especially during winter, the problem is acute. Where accommodation is available in inner Sydney, it is often very bad accommodation. A single wretched room with shared facilities can cost a very large sum of money-$40 or $50. These places are often fire traps, as has been proved by the number of tragic fires in recent years in Sydney. People have to live in these fire traps, and a number of pensioners have been killed in them-that is a matter of record-because they cannot afford to live anywhere else. I take the view on behalf of my constituents-I put it to the Government again-that the whole rent assistance area needs to be looked at very carefully. The only real way to provide assistance is not through a complicated form or arriving at the maximum figures-even though the poverty trap provision before us is an improvement, I do not think it goes far enough-but by indexing rent assistance to the cost of living, to the average rental cost in various cities. This could be done, and it would provide equality for people all over Australia. It would make a tremendous difference to people who need this assistance badly. Every cent, every 10c and every 50c is important to them. They are gradually being pushed further and further down in the poverty area. As the shortage of rental accommodation, now the worst since the war in Sydney-the vacancy factor is the lowest it has been for decades-worsens, these problems also will worsen. I am aware that the Minister is listening to me with some compassion. I know that he personally sees and feels these things in the administration of his own portfolio. I do not know how he gets on in Cabinet with these measures. Perhaps the Government felt that it had to take this money, but I ask him to go back to it and to say that this is not an area in which it is fair and reasonable to be taking money from people. If only all members of Parliament could understand and appreciate the enormous suffering and hardship and the early deaths that result from the reduction in living standards of people who have only the pension and its associated benefits to rely on, I believe we would not be debating this Bill now. I do not think it would ever have come before us. I talk to various people from time to time in organisations that help pensioners. One is the drop-in centre in William Street in Kings Cross. That is an excellent organisation which provides facilities for older people. It provides meals and some kind of assistance, within the legal limits. I find that the old people who go to such places are terribly grateful for it. There are other old people in Sydney who simply cannot afford to buy decent meat, fruit, milk and things of that kind. There is no question of their being able to buy those things. They live on bread and tea. Any of us who know the science of geriatrics knows that geriatric symptoms are advanced by a bad diet. I think we are doing a very poor service for people who may have worked well for this country all of their lives when we force them to that kind of situation. The Minister, as a doctor of medicine, would probably appreciate and understand that there is some truth in what I say. It is a dietary matter and it is important that people should not be pressed into a situation in which they cannot afford the right food. People I have talked to in these places-I have no other evidence, but it is probably true-have told me that old people do buy pet food. They buy it because it is the only source of food protein they can afford. I have heard it said that as much as 60 per cent of certain brands of pet food in Sydney is sold to old people for human consumption. I remind honourable senators that it is Australia in 1986 that we are talking about. Today in this country over 2.8 million people, including some 800,000 children, live in poverty. They are forced to miss meals and have inadequate diets. Children miss school because they do not have respectable clothing to wear there. These people cannot afford to use heaters in winter. They go without medical treatment, especially dental and eye care and, when they go for treatment, they cannot afford medicines. Their isolation is increased because they cannot afford transport. They rely on charity or emergency relief for day to day living. They face eviction and homelessness. This is increasingly the case in Sydney. People are evicted because they cannot pay rents, and they can find nowhere else. To add to the indignity and show the ultimate in poverty, families break down through financial and emotional stress and force children to be put out to institutional care. What kind of society is this that does nothing for these people? These are the circumstances of the poor in our society, and so many of the poor are the people who will be affected by this Bill, which we are hastening through. It is a situation which the Government and the Opposition, through their collusion-I agree with what Senator Haines said earlier; they are colluding to pass this Bill-are exacerbating. The poverty trap measures are very good. The cost is not enormous. The total cost of these changes in 1986-87 is $140m. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), in his second reading speech on the poverty traps legislation, said: First, it will leave more money in the pockets of hundreds of thousands of people on social security with some private income. Secondly, it will ease the transition from welfare to work for people, such as supporting parents, who are temporarily out of the permanent paid work force. Thirdly, it will provide an incentive to all people on social security to provide for themselves, either through part time work or investments . . . 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. Not in any spirit of malice, Mr Deputy President, but with some sorrow and regret I recall to the Government its Minister's own words. These are the people of whom he said so recently needed so much from the Government; these are the people he now proposes to deprive. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.30) —The Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1986 which we are debating today is part of the Budget that was brought down by the Government last August. We all remember that this was the Budget that was going to be tough. The Government was going to introduce cuts in its spending. We all remember the crisis which was so bad that we all had to imagine that we were at war and had to tighten our belts. We remember the statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that Australia was becoming a banana republic. I think the Treasurer took that a bit too literally because we have reached the stage at which our poverty is getting similar to that of a banana republic, which the Treasurer was warning us that we were becoming. We did not get the cuts that most of us expected, but we did get deferrals of pensions. The Treasurer has already told us that there has to be a mini-Budget at some time. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has also warned that additional measures have to be taken and that we have to tighten our belts a little further. Is there any wonder that there has to be a mini-Budget? Is there any wonder that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have warned that we have to take even stronger action? Deferring pension increases will not help the Government with its Budget next year; only cuts will do that. The cuts have to be made in the extravagances in which the Government indulges, not in pensions to the poor. There were some cuts. Of course, the Budget mainly introduced new taxes, but there were deferrals of increases in pensions and there were some cuts. Those cuts were to the pensions of war widows, family allowances and prescribed pharmaceutical benefits that were allowed to pensioners. They were all to do with families, such as a rise in the Medicare levy which is a cut to the family income and a rise in the price of petrol which is again a cut to the family income, and, of course, a 10 per cent sales tax was imposed on flavoured milk and such things which are so essential to the family. Of the two most important actions with regard to families and pensions that I believe the Fraser Government took when it was in power, one was to do with the indexation of pensions. We said at that time that no longer would pensioners have to rely on the largesse of governments at the time of the introduction of Budgets. We said that we would index pensions and that increases would occur twice yearly and there would be no interference in that. We carried out that promise. We also changed the child endowment to a family allowance. We did that so that the low income earners who were not able to take any advantage of child endowment because they did not pay any tax would indeed get the benefit through a family allowance system. We believed that those two actions for the disadvantaged, the pensioners and the families were the two greatest actions that we took while we were in power. What has this Government done? For the first time, it has interfered with the indexation of pensions. To the pensioners it has said: `You can go without yours for six weeks'. To the families it has said: `We will make cuts in the family allowance. We will make cuts by doing away with the family allowance for the senior students unless you happen to be on a lower income'. It has means tested the family allowance for students over 16 years of age. As Senator Peter Baume has said, if one has a job one is right; with this Government one is okay. The Government backed the workers getting an additional 2.3 per cent increase as well as a 3 per cent productivity rise that would be given through superannuation. Also the Government has backed tax cuts, or we think it has, but they have not arrived yet. One cannot rely on this Government for anything until it has occurred. If one has a job one is right. But if one is a pensioner one had better watch out. On the very day on which recommendations of the Government's social security review are being announced in the papers, in this place we are debating the social security cuts. That report recommends that the Government pay a supplement to the basic family allowance to people with one or more children under six years. It recommends that the family allowance be increased to those with four or more children. It says that the Government should increase family allowances in line with the consumer price index. Indeed, Professor Cass said that people without children have an adjusted average income that is $6,200 higher than that of families with children. While that report has come out stressing the need for more support for families, this Government has decided to tax the people and take away their family allowances unless they are means tested and the income of those people is below a certain level. We are not the only ones who are objecting. Senator Coates sent out a letter, the terms of which were pretty strong. I will be very interested indeed to see how that particular senator votes in this place when the vote is taken. He said: The poor will fall further into poverty under the Keating Budget. He continued: I had been dreading the Budget, but did not expect it to contain some of the appalling decisions . . . I expected more widespread cut-backs than there were and I expected them in areas which also affected the better-off people in our society. Regrettably the rumoured welfare cuts were there, but the only item to bother the wealthy was a 10 per cent increase in sales tax for luxury cars. The millions of dollars which go to private schools and to the America's Cup defence, for instance, were unaffected. So I cannot accept that the burden is being shared equally let alone equitably as promised. Senator Coates made very strong accusations about the Government's Budget. As I said, I will be following very closely his movements when we vote on the motion. Senator Crowley, in her usual way, blamed the Fraser Government. She said it was all our fault that the present Government has to take this action. Let us look at what we did. Indeed, let us look at the balance of payments figure. For the year just gone it was $13,713m. The figure for the new quarter was the highest on record. I wonder what the new year will bring. When we left office the balance of payments figure was $6,757m. There is a little difference! Senator Crowley said that it was all our fault. This Government has wrecked our balance of payments, not the Fraser Government. Under this Government the average time a person is unemployed is 52 weeks; when we left office it was 32 weeks. When we left office the Australian dollar was worth 207 yen. What is it now? We were told that it would not fall below the 100 yen mark. But with this Government anything could happen, and it certainly has. the Australian dollar is down now. I am not sure what it is. It is now worth something like 95 or 96 yen. When we were in government a man on average weekly earnings was paying in tax 22.9 per cent of his total earnings. What will he be paying after the tax cuts? He will be paying 24.9 per cent. That is the tax on the average weekly earnings of a man without dependent children. Let us look at the figures for a man with dependent children. When we left office he was paying 14.1 per cent; after the tax cuts he will be paying 17.6 per cent. This Government has increased taxes to such an extent that the tax cuts we hear so much about will still not take people down to the percentage of their income that they were paying when we left office. What has happened to Australia's credit rating? Senator Crowley said it is all our fault, all the Fraser Government's fault, that this Government has had to make these disastrous cuts. I will tell honourable senators what has happened to the credit rating. We had a triple A credit rating under the Fraser Government. Under this wonderful Treasurer, who has just missed out on the wooden spoon for the worst damage a Treasurer could possibly do to his country's economy, it is now down to a double A credit rating. That is the sort of thing that this Government has done. This is the reason why it now says: `We have got to do something'. We are in such a critical position that it is like a country at war. The Government has decided to do these things-to delay the pension, to cut the war widows incomes and the family allowances. The Australian Democrats have said that we should be supporting them in voting against this legislation. This is a Budget Bill; it is, indeed, a money Bill. The Democrats promised they would never vote against such a Bill. Of course, they have done that so many times now that it is quite commonplace. Their promises no longer mean anything. The real reason behind their opposition and their anger for our not supporting them is that they so desperately need a double dissolution to survive. If they do not get a double dissolution, if they do not reach the situation where they can get less of a percentage vote to get back into the Parliament than they do under a normal half Senate election, their numbers will certainly be decimated. That is the real reason why they are so angry that we are not supporting them. That is the real reason, once again, why they are breaking their promises. I would like to turn to the subject of veterans. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) may be able to help me. The Minister did tell me that he would be speaking in this debate. He said that he would apologise to me. He has not, as yet, spoken and I do not see him on the speakers list. I am not sure whether the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) is going to apologise on his behalf. Senator Grimes —He will certainly speak in the Committee stage. Senator WALTERS —I look forward to his apology in the Committee stage. I would like to clarify exactly what has happened in the media fairly recently. If we read page 136 of the Senate Hansard of 20 August, we find that the Minister incorporated a statement. The statement is signed by the Secretary to his Department, Mr D. Volker. Paragraph 6 (c) of that statement reads: War Widows pension granted after 1 November 1986 to a service or social security pensioner The rate of service or age pension will be reduced to $60.05 a week if already being paid at a higher rate, otherwise pension will continue at the lesser rate in payment. I very foolishly believed the Minister. I then went into print. In my news release-a part that affects this area-I said: The war widow who is a veteran in her own right will not only have her service pension frozen, but indeed from 1 November newly eligible war widow veterans will lose $42 of their service pension and will receive the same total pension as a war widow who is not a veteran. I thought that was pretty mean and pretty despicable on the part of the Government. When the Minister for Veterans' Affairs incorporated that statement it assured me that that must be right. I was then abused by the Minister over the next couple of days. In a letter to the Mercury, he said: I can also assure your readers that, contrary to Senator Walters' comments (Mercury, September 9), newly eligible war widows who are service pensioners in their own right before November 1 will not lose any part of that pension. Honourable senators might consider that to be fairly confusing. After all, I only accepted what the Minister and his Secretary had said. I wrote back to the paper and quoted exactly what the Minister had put in the Senate Hansard of 20 August. The Minister and his Department did not have the decency to write back and say: `We were wrong'. I had an hilarious time talking to some of the officers of the Parliament as they, no doubt, will verify. I read that over to them and they said: `Oh, that is not the way you are meant to read it'. I said: `How else are you meant to read it?' They said: `Yes, I can see how confusing it would be'. I said: `It is not a bit confusing. It is stated very clearly'. It said, in words of virtually one syllable: The rate of service or age pension will be reduced to $60.05 a week if already being paid at a higher rate . . . I thought that was very clear but the officers kept telling me that it was all very confusing and not clear at all. They were not for saying that they had made a mistake. Indeed, nobody was for saying that there was a mistake. I eventually saw the Minister and asked whether he would give me an apology. I am looking for an apology because my credibility back home is at stake. He has assured me that I was right and that he was wrong. I stress that the buck stops with the Minister, and I hope that he will say so. In this debate I look forward to that. The fact that war widows are being attacked at all is a great disappointment to me. Every Government has promised veterans that they will be looked after on their return or, if they do not return, their widows and families will be looked after by the taxpayers of this country. Every Government has stood by that and has supported veterans and their families, but this Government has now attacked war widows and is freezing the age pension for war widows receiving the war widows pension. That is not something that should be done to the war widows of this country. There is so much one can say about the area of social security. The Government has not kept its promises to the people, to the pensioners. The Government has made extravagant promises including that old chestnut, the one that keeps coming up, that pensions will reach 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The Government has trotted out all these promises. Senator Short referred today to all those promises to entice pensioners to vote for the Government, but when it is returned the promises are not fulfilled. The Government has promised that it will look after disadvantaged groups, but that promise is never fulfilled. It has promised to look after the families, but of course that has never been fulfilled. Since this Government has been in power the dependent spouse rebate has not been increased. Under us it more than doubled, from $400 in 1975 to $830 for a spouse without dependent children, and even more-$1,030-for a beneficiary with dependent children. This Government has not increased the family allowance, it has only taken it away from certain categories. We increased the family allowance on two occasions. It is typical of this Government and typical of the Prime Minister that the number of promises he makes to get into government is one thing and the number of promises carried out is another. Unfortunately no promises have been carried out; there has been only great detriment to this country. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(5.55) —There is no doubt in the minds of any of us who have a sincere interest in social security and the welfare of those who are most dependent upon the Government that this Government has been faced with a delicate balancing act, required, as it was, to produce a deficit which would satisfy the domestic corporate sector and the international money market while at the same time ensuring that those whose welfare depends most directly on social welfare benefits were not put at a disproportionate disadvantage. Senator Short and other Opposition speakers may well criticise what they perceive to be unfair, inequitable and distorted priorities. I venture to suggest that in the same circumstances other decisions, far less well considered, would have been made if the current Opposition when in power were faced with the same range of options. From what I have been able to gather from the Press over the few weeks since the Budget was announced, supporting mothers seem to be the favourite target of those on the far Right who currently have the luxury of not having to make the difficult decisions and also have the good fortune to be able to make all their vituperative remarks. It is also very interesting to note that in those few weeks since the Budget, very little emphasis has been given by the coalition to the reductions of which the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1986 is the legislative instrument. We have heard a great deal of hysteria about various types of taxes such as the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax. I admit that these taxes are principally, though not solely, the concern of people on higher incomes. There has been a great deal of emphasis on tax cuts, which are expected by the vast majority of our earning population, and the Government's integrity seems to rest on those tax cuts being brought into effect on 1 December. I have no doubt that will be the case. However, the Opposition seems to have waited until this Bill has come before the Parliament to make any substantial contribution to the debate on how we are going to redistribute resources which total considerably less than we would have wished. Most of us find it unpalatable to postpone the indexation of age and other pensions for three pension days. That medicine has been marginally easier to take because we have also determined that the indexation will not be discounted. This would have been a far more difficult decision and a more harmful decision as far as most pensioners are concerned. The savings achieved as a result of that deferment for three pension payment periods will be directed towards families in greatest need and those, as we are all very well aware by now, are families with young children. I recall that during the taking of evidence by one of the Committees on which we serve a very valuable contribution was made by the New South Wales representatives of the Australian Pensioners League emphasising that pensioners were concerned for their own welfare; they were concerned to see their pensions increased to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings but they were also aware of the fact that it was families with young children which were in much greater need and, if asked to nominate a priority, they would have held that group up as the most deserving. Every fair-minded person must deeply regret that our measures to ease the heavy marginal tax rates currently levied on pensioners' extra earnings have had to be postponed but none of this affects the major commitment of this Government to review and reform the income security system. It is a source of great satisfaction to me that we have in our hands now Issues Paper No. 1 of the Social Security Review being conducted by Dr Bettina Cass. This particular paper is entitled `Income Support for Families with Children' and I strongly recommend it to all honourable senators who take a genuine interest in this vital subject. The fact that one of the measures included in this legislation is the income test on family allowances has been mentioned on a number of occasions. That income test is a very generous one. It applies to families with an income of $39,000 a year and over. It does not take the family allowance away from needy families, as Senator Walters seemed to assume. That is a rather inaccurate interpretation. We have been aware over the years that there are families who are not as dependent on the family allowance as others. That decision was not an easy one to make, but in the discussion paper that has now been made available to us it is one of the issues that is very thoroughly analysed. The family allowance and the issue of horizontal and vertical equity have been very thoroughly examined. Suggestions are made of a more targeted approach to ensure that adequate family allowance is targeted to those families most in need. The targeted approach that Dr Cass seems to advocate recognises the increased needs of families with one or more pre-school age children. Of course, as we know, this frequently coincides with the period in the family life cycle that is marked by relatively low incomes and a low level of mothers' work force participation or the extra cost of child care where both parents are employed. The discussion paper includes statistical information that makes it very clear that families without children are far more likely to be in economically comfortable circumstances than those with young pre-school children. Horizontal equity is interpreted as a principle that requires that people in like circumstances should be treated alike. To achieve horizontal equity, it is advocated that we look at a number of approaches such as a basic family allowance payment; a young child family supplement where there are one or more children under the age of six, making provision for that family where the mother's capacity to enter the work force is greatly reduced; a large family supplement-which would better be phrased as a supplement for large families; the introduction of an income tested disabled child's allowance rather than the range of measures now available for families with disabled children; and indexation of all elements of the family allowance payments. The paper also looks at ways in which vertical equity can be introduced into this system. Vertical equity is the principle that requires that people on low incomes should receive greater assistance and/or pay less tax than those on higher incomes, that is, according to the capacity to pay. To provide this equity we will consider a range of options including higher rates of additional pension or benefit and family income supplement for teenage children not yet old enough to be eligible for education allowances. We will need to address the increased costs incurred by low income families who must depend on private rental accommodation. There is plenty of evidence in this volume and elsewhere to prove that those people who are on low incomes and also dependent on private rental accommodation are at a double disadvantage. We could also look into integrating additional pensions and benefits and family income supplements into one low income family supplement to be paid to the parent primarily responsible for the children. All of the arguments in this section of the document emphasise that crucial element of targeting money to the parent primarily responsible for the children and that payments should be made regularly and not at too long intervals. It is suggested that such integration may improve the take-up of the family income supplement by low income families in the work force, and support parents in their transition to work. We are well aware of the fact that the family income supplement has not been taken up to the extent to which we believe there are people in the community who are probably eligible for it. That targeting and perhaps providing phase-in periods between unemployment and employment also associated with the family income supplement are other measures that have been advocated in this excellent discussion paper. We would like to see an increased rate of additional pension or benefit and family income supplement and a higher rate of payment where there is a teenage child. Increasing rent assistance to pensioners, the amalgamation of the additional pension or benefit and family income supplement and an indexation of all income tested additional payments for children are measures that are also advocated. It is absolutely clear that the Opposition simply has not given any thought whatsoever to measures that should be taken-measures of this nature that would be directed very carefully and very clearly to those who are in greatest need. As a result of the publication of this discussion paper, we have become aware that our system of social benefits is badly wanting in comparison with those of other industrialised countries which aspire to the same standard of living as we have in Australia. We have the unpleasant distinction of being third from the bottom of those countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in terms of our assistance to families. In fact our payments for second and subsequent children compare very poorly indeed. I hesitate to upset Senator Walters again by referring to this, but I must insist that one of the elements that has contributed without a doubt to our having fallen so badly behind other countries is the lack of indexation of the family allowance during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Of course, this has meant a very severe drop in the value of those payments, which in many families are absolutely essential to maintain a decent standard of living. In Senator Walters's words, interference is exactly what our social security system needs and not the sort of ad hoc piecemeal approach not only of the last few years or decades but of the decades since the early part of this century when Australia led the world in social security arrangements for those in need of support from the public purse. Of course, what we need are changes that are carefully designed as a result of the review now under way. Some rationalisation has already begun. Simultaneously with the Budget decisions we have announced a range of measures to tighten the administration of the unemployment benefit to ensure greater fairness in the allocation of limited funds. We have now made it a prerequisite that all unemployment beneficiaries will have to register with the Commonwealth Employment Service to qualify for the benefit as from November 1986. This will have the effect of removing the unhelpful comparisons that have been made in the past between those people registered for unemployment and those registered for social security benefits. There has been a tendency to compare apples with cheese, if I may say so, in the past. That has been a completely unsatisfactory state of affairs. It has been possible for some rather mischievously minded people to suggest that far more people were receiving social security benefits than were registered for employment. Being able to bring that data into line will provide us with a far more accurate picture of what the situation really is and will do away with the opportunity for people who have a mind to do so to aim a few more hefty but completely unwarranted kicks at those people in the community who are reliant upon public assistance of one sort or another. The changes that are being brought in at this stage are unpalatable and most of us would have preferred them not to have been necessary. We believe that the way in which they have been brought about with the redirection of savings towards families with young children, those on lowest incomes, is correct. This is just the first step in what we believe will be a thorough overhaul of our social security system. We have the sincere intention of introducing equity so far as possible into what until now has been a haphazard system. It will direct assistance to the neediest at the time in their lives when they are most in need. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(6.11) —The Senate is debating the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1986. Senator Giles referred to the difficulty of taking this medicine and said that it was unpalatable for all. When I was a small child and had to take rather nasty tasting medicine, my mother's advice was always to do it quickly-to take it, get it over with, so that the taste would not linger. Let us make no mistake about it, what we are doing here is dishing out the nastiest medicine of the Budget; the real nasties are in this Bill. So the Government and the Opposition has colluded, combined yet again, to bring on this legislation because they want to get it over and done with, as my mother would have advised. Well, the Australian Democrats are not prepared to let the nasty taste be avoided. We are here to ensure that the grim reality of what is happening is brought home to the Government, the Opposition, and the Australian community. This afternoon, in common with many other senators, I met a group of pensioners from my State of Victoria who are here in Canberra in a futile attempt, unfortunately, to make politicians see the injustice of what is happening. Those pensioners will get no joy, and have had no joy, even from the Democrats, unfortunately, since we have had to tell them the facts-namely, that Government and Opposition have teamed up again to hit the poor and defenceless. I have been interested to observe the progress of the debate thus far, a debate in which we have heard several interesting accounts of discussions with pensioners. Senator Crowley said that today she had spoken with pensioners in King's Hall who had told her that, yes, it was difficult, but indeed they understood the Government's problems and that they were happy to play their part. As I came out of the chamber an hour ago, a great many of the pensioners from Victoria were in King's Hall and I approached them. I asked them, because I had spoken with them earlier in the day and had got quite a different message, whether they were the pensioners to whom Senator Crowley had been speaking. To say that they were incensed is probably putting it mildly, but I promised them that I would place on record that it was not the Combined Pensioners Association of Victoria to whom Senator Crowley was referring, so I do not know of which group of pensioners she was speaking. It was equally distressing, in further conversations with that group of the Combined Pensioners Association of Victoria who gathered in King's Hall, to hear them say that at least one Opposition senator had told them that the Opposition members were doing their best, by combining with the Democrats, to attempt to delay this legislation so that it would not be able to be in place by 1 November. That seems to me to be an incredible statement for any responsible person to make to a group of people, and is patently untrue. That kind of misleading statement is beyond belief. Those pensioners have asked me to place on record the fact that they were astonished at being told that the Opposition had colluded with the Government to remove business that was before the Senate in order that this legislation should be rammed through while those pensioners are in Canberra attempting to put their case. The major elements of this legislation to which I refer are, of course, the deferral of the consumer price index increases for pensions and fringe benefits, sickness and unemployment benefits to December, and deferral of the operation of the poverty traps legislation to next July, as well as the increased thresholds for supplementary rent assistance. As Senator Haines outlined earlier, this represents a litany of broken promises made by the present Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, in his Australian Labor Party policy speech in 1983. Indeed, we should have seen this sort of thing coming when, in his policy speech at the next election, in 1984, in 27 pages of policy speech pensioners and people in poverty were mentioned only twice. Indeed, they seemed then to be slipping down the political agenda. It is important to recognise the Government commitment, which was part of the tax reform package, aimed at easing poverty traps. Perhaps there was some comfort for people in poverty to realise that the Parliament was at last recognising the enormous difficulties under the system as then constituted, and indeed as it still will be for an extended period, involved in working their way out of poverty. However, that has gone and not until July 1987 will the allowable income limits per week for the maximum basic pension be raised from $30 to $40 for single pensioners and from $50 to $70 for couples and the additional income allowable per child be raised from $6 to $12. We should examine the effects of the deferral of the poverty trap legislation. In its response to the Budget the Australian Council of Social Service has produced a document containing a table setting out the effects of the deferral on people who live below the poverty line. The loss to such people is serious. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the table from the ACOSS document entitled `Community Responses to the 1986-87 Budget'. Leave granted. The table read as follows- ILLUSTRATIVE TABLE OF BENEFITS UNDER POVERTY TRAP MEASURES Private Income $100 Current pension reduction Pension reduction from November 1986 Gain Current rent assistance Rent assistance from November 1986 Total gain Loss through deferral until July 1986 $ p.w. $ p.w. $ p.w. $ p.w. $ p.w. $ p.w. $ full year Single pensioner:ep No children not renting... 35 30 5 . . . . 5 170 renting... 35 30 5 . . 15 20 680 Two children not renting... 29 18 11 . . . . 11 374 renting... 29 18 11 . . 15 26 884 Pensioner couple (combined): No children not renting... 25 15 10 . . . . 10 340 renting... 25 15 10 . . 15 25 850 Two children not renting... 19 3 16 . . . . 16 544 renting... 19 3 16 . . 15 31 1054 Senator POWELL —I thank the Senate. As we are talking about the Government's tax package, the Government's raison d'etre almost since the most recent election, we should look at what is being done in this legislation compared with the tax cuts. Part of the collusion between the Government and the Opposition to get this legislation before us today has involved the adjournment of the debate on the Income Tax Rates Bill 1986-I might add, halfway through my speech on that Bill. That Bill will have the effect of reducing income tax rates at the top level from 60 per cent to 49 per cent, and to lower the rates from 48 per cent to 40 per cent, from 46 to 40, 30 to 29, and 25 to 24 per cent by July 1987. It has been argued that high income tax rates must be lowered because they are unfair and serve as a disincentive. It is left to the Democrats to put the case of pensioners and beneficiaries, those who live below the poverty line. For every dollar that those people earn over the miserably low permissible income level, which will stay that low, they suffer a penalty of 75c in the dollar-50c lost from their pension or benefit for every dollar earned, and 25c in the dollar taxation. That is an effective 75 per cent tax rate. I have with me a piece of paper containing some mathematics given to me by one of the pensioners with whom I spoke today. She points out that she receives a pension of $102.10 a week and has a `massive' amount of capital of $5,000 invested at 11.75 per cent. But because of that investment at that not particularly high interest rate, she has a minimal $10.30 addition to her pension because of the operation of that effective very high marginal income tax rate. That is an individual case of someone who is obviously not well off. It seems that we operate on a double standard. For those in employment, for business people and people on high incomes it is seen as unfair and a disincentive that they should have to contribute at the level of 46 per cent, 48 per cent or 60 per cent; so these levels are being lowered. Meanwhile we close our eyes to the situation of the poor who will still suffer an effective 74 per cent penalty, even after the tax cuts. We should not forget either that the abolition late last year of the earnings concession arrangements by which some pensioners were able to average their incomes over one year, rather than only a few weeks, has added a further discrimination. This is especially so now that this Budget, quite rightly, allows sports people, performing artists and others such as authors and inventors to average their incomes over five years. Pensioner groups have been doing some work which suggests that the tax-free threshold would need to be about $8,000 before this iniquitous effective marginal tax rate, which rips off people with a miserly $5,000, above the pension to invest stopped biting. My Australian Democrat colleagues and I-and, I expect, most other senators-are increasingly coming across cases of quite elderly pensioners, often over 80 years, who this year for the first time in their lives as pensioners have to pay tax. We should address this issue because it is certainly a double standard. Also in this Budget session the Opposition and the Government have joined together to add to the burden of people such as the pensioners by imposing sales tax on foodstuffs in the form of milk and fruit juice. Only the Democrats opposed this iniquitous move. We stood by our resolve that the necessities of life should not be taxed. We do not believe that this Budget has imposed restraint with equity. There is nothing equitable about asking people below the poverty line to accept further burdens while we lower the contribution asked of the comfortably off and those in employment and let takeover merchants off scot-free. Let us look at company tax. It is interesting that there is no significant change in the overall tax mix this year. In particular, company tax receipts will continue at around 10 per cent of the total tax revenue. By contrast, about 10 years ago company tax provided about 20 per cent of total tax receipts. It is noteworthy that the revenue obtained last year from company tax fell more than $350m below the Government's predictions. There are some questions to be asked here about whether there is sufficiently vigorous enforcement of the laws in place in this area. Through the kind of action which the Government and the Opposition jointly propose and support today, we ignore and exacerbate the most disgraceful social problem in Australia today-the increase in poverty. Let us look again at the 1983 Australian Labor Party policy speech. It contains fine words and fine sentiments. Sentiments such as: Together with the unemployed, the main victims of Fraserism and those who depend for their income on social welfare payments-the aged, the handicapped, the invalid, the bereaved, the single parents. It is unforgivable that after seven years of Fraserism a million and a half are people admitted by the Government to be living in poverty. That figure is now two million. The policy speech continued: No Labor Government can tolerate this situation. Would that that were so. Let us look at the facts. As I said, there are now more people below the poverty line and those people are further below the poverty line and falling. As we noted earlier in the year, before the Budget, when community groups with concern for these facts attempted to influence the Government's decision on the Budget, they brought to our attention that in fact 2.5 million people were living below the poverty line and that, of those, almost 800,000 were children. The pleas organised through the Australian Council of Social Service in that pre-Budget campaign fell, unfortunately, on deaf ears. Instead we got a doctrine of restraint with equity. It is also interesting to note that the proportion of government spending on social security has fallen since 1983. That is a fact which does not sit very well with those campaign promises of 1983. ACOSS said: Cuts of the kind being proposed- and of course today it is cuts of the kind that are proceeding through this Parliament- are economically counterproductive and socially unjust. I remind the Senate again of the consequences, as outlined by my colleague, Senator Haines, in this pre-Christmas period. It is almost an indictment of us that apparently the only thing that might stir some of us into action is the fact that many businesses will lose a great deal in a period when they usually make a lot of money from people in low income brackets who spend most of what they receive on surviving during the year and who, at Christmas, dig very deeply into their pockets so that they can enjoy the festive season with everyone else. This year will not be festive for those people. Even the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) recognised in his own pre-Budget lobbying period this increase in poverty. In fact, earlier in the year he actually drew attention to the changing face of poverty. Poverty is increasing, deepening and being feminised. This is a matter of great concern to me. Mr Howe said: In Australia in the 1980s the face of the poor is most likely to be a woman's face. That is a matter of enormous concern. We should take entirely the opposite actions to those that are being taken in this legislation this week. The Salvation Army has also reported the same sorts of changes in the patterns of poverty. As it said, once it was considered that the poor were the old, the destitute and the lonely, but now the faces of the poverty stricken belong to young women and their children and to young unemployed men. The Salvation Army points out that women are turning to it very often because they are trying to escape from domestic violence. Again, very often that violence occurs because of unemployment which leads to demoralised family breadwinners being unable to cope. The Salvation Army points out that other women are coming to that organisation because they are unmarried or separated with children and they cannot exist on social security payments any longer. Demand for the Salvation Army's family welfare services increased by 15 per cent last year. These facts were put by the Salvation Army's Colonel Bath in the Weekend Australian in June this year. Because people cannot live on social security payments any longer, the stresses and strains on our voluntary welfare organisations are enormous. Those organisations are telling us that they cannot cope any longer either. What we are doing here today is definitely of no help to them. Not only is poverty deepening, increasing and being feminised but people are also staying in poverty for longer. The poverty traps legislation was a recognition that something needed to be done about this; yet today we are debating a Bill which will just cement people more and more deeply into poverty. It is clear that an unfair share of this year's Budget burden will be borne by women and children, particularly by sole parent families. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator POWELL —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was pointing out that an unfair share of this year's Budget restraint-we are calling it that-will be borne by women and children, in particular sole parent families. Earlier I stressed the fact that poverty is increasing and deepening in our community. Senator Grimes —Are you going to give us some evidence of that? Senator POWELL —Indeed I am. The Australian Council of Social Service, in its document `Community Responses to the 1986-87 Budget', provides us with a chart which underlines these very points. It shows that all groups concerned since the election of the Hawke Government in March 1983 have fallen further below the poverty line. Even worse, in a sense, is that one category, pensioner couples, has moved from a position of 3.5 per cent above the poverty line to a marginal point below the line; quite an achievement for a government whose policy speech had pontificated in ringing tones, as we have heard here several times today, about not tolerating increasing poverty. Children, especially children in single parent families, have fallen further below the poverty line. The chart shows that a single parent family with one child in March 1983 was 15.3 per cent below the poverty line and in December 1986 will be at 17.2 per cent below the poverty line; a single parent family with two children will fall from the March 1983 position of 20.1 per cent below the poverty line to 22 per cent below the poverty line; and a single parent family with three children will fall from 22.7 per cent below the poverty line to 24.6 per cent below the poverty line. Away from the issue of children and single parent families, the chart shows also that the position of unemployed people under 18 has significantly worsened and will have worsened by December 1986 from a position of 54.5 per cent below the poverty line-they were already in by far the worst position-to 60.2 per cent below the poverty line. There are other points of evidence, requested a moment or two ago by the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), in this chart, so I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Table 1 COMPARISON BETWEEN POVERTY LINES AND PENSION Head not in workforce Poverty Line March 1983 Pension and allowances Poverty Line (a) % difference from Poverty Line March 1986 Pension and allowances Poverty Line (b) % difference from Poverty Line December 1986 Pension and allowances Poverty Line (c) % difference from Poverty Line $ $ % $ $ % $ $ % Single persons ... 77.25 87.90 -12.1 102.10 118.50 -13.8 106.20 125.60 -15.5 under 18 unemployed ... 40.00 87.90 -54.5 50.00 118.50 -57.8 50.00 125.60 -60.2 18-20 single unemployed ... 64.40 87.90 -26.7 88.20 118.50 -25.6 91.20 125.60 -27.4 over 21 single unemployed ... 95.40 118.50 -19.5 99.20 125.60 -21.1 Couple ... 128.80 124.50 +3.5 170.30 167.90 +1.4 177.10 178.00 - 0.001 Couple + 1 child ... 144.05 153.80 -6.3 191.55 207.40 -7.6 199.40 219.80 -9.3 Couple + 2 children ... 161.55 183.10 -11.8 215.05 246.90 -12.9 223.90 261.70 -14.5 Couple + 3 children ... 180.55 212.40 -15.0 240.05 286.40 -16.2 249.90 303.60 -17.7 Couple + 4 children ... 199.95 241.60 -17.2 265.05 325.90 -18.7 275.90 345.50 -20.2 Single parent + 1 child ... 100.50 118.60 -15.3 133.35 160.00 -16.6 140.50 169.60 -17.2 Single parent + 2 children ... 118.10 147.90 -20.1 156.85 199.58 -21.4 165.00 211.50 -22.0 Single parent + 3 children ... 137.00 177.20 -22.7 181.85 239.00 -23.9 191.00 253.30 -24.6 (a) Based on an estimated seasonally adjusted household disposable income per head per week for the March 1983 quarter of $152.60. (b) Based on an estimated seasonally adjusted household disposable income per head per week for the March 1986 quarter of $203.00. (c) Based on a projected seasonally adjusted household disposable income per head per week for the December 1986 quarter of $215.18. Senator POWELL —In this same document the National Council for the Single Mother and Her Child and Community Child Care (Vic.) makes some important points on the effect of this Budget on single parent families. It points out that pensioners and beneficiaries with children already suffer from the lack of indexation in the system. Most pensioners with children therefore must supplement their social security income with other earnings. The postponement of this legislation to enable pensioners to earn more will make a significant difference to those people. It is perhaps most distressing, having spoken with families who are in this group, that the impact of this, which we are seeing consistently and unfortunately now increasingly, is that these people are accused of abusing the system, but in many ways they have little choice. For a mother with children, when it means the difference between feeding them and not feeding them or between being able to send them on school excursions and not, it is perhaps excusable that such women very often become a part of the cash economy. They suffer not just from abuse from the much more well-heeled section of the community but also from their own conscience, because no mother wants to be seen as a law-breaker in the eyes of her children. I have great empathy with those women because I do not particularly like to be a law-maker who may be seen to be involved in the sorts of things in which we are involved with this legislation. The Council for the Single Mother and Her Child points out, as I have done earlier today, that wage earners are doing much better out of this Budget than people who are on pensions and benefits. Indeed, wage earners have enjoyed an estimated increase in real disposable income of 7.3 per cent in the 10 years from 1976-77 to 1986-87, while the disposable income of a supporting parent with two children has declined by 2 per cent over the same period. One of the aspects of the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill which will be increased is the children's allowance, which is being raised by $1 per week. The point that is made, quite justifiably, in this document by these groups is that this is highly unrealistic and effectively a non-action, considering the extent of its inadequacy. The cost of rearing children is estimated to be about $38 per week per child, but that varies according to the age of the child. This $1 increase hardly compensates for the severity of other measures in the Budget, some of which I have outlined, including the imposition of a sales tax on food items such as flavoured milk and fruit juices, which form a large part of an essentially nutritious diet in families of all kinds. I found it rather incredible to hear Senator Giles say earlier in the debate that New South Wales pensioners have said that they accept the cuts they are suffering because they realise that families with children need the money more than they do. That may be true, but the truth of the matter is that Australia's record of support for children has now been shown to be abysmal, as Senator Giles then went on to point out. She referred to the social security review which was referred to in an article in the Age this morning, which shows Australia to be above only two other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in the support we give to families with children. It is important that the Government does not allow-certainly the Australian Democrats will not allow-age pensioners to believe that their sacrifice, the sacrifice which we will be imposing on them in the legislation we are debating here today, is in the cause of ensuring that families with children are better off. As we have pointed out, the beneficiaries of all this sad farce in which we are involved are those in employment who have a much more comfortable existence and who are getting tax cuts; people in business whose contribution to the tax mix is going down; people involved in money making procedures such as company takeovers and using negative gearing to write off their tax liabilities-on and on goes the list. The attitude to all of this of Government and Opposition senators and members in the other place is rather astonishing. We have had protestations from people on both sides, members and senators, saying that they think this legislation is unworthy, unfair and unjust. We have had a suggestion that indeed pensioners should take legal action to remove the injustice that is about to be placed upon them. This call was indeed cruel in its futility. It is the Parliament which has the responsibility for this action. Indeed, should anybody have taken up the suggestion, it certainly would not be successful in the courts. It seems to me to be an astonishing sort of reaction from a so-called responsible parliamentarian. The Government has been called hypocritical by the Opposition in all of this exercise. Surely the same epithet could be laid upon the Opposition when, for all its protestations, all it really has to do, if it believes this is the sort of legislation which should not pass, is join the Australian Democrats and vote against this legislation. The Opposition should back up its words with action so that the greatest burden of this Budget, in which there are many inequities, will not have to be borne by those in the community who are least able to cope with that burden. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(8.10) —I thank honour- able senators for their contribution to this debate. I understand that we will have a marathon performance in the Committee stage so I will not go into all the detail of the legislation and all the detail that has been raised tonight. But there are two speeches that I must mention and talk about in particular. Of course, the last shall be first. I will talk about Senator Powell's speech. The first thing I want to say, and I say it very seriously, is that when Senator Powell first got up she claimed that the Opposition and the Government had acted in collusion to get the social security legislation up early so that it could get through. If that is a fair comment, okay. The Government decides what goes on the red business sheet in this place-in fact, I usually decide what goes on. What goes on the business sheet is put on by the Government and it is government business. If Senator Powell wants to come in here and make accusations of the type that she made I think she should produce some evidence. We have had some humbug in this place in our time but we have really heard it tonight in this speech. We heard a typical speech from someone who advocates things in the absolute certainty that he or she will never be in a position to carry them out. On 18 September Senator Powell moved a notice of motion in this place. She said: I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move . . . She then listed a whole series of things which this Parliament and this Government should do. I assume that she, as the spokesman for the Australian Democrats, is speaking for the Australian Democrats in advocating what the Government should do. She said that it should lift all pensions and benefits to levels above the poverty line and index these in line with the consumer price index. Senator Haines —Isn't that what you promised to do? Senator GRIMES —No. The cost of that would be $1,105.3m. She said that the Government should do that for the unemployment benefit. The cost of that would be $643.4m. She said that we should do that for the under 18-year-olds and the 18- to 20-year-olds. That would cost another $25m. She said we should do that for sickness and special beneficiaries and that would cost another $72m. Senator Haines —That is less than you gave to the private banks this year. Senator GRIMES —I ask the honourable senator to hold on. Paragraph (a) of her motion-her motion goes to paragraph (h)-represents an expenditure of $1,847m. Senator Haines —Add up what you give to BHP, private banks and the oil companies. Senator GRIMES —I will keep it short, ma'am. Paragraph (b) represents $305.8m. Paragraph (d) represents $173m. Senator Macklin —You are not allowed to drag them out of the air. Senator GRIMES —I am sorry. Paragraph (e) represents $800m. None of these were promised. paragraphs (f) and (g) represent $875m. Paragraph (h) is unable to be understood by anyone who has read it; so we will leave that out because it could represent many hundreds of millions of dollars. The total expenditure advocated by the good senator is $4,000m. She wants to add to the Budget deficit $4 billion. An honourable senator who comes into this place and advocates that this Parliament should spend $4,000m on top of the present Budget is kidding herself and is being cruelly unfair to the disadvantaged about whom she weeps in this place. She weeps and pours tears all over the place. Senator Haines —Don't be so sanctimonious. Senator GRIMES —Let me tell the honourable senator about people who are sanctimonious. Senator Powell was in this chamber for half an hour tonight mentioning all these terrible things that the Government and the Opposition would not do. She was bleating and weeping and the only evidence she produced-she could not produce her own evidence; she could not get it from those research officers on the Democrats' staff who are paid so much-was a document from the Australian Council of Social Service and a document from the National Council for the Single Mother and Her Child. That is the sole evidence that she has produced. It is pretty poor when she is the spokesman for her Party and that is the absolute best that she can do in this place. It is pretty pathetic. I do not mind if the honourable senator comes in here without any evidence. I do not mind if she comes in here and bleats, weeps and bleeds all over the floor, but I do mind when she comes in here and advocates that we should increase the Budget by $4,000m. The reason she did that was that she decided, in her early days in this place, to get up and move a notice of motion which she hoped would get her name in the paper but it did not. She came in here and made accusations about the behaviour of the Government, which concerns me, and about the Opposition, which does not concern me, but which happen not to be true. She talked about children's allowances, yet she knows nothing of the history of children's allowances, and I will come to that in a minute, and she talked about the social security review and Professor Cass's statement. Professor Cass made a perfectly reasonable and acceptable statement that, in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, we do not rank second last but we rank fourth last in our payments for children. I know that and everyone in this place knows that. But we also rank fourth last in our total taxation. The only way we can get from fourth last to the top, if you like, is to increase our total taxation to the level of other people in the OECD. But the honourable senator never comes in here and advocates that. She wants more tax cuts-- Senator Powell —I advocated action against negative gearing. Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator has not advocated that at all. I will give her a social security system like Sweden's if she will give me a taxation system like Sweden's. But she is not willing to advocate that because the Australian Democrats are just a populist mob who want to go out and say: `We will spend as much as we like and cut as much tax'. Senator Macklin —We are the only ones who advocated it. Senator GRIMES —How much out of the $4,000m that the good senator wants to spend will come from action against negative gearing? Senator Powell comes in here and goes on with a lot of sanctimonious nonsense and she does not like it when someone else gets up. We heard the good senator in silence but the Democrats have to protect her because she does not have a leg to stand on. The other speech that I would like to mention is the speech of the good Senator Walters. Now she is an old friend of mine. I would disappoint everyone if I did not make a passing mention of her speech. Senator Haines —Leave her alone; she isn't even here. Senator GRIMES —She will be here in a moment as I have mentioned her name. Senator Walters exceeded even Senator Powell in her sanctimonious nonsense. Senator Peter Baume —She has arrived. Senator GRIMES —I know that she has arrived. Senator Walters said that the Fraser Government was concerned for the poor and that the Fraser Government would not do anything like delaying pension increases for six weeks. What a terrible thing! The Fraser Government would never consider doing that. In 1978 the Fraser Government delayed the increases for a whole year. At the time Senator Walters got up on the Government side of the House, and defended it. She said that the `Government had to do it because there were hard economic times and the pensioners had to wear their share of the burden'. She got up and defended it-the Australian Democrats heard her-- Senator Walters —Madam Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I know that Senator Grimes in the past has always said that, in the heat of debate, he says the first thing that comes into his head. But on this occasion he really must stick to the truth. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! There is no point of order. Senator GRIMES —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. All I am saying is that in 1978, when the Fraser Government delayed that increase for a whole year, not six weeks, Senator Walters got up in this place and defended that action. She defended it on the ground that it was economically necessary. But when a Labor government does it for six weeks, she says that is terrible. She said that members of the Opposition were concerned about low income earners. Were they concerned about low income earners? Senator Walters —Who introduced it? Senator GRIMES —Who introduced low income earners? Senator Walters is right; she and her colleagues did. Senator Walters —The supplementary family allowance. Senator GRIMES —As for supplementary assistance, those opposite, in all their years in government, from 1975 to 1983, did not increase it once. Not once in seven years did they increase supplementary assistance, which goes to the poorest of people in the community, the pensioners in the private rental market who have hardly any other income. They are the real poor in this community. How often were allowances for pensioners' children increased? They have been increased in every Budget of this Government. They were increased once between 1975 and 1983 by the good Senator Walters and her colleagues. They left the unemployment benefit for the under 18-year-olds at the same level from 1975 to 1983. Who did that affect the most? It was the low income earners. The single unemployed had their indexation taken away in 1978. Who did that affect most? It was the low income earners, the people without family support. Senator Walters comes in here and bleeds all over the floor, saying that we are not doing the right thing by low income earners. We would like to do more. But she says that the great and glorious Fraser Government did more. One really has to put up with a lot in this place. Senator Haines —That is gilding the lily a trifle. Senator GRIMES —It is gilding the lily a little. Nobody in this place likes to say: `We have had to delay your pension increases by six weeks'. Nobody likes having to do that sort of thing. Since 1983 we have targeted social security expenditure to those in need. We have targeted the low income earners, the children of pensioners and beneficiaries and the unemployment beneficiaries. But the biggest scream in this place, the biggest complaint and the greatest amount of weeping took place when we said that we ought not to be paying pensions to the very wealthy and introduced an assets test. We have heard nothing today compared with the weeping and bleeding that went on then. Senator Walters gushed all over the floor about that. It was almost obscene. The only promise that honourable senators opposite have made is that they will repeal the assets test. However, I am charitable. We have some legislation to get through and I know that honourable senators opposite will carefully go through the clauses one by one. Senator Macklin —It is going to be a long night. Senator GRIMES —I know; we have ahead of us a long night, a long day and a long week. I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate. As we go through the clauses, I will make a lot of statements about Senator Powell's promises, which she knows she will never be in a position to fulfil, and a lot of unkind comments about the Opposition's record. En passant, I point out that the Government opposes the second reading amendment moved by the Opposition. I have moved many an amendment like that in the past myself. It will have no effect. It may go through or it may not, depending on our colleagues the Australian Democrats. I thank honourable senators for their support of the legislation, with the exception of that small group who are acting in such an irresponsible way. I hope that we will get to the Committee stage very soon. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Peter Baume's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Alston, R. K. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Newman, J. M. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. 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. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. Black, J. R. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coates, J. McKiernan, J. P. Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Cooney, B. Morris, J. Crowley, R. A. Powell, J. F. Devlin, R. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sanders, N. K. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Jessop, D. S. Sibraa, K. W. Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is a total of 27 amendments before the Chair. They cover a range of subjects. The easiest way to handle these is to take them in groups of subjects. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(8.33) —Mr Chairman, it will indeed be a lot easier if, instead of dividing on 27 separate occasions, we cluster the amendments to the clauses, all of which are to be moved by me on behalf of the Australian Democrats. As a first group, I seek leave to move amendments 1 to 5 inclusive. Leave granted. Senator HAINES —I move: (1) Page 2, sub-clause 2 (7), line 10, leave out ``103,'', insert ``103 and''. (2) Page 2, sub-clause 2 (7), line 10, leave out ``and Part III''. (3) Page 2, sub-clause 2 (11), lines 20 and 21, leave out the sub-clause. (4) Page 2, sub-clause 2 (12), line 22, leave out ``78, 79,''. (5) Page 2, sub-clause 2 (17), lines 34 to 36, leave out the sub-clause. These amendments are all on page 2 and all relate to sub-clauses of clause 2 and affect the commencement date of the legislation. The effect of these amendments would be to remove the deeming provision in the legislation, that is, the provision that deems this legislation to be taking effect from a particular date regardless of when the legislation is passed. I remind the Senate that in recent weeks a fairly prominent or, perhaps I should simply say, outspoken member of the Opposition has suggested that pensioners should go to the High Court of Australia if they wish to prevent the deferral of their indexation increases. I suggest that this was a particularly cruel suggestion to have been made by that member of the Liberal Party who was, as everyone knows, Mr Michael Hodgman. It was cruel for a number of reasons. First of all, it was cruel in its futility because he must have known that his Opposition colleagues in this place would be supporting the legislation and were not of a mind to support us in talking the legislation past the date of 1 November when the indexation increases would normally have come into effect. In that aspect, it was cruel for its futility. It was also a rather hypocritical action to have been taken by him since again he must have realised that it would not achieve anything since his colleagues in this place would be supporting it. It was also cruel because pensioners in the main are not the sort of people who can afford to take out High Court actions willy-nilly, particularly in view of the fact that such legal action would have a very limited chance of success. It would have success in only one particular set of circumstances; that is, if we were to succeed in delaying the legislation beyond the 1 November starting date, when the Government would have two choices: It could fail to pay the increases that would be due as of 1 November and then face a challenge to the legality of that, or it could pay them and then, after the deeming provision gets through this place, seek reimbursement from the pensioners to whom it had paid the increases. It was a rather unnecessary and agitating suggestion that Mr Hodgman made to the pensioners of Australia when he must have known that his suggestion was both futile and hypocritical, given the attitude that his colleagues in this chamber take to what they care to classify as Budget Bills. The fact is that in having a deeming provision in the legislation the Government is really compounding the breaking of a promise. It is compounding the breaking of a promise that Mr Hawke made to pensioners in the 1983 election campaign when he promised to reduce the gap between the consumer price index coming out and the increases in pensions which were granted to pensioners and beneficiaries. He promised to bring it back from four months to one month, but he has effectively increased it by more than the six weeks that applies in this case because, ironically, the pension payment date that is due to come in as a result of these series of amendments is Christmas Day. I am staggered that this Government chose that particular day to emphasise the misery that it is causing to a large number of extremely economically disadvantaged people in the community. We have had enough media reports about the problems facing people in this country because of poverty for this Government surely not to have placed them in the firing line before people such as John Elliott, Robert Holmes a Court and Alan Bond-and an assortment of organisations such as our superannuation funds-all of whom make free with Australia's taxation laws and the benefits accruing to them through things such as negative gearing and tax benefits that accrue through off-shore investments. To increase the poverty of a group of people who are already very poor, a group of people who share between them some 750,000 children, is making a mockery of the assertion of this Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that everybody in this country should be pulling in their belts equitably. It is probably trite to use a statement that has been used before, that it is all very well to argue about people tightening their belts but when one does not have a belt it is impossible to tighten it. For some people that is nothing but a fact. People who are living below the poverty line already are not in any position at all to be asked to tighten a belt that they do not have. Therefore we oppose the intention of this Government through the deeming provisions that appear in various sub-clauses of clause 2. We seek the support of any honourable senators who believe that, when the Government makes a commitment to index pensions as of a certain date, it should do that and not in fact try to get round it not only by moving that date but by putting in a quite unconscionable deeming provision in order to prevent this chamber from dragging the legislation on, either by debate or any other means, past the end of this week so that we did not get back to it until after the 1 November payment date had occurred. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(8.42) —We oppose the amendments. It is no joy to anyone on this side of the place, or, I dare say, on the other side of the place to have to do this sort of thing in the Budget and to have to make choices of this type. But governments have to bring down responsible Budgets and oppositions, I believe, have to take a responsible attitude to those Budgets. I think that is what is happening in this place tonight, with the exception of the Australian Democrats. The only point on which I will agree with Senator Haines is that, for all the reasons that she said, Mr Hodgman's request for pensioners to take it to the High Court of Australia was cruel. But there is one other reason, that is, that his record is not too good. In 1983-84 Mr Hodgman paraded himself up and down the west coast of Tasmania as a QC and told people that there was no hope in the world that the Federal Government would bring the High Court case on the Franklin Dam. He was wrong then and he would be wrong in his advice to pensioners at this stage. Senator Walters is trying to interject. Does she want to say it out loud? No, she does not. She would not. Senator Haines —Tell us what she did not say out loud. Senator GRIMES —I know what she would want to say out loud, but I suppose even the present occasion would make her stop making the statement she made about that decision in the past. We oppose these amendments. They are aimed at overcoming the provisions of the legislation. It is a Budget measure; it is a measure which is part of what I believe is a responsible Budget and we cannot accept the amendments. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Haines's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Haines, J. Powel, J. F. Harradine, B. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Siddons, J. R. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Alston, R. K. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter McIntosh, G. D. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McKiernan, J. P. Black, J. R. Maguire, G. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Brownhill, D. G. C Morris, J. Carrick, Sir John Newman, J. M. Childs, B. K. Parer, W. R. Coates, J. Puplick, C. J. G. Coleman, R. N. Ray, RobertCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Colston, M. A. Reynolds, M. Cook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F. Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Ryan, S. M. Crowley, R. A. Sheil, G. Devlin, R. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Tate, M. C. Elstob, R. C. Teague, B. C. Evans, Gareth Townley, M. Foreman, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Walters, M. S. Grimes, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Withers, R. G. Hamer, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(8.50) —by leave-I move: (6) Page 10, paragraph 10 (b), line 3, leave out ``1 May''. (7) Page 10, paragraph 10 (b), line 4, leave out ``12 June''. (8) Page 11, paragraph 13 (a), line 4, leave out ``13 December'', insert ``1 November''. (9) Page 11, paragraphs 13 (b) and (c), lines 5 to 8, leave out the paragraphs. Mr Chairman, these four amendments deal specifically with the deferring of the date of annual threshold indexation for receipt of pensions and for the assets test in particular from 1 May to 12 June. The Australian Democrats oppose this provision, I guess because we differ from both the Government and the Opposition in not viewing pensioners as our major target. The deferral of the consumer price index increases will obviously have a quite devastating effect on everybody who is in receipt of a pension or benefit at a time of year when they are particularly vulnerable, when they are looking forward to spending just that little bit more on the sorts of things that they would like to spend money on. The clauses refer, in particular, to eligibility levels under the assets test. These levels do not keep pace any more with inflation and I would have thought that the Opposition, given the fact that the assets test is about the only piece of legislation that it is considering repealing as it hits the sort of people who make up its natural constituency-that is, those people in the community who are already well off-at lease would have supported the amendment to remove the change in the annual threshold indexation date from 1 May to 12 June. The Democrats really cannot see any point in a lot of the things that this Government is doing to the poor in this country and we certainly cannot see any point in its postponing various indexation implementation dates, putting off for a vast number of people an increase in benefits or an increase in threshold which is important to them as far as their income eligibility is concerned. We urge the Opposition at least, if not the Government, to re-think our amendments to clause 10, which leave out 1 May in one instance and 12 June in another; leave out 13 December in respect of sub-paragraph 13 (a), inserting 1 November; and leave out altogether, on page 11 of the Bill, sub-paragraphs 13 (b) and 13 (c). I ask the Opposition parties to consider putting their rhetoric and emotion into practice and supporting us at least on these amendments. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(8.54) —The Government opposes the amendments for all the reasons we have given in the past. This was a budgetary decision; it was a decision to save money. It was nothing more or less than that. Talking about rhetoric and, I suppose, hyperbole-which was not a word used by Senator Haines-I point out that as serious as this matter is, less money will be available to the extent of $20.40 over six months for single pensioners and $40.80 over six months for married pensioners. I would not like anyone to go away thinking it involved hundreds and hundreds of dollars. We oppose the amendments. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Haines's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Haines, J. Powell, J. F. Harradine, B. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Siddons, J. R. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Alston, R. K. R. Jones, G. N. Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Aulich, T. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McIntosh, G. D. Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. Boswell, R. L. D. Maguire, G. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Morris, J. Childs, B. K. Newman, J. M. Coates, J. Parer, W. R. Coleman, R. N. Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Cook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Robertson, E. A. Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Sheil, G. Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Elstob, R. C. Tate, M. C. Evans, Gareth Teague, B. C. Foreman, D. J. Townley, M. Georges, G. Vanstone, A. E. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Walters, M. S. Grimes, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Withers, R. G. Hamer, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.04) —Mr Chairman, I think it would be useful if we could take the rest of the amendments as a group. I am aware that they deal with a range of issues, including rent assistance thresholds, poverty traps and some further indexation clauses. If it is possible to deal with them together, it will certainly save time because they do cover a range of issues. The CHAIRMAN —There is no procedural objection to that. Senator HAINES —by leave-I move: (10) Page 11, clause 14, clause to be opposed. (11) Page 11, clause 15, clause to be opposed. (12) Page 12, clause 17, clause to be opposed. (13) Page 12, clause 18, clause to be opposed. (14) Page 19, paragraph 37 (1) (a), line 30, leave out ``13 December'', insert ``1 November''. (15) Page 19, paragraphs 37 (1) (b) and (c), lines 31 to 34, leave out the paragraphs. (16) Page 20, paragraph 37 (2) (c), new sub-paragraph 112aa (5) (a) (i), line 36, leave out ``13 June'', insert ``1 May''. (17) Page 20, paragraph 37 (2) (c), new sub-paragraph 112aa (5) (a) (ii), line 39, leave out ``13 December'', insert ``1 November''. (18) Page 21, sub-clauses 38 (2) and (3), lines 19 to 29, leave out the sub-clauses. (19) Pages 33 and 34, Part III, clauses 58 to 60, clauses to be opposed. (20) Page 44, clause 78, clause to be opposed. (21) Page 44, clause 79, clause to be opposed. (22) Page 54, paragraph 95 (1) (a), line 32, leave out ``13 December'', insert ``1 November''. (23) Page 54, paragraphs 95 (1) (b) and (c), lines 33 to 36, leave out the paragraphs. (24) Page 55, paragraph 95 (2) (b), line 4, leave out ``1 May''. (25) Page 55, paragraph 95 (2) (b), line 5, leave out ``12 June''. (26) Page 56, paragraph 103 (a), line 35, leave out ``13 December'', insert ``1 November''. (27) Page 56, paragraphs 103 (b) and (c), lines 36 to 39, leave out the paragraphs. I thank honourable senators for their enthusiastic support for the concept of dealing with the amendments as a group. The remaining amendments deal with our opposition to the increase in the rent assistance threshold from $10 to $15, further clauses which deal with changing the indexation dates from 1 November to 13 December and from 1 May to 13 June, and a postponement of the poverty traps measures for a further eight months. Essentially, what the Government is doing in these clauses is ignoring the fact that, according to all reports from reputable organisations, including the Australian Council of Social Service, the number of people in poverty has doubled in the past 10 years and is standing now in the vicinity of 2 1/2 million people which includes some 750.000 to 800,000 children. Notwithstanding the fact that an increasing number of people in the community need all the help that this Government and anybody else can give them, in this legislation we have a series of amendments to the Social Security Act that will increase the poverty, increase the destitution, that a large number of families and individuals are currently in. It is worth pointing out as far as the rent assistance threshold is concerned that a total of over half a million pensioners, unemployment beneficiaries and sickness beneficiaries currently receive rental assistance. By increasing the threshold from $10 to $15 the Government alleges that it will save something over $10m-not a very substantial amount of money, given that the Government has apparently happily paid out to such poverty stricken organisations as the private banking sector and the oil companies in this country in recent months. In attempting to save a little over $10m this Government has been prepared to take an average of approximately $5 from pensioners who are essentially at the mercy of people who make available rental accommodation in the private sector-people who have in the past and presumably in the future will have no compunction about increasing the rate of rental if it suits them to increase their profit margins. This Government is prepared to increase the threshold level from $10 to $15. I have already pointed out at the second reading stage that the Government's delay of the normal November indexation pension increase from 1 November to 13 December means that pensioners and beneficiaries will essentially have to wait until Christmas Day before they receive the increase in pension that they expected to have from 1 November. In the case of single pensioners that represents in the vicinity of $56 all up. For pensioner couples the amount is around $80. That is not an insignificant amount of money for those people to be deprived of at the time of year when we all traditionally spend more than we normally do. What this Government is saying to pensioners is: `We know that you are hard up. We know that we promised to make your position better. Not only are we not going to honour that promise but we will make it worse for you at Christmas time'. If the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), who is at the table, thinks that that is sanctimony, I am sorry, but there are a large number of pensioners, and in particular their children, who will suffer, at a time of year when everybody else is benefiting, as a result of what we think is an unconscionable action on the part of this Government simply to save a few million dollars. That amount is nothing in comparison with the amounts of money it has been prepared to fling happily in the direction of a number of organisations in the community that regularly make profits of $1 billion or more. There is no consistency, there is no justice and there is no equity in moving the normal November indexation increases from 1 November to the middle of December. To make the November and May increases permanent increases in December and June simply compounds the problem. The remaining amendments we are concerned about are set out on pages 33 and 34 of the Bill and encompass Part III. They affect clauses 58 to 60 and we oppose those clauses outright since they are deferring the implementation of legislation that was passed by the Government with a great fanfare some months ago. That was legislation normally known as poverty traps legislation and it was aimed at getting large numbers of people out of the grinding poverty traps in which they frequently find themselves when they rely entirely on social security payments and cannot afford to put themselves into the part time work force because of the damage it does to their welfare payments. This Government has argued for all the years it has occupied the treasury bench that it is inequitable to have large numbers of women kept out of the work force because child care and job opportunities are not available and because the social welfare system essentially prevents them improving their standard of living and that of their children. The Government introduced the poverty legislation with great enthusiasm and claimed that if it was not exactly the best thing since sliced bread, it came perilously close to it. It was supposed to give significant advantage to large numbers of sole parent families where that sole parent was female-the majority of sole parent families. The poverty traps legislation was aimed, said the Government, at getting those people out of poverty, preventing their getting caught up in traps that kept them in poverty and prevented them from finding their way out and increasing their standard of living of their children and giving them better opportunities economically and socially and in every other way that accrued to people whose standards of living and disposable incomes are at reasonable levels. Of all the changes that this Bill makes to the Government's existing legislation, I regard the poverty traps amendment as the most obnoxious. I say that because the legislation is so recent and was introduced by this Government as one of the main ways in which it was allegedly keeping the promises that it had made in two election campaigns to an extremely vulnerable, powerless and essentially voiceless group in the community-that is, people in poverty, and particularly those in poverty in families with dependent children. To have backed away from that is unconscionable at the very least and we believe, if it were not unparliamentary to say so, hypocritical at worst. We would have preferred the Government to have reconsidered its attitude to amending a piece of legislation which it had so recently introduced and passed, with our support, in this place. We were hoping that the concerns expressed by people such as the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Anglican Mission of St James and St John, the Australian Council of Social Service and an assortment of social welfare groups would not become entrenched in our social fabric. We do not wish to see large numbers of people who are unable to get themselves out of the poverty they have been forced into because of reliance on an inadequate, inappropriate, unjust and inequitable social welfare system. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.14) —The Government opposes the amendments, for the reasons I have already given. These were Budget decisions made in difficult economic circumstances. They were not easy decisions. One could at least say that the poverty traps decision is delaying a change rather than taking a change away. My only comment is that I probably misheard Senator Haines, but I understood that she opposed the increase in the threshold for supplementary rent assistance. That increase in fact helps pensioners; it does not hurt them. I do not quite understand what Senator Haines meant in those circumstances, but in any case I am not moved by her rhetoric. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.16) —The Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) has indicated that these decisions were taken after some pain, presumably, was experienced by the Government at having to attack people in poverty. Could he say what other options the Government canvassed, and whether included were proposals such as ending the tax advantage that is still given to large organisations such as the superannuation funds which invest off-shore? As one of the other options, did the Government consider removing the negative gearing capacity of which large organisations are still able to take advantage, even though they are borrowing on foreign money markets, increasing our foreign debt, and then negatively gearing the interest payments they make to those overseas money markets so that their Australian tax commitment is reduced and, as a consequence, consolidated revenue is reduced? If the Government considered those options to increase consolidated revenue, which would largely have offset the requirement to diminish the deficit by cutting expenditure, why did the Government choose to delay the implementation of poverty traps legislation to change the dates of the indexation increase, instead of hitting at companies which in this country frequently pay no tax and, when they do so pay very little, and certainly in many cases pay fewer cents in the dollar in tax than do most pensioners on earnings over and above the threshold? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.18) —Yes, of course, the Government considered, as Senator Haines probably realises, all sorts of options, including some of the ones she has mentioned. We shall continue to consider such options in the future. It is always easy to be simplistic, sitting where Senator Haines is. I am not critical about that, and I dare say I have done so myself. But the introduction of such legislative changes of which she spoke is frequently complex, and often has community effects which she and I, with our economic expertise, would not consider. I cannot go into details of the Budget considerations, but I can say that yes, all sorts of options were considered. Difficult decisions were made, and these are some of those decisions as part of the Budget. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Haines's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Haines, J. Powell, J. F. Harradine, B. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Siddons, J. R. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Alston, R. K. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter McIntosh, G. D. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McKiernan, J. P. Black, J. R. Maguire, G. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Morris, J. Carrick, Sir John Newman, J. M. Childs, B. K. Parer, W. R. Coates, J. Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Cook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Robertson, E. A. Crowley, R. A. Sheil, G. Devlin, R. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Tate, M. C. Elstob, R. C. Teague, B. C. Evans, Gareth Townley, M. Foreman, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Walters, M. S. Grimes, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Withers, R. G. Hamer, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Debate resumed from 17 October, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. upon which Senator Messner had moved by way of amendment: At end of motion, add- In respect of the Income Tax Rates Bill 1986: ``, but the Senate is of the opinion that- (a) the Government's taxation policy, in particular its fringe benefits and capital gains taxes, is causing damage and confusion to business and farmers; (b) the Government's failure to deliver tax cuts on 1 September 1986 as promised in 1985 has caused additional hardship to families; and (c) this Government is the highest taxing Government in history, with taxed receipts estimated to reach 25.5 per cent of GDP.'' And in respect of the Medicare Levy Bill 1986: ``, but the Senate- (a) condemns the Prime Minister for breaking his promise that for the term of Labor's next Government, the Medicare levy would not be increased; (b) notes with concern that the Government continues to perpetuate the myth that the levy pays for Medicare health services when in fact it only pays approximately 40 per cent of the cost of Medicare with the balance being funded out of general revenue; and (c) condemns the Government for its total failure to take action to contain the massive blow-out in Medicare health costs''. upon which Senator Siddons had moved by way of amendment to Senator Messner's proposed amendment in respect of the Income Tax Rates Bill 1986: Leave out paragraph (a) of words proposed to be added, insert the following paragraph: ``(a) the Government should be condemned for- i(i) not indexing personal income tax rates, which has allowed inflationary factors virtually to neutralise the Government's tax cuts, and (ii) very minor reductions in the marginal rate of tax at the level of the average income earner;''. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.27) —Before the adjournment of the debate on the Income Tax Rates Bill 1986 and cognate Bills, I was addressing most of my remarks to the Medicare Levy Bill 1986. At that point it had been my intention to conclude my remarks by addressing the Income Tax Rates Bill 1986. On the question of the Medicare Levy Bill 1986 I was expressing the view that the increasing cost of health care to the community could be significantly addressed only by substantial changes in the system of delivery and payment for health care. Indeed what we have in our community is not really a system of health care but a system of illness care. Recently we had the report of the Better Health Commission which, in many respects, points us in exactly the right direction towards preventive health care and new systems which will provide access to better health care and habits in the community and therefore give us some chance to reduce health costs. The Australian Democrats believe that it is also important to look towards the community health centres system, for example, which brings together a range of health practitioners and opportunities for people in the community to have access to information and encouragement to improve their lifestyles and health. Thus they would be less of a cost on the community. Having made those points, I wish to move on to the Income Tax Rates Bill 1986. A few minutes ago this Parliament passed legislation which means that much of the brunt of this Budget has now been placed on the poorest members of our community. The Income Tax Rates Bill 1986 will lower the tax rates for a range of people right across the board, so that the effect will be that millionaires, on the implementation of the final tax cuts next year, will pay tax at the rate of 49c in the dollar. We are told that this will have to happen because high tax rates are a disincentive and it is inequitable that high tax rates are paid. One can agree with that to a certain extent, but in our previous action in this place we have retained a situation where a single pensioner living below the poverty line, with as little as $5,000 invested at a rate of 11.75 per cent, is effectively paying tax on that, on the implementation of the tax cuts contained in this Bill, at a rate of 74 per cent. We have done nothing about that; we have reduced the ready cash that pensioners will have on Christmas Day. It seems to me that that is totally inequitable and unfair and I am very unhappy about the situation where millionaires, the numbers of whom are increasing under this Government's tender loving care, will pay only 49c in the dollar tax. That is a totally inequitable situation, but we are told by the Government that pensioners and beneficiaries in this community have to take their share of the brunt of this Budget and have to pull in their belts because the Government has no other choices. The Government looked at all the choices and agreed that the only thing it could do was to take money out of the hands of pensioners and welfare beneficiaries and, even worse, the 800,000 children living below the poverty line. In spite of all the rhetoric from the Government front bench, the Australian Democrats have looked at alternatives. We have seen where the billions of dollars necessary for the sorts of things that we believe should be done in the community could come from. We believe that the abolition of negative gearing on company takeovers could bring in about $1.5 billion; a 6 per cent duty on luxury imports could bring in $2 billion; the elimination of transfer pricing could bring in between $1 billion and $1.5 billion; and a tax on moneys leaving Australia-superannuation funds is one area where this is evidently occurring-could bring in about $0.5 billion. It is not that we have not looked at alternatives. We believe that the Government has made a deliberate choice to attack those people who are least able to defend themselves. We have stood here and defended those people. It is a matter of some concern that we see the Government caving in on its responsibilities and policies in this area of the economy, one area after another. It is of concern to me in particular that at the moment there is very strong public pressure on the fringe benefits tax. It is possible that the Government might need reminding that in introducing the fringe benefits tax it was addressing a very great rort in the system which was being perpetrated by privileged people in the community; high income earners in large part, but certainly by a minority in the community. We have seen too often privileged minorities hold sway over this Government. As I said, the number of millionaires is increasing. This Government having caved in on Aboriginal land rights, sales of uranium to France, support for people in poverty and tertiary fees for students, I certainly hope that it will not cave in on the fringe benefits tax and will stick to the principle of the fringe benefits tax. The Australian Democrats have said all along that there were possible inherent problems and certainly there have been administrative hitches which need to be tidied up, but we do not want to see the Government cave in once more under public pressure, particularly from the privileged in our community. The Opposition has moved an amendment to the Medicare Levy Bill. I have suggested that the Australian Democrats will support that amendment, but in doing so I do not want it to be construed that we in any way are moving away from our commitment to a universal health care system which we have in Medicare. However, we support the views expressed in the Opposition's amendment to the second reading. I point out that in the Medicare Levy Bill the Government has broken a firm commitment yet again, a firm election promise, and for those reasons we will support the amendment. The Australian Democrats believe that a universal health care system with access for all to quality health care is important. The Government has not achieved that because it is not putting enough emphasis on preventive measures and has not been constructive and creative enough in looking at structures which can make improvements in the way health care is delivered and in the method of payment for that care. We have made some suggestions and we will make further suggestions. We do not want to see Medicare under threat in any way. We want to see a situation where Australians are healthier and, therefore, our health system will not cost as much and will not blow out as it has done in the past. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.37) —I refer particularly to the Income Tax Rates Bill, which was designed to reduce the marginal personal income tax rates and increase the level of tax levied against companies and associated incorporated bodies, but which at the same time exposes certain people to an income tax liability greater than they had incurred previously. For example, the Bill will introduce a pro rata reduction in the income tax free threshold available to students who have just completed full time education. The Bill might be described loosely as the other half of the tax reforms promised and subsequently introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Of course, we all remember the promises made by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at the time of the announced tax package on 19 September last year. Those claims, in essence, were that there would be a reform of the Australian taxation system and new measures would be introduced, such as the fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax, to balance what were described as significant reductions in personal income tax rates. Of course, true to the form which has become endemic in this Government, the measures that were introduced on 19 September were the taxing measures, and the tax reductions were to come later. In fact, negative gearing became effective way back on 17 July 1985 as I recall. Last of all we have the tax cuts. Even there, the Treasurer was unable to maintain his promise to introduce the tax cuts on 1 September; rather, they have been delayed until 1 December at a cost to the Australian taxpayers of $650m. One might ask how that delay will affect individuals. In 1985-86 the personal tax payable by a person with an income of $16,050 would have been $3,040.70. As compensation for other new and increased taxes that person is to receive tax cuts. The decision of the Treasurer to defer those tax cuts has caused a person on that sort of salary to pay an extra $60 in income tax. A person with a taxable income of $23,750 will pay an extra $100 in income tax because of the deferred tax cuts and a person on $35,000 a year will pay $173 in extra income tax above and beyond that which was promised by the Treasurer as being his responsibility. As we all well know, these delays are nothing more than a means of extracting additional revenue from Australian taxpayers. While Australian taxpayers have been waiting for these tax cuts they have been paying the Treasurer's fringe benefits tax and they have been accruing liabilities under the capital gains tax. Despite attempts by this Government to claim credit for tax reductions, one aspect that is inexorably true and cannot be avoided is that Australia as a nation is paying more taxes this year than it paid last year. The Government has not chosen to index the income tax scales. Notwithstanding the fact that there have been income tax rate reductions with an increase in inflation the effect of this has been that the average taxpayer is going into higher and higher tax brackets. The very failure of the Government to index the income tax rates has undermined the underlying philosophic principle which was presented to us at the time of Treasurer's statement on 19 September last year. Mr Keating, together with others, made the point that, in the early 1970s, a taxpayer needed an income equal to five times that of average weekly earnings to be paying the top marginal rate of income tax. The Treasurer conceded that point and said he understood that, as a result of inflation, in current times a taxpayer was required to earn only 150 per cent of average male weekly earnings to find himself in the top marginal rate of income tax. As a result of the Government's failure to index tax scales this problem still applies and it is being exacerbated. If inflation continues to run at its current levels the problem will get worse. I give as an example a person earning $20,000 who will have been paying $4,302 in tax from 30 June 1986. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the rates of tax that prevailed as at 30 June 1986 for somebody on that level of salary. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Income range Tax paid $ $ 0- 4,595... 0 4,596- 5,100... 126 5,101-12,500... 1,849 12,501-12,600... 29 12,601-19,500... 2,069 19,501-28,000... 229 Total Tax... 4,302 Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I thank the Senate. If one incorporates in the construction of an income the 6 per cent that the Government projects will be the increase in salary, the same person receiving that form of income as at 30 June 1987 will see that the rate of tax has significantly increased. The rate of tax for a person on an income of $21,200 would be $4,532. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the rates of scale that will prevail under those circumstances. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Income range Tax paid $ $ 0- 4,595... 0 4,596- 5,100... 0 5,101-12,500... 1,776 12,501-12,600... 24 12,601-19,500... 2,001 19,501-28,000... 731 Total tax... 4,532 Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I thank the Senate. That demonstrates very clearly that, notwithstanding the alleged cuts in personal income tax, there has been an increase of $230 a year for a person who receives that scale of income. That problem becomes more compounded when we look at the second round of tax cuts and we find that, after building in the anticipated wage rise of 6 per cent, a person on $21,200 will be paying $4,480 in tax. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a third modest scale to demonstrate that point. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Income range Tax paid $ $ 0- 4,595... 0 4,596- 5,100... 0 5,101-12,500... 1,776 12,501-12,600... 24 12,601-19,500... 2,001 19,501-28,000... 679 Total tax... 4,480 Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I thank the Senate. It can be seen in each case that the level of tax has increased significantly. The very object which the Treasurer sought to achieve, that is, that there be a reduction in marginal rates, has not come to pass. The very point that he made on a number of occasions is, in my view, in contradiction to the proposition that has been put forward by Senator Walsh on a number of occasions, that is, that the level of income tax paid directly relates to the incentive of people to work, to earn and to seek to achieve. Notwithstanding the fact that the tax scales have been reduced, the gross taxation take has increased. As I have said, people earning something less than one and a half times the average weekly earnings are finding themselves in the higher income tax bracket. For example, in June 1986, average weekly earnings for all males were $425.50 per week, or $22,126 per annum, with an expected increase of 6 per cent in wages by June next year. A person on average weekly earnings will be receiving $23,453. A person, therefore, on 150 per cent of average weekly earnings, will be earning $35,180 and he or she will be in the higher tax bracket. Perhaps the most tangible change that Australian taxpayers will notice in one year is not the fact that they are paying less tax but that they are paying more through the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax. I turn briefly for a moment to the subject of the fringe benefits tax. Honourable senators will recall, if they cast their minds back to the National Taxation Summit, that three options- options A, B and C-were available to and contemplated by the Government. It was with some fervour that the Treasurer campaigned for option C. At a time when one would have imagined that good sense might have prevailed the weak link in the chain, in the logic or in the argument, was the Prime Minister. While he argued that the decision had been made on the basis of consensus what he was really saying was that the trade union movement would not buy option C, so we ended up with this terrible Tax Summit which was an absolute farce and we have the system that we now have as a result of the Prime Minister not having the courage to stand up to or the resolve to deal with the trade union movement. The fringe benefits tax is an absolute disaster. Not only is it complex but also it is riddled with anomalies and it is enormously costly. Despite the curt advice that might be given by Senator Walsh that all employers will have to do is cash out the benefits provided to their employees, in real terms I am sure that he knows that it is not as easy on the surface as it might appear to be. I wish to refer to a survey which was conducted to assess the effect that the tax would have. The survey involved over 180 companies in Sydney and was conducted by a group called the Fringe Benefits Tax Review Campaign. The companies involved retailers, manufacturers, importers, transport firms, construction firms, finance organisations, educational organisations and medical concerns. Of the 57 respondents, 12 employed less than 100 employees, 16 employed between 104 and 199, 10 employed between 500 and 999, and 19 firms employed over 1,000 employees. That demonstrated that the greatest impact of the fringe benefits tax would not be on rorts, as Senator Walsh would have us believe, but on company cars, which very often are an integral part of a business-- Senator Siddons —They saved $200m on that. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes. There is a simple way of overcoming the big ticket items. Eventually the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, in spite of Senator Walsh's wishes, might come to the conclusion that if the Commissioner of Taxation chooses to enforce section 26 (e) he will get the big ticket items and that will save the agony and the pain of the inconsequential matters which are costing the Government votes. Senator Walsh —Are you going to enforce it retrospectively for seven years? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No. The Commissioner of Taxation has always had that provision available to him. He has chosen not to enforce it. Senator Siddons —He said he cannot. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —He allegedly said that he cannot. I can find no reasonable reason why he cannot, and I am sure that Senator Walsh cannot find one. When Senator Walsh was in opposition he could find plenty of reasons why the Commissioner of Taxation was not enforcing the legislation, but none that was an encumbrance upon him. The employers involved in the survey were asked how they would fund the cost of the fringe benefits tax. In every case the most important source of funding was out of reduced profits. The suggestion that companies might pay the fringe benefits tax by reducing remuneration to employees in some way rated no higher in this survey than 30 per cent. One might well ask how firms will absorb the fringe benefits tax on cars. Eighty-one per cent of the respondents indicated that they would absorb the cost of the taxation themselves. Conversely, only 9 per cent of the firms indicated that they would be changing from the provision of cars and car allowances to the reimbursement of car expenses. As I said earlier, contrary to what Senator Walsh would have us believe, it is not just a simple case of cashing out the fringe benefits. In some cases they simply cannot be converted to cash because the alleged perks, as the Government describes them, are not perks at all but a vital part of the successful operation of a business. In other cases a business cannot cash out the benefits even if the employers would wish to do so. Another survey was conducted by a company called Sedgwicks. Some 66 per cent of the firms which participated in the Sedgwick survey indicated that they would be retaining benefits other than loans and cars. Extraordinary iniquities surround the fringe benefits tax. They include simple things such as an employee attracting for the employer fringe benefits tax on a cray boat if he uses a bunk which is provided to him. We have the case of the Swan Brewery, which in the past has provided free alcohol to its employees at their point of work but has now chosen, because of the danger to the employees in driving motor vehicles after consuming alcohol, to provide them with a carton of beer to take home. Now that is subject to fringe benefits tax, but if the employees were to sit in the brewery all afternoon and drink the alcohol the benefit would not be subject to taxation. Senator Siddons —They would be better off if they didn't drink at all, wouldn't they? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am sure that is true, but I am seeking only to highlight the anomaly. The anomaly is that if the employees drink the alcohol on the site of the Swan Brewery, they will attract no tax for the employers but, when the company seeks to be responsible and provides the employees with a carton of beer to drink in their own lounge room, safely, it finds itself attracting the fringe benefits tax. This tax is being imposed at a time when Australian firms desperately need investment for expansion. It is not without significance that in the June quarter new private capital spending fell, in seasonally adjusted constant dollar terms, by 9.1 per cent. This is the biggest fall, to my knowledge at least, in the term of the Hawke Government. It followed three quarters of stagnated or falling movement in gross domestic product. In the December quarter of last year GDP fell, in seasonally adjusted constant dollar terms, by 0.4 per cent, in the March quarter of this year there was zero growth, and in the June quarter GDP again fell by 0.4 per cent. The economy is falling apart around us, and this Government seeks to extract more and more taxation from companies at a time when they can least afford it. As I said at the outset, the truth of the matter is that, notwithstanding the fancy figures that the Treasurer might seek to produce, there is one figure which certainly cannot be avoided, and that is the proportion of gross domestic product which is absorbed by taxation. In the three years of the present Labor Government taxation receipts as a proportion of GDP have gone only one way, and that is up. In 1986-87 taxation will amount to the equivalent of 25.5 per cent of gross domestic product. In the previous two years that figure was 25.2 per cent and in the year before it was 25 per cent. The Treasurer can say what he likes; the fact is that Australians are paying more and more tax under this Government. The sad thing is this Government's enormous reliance on income tax and the devastating effect it is having upon incentive to both investors and workers. That reliance has increased dramatically under this Government. Sixty-two per cent of revenue raised in the present Budget is raised by way of taxes upon income and 41 per cent comes from pay as you earn income taxation. The amount of money taken from Australians in taxes has reached not merely a high rate but, in my view, an immoral one. The Government will take 43 per cent of every dollar earned over $19,501 in the present year. As far back as June 1985, more than 50 per cent of Australians earned $20,000 or more. As I indicated earlier, with inflation this figure can only rise, so more than half the nation will certainly be paying tax at the immorally high rate of 43 per cent. I say that it is immorally high because it is not being extracted from-- Senator Walsh —What do you think about the morality of insider trading? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I take precisely the same view as Senator Walsh does. Senator Walsh —Except you were up to your ears in it; I wasn't. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask Senator Walsh to withdraw that remark. He knows it is not true, but he is not given to telling the truth. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Senator Walsh, it was a reflection on another member. I would ask you to withdraw that remark. Senator Walsh —All right; his wife was. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walsh, I ask you to withdraw the remark unreservedly. Senator Walsh —I withdraw the comment about Senator Crichton-Browne. It is an established fact, which can be verified by a search of the Poseidon records, that his wife was up to her ears in it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walsh, I asked you to withdraw a comment you made about Senator Crichton-Browne. I ask you to withdraw it without commenting about anything else. Senator Walsh —I have withdrawn the comment I made about him. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Walsh is not blessed with good manners or good taste. For that, perhaps, somebody else ought to take responsibility. But there is no reason why we in this chamber ought to be subject to his bad manners and his abusive conduct. Sadly, the truth is not something with which he is particularly familiar. For as long as I have known him, his conduct and his integrity have continued to deteriorate. I just wonder what he will be like when he is a little older. He will certainly be none the wiser. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! I suggest that we get back to the Bill. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Walsh seeks to interject, presumably in respect of this legislation but, as I said earlier, his comments on this matter are no different from those he has made on any other occasion. He finds the truth very elusive, but that has not been a problem for him in the past. The first thing that is discarded when he starts his abusive, vile and revolting conduct is the truth. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Senator Crichton-Browne, I suggest you return to the Bill. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I wish I had more time to debate that matter with Senator Walsh. I conclude by saying that only when this Government is prepared to show a greater allegiance to the Australian taxpayers than to its desire to spend more and only when it has the real courage to reduce spending will there be an opportunity for very real reform in the area of taxation. Of course, it has not been the case. The much heralded razor gang did not have the fortitude to put the knife into spending, but of course it had the courage to raise taxes. The net result of this legislation is that we have a sham on our hands, that at the end of the period when these tax cuts are intended to prevail the average taxpayer will go home with less in his pay packet and the Commissioner of Taxation will take more from the pay packet. When the Government has the courage of its rhetoric to reduce spending, the average person may pay less in taxation. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.01) —I have no desire to delay the passage of the Bills. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I will take the four Bills separately because there are amendments in relation to two of them. The first is the Income Tax Rates Bill 1986. To the motion that the Bill be read a second time, Senator Messner has moved an amendment to add certain words, to which Senator Siddons has moved an amendment to leave out certain words with a view to inserting others. Senator Siddons, I understand you wish to amend your amendment. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(10.02) —Yes, Mr Deputy President. I seek leave to amend my amendment to the Opposition's second reading amendment. Leave granted. Senator SIDDONS —I thank the Senate. I move: Leave out all words in paragraph (a). (Quorum formed) Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Siddon's amendment to Senator Messner's proposed amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Haines, J. Powell, J. F. Harradine, B. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Siddons, J. R. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Alston, R. K. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter McIntosh, G. D. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McKiernan, J. P. Black, J. R. Maguire, G. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Morris, J. Carrick, Sir John Newman, J. M. Childs, B. K. Parer, W. R. Coates, J. Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Cook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F. Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Ryan, S. M. Crowley, R. A. Sheil, G. Devlin, R. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Tate, M. C. Elstob, R. C. Teague, B. C. Evans, Gareth Townley, M. Foreman, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Walters, M. S. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Watson, J. O. W. Hamer, D. J. Withers, R. G. Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator Siddons's amendment negatived. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.10) —I move: At the end of the words proposed to be added, add: ``(d) the government should be condemned for misleading Australians by claiming that meaningful tax cuts are being provided when they are in fact being neutralised by inflation; and (e) the average income earner after 1 July 1987 will pay a marginal rate of tax of 40% compared with the 30% rate paid at the time the Hawke Government came to power in March 1983''. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(10.11) —I understood the procedure would be that we would vote on paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Senator Messner's amendment. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is the honourable senator seeking to amend Senator Michael Baume's amendment? Senator SIDDONS —Yes, I am. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —If the honourable senator wishes to move his amendment, he should move it now. Senator SIDDONS —I move an amendment to Senator Michael Baume's amendment as follows: Paragraph (d) of the words proposed to be added, before ``misleading'', insert: ``not indexing personal income tax rates and''. Our objection to paragraph (d) is that it does not make clear to everybody whether the Opposition is for or against the indexing of personal income tax rates. Of course, that is a critical issue. The Government's much heralded tax cuts have been rendered virtually ineffective simply because it has refused to index the tax rate. Unless the Australian people can get a government to support indexing personal income tax we will never have tax reform of the personal income tax scale. It is as simple as that. I hope those opposite will support my amendment to paragraph (d) of Senator Michael Baume's amendment which makes it abundantly clear that we are talking about indexing personal income tax rates. Senator Michael Baume's amendment will then read as follows: (d) the government should be condemned for not indexing personal income tax rates and- that is the addition- misleading Australians by claiming that meaningful tax cuts are being provided when they are in fact being neutralised by inflation; We agree absolutely that the tax cuts are being neutralised by inflation. But we want to make it clear to all that the only way that state of affairs can be overcome is by indexing personal income tax rates. I hope the Opposition will support us. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.14) —I just rise to state the Opposition's position on the amendment moved by Senator Siddons. I am sorry to disappoint him, but the Opposition will not be supporting his amendment. The reason is very simple: We have given an undertaking to the people to declare our full tax policy when the time is ripe before the next election. Therefore we are not going to be making policy on the run. To support the Australian Democrats' amendment in this respect would indicate a certain line of policy which we are not prepared to discuss at this stage. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(10.15) —It seems to me that this Parliament is being asked to debate legislation with both hands tied behind its back. The Opposition is continually saying: `Look, we will bring out a policy eventually'. In the meantime legislation is passing this Parliament, which is imposing enormous hardships on the Australian people. The Opposition continually comes up with the following excuse: `When we get around to formulating a policy, we will say what we will do'. Opposition senators are standing up here and telling us that it is terrible that the tax cuts are not meaningful because they are being neutralised by inflation, yet they are not prepared to do anything about it; they are not prepared to stand up and be counted. The Fraser Government indexed personal income tax for six months and then decided that it could not do so any longer. I think the Australian people would like to know, if the Liberal Party of Australia forms a government, whether it is going to index income tax or not. It is just not realistic for Senator Messner to say: `Look, we can't say what we are going to do because we haven't formulated our policy'. Opposition senators are faced with a problem right now of supporting or not supporting an amendment. They are just standing in no man's land and in the meantime the Australian people are suffering and the legislation is passing the Australian Parliament without the Opposition standing up and being counted on the legislation. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.18) —Lest some desperate PhD candidate at some time in the future looks up the Hansards and the Senate Journals I thought I should put on the record what the Government is going to do about this assortment of amendments and why. Senator Michael Baume's amendment is, in effect, an addendum to the earlier amendment moved by Senator Messner. Senator Siddons has moved a further amendment to the amendment moved by Senator Michael Baume which the Government will not support. Whether that amendment is incorporated in Senator Michael Baume's amendment or not, the Government will not oppose Senator Michael Baume's amendment on the ground that it is, in fact, just an addendum to the previous amendment moved by Senator Messner. But the Government will oppose Senator Messner's amendment whether Senator Michael Baume's amendment is added to it or not. Question put: That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Siddons's amendment to Senator Michael Baume's proposed amendment to Senator Messner's proposed amendment) be inserted. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Haines, J. Powell, J. F. Harradine, B. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Siddons, J. R. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Alston, R. K. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael McIntosh, G. D. Baume, Peter McKiernan, J. P. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Maguire, G. R. Black, J. R. Messner, A. JBoswell, R. L. D. Morris, J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Newman, J. M. Carrick, Sir John Parer, W. R. Childs, B. K. Puplick, C. J. G. Coates, J. Ray, RobertCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Colston, M. A. Reynolds, M. Cook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F. Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Ryan, S. M. Crowley, R. A. Sheil, G. Devlin, R. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Tate, M. C. Elstob, R. C. Teague, B. C. Evans, Gareth Townley, M. Foreman, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Walters, M. S. Grimes, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Withers, R. G. Hamer, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question now is: That the words proposed to be added to Senator Messner's amendment by Senator Michael Baume's amendment be added. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(10.27) —I just wish briefly to say that the Australian Democrats will support Senator Messner's amendment for the very simple reason-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Siddons, we are not dealing with Senator Messner's amendment at the moment; we are dealing with Senator Michael Baume's amendment to Senator Messner's amendment. The question is that the words proposed to be added to Senator Messner's amendment by Senator Michael Baume's amendment be added. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question now is: That the words proposed to be added to the original question by Senator Messner's amendment, as amended, be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J. Baume, Michael Newman, J. M. Baume, Peter Parer, W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Puplick, C. J. G. Boswell, R. L. D. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Brownhill, D. G. C. Sheil, G. Carrick, Sir John Siddons, J. R. Collard, S. J. Teague, B. C. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Vigor, D. B. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Knowles, S. C. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. McClelland, DouglasBlack, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Cooney, B. Morris, J. Crowley, R. A. Powell, J. F. Devlin, R. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Sanders, N. K. Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C. Haines, J. Walsh, P. A. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Jessop, D. S. Sibraa, K. W. Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N. Durack, P. D. Coleman, R. N. Short, J. R. Georges, G. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being after the hour of 10.30 p.m., in accordance with sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. The PRESIDENT —We are now dealing with the Income Tax Bill 1986 and the Taxation Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1986. The question is: That these Bills be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —We are now dealing with the Medicare Levy Bill 1986. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Messner's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Alston, R. K. R. Mason, C. V. J.Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Michael Newman, J. M.Baume, Peter Parer, W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Powell, J. F.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E.Carrick, Sir John Sanders, N. K.Collard, S. J. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Guilfoyle, Dame Siddons, J. R. Margaret Teague, B. C.Haines, J. Townley, M.Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Harradine, B. Vigor, D. B.Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W.MacGibbon, D. J. Withers, R. G.Macklin, M. J. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N.Black, J. R. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D.Coates, J. McKiernan, J. P.Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R.Cook, P. F. S. Morris, J.Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M.Devlin, R. Richardson, G. F.Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O.Grimes, D. J. Hill, R. Bolkus, N.Jessop, D. S. Sibraa, K. W.Chaney, F. M. Coleman, R. N.Lewis, A. W. R. Georges, G.Durack, P. D. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That consideration of the Bills in Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. 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 Walsh) read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.43) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate moneys of the consolidated revenue fund for the recurrent and capital expenditures of the parliamentary departments for the year ending 30 June 1987. The total amount sought is $50,694,000. Of this amount, $21,334,000 was authorised by the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1986-87, the balance of $29,360,000 being sought in this Bill. Details of the proposed expenditures are set out in schedule 2 to the Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Messner) 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 Walsh) read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.44) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate amounts required for expenditure in 1986-87 from the consolidated revenue fund for the ordinary annual services of the Government. The expenditure program of the Government to which the provisions contained in this Bill relate was outlined in the Treasurer's Budget Speech. The amounts sought in this Bill for each department are detailed in schedule 3 and total $19,370,762,000; of this total, the Bill seeks authority for the issue of $11,383,852,000, the balance of $7,986,910,000 having already been authorised by the Supply Act (No. 1) 1986-87. An amount of $160,000,000 is also included in the Bill for the advance to the Minister for Finance, the same amount as was provided in the Supply Act (No. 1) 1986-87 which this Bill, when enacted, will subsume. Clause 5 of the Bill provides for the appropriation of the consolidated revenue fund to enable the Minister for Finance to issue amounts for the payment of increases in salaries and payments in the nature of salary arising out of awards orders or determinations made under, or in accordance with, a law. Allowance has been included in the overall Budget figuring for such prospective increases-$25m in respect of persons employed under the defence function and $125m in respect of other Public Service employees. That allowance is not, however, appropriated in advance of any increases being awarded. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Messner) 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 Walsh) read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.45) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill seeks appropriations of the consolidated revenue fund in 1986-87 totalling $4,733,724,000. Of this amount, $2,108,520,000 was authorised by the Supply Act (No. 2) 1986-87; the balance of $2,625,204,000 will be authorised by this Bill. The Bill provides for proposed expenditure on the construction of public works and buildings, the acquisition of sites and buildings, certain advances and loans, items of plant and equipment which are clearly definable as capital expenditure and expenditure on new policy initiatives for which legislation has not been approved previously. Provision is made also for grants to the States under section 96 of the Constitution and for payments to the Northern Territory. An amount of $130,000,000 is included under the advance to the Minister for Finance, the same amount as was provided in the Supply Act (No. 2) 1986-87 which this Bill, when enacted, will subsume. Details of the proposed expenditures are set out in schedule 4 to the Bill and the main features were outlined in the Budget Speech. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Messner) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Walsh) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.47) —Mr President, I wish for a few moments to touch on some matters which reflect on the answer you gave at the end of Question Time in reply to the question I asked of you yesterday. I say, with respect, that I do not believe the information provided to you is a fair reflection of the facts as they occurred on Sunday afternoon. On Sunday afternoon I came to work seeking to enter the only access, to my knowledge, open at that time in Parliament House, the main entrance. My car was prevented from entering in either direction and the car could not be driven down either side of Parliament House. Finally, I alighted from the motor vehicle some considerable distance from Parliament House and had to walk that distance to enter through the main entrance. I did not mind that, but took exception to the fact that that inconvenience, that prohibition, that inhibition was caused by a number of women who, in my view, to the best of my knowledge, illegally and improperly, were obstructing traffic outside Parliament House. Senator Reynolds —What about the farmers a couple of months ago? You were not there when the farmers blockaded the airport. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I have never been obstructed by farmers. Senator Reynolds —I was obstructed by farmers and I did not complain. The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Reynolds! Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Thank you, Mr President. It was put to you, Mr President, and you responded in your report, that, as I understand it, the police were protecting and preserving the safety of 500 women. I have to say to you that the only people I saw at threat yesterday, besides modest members such as myself, were the policemen. I would have thought that those 500 women were pretty competent, capable and able to defend and protect themselves. The truth is that there were not 500 women involved; if my memory serves me correctly, there were fewer than six. They were lying on the road, blowing whistles, reading books, cuddling and doing the sorts of things that those types of women do. There was no reason why the policemen-and as I recall there were probably 25 of them-could not have physically picked up those half dozen girls and removed them from the road. There is no practical reason why it was necessary to have a motor-cycle policeman stopping traffic at each end of Parliament House and preventing the free flow of traffic to this building. This afternoon, Mr President, you said that your prime responsibility-and I think you said your exclusive responsibility-was to concern yourself with the precincts of Parliament House. With respect, I suggest that there was a hindering of free access to the precincts of Parliament House as a result, not of 500 women misbehaving-at least not on the road; they may have been misbehaving somewhere else-but of no more than six women lying on the road. Those women were capable of being removed, had the police so chosen. To my knowledge, those women had no right and no permission to be there. This afternoon I interjected when the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) was explaining why the women were there. He asked me why I did not lay a private complaint or charge. Is this Government not only abrogating its responsibilities in respect of the economy and every other part of daily life in Australia but also now abrogating its responsibility for law and order? If I want law and order in this country, can I no longer appeal to the normal processes-the Government and the police? Do I now have to appeal personally as an individual to the courts of this land in order to get into Parliament House and fulfil the functions, duties and responsibilities for which I was elected by the people of Western Australia? It is a very sad day when the only source of relief available to me as a result of the infringement by extreme groups of individuals who collectively share a perverted and distorted view of life is a private complaint. It may well be that Senator Button believes that anarchy is a social system that he would embrace, accept and believe in, but it is not a due political system, a social value or a legal institution that the vast majority of decent Australians would agree with. There is something terribly wrong-there is a real flaw in this Government-when the Leader of the Government in the Senate, a senior Minister, stands up in this chamber and tells me that if I want free access to my office at Parliament House, I must seek private legal recourse. It is a sad day when the Government no longer takes responsibility, when it is intimidated, it backs off and fails to do anything about six smelly, long haired, orange headed women lying out in the middle of the road. If that factor prevents this Government from functioning, I wonder what else will. Senator Chaney sought in his own way to give an explanation this afternoon. For my part, I will not be party to any group of people who do more than demonstrate outside, in a normal, civil, legal way. That area across the road from Parliament House is not a camping area, it is an area where there should be peaceful, proper, legal and responsible demonstration. I wonder whether, if any other citizen chose to camp on the lawns opposite Parliament House-- Senator Brownhill —No, bring your caravan! Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Or brought a caravan, set up a private loo, cooked and burned on the grass and then, not happy with that, played music like the pied piper and lay in the middle of the road, the traffic would be held up. Would it be like Moses and the Red Sea? If I did that, would the traffic be held back for my benefit so I could lie out there to register some protest or indignation about what is normal, proper or decent about society? I dare say that I would be ignominiously removed and thrown into gaol very quickly. This Government does not have the courage or the fortitude to fulfil its normal moral, social responsibilities. Those who embrace the conduct of those women should be judged alongside them and with them. They can expect nothing less than the same condemnation that those women deserve. For my part, what happened at the weekend and the wimpish response of this Government are fair reflections, fair standards and a fair average of what we can expect from the Government in the future and what we have seen in the past. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(10.56) —I rise to speak in response to a Press article on the dateline service this evening in which Senator Giles has been quoted as saying that a number of the women in the so-called peace camp over the road would make statutory declarations about yesterday's events to set out clearly in a legal framework their reaction to hostility from certain elected members. Having seen Senator Giles on the Willesee program tonight and heard her wimpish response to the activities of these women, I take this opportunity on the adjournment to explain clearly to the Senate exactly what happened yesterday. In the morning two of my colleagues-Senator Vanstone and Senator Newman-and I quite legitimately went over the road to establish the reasons for the demonstration outside Parliament House. We have done this in the past, both collectively and individually, during other demonstrations. However, this time the people out there chose not to speak to us. Why? Because we dared to go over there to their women's space with a man! How disgraceful! A man, nonetheless. We did not seek to provoke any strife. The gentleman who accompanied us was a thorough gentleman and he did not offer comment. In fact, he is an absolute and thorough gentleman. We continually asked the women for comment about why they were there. We did not seek publicity. The four of us went out of the Senate side door, around Parliament House, across the road and down to the demonstrators. It was certainly not a case of our seeking publicity. We went quietly across the lawn and then some woman yelled `Mum' which was obviously some kind of code warning the others that there was a man on public land. Suddenly we were surrounded by a bunch of filthy, dirty, smelly women who were quite proud of the fact they they had not showered or changed their clothes for more than a week. If that was not bad enough, they had done the same thing to children and that is what I object to most sincerely. If they want to do that to themselves I suppose that is their business, but they should not be allowed to do it to children. More importantly, I have more respect for myself, my colleagues and staff of this place than to want to see us surrounded within two-inch proximity by these dirty, smelly, foul-mouthed people. Senator Zakharov —You chose to go over there. It was your choice. Senator KNOWLES —We did not choose to go over there and be surrounded at two-inch proximity, Senator Zakharov, by these dirty, filthy, smelly women. Senator Zakharov —You said you went to speak to them. Senator KNOWLES —You are exactly right, Senator Zakharov. We went to speak to them. When we speak to people we do not normally stand two inches away from them. These people chose not to speak to us. They chose not to tell us why they were demonstrating, other than that they hated men. When we asked why their children were not in school on a school day they refused to answer. When pressed on that matter they stated quite clearly that they would not have their children in school because schools were biased; they taught numbers and letters! Poor little darlings. When they grow up they might be able to add up and to look up a dictionary or a telephone book because they might know their alphabet. We were pushed; we were shoved; we were kicked; we were spat on; we were abused physically and verbally-you name it, we copped it. We did not lay a hand on any one of them and if Senator Giles wants to produce her statutory declarations at some stage, I invite her to do so. More importantly, I invite her to get the people who signed them to take it even further, to make sure that they are not committing perjury, because I guarantee that not one of us laid a hand on them. I wish I could say the same in reverse. A 44-gallon drum of Dettol would not have solved the problem when we got back. Senator Newman and I were in a so-called peace tent. That is the only tent we set foot inside. That was an interesting exercise, too, because these people who were there at your expense and mine, at the expense of the Australian taxpayers, had a lovely 26-inch colour television set in this tent. Senator Puplick —Well, you wouldn't want them to suffer, would you? Senator KNOWLES —Senator Puplick is quite right. They wanted to look at themselves on television every night and every morning, so that was pretty important. Senator Vanstone —Was that the Department of Territories' electricity? Senator KNOWLES —Senator Vanstone is quite right also. We still cannot get information from the Government as to how those people have access to power-they have access to power because they have special treatment. It was alleged by Senator Giles that we went into other tents. It was alleged by some of those people on radio this morning that I went into tents and kicked children and broke toys. That is absolutely and utterly absurd. There is television footage to justify absolutely and utterly every move we made. We did not-I repeat, did not-lay a hand on any person, male or female. When I say `male', the women do not allow males over the age of seven years. Heaven knows what they do to them then-I shudder to think. We did not lay a hand on one person and we did not go into any tent other than the peace tent. I might add, about 30 seconds after entering the peace tent there was no longer peace, because we got to a stage where we were just constantly abused. When I talk about touching people, I suddenly think that I would not be game to touch some of those people over there for the admitted lack of hygiene. As I have said, they simply refuse to shower or to look after their children. One poor little child, about 18 months old, was actually done up with Indian war paint. That poor little kid had not had his or her nose wiped for close to a month, I would say. Quite frankly-I do not wish to be crude-I wonder what happens at the other end. These poor children are really running a severe health risk, along with their so-called mothers. I would be quite prepared to lay charges against those women over there for the way in which we were treated yesterday, the way in which we were bashed and battered, but I asked them repeatedly for their names and they were smart enough not to give their names. They said: `No, because you will lay charges against us if we give you our names'. They were smart enough to know not to give me their names. When asked point blank, two women refused consistently to give me their names. Senator Kilgariff —You could have got their names from the Alice Springs court from Pine Gap. Senator KNOWLES —That is exactly right. These people are professional demonstrators. Let us not lose sight of the fact that these people are professional demonstrators. They admitted to us and they have admitted on television that they are the same people who went to Pine Gap and Cockburn Sound in my State of Western Australia and created havoc there. Not only did they cause hundreds of thousands of dollars damage to the entrance of the Stirling naval base but also they made assaults on police which were far too disgraceful to describe here. Yet they tried it again and again yesterday. I find it quite amazing to listen to the comments around the place because there is an obvious difference of opinion even among Government senators. Yesterday Senator Coleman privately expressed disgust to me at what had happened. I know that Senator Coleman is a reasonable person. Senator Crichton-Browne —Very reasonable. Senator KNOWLES —She is an extremely reasonable person. I was pleased that she also expressed disgust. Senator Tate said that he was furious at the women's behaviour. Senator Crichton-Browne —Do you blame him? They treated him like a tree. Senator KNOWLES —One cannot blame him. Senator Tate said: These people over there are offensive. When I was over there last week one woman took off her pants and marked the territory like a dog. The point of the matter is that two Government senators have condemned what the women are doing on the lawns in front of Parliament House. I know that other decent Government senators are also in disagreement with what they are doing over there. Yet Senator Reynolds said yesterday, via a notice of motion, that the Senate should pay tribute to the efforts of the women. Is that not lovely? She said that the Senate should pay tribute. Then, of course, Senator Giles appeared on television tonight and said that she is a supporter of the women, that she subscribed to their activities and that she supports their aims and goals. Senator Giles admitted that they are opposed to men, but went on to say that Willesee had used very selective video taping. I think what we are seeing is a division within the Government on this issue. Senator Giles, Senator Reynolds, I believe, and, Senator Zakharov are quite prepared to go over there, stir up trouble and try to get statutory declarations out of people who can barely even talk, let alone write. I will be delighted to see the statutory declarations. Never before have I or any of my colleagues been confronted by such ghastly behaviour as that which we were confronted with yesterday, morning and afternoon. I think it is important that it be made known to the people of Australia that the so-called peace demonstration is anything but peaceful. It is quite the reverse. It is simply a demonstration against men-a hatred of men. I think this country is one of the most beautiful in the world because men, women and children can live together in harmony. I am very proud to be a woman senator because there is communication between men and women in this place. There is no bias shown between men and women. Yet we have bias out there against men. The display of thuggery and violence by the women is just disgraceful. The right of access to public land is paramount and men or women should never ignore it. That right of access should never be compromised by a wimpish Government that simply will not take a stand on this matter. The demonstrators are not representative of Australian women; they will never be representative of Australian women. I hope to high heaven that the Government will wake up tomorrow morning and say that it will get rid of them. Mr President, that is the truth of the matter as to what happened when my colleagues and I visited that place yesterday morning and yesterday afternoon. The PRESIDENT —I wish to respond to the matter that was raised by Senator Crichton-Browne in the adjournment debate this evening. The honourable senator spoke as a result of my response this afternoon to his question of yesterday concerning the police action involved in closing a road near Parliament House during a demonstration on Sunday, 19 October. I have to tell Senator Crichton-Browne-I repeat this-that, following his asking of the question, I did have appropriate inquiries made. The information that I provided to him this afternoon was as a result of the advice tendered to me by the Australian Federal Police. The AFP confirmed to me yesterday, after the appropriate inquiries had been made that on a number of occasions on Sunday police diverted traffic away from a section of King George Terrace in the front of Parliament House and said that that action was taken to ensure the safety of a large number of demonstrators. When I asked what they meant by `a large number of demonstrators' the answer was that it was estimated to be about 500. Senator Crichton-Browne said that there were about 600. The Australian Federal Police have told me that there were about 500. They say that about 500 people were performing dance routines in the road and obstructing the flow of traffic. Senator Crichton-Browne has said that, despite their statement that there was no hindrance to access to Parliament House, he had difficulty in getting access and that he had to walk, I think he said, some considerable distance. I just wish to read the last two paragraphs without wearying the Senate of the report that was tendered to me by the Australian Federal Police. It states: On arrival back at Parliament House- this was some time after 3.15 p.m.- the demonstrators conducted a dance routine on King George's Terrace. During this period the Terrace was blocked but this did not cause any disruption to any person wishing to enter or leave Parliament House. Whilst this was continuing for some thirty minutes, traffic police were positioned at each end of the Parliament House building to divert any traffic which was not attending at Parliament House. Diversions were only minimal. The Australian Federal Police, in the last paragraph of their report, said: Any person who has indicated that he or she could not gain access to Parliament House during this demonstration is not being factual nor has he or she used the necessary initiative required, because the whole front area of Parliament House could have been avoided by using Queen Victoria Terrace even though road works were in progress earlier in the day. Any normal prudent driver, knowing the area could have adopted the latter as a means of avoiding delays. It is on that basis that I made the statement that the police said that, at no stage, were vehicles prevented from having access to Parliament House. I am sure that Senator Crichton-Browne would well understand that I, in my position, not having been here on Sunday, have to rely on the advice given to me by the Australian Federal Police who are in charge of the safety areas around the place. As I understand it, parliamentary precincts are restricted to the line of the present building as well as its front steps. As far as the responsibilities of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate are concerned relating to precincts, that is where our responsibilities begin and that is where they end. If there is any involvement or any demonstrations within those parliamentary precincts then and only then the Speaker of the House of Representatives and I, as the President of the Senate, are responsible and can take action. We can also take action if in any way senators and members are impeded in their access to or egress from the building but, on this occasion the police have given us the assurance that, as far as they are concerned, there was no difficulty in people gaining access to the building during the course of the demonstrations. Whatever honourable senators or I might think of the camp that has been established on the lawns in front of Parliament House, I say to the Senate and to the Parliament that, because it is not within the precincts of the Parliament, it is not the responsibility of the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —by leave-Mr President, let me say at the outset-I said this at the outset the last time I spoke-that I was not in any way reflecting upon you or on the fact that you had presented other than the facts that had been provided to you by somebody else. I again want to make that fundamentally clear. As you made clear when you answered my question at the end of Question Time today, you said: `On the report, the evidence and the information that has been provided to me, this is the situation'. I understood that and when I responded this evening I again made it clear that I was taking issue not with you, Mr President, but with the information which was provided to you. I say to you again that you were not provided with accurate information. I do not want to compromise anybody else, but I came in a Commonwealth car and the driver could not get me in. We went round the building on a number of occasions. Ultimately when I did alight I did so at the main entrance of Parliament House. I approached a policeman, whom I will not name because he will be easily identified, and I asked him why he had not picked up the six-only six-offenders who were lying in the road in a very relaxed form. From a distance one could have observed them to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs-I am not sure which-as their movements seemed to be rather disjointed. The policeman responded to me that he had instructions from the inspector in charge who was not, as I understand it, present at the time. I reiterate that there were not 500 singing, dancing or chanting; there were but six lying in the middle of the road. The balance of the alleged five hundred were way removed, steeped in their tents or sitting on the steps some considerable distance from the road. It would have been a simple process to remove them. I got the impression, and nothing else, that he was rather frustrated that he was not able to pick them up with the policemen he had with him, who seemed to outnumber the offenders three to one, and remove them accordingly. That is the situation. I repeat: I had difficulty entering and the road had been blocked off by five or six women. I find it regrettable that sufficient action could not have been taken to remove that number of protesters. The only danger that they were subject to was the danger they were imposing upon themselves by lying in the middle of a busy road. I would have thought that under normal circumstances anyone lying in the middle of a busy road would have been endangering himself. I find it a rather cute, curt and peculiar process of law that the police stop the traffic to save people from being hurt. I would have thought that under normal circumstances they would have removed the people so that the traffic did not get hurt. Senator Michael Baume —But you couldn't get in the side door-it was locked. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I sought to make the point earlier that I could not enter the Parliament from either side because under those circumstances only the main entrance was available. With respect, I repeat that which I put to you previously. I have been precise and I intended, on the occasion that I had this difficulty, to record the facts before the Senate, so I took some very considerable care to ensure that in a dispassionate way I observed precisely the circumstances and the events that took place at that time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.18 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Home and Community Care Act-Agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Victoria varying an Agreement made on 10 December 1985, dated 26 September 1986. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1269) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 August, 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since March 5, 1983. (2) What were the dates and the salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney- General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Three reclassifications of SES Level 1 to SES Level 2 since March 5, 1983. However, one of these reclassifications approved on 11 June 1986, has not been put into effect because the Department of Finance has recently advised that it has put aside consideration of additional resources for this matter until after the Australian Public Service staffing freeze is lifted. One reclassification of SES Level 2 to SES Level 3 since March 5, 1983. One reclassification of SES Level 3 to SES Level 4 since March 5, 1985. (2) The approval dates and salary details for the reclassifications are: Original classification New approved classification Date approved Salary change $ Asst. Crown Solicitor, Level 1 Snr Asst. Crown Solicitor, Level 2 8.8.1983 40,500 to 44,450 Senior Executive, Level 1 Senior Executive, Level 2 20.9.1984 43,974 to 48,262 Senior Executive, Level 2 Senior Executive, Level 3 6.5.1985 49,517 to 53,917 Senior Executive, Level 3 Senior Executive, Level 4 19.6.1985 53,917 to 58,318 Senior Executive, Level 1 Senior Executive, Level 2 11.6.1986 48,867 to 53,632 An expense-of-office allowance of $815 is payable in respect of SES Levels 1 and 2 and $1355 in respect of SES Levels 3 and 4. (Question No. 1360) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 September 1986: (1) Could the Minister for Defence advise details of his Department's use of the Cardwell Range for jungle training exercises. (2) How much land is reserved for this purpose. (3) How frequently are exercises scheduled in the Cardwell Range. (4) How many soldiers were involved in these exercises in 1985. (5) How many support vehicles were required to travel in this area during 1986. (6) Is the Department of Defence planning to increase jungle training exercises in future years. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (4) Cardwell Range is not used by Defence for conducting jungle training exercises. (5) Although the Cardwell Range is not used for jungle training the Army's Field Force Battle School (FFBS) is located south east of the Range. The FFBS which trains soldiers in jungle warfare techniques utilises Commonwealth and leased land totalling 11,653 ha. This area extends north of the FFBS to the east and north east of Cardwell Range. Occasionally, and always with a permit issued from the State Forestry Office, the Cardwell Range forestry area is used for transit to FFBS exercise areas. (6) Defence does not foresee any increase in the level of jungle training than that being presently conducted.