Tuesday, 9 December 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 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 46 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That any decision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to reduce the local content of the programme, the ``Country Hour'', would represent yet another severe blow to Western Australian rural people; That even under current programming Western Australian country people receive little locally produced radio, and In view of the inefficiencies in the operations of the ABC disclosed by the Auditor-General, your petitioners call upon the Government to improve the efficient operation of the ABC before it reduces the local content of important rural programmes such as the Country Hour. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that the 1986 Census deprived housewives of the right to record the occupation and instead forced them to give the negative response: ``No, did not have a job''. That the 1986 Census could have been used, at no extra cost to taxpayers, to give a genuine ``Fair Go'' to ALL women to record their views on the government's National Agenda for Women. That coinciding with the 1986 Census, the Office of the Status of Women is conducting a costly, selective survey titled: ``A fair go for women''. This survey requires no identification of respondents, making the results of the survey highly suspect since it is known that various groups and individuals have obtained bulk supplies of the brochure, while the majority of women are not aware that their views are being sought by the Government. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will restore to the Census a category for Housewives, and that the ``Fair Go For Women'' survey will be recognised as a costly exercise of dubious value in determining the real views of Australian women, as this should be done through the Census, or a Referendum held in conjunction with the next Federal Election to minimise costs, and to give ALL women a genuine ``Fair Go''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Black (from 12 citizens) and Collard (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. (2) That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security. (3) That we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life. (4) That we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Taxation Office and other departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 176 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: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 37 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 `Australia 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 Numbering System. by Senator Puplick (from 482 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows that because it will cause serious harm to the community, the Parliament will not legalise the possession, sale, hire or supply of any publication or video tape, video disc, slide or any other recording from which a visual image can be produced, which displays degradation of any person, particularly women and children, or animals; scenes of explicit sexual relations showing genitalia detail; acts of violence and sex; sexual perversion such as sodomy, mutilation, child pornography, urolagnia, coprophilia, necrophilia, bestiality; or the use and effect of illicit drug taking; explicit fellatio and cunnilingus; explicit nudity including touching genitalia, erect penis. Your petitioners pray the Senate, in Parliament assembled that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Black (from 14 citizens). Petitions received. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate noting- (a) with concern the statements of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on national radio this morning that the Australia Card would effectively combat social security fraud; and (b) that the Prime Minister would know that such claims are not supported by either the Joint Select Committee set up to examine the card, or the Department of Social Security, who are on record as saying that the card would do little to curb fraud because most social security fraud is caused by overpayment of benefits and not false identity; (c) calls on the Prime Minister to ensure that remarks he makes in interviews are based on fact, not fiction. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr Brown) has admitted the Federal Government's advertising budget, excluding its agencies and instrumentalities, totalled $34.64m in 1985-86; (b) further notes that this represents a 44 per cent or $10.5m increase over the last 2 years and is almost double the total of $17.6m spent in 1981-82, the last full year of the Fraser Government; (c) expresses its concern that while no estimates have been revealed by the Government for its advertising spending in the current financial year, the Government has set out on major advertising campaigns of a blatantly political nature, particularly the improper, deceptive and dishonest $5m campaign aimed at seeking political support for the Government's discredited and unfair fringe benefits tax; and (d) calls on the Government to reveal the size of this year's advertising budget and to apply to it the severe cuts necessary, firstly, to save money at this time of crisis and, secondly, to cease this improper use of taxpayers' funds. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, contingent upon the completion of Question Time, I shall move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Chaney moving a motion relating to the consideration of a matter of public importance or motion of urgency. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, left for Paris on 7 December to represent the Government at an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development conference on youth and disability. He will return to Australia on 21 December. In his absence the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, is Acting Minister for Community Services. Any questions which would normally be directed to Senator Grimes in relation to his portfolio or those he represents in the chamber should be directed to Senator Ryan. Queries on the management of Government Business should be addressed to me. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Is it a fact that Mr Neville Wran has been found guilty of a criminal contempt of court by the New South Wales Court of Appeal for his remarks following the successful appeal by the late Mr Justice Murphy against his conviction on a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice? Is it not inappropriate that a person convicted of such an offence should be appointed by the Commonwealth Government to a position such as Chairman of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation? Why did the Government not accept Mr Wran's entirely appropriate offer to resign from the position? Senator GARETH EVANS —The issues raised in the contempt proceedings in which Mr Wran was convicted-- Senator Georges —I raise a point of order. You will recall, Mr President, that when the matter of Mr Wran came before the Senate I raised a point of order with you that the matter was still before the courts and you indicated that you were not aware. Certainly on this occasion you must be aware that the matter is still part of proceedings in New South Wales. Although a verdict may have been reached, there are still further proceedings to be followed and I would suggest that any questioning on the matter would be out of order. Senator Chaney —On the point of order, Mr President: The position is that Mr Wran has been convicted and awaits sentence. It would be entirely appropriate that the matter should not be a matter for public debate were the Government showing some restraint in this matter in holding its hand. What we have been told by the Government is that, knowing that this court matter was pending, or a decision was reserved, the Government proceeded to recommend his appointment as Chairman of the CSIRO. It is a matter of very great public importance, dealing with a major institution of Australia. Since the Government is choosing to proceed, even though this matter is still before the courts, it would be quite improper for the Opposition not to be able to raise matters which are relevant public policy issues. I suggest to you that there is no correctness in the point of order, but it would be quite wrong in principle to preclude debate or questioning in this place when the Government is proceeding notwithstanding Mr Wran's rather doubtful situation. The PRESIDENT —Order! I will allow the question. The Minister, in answering the question, will take note of both points of view which have been expressed. Because the question relates to the administration of a Minister's portfolio, I will allow the question. Senator GARETH EVANS —As I began by saying, the issues raised in the contempt proceedings simply have no relationship, either direct or indirect, to the job it is proposed that Mr Wran do for the CSIRO. The mere fact that someone has been convicted of a particular offence has never been regarded in itself as constituting a ground for disqualification from public office, or from occupancy of a profession for that matter; everything depends upon the nature of the offence in question. If it involves dishonesty or, say, breach of duty as a public office holder-another traditional category has been bankruptcy as far as, for example, members of parliament are concerned-all of these are traditional areas of offences in respect of which it has quite properly been thought in the past it would be incompatible with such a conviction for the person to occupy a particular office. It is simply not that kind of case, as I am sure the Opposition is well aware. Senator Chaney —It is just a QC committing contempt-a mere nothing. Senator GARETH EVANS —I regard that comment as contemptible and I ask for it to be withdrawn. Senator Chaney —What, a QC committing contempt? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is the honourable senator's description. Senator Chaney —But Neville Wran is a QC. Senator GARETH EVANS —I thought that the honourable senator was saying I had committed contempt. The PRESIDENT —Order! I did not hear the interjection. Do I take it that the remark made by Senator Chaney was not directed at Senator Evans? Senator Chaney —I was directing it at the fact that Mr Wran, as a QC, had committed contempt of court. Senator Georges —Mr President, I have to insist on my point of order because what has happened since I raised it supports what I said. We cannot enter into questioning of this matter without derogatory remarks being made about a person whose affairs are still a matter for the court to decide. There may have been a committal but there is still subsequently-- Senator Peter Baume —He was convicted, George. Senator Georges —He was convicted, but there is still a verdict to come and that could be prejudiced in some way by this questioning. Senator Peter Baume —We are not debating penalty. Senator Georges —The penalty could be affected by this questioning and the remarks and interjections flowing backwards and forwards. I insist that in fairness to the person concerned, Mr President, you ought to rule that the matter be the subject of no further questioning or debate. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I have already ruled on the matter. Again, I suggest to the Minister that he keep these matters in view when answering the question. Senator GARETH EVANS —I simply want to say, further, that Mr Wran did proffer his resignation to the Minister for Science, Mr Jones, on the ground that Mr Jones should exercise his option to nominate a new Chairman if he believed that the Government was embarrassed or believed that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation would be compromised in any way by the contempt conviction. Mr Jones took the view that he, the Government and the CSIRO were not embarrassed or so compromised and accordingly Mr Wran's resignation ought not to be accepted. It is obvious that Mr Wran has behaved entirely properly in his reactions to this particular matter as, I believe, has the Government for the reasons that I have indicated. I conclude my remarks by repeating the words of Mr Jones in the statement he made this morning: Neville Wran's drive, intelligence, analytical and policy formulation skills and his gifts as an advocate will enable him to perform a major national service; he should be allowed to get on with the job. Senator ZAKHAROV —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs explain to the Senate the significance of Australia's ratification yesterday of the Treaty of Rarotonga? Senator GARETH EVANS —Australia's ratification of the Treaty was accomplished by the Executive Council's endorsement last week following its passage through the Parliament and yesterday was the subject of a signature of instrument of ratification by the Prime Minister. That completes the process and it is now possible for that Treaty to come into force once the instrument of ratification is deposited. The coming into force of the Treaty will, of course, create a wholly new environment in the South Pacific. It is an environment that will involve the South Pacific being preserved as it is today, free from nuclear weapons stationed in the countries and territories of the region, free from nuclear waste dumping and, with the tragic and we hope temporary exception of French Polynesia, free from nuclear testing. All the countries of the region want to preserve these freedoms and manifestly their preservation will be very much advanced by the terms of this Treaty. They will be even more advanced, of course, by the signature to and observance of the terms of the protocols to the Treaty, which we are endeavouring to have the nuclear powers with a presence in the Pacific sign at the moment. It is an extremely important document and an extremely important stage in the evolution of policy in the South Pacific for all the reasons that were canvassed at great length in the course of the debate which I have no need to repeat. I think the only other point that does need to be made is that our ratification of the Treaty and its entry into force would not have been possible had the Australian Democrats' amendment been accepted by the Senate and had the matter therefore still been the subject of endless further parliamentary debate both this session and in the autumn session next year. It is hardly necessary to emphasise just how significant is the step that has been taken and how much it would have rebounded to Australia's discredit had we not now been in the position, as we now are, to proceed immediately to ratification and to ensure the coming into force within the next few days of the Treaty itself. Senator DURACK —My question is also directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy in his capacity as the Minister representing the Attorney-General and, indeed, as a former Attorney-General. I refer to the appointment of Mr Justice Toohey, announced yesterday, as a justice of the High Court of Australia from 6 February next year. I note that Mr Justice Toohey was appointed by the Government to, and remains a member of, the Constitutional Commission which the Government established about a year ago to prepare or recommend a new constitution of Australia by 1988. I ask: Is it intended by the Government that Mr Justice Toohey should remain a member of the Constitutional Commission after he takes his seat on the High Court? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no information on that subject. I will draw it to the Attorney's attention and let him respond as he sees fit. Senator AULICH —Has the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce seen an article in the Australian Financial Review of 8 December which reported on research and development statistics released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics? The article points to a `continuing surge in R and D activity' but also indicates that we have a `thin national R and D effort'. What is the Minister's assessment of the statistics and of the research and development effort of Australian industry? Senator BUTTON —I have seen the article in question. It is one of a series of articles in the Australian Financial Review which are of very high quality and which examine questions of entrepreneurial talent, innovation and research and development in Australian industry. As such, those articles are very important in terms of pointing to success stories in Australian business as well. The Bureau of Statistics on 5 December released revised estimates of expenditure in human resources devoted to research and development in Australia. The main features of those newly released statistics are that expenditure by business enterprises in 1984-85 was $721m, about 9 per cent higher than indicated in the preliminary figures; research and development expenditure by private enterprises increased over the period from 1981-82 to 1984-85 by over 60 per cent in constant price terms, while human resources devoted to research and development increased by 43 per cent; and receipts in 1984-85 for technical know-how sold overseas were $28m, double that of 1981-82, but far short of the payments made overseas for know-how of $158m. The resurgence of research and development activity from the low levels of 1981-82 is encouraging. As a percentage of gross domestic product, business expenditure on research and development has increased from about one-quarter to one-third of one per cent. There is no cause for complacency about that. On the basis of these most recent statistics, investment in 1984-85 by Australian businesses was one-third of the median figure for many Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries with which Australia must compete in international markets. To reach roughly comparable levels of investment in technology by the end of the 1980s Australian businesses will need to increase their performance by an annual average rate of 25 per cent. Advice that I have received, based on registration for the 150 per cent taxation allowance for research and development, indicates that registered companies propose to almost double their performance in research and development in the period between 1984-85 and 1986-87. This in itself is encouraging evidence of the success of the Government's initiative to encourage the business sector to be more innovative and to build technical inventiveness for Australia. I summarise by saying that the figures are vastly improved. They are not as good as they ought to be, but there are some encouraging signs for the future. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In view of the serious consequences flowing from an increase in concentration of media ownership in Australia, can the Minister explain, firstly, why the Government is persisting in its refusal to intervene in the takeover bid for the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd by News Ltd and, secondly, why the Government is reluctant to support the establishment of a joint Federal-State inquiry into the effects of greater concentration of media ownership in Australia, including current and future levels of syndication within the print medium? Senator BUTTON —First of all, let me again make the point which I was forced to make on Friday in answer to a question, and that is that the Government's announced policies with respect to ownership and control of television in Australia have nothing whatsoever to do with the attempted takeover of the Herald and Weekly Times by News Ltd. The two issues are quite distinct. Secondly, let me make the point that, insofar as a successful takeover of the Herald and Weekly Times by News Ltd would lead to a greater concentration of newspaper ownership in Australia, that is initially a matter for consultation with and, if necessary, later investigation by the Trade Practices Commission. As I understand it, it has already been indicated publicly that discussions between the News Ltd representatives and the Trade Practices Commission have indicated that there would have to be a divestiture of a number of newspapers. The details of that are not known to the Government or anyone else, but that is prima facie and essentially at the beginning a matter for the Trade Practices Commission. Whether it is desirable to have a Federal-State inquiry into this matter is something which I have not considered. It may be a suggestion welling from the policy depths of the Australian Democrats; I do not know. It is not a suggestion which has been put to me before at any stage. I simply want to make the point that under the new Government policy on media ownership there will be much less cross-ownership of media than there would have been in the past. If there is an undesirable degree of concentration of newspaper ownership, as I said, it is appropriately a matter for the Trade Practices Commission at this stage. I do not think I have anything to add to that. We went through this issue at the time of the purported takeover of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd by Mr Holmes a Court, when there was a great deal of calling for national inquiries and things of that kind. The Government indicated then its general position on these issues, and it does so in much the same way now. Senator BLACK —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to newspaper reports this morning of a speech by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, to the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia. Mr Howard has identified possible savings in government expenditure in areas such as the abolition of unnecessary statutory authorities, work for the dole, and allowing for the opting out of Medicare. What are the financial implications of these proposals if they are implemented? Senator WALSH —I have seen reports of the speech. It consists of little more than a rehash of the sort of peripheral comment on policy that the Leader of the Opposition has been making for some time. However, if it is to be taken seriously it would have these financial implications: The Medicare policy-that is, allowing people to opt out of Medicare subject to their taking out voluntary health insurance-means that people who have around average weekly earnings or slightly above average weekly earnings would probably find it cheaper to take out voluntary insurance, leaving all the others in. The effect of that would be to reduce Medicare expenditure by $200m or $300m, or something of that order, and reduce revenue by about $900m. In other words, the effect of that policy would be to add $600m to the deficit which Mr Howard asserts is already too large. On the compulsory work for the unemployed, one of the more vacuous comments to come from the Leader of the Opposition in the last year was about mid-year when he suggested that the unemployed should be required to undergo two or three days a week compulsory education. If that policy were to be implemented for three days a week, and if all the unemployed were compelled to attend a technical and further education college, which is the cheapest form of tertiary education, for three days a week, it would add $600m to outlays. If the policy of the Leader of the Opposition were to be adopted the Budget deficit would be up by a full $1.2 billion. The notion that large savings can be made on unemployment benefit rests ultimately on the belief that there is widespread cheating, either from claiming multiple entitlements or from claiming entitlements for which the individual is not in fact justified. We do know that cheating takes place. There was a celebrated case in Melbourne where a man was charged and convicted for receiving unemployment benefits under 54 different names. In that case, the total fraud on the Commonwealth was of the order of half a million dollars. The Government has taken action against unemployment benefit fraud through tightening the administration. We expect significant savings from that. However, it should be noted-the Government has always recognised this-that the action we have taken will be less than completely effective; very much less probably than completely effective, and for this reason: The Government does not address the problem of people claiming unemployment benefit in more than one name, or alternatively being employed in one name and claiming unemployment benefit under another name. There can be no wholly effective way of closing off unemployment benefit fraud until such time as we have an effective identification system and a cross linkage of the social security and taxation system. In other words, there can be no way of effectively closing off unemployment benefit fraud until we get the Australia Card. Opposition senators-Oh! Senator WALSH —Listen to them all moaning over there. Faced with the choice of taking effective action to close off unemployment benefit fraud-that is, voting for the Australia Card-all these humbugs and hypocrites opposite decide to sabotage it. Senator NEWMAN —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has the Minister noted today's report that the Prime Minister visited Tasmania at the weekend primarily to have dinner and gamble at the Launceston Casino with Sir Peter Abeles of Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd? Has he also noted that the Leader of the Tasmanian Opposition, Mr Batt, has said that his talks with Mr Hawke were coincidental to the Hawke-Abeles dinner and blackjack session? Does the Leader agree with Mr Batt that, if the Prime Minister wanted to talk to him, `the normal course would be for me to fly to Canberra or for us to talk on the phone'? Does the Minister believe that the use of a VIP aircraft by the Prime Minister for what was primarily a private social engagement can be justified? Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator's question qualifies her to run a gossip column in the Launceston Gazette but not to be a senator in the Australian Parliament. If she wants to put together a collection of scuttlebutt about this sort of thing, that is very good; it is a lot of fun. The honourable senator's question does not require a serious answer and I do not propose to give one. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I preface it by congratulating you, Mr President, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, as today marks the 25th anniversary of the election of both of you to the Parliament. Has the Minister seen reports that the South African authorities are currently holding 256 children for alleged security offences? Are these reports correct? If so, what do they suggest about the continuing state of affairs under the apartheid regime in South Africa? Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I add my own congratulations to you on the anniversary. Senator Button —What a lovely fellow you are. Senator GARETH EVANS —There is no need for the honourable senator to interject along those lines. Mr President will not be around to suck up to much longer! I have seen Press reports on the detention and ill-treatment of black children by the authorities in South Africa. The Government understands that as many as 8,000 children under the age of 16 may have been detained since the declaration of the state of emergency last June, of whom half remain in detention without charge, without trial, without the benefit of legal protective measures for juveniles which have been suspended under the emergency regulations and, in many instances, without access to their families. These reports, which because of South African restrictions on information are difficult to verify, are truly appalling. They are yet another step in the litany of brutal oppression imposed by South African authorities on the black community. The Government is profoundly concerned about the continuing wave of unrest and violence in South Africa of which the detention of black children is but one of the tragic consequences. Over 2,000 people have died in South Africa since 1984 and more than 200 have died since the imposition of the state of emergency. The South African Government's repressive security measures and the state of emergency may have sought to hide from the outside what is happening in South Africa but they have singularly failed to ease the township crisis or to silence the legitimate black protest. On the contrary, the detention of thousands of black activists and children is more likely to exacerbate further than to resolve South Africa's problems, to deepen black anger and to lead to further confrontation and bloodshed. Finally, the Australian Government does not condone violence-we have consistently condemned it-and the resort to armed force for political ends. However, there is unlikely to be an end to the vicious circle of violence and repression until the South African Government takes urgently needed steps to end racial tension and to begin serious negotiations with representative black leaders which will result in fundamental political reforms. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer to the report by Mr Andrew Menzies on allegations that there are nazi war criminals in Australia and to the indication by him that a confidential list of 70 names had been supplied to the Government for further detailed investigation. I refer, too, to the great apprehension amongst many migrants that their names could be wrongly on the list due to false information supplied by politically opposed or otherwise disaffected persons or groups. Firstly, I ask: Is it the intention of the Government to inform in confidence each of the 70 persons as to their listing and as to the nature of the allegations? Secondly, if a person concerned at possible listing were to write to the Attorney-General seeking to know whether that person's name is on the list, would the Government provide an answer? I point out that the Government in the past has informed a number of migrants upon request that no evidence of war criminality about them was in the Government's possession. If the Minister cannot give me an answer now, will he please do so before the Senate rises? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is simply premature to respond to those questions. As I indicated in putting down the tabling statement, the issues in the Menzies report are very sensitive and very complex and will require detailed and careful consideration by the Government. The Attorney-General has been asked to bring forward a submission on the matter to the Cabinet early in 1987. Clearly, one of the central elements of that submission will need to be the handling of any further investigative process and the treatment of the material which has been identified by Mr Menzies. Included in that, I imagine, would be a consideration of the particular issues which Senator Sir John Carrick has raised. Pending the Government's consideration of any submission the Attorney-General might make, it is the Government's intention to maintain absolute confidentiality with respect to that list of names; there is no question of their being released to anyone. People who fear that their names might be on such a list need, as a result, have no cause for alarm about the potential misuse of that material until such time as the Government has had an opportunity to consider fully the matters involved. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I ask a supplementary question. My question did not relate at all to the release to other persons of the names on the list; it was specifically related to the fact that people had apprehension that their names were wrongly on the list by being put on by others quite wrongly. I ask: Fundamentally, will the Government give very early consideration to letting people know who is on the list and responding to people who ask whether they are on the list? Senator GARETH EVANS —I well understood the question. My response is the same: The Government will give consideration to the particular questions Senator Sir John Carrick has put to us because it will be necessary to address those questions in any systematic consideration of what to do with the report and with the names that have already been put to it. It is just one of the matters that will need attention, but I am not going to pre-empt the Government's consideration of that particular matter. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister for Education aware that there are no standard procedures amongst Australian tertiary institutions to ensure equitable administration of the $250 administrative charge? In particular, is the Minister aware that at least one Queensland institution has a policy to refuse loans for this charge and another has demanded full payment by 9 January? Furthermore, a university council has ruled against refunds for students withdrawing with justification early in the academic year. Will the Minister request officers of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission to liaise urgently with all tertiary institutions to ensure that standard procedures are adopted to protect students from these unfair practices, which go against Government policy? Senator RYAN —As I have said a number of times in the Senate, the institutions have received guidelines from me and from CTEC advising as to the levying of the charge. They were asked in the first instance not to levy the charge until the legislation was through and, in the case of students eligible for Austudy, not to actually levy the charge until the students had received their $250 payment from Austudy. Indeed, there is no reason, other than some slight administrative convenience, for them to do other than abide by that guideline. They have been given additional loan funds amounting in total to $11m specifically so that loans can be made available to students who will be liable for the charge but who will not have the $250 at the beginning of the academic year. It is very much outside Government policy and outside the reasons why the institutions have been given additional loan funds for an institution to decide that loans will not be made available for that purpose. I suggest that Senator Reynolds let me know of the particular institutions. I will not name them in the Senate in case there has been some misunderstanding. I will ensure that officers of CTEC point out the desires of the Government in this respect. Senator PARER —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. In view of the Minister's stated efforts to restore competitiveness in the manufacturing sector, does he support the Metal Trades Industry Association proposal for a 40-hour week in return for a wage increase limited to 3 per cent over the next 12 months? Senator BUTTON —The MTIA saw me about that proposal and I said at the time-and I repeat-that it was a matter for discussion between the parties. That was the way it was presented by the MTIA. It was not a matter about which I was asked to give any particular opinion. Indeed, if industry by industry discussions take place on wages and productivity matters, I do not think Ministers in a government can appropriately intervene in those discussions, particularly at such an early stage as this. I think the MTIA initiative is to be welcomed as providing a forum or a basis for discussion. Whether the productivity results can be produced by that proposed result, whether the right wage outcomes in that industry can be produced by that result, are matters which I think remain to be seen. It is essentially, as I said, a matter for discussion between the parties. I have no doubt that that is a view which Senator Parer would share because his industrial relations policy, as I understand it, is very much based on the notion that there should be discussion between parties at an enterprise level. I hope that is his industrial relations policy-it is never quite clear. If it is, I am sure he would welcome that sort of discussion. Senator MAGUIRE —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Transport seen the latest annual report of the Australian National Railways Commission, which has just been circulated to honourable senators? If so, has the Minister noted the statement that Australian National has been conducting investigations into possible new railway lines in South Australia, including a link between Bowmans and Ardrossan and a link between Whyalla and Kimba, the latter, if constructed, providing an historic link between two currently separated systems? Does the Minister have any further information on these two railway projects which, if undertaken, would boost the development of the South Australian economy? Senator GIETZELT —The Senate will be aware that the annual report of the Australian National Railways Commission was recently presented to the Parliament. The report contains details of a number of important investigations. In regard to South Australia-I am sure that that would be the area of interest to Senator Maguire-it indicated that a number of investigations are being made into new developments in the rail system. It also indicated that some improvement was being made to the management of the system generally. Some of the options being considered by Australian National include increasing the competitiveness of the rail link between Adelaide and Melbourne, a proposed new railway link to Roxby Downs, an improvement in the Whyalla-Kimba and Bowmans-Ardrossan links and a remodelling of the major yard which services the Tailem Bend-Port Augusta link. These are part of the future options to increase the competitiveness of our public railway system that are being considered by the energetic Minister for Transport and energetic Government. Of course, the extent to which these options receive consideration by the Government will depend largely upon their being feasible and the funds being available to realise those objectives. They certainly are matters that are receiving active consideration by the Government. Senator CHANEY —My question, which I direct to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, follows on from the answer he gave to Senator Parer a few minutes ago about the recent initiative of the Metal Trades Industry Association. I welcome the Minister's comment that the MTIA initiative is one to be welcomed as a basis for discussion. I would associate myself with a good deal of the response that he gave. I ask him: Will he dissociate himself and the Government from the reported comments of Mr John Halfpenny of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, who is the Minister's Senate ticket running mate, who yesterday described the MTIA proposal as `a lot of cheap publicity seeking rubbish' and said that the employers were offering compost, not a compact? I ask the Minister to do that because I believe that we need to encourage a positive approach to Australia's problems of productivity and of obtaining greater income for members of the work force. I ask him to dissociate himself from the very abusive response of Mr Halfpenny. Senator BUTTON —I suppose it is not really my job to go around either associating myself or dissociating myself from whomever the Leader of the Opposition sees as the flavour of the day. I think one is well advised not to comment in haste in these matters. In a document as carefully prepared as the MTIA document has been, I believe, there is always room for constructive discussion. I think that constructive discussion should be allowed to take place without comments which would tend to preclude it. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note how often Government members raise statements of people who are supposedly associated with the Liberal Party. I ask the Minister: Does he agree with Mr Halfpenny that what the MTIA has done is a lot of cheap publicity seeking rubbish? Senator BUTTON —I always welcome informed comment on these things. I do not think an informed comment would lead me to that conclusion, but I am not particularly well informed. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a Press release put out at the weekend by the Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, regarding the Opposition's phantom tax policy? What would be the financial implications if his phantom proposals for lower taxes overall brought about by less government spending, a flatter system of personal income tax, less personal tax with a shift to indirect taxation, a bias in favour of families with dependent children, and the abolition of the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax, introduced by Mr Keating, were all implemented? Senator WALSH —I have already had a question today on the Opposition's policies on expenditure. The Opposition has identified about $30m worth of savings on expenditure and at least $800m worth of increased outlays, even after the Leader of the Opposition repudiated all the previous expenditure promises which assorted members of the Opposition front bench had been making around the country-$600m additional on education for the unemployed, if that policy is still alive, and some $200m-odd for the repeal of the assets test. A flatter personal income tax system, which is a euphemism for a less progressive personal income tax rate scale, for revenue neutrality would, of course, have to impose a higher tax burden on lower income people. The shift from less personal tax to indirect tax-one needs to be rather careful about the terms used here-means that there would be less income tax, but persons would be paying in aggregate an offsetting amount of tax through a tax on consumption. Again it is not necessarily so but likely that the burden of that tax policy change would be borne more by people on lower incomes than people on higher incomes. In particular, it would be borne by low income families which at present have very little income tax liability, but through wholesale sales tax or any other consumption tax would pay a considerable amount of tax. In other words, it would hurt the very people that the Opposition claims that it is concerned with protecting. More importantly in the macro-economic sense is that, in the absence of any effective wages policy or, indeed, a wages policy at all, the effect of a movement towards indirect taxation which feeds into the consumer price index would be to further stimulate demands for wage increases and probably set off an accelerating inflationary spiral, which the Opposition fondly believes could be controlled by collective bargaining in the market place. It tried that little experiment back in 1981 and 1982 and we had a wages blow-out of 13 per cent in the first year and 14 per cent in the second year. If it combined its non-wages policy with a major shift to indirect taxation for revenue raising it would probably surpass that record. The Opposition's formula, if one could dignify it by that title, for the recovery of the Australian economy and the correction of our current account problem is, in short, to bring back the boozy free lunch and the tax deductible Mercedes and pay pensions to millionaires. That is the Opposition's formula for curing Australia's economic problems, although the way in which any of those measures would have any positive impact at all on our problems remains, as it always was, a great mystery. Finally, I should note the comments of Professor John Hewson who, I understand, is an endorsed Liberal Party of Australia candidate for the House of Representatives, or if not endorsed-- Senator Button —He is endorsed. Senator WALSH —He is endorsed, I am told. As soon as the Liberals can persuade one of the more inert members of its present back bench to get right out of parliament, he will come in, but I do not know whether he is to be a front bencher or a back bencher. Professor Hewson, who is acknowledged as one of the few people in the Liberal Party who have any expertise in economic matters at all, was quoted just over a month ago in the Business Review Weekly as saying: Having begun to declare its tax policies, the Opposition's credibility on tax will continue to be questioned until it specifies all the detail. I certainly agree with Professor Hewson about that. Senator ARCHER —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories. I refer the Minister to reports that a house in Kambah, Australian Capital Territory, jointly owned by former Deputy Prime Minister Jim Cairns and Ms Junie Morosi is to be auctioned on 13 December and is expected to fetch upwards of $150,000. Is this the house which was built or purchased with assistance some $133,000 from the Commonwealth housing expansion program? Has the Government received notice of the impending sale and will the Government be acting to recover part or all of the funds that it granted under the program? Senator GIETZELT —I have no information on that whatsoever, but since Senator Archer has requested some detailed information I will see whether I can get it before the conclusion of Question Time either today or tomorrow. Senator COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In light of recent events on the Nicaragua-Honduras border, will the Government reaffirm in the strongest terms its opposition to any United States of America participation in this dispute, and ongoing attempts by United States-backed forces to destabilise the Nicaraguan Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —I would be delighted to, if I could find my script. Senator Button —Do it from the heart. Senator GARETH EVANS —If I did it from the heart, I would be too extravagant. I have to adopt carefully modulated tones in these matters and I will do so at the end of Question Time. Senator ALSTON —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Is it a fact that, although last year's Forward Estimates of Budget outlays and staffing were released in November last year, the Estimates for 1987-88 and 1988-89 have not yet been released and will not be until the Senate has risen? Is this because of the Government's acute embarrassment over the size of the fiscal deficit overrun due to the massive increase in public debt interest repayments which itself is a direct result of the Government's high interest rates policy and its refusal to cut government spending? Senator WALSH —I do not know whether that is another one of Senator Messner's bummer questions that he has managed to unload on to a member of his back bench, but it is based on a complete misconception of the Forward Estimates. The Forward Estimates are estimates of expenditure commencing in 1987-88 and have absolutely nothing to do with this year's Budget outcome. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health seen the article in Friday's Advertiser headed `Tasmanians are the laziest-Survey'? The article refers to a survey conducted by the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism last winter which showed that 41 per cent of Tasmanians did no exercise, compared with 72.2 per cent of Western Australians who claimed that they did. Can the Minister comment on this disparity across the nation and will she alert the Department of Health to this survey in case it is of relevance to the Better Health Commission? Senator RYAN —I have not seen the article, but now that I have been alerted to it by Senator Crowley I will make sure that it is brought to the attention of the Minister for Health. Senator SANDERS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment aware that portions of the National Estate are presently being clear felled at Jackeys Marsh, in spite of the Prime Minister's pledge to save such areas from the woodchippers? Is she also aware that the Government's environmental credibility is now on the line? If so, when will the Prime Minister honour his promise? Will Cabinet meet again today to discuss this issue as a matter of urgency? If not, when will Cabinet meet to discuss the situation? Senator RYAN —I am sure that Senator Sanders will be pleased to hear that the Cabinet currently has this matter under the most detailed and careful consideration. When we have arrived at a position, we will let Senator Sanders and everyone else know. Senator ELSTOB —My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport relates to continuing efforts by various State and Federal governments to improve the viability of the rail system. An announcement recently by the Australian Transport Advisory Council tends to confirm widely held community beliefs that rail is still having difficulty in exploiting its full potential, particularly in the transport of freight over long distances between capital cities. Would the Minister care to comment on whether rail in Australia is viable? Senator GIETZELT —It will be conceded that the Government's overall strategy in response to problems facing public enterprises has been to make them all more efficient and viable. A great deal of effort has been directed to that end by the Hawke Government, not only because we believe that, in the particular case that Senator Elstob has raised, the transport system plays a vital role in the economy, but also because it costs the taxpayers something like $1,400m a year to fund the deficits of our transport system. That is a matter of some concern to taxpayers, as well as to the Government. It is understandable that the Minister, Mr Peter Morris, would take to the Australian Transport Advisory Council proposals to make endeavours to reduce that deficit and to make our transport system much more efficient and viable. As a consequence, he has announced the establishment of a rail industry council, comprising representatives of rail management, unions and the relevant State governments. Thus, for the first time there will be established in Australia a body of representatives of the rail systems to work on a strategy to improve the efficiency, viability and competitiveness of our rail industry. That is an important initiative and one that I am sure will have the support of all people in Australia because of the need to make our industry competitive and to have regard to both the passenger and freight components of our transport industry. The Government believes that this initiative, which will be based on co-operation and consultations among the various sectors of the transport industry, will come up with plans to reduce the deficit and make our rail industry much more competitive. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Given the unprecedented spate of takeovers and the near monopoly positions enjoyed by certain companies, will the Government give consideration to the creation of an anti-monopolies commission in Australia, similar to that in the United States or, as a minimum, strengthening the present powers of the Trade Practices Act? Senator BUTTON —We did strengthen the powers of the Trade Practices Act in relation to takeovers not so long ago. Opposition members voted on the legislation which went through the Senate. Senator Gareth Evans —They opposed it. Senator BUTTON —Opposition members opposed it, as I recall. I do not know what has touched off this question and put the moon at full in Senator Watson's mind on this issue. I think that the evidence shows that there has not been a spate of takeovers in the last few months compared with the previous six months or so. The current Herald and Weekly Times Ltd proposed takeover might have aroused the honourable senator on this matter, but I do not think the facts support what he said in his question. The Government is not currently giving any attention to either of the issues he raises. We believe that the present situation is adequate at this time. Senator ROBERTSON —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations seen a report of the latest Cullen Egan and Dell survey of executive remuneration in the latest edition of Australian Business magazine? If so, what does it say about the degree of restraint being exercised by management in relation to its own wage packages? Senator WALSH —I have seen the report and it contains some significant, but not surprising, findings about the salaries or salary increases received by some of the higher paid members of the community-often the very same people who issue sanctimonious calls to the trade union movement for wage restraint. In the year ending 30 September the Cullen Egan and Dell report shows that executive salaries increased by an average 9.2 per cent and total remuneration by 9.1 per cent-somewhat higher than the consumer price index of 8.9 per cent for the same period. Again in the same period the average weekly earnings of all persons increased by 7.6 per cent and average weekly earnings for full time adults on ordinary time basis by 8.2 per cent. Executives in general had at least a one per cent higher rate of wage increase than other wage earners. Also worth noting is the spread of average salary increases for executives by both industry and job category. It is there we find where the really excessive salary increases have been paid. The job categories which did best were senior managers, who had an 11.8 per cent salary increase; finance and administration executives, 10.9 per cent; corporate staff, 10.4 per cent. By industries the salary price leaders were: Merchant bankers, 18 per cent increase; stockbrokers, 14.8 per cent; trading banks, 13.3 per cent; and advertising, 12 per cent-anything from 50 per cent to 100 per cent above the rate of remuneration increases received by wage earners. The executives who fared worst were found in the following sectors: Public sector, 2.9 per cent; mining, 6 per cent; and oil and gas exploration, 6.5 per cent. The last two, I suspect, reflect the depressed condition of the mining industry in general. Senator SHORT —Has the attention of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce been drawn to the article on page 1 of today's Australian Financial Review, which is based on an article in last Sunday's Japanese newspaper Daily Yomiuri, claiming that the Nissan and Ford motor companies are headed for a merger of their operations in Australia? Does the Minister have further information on this report? Was the proposal discussed with him during his recent visit to Japan? What would be the implications of such a merger for the motor vehicle industry in Australia and for the Government's motor vehicle plan? Senator BUTTON —The article in the front of the Australian Financial Review is couched in speculative terms, I think it is fair to say. It does not allege any hard facts about such discussions. I have no further information of any substance about such discussions. Of course, the Government would welcome and has welcomed discussions of various kinds between companies which are necessary to produce the results envisaged by the car plan. Senator GARETH EVANS —Earlier in Question Time I was asked by Senator Coleman to respond to the reports of recent events on the Nicaraguan-Honduran border. I indicated I would be in a position to do so at the end of Question Time, which I now am. There have been Press reports today of military incidents on Sunday on either side of the border between Nicaragua and Honduras. The major incident reported was on the Honduran side where Nicaraguan troops had entered an area near positions occupied by Contras and come up against Honduran troops ferried to within 40 kilometres of the border by United States helicopters. The other incident reported was an air attack from Honduras on three Nicaraguan towns close to the border. The United States has reportedly admitted that its helicopters were used to ferry troops to within 40 kilometres of the border on the Honduran side but has denied that its forces were actively engaged in fighting. Nicaragua has charged that United States aircraft were used in the attacks on Nicaraguan towns. At this stage we have no independent reports on these incidents. The Australian Government would greatly regret such incidents and would be concerned if these led to escalation of tensions in Central America. It adheres to the view that the best hope for peace in the region lies in diplomatic negotiations rather than in military action. The Government is, of course, aware of recent reports about the illicit channelling of money to the Contras. Our views on the Contras are well known-we obviously would wish to give them no comfort or encouragement. Our opposition to any funding or support of the Contras has been stated publicly and to the United States Government. Some of the leading Contras are former members of Somoza's National Guard, a force which perpetrated atrocities against the Nicaraguan people for several years under the Somoza dictatorship. Similar abuses have continued with attacks by the Contras on civilian targets in Nicaragua. Australia has condemned the Contras' human rights record as well as expressing its concern over the increasing repression by the Nicaraguan Government. It is our view that support for the Contras, whether legal or illegal, will only exacerbate these problems and lead to an escalation of tensions in Central America which will further impede possibilities of a peaceful negotiation of the conflict there. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales) —by leave-I table further additional information received by Estimates Committee C. Assent to the following Bills reported: States (Works and Housing) Assistance Amendment Bill 1986 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1986 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 Senator TEAGUE(South Australia) —by leave-Mr Deputy President, I will be brief. I claim to have been misrepresented and I will explain myself in this way: In the debate on Friday on Senator Hamer's motion to refer matters to committees, Senator Colston referred to discussions and information being available to members of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, of which I am Deputy Chairman. I was absent from the Senate on Friday and could not participate in the debate. During that week I spoke to the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Colston, to give him full information about the matter that was to be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, and I noted the change of referral date to 15 March. I spoke to the Chairman immediately after notifying the Secretary of the Committee. I noticed that in the debate following Senator Colston's badly received remarks-they were badly received because they were not well founded or sound-Senator Newman and Senator Knowles both spoke. I have read what they said and I concur with all that they said. If the credibility of the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts is all the more found wanting, I can only say that that appears to me to be the case. I made a careful statement and he knows very well that I brought this matter directly to his attention. It is on his own head if he has tried to say to this Senate that he was not so informed. Debate resumed from 17 November, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.12) —The Liberal and National parties will oppose this national identification card legislation with all possible commitment, with all possible vigor and with a total determination to see the legislation defeated. The Australia Card Bill 1986 is one of the most dangerous and deceptive Bills ever to have been introduced into this Parliament. This proposal has managed to unite in common cause shades of political opinion in Australia from the extreme left, through the middle of the political spectrum, the moderate middle ground, to the extreme right of Australian politics. These people have been united in common, determined and carefully considered opposition to this dreadful Bill. It is extraordinary to find Peter Garrett, Hugh Morgan and Joan Coxsedge in common cause and with common purpose. The Australian Labor Party's proposal for a compulsory, universal identification card is so bad that these people from different political perspectives are all against it and have all said so. Let us look at those who do oppose it. On the extreme left of politics in Australia, Dr Bob Brown from Tasmania, of Franklin River fame, is against it. Joan Coxsedge in Victoria, from the Socialist Left faction, and rock singer Peter Garrett, certainly not from the Labor Party but a nuclear disarmament candidate at the last election, also oppose Labor's ID card proposal. From the Labor centre, Royal Commissioner Frank Costigan, QC, opposes it, and Labor lawyers Damien Murphy and John Howie also oppose the ID card proposal. It is not good enough for the Labor Party to assert, as it does, that opponents of this card and this proposal are friends of tax and welfare cheats; nor is it logical or fair to assert that their opposition is either self-serving or opportunistic. It is emphatically not so. Each time a Labor senator suggests in this debate that those who are opposing this Bill are doing so because they are friends of tax or welfare cheats, let us remind them of the Frank Costigans, the Joan Coxsedges, the Peter Garretts and the Bob Browns-all from their side of politics, even if not from their Party-who, like us, all strongly oppose tax cheats and welfare fraud and all of whom oppose the ID card. I will remind them as well that the national legal and administrative policy committee of the Australian Labor Party has opposed the card; that the Victorian branch of the ALP has opposed the card; that the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission has opposed the card; and that the Federated Clerks Union of Australia has opposed the card. The Victorian Teachers Union has opposed the card; so have the law societies around Australia. The Law Society of New South Wales, just yesterday, came out with its opposition; so have the councils of civil liberties; so have responsible church groups; and so have privacy committees throughout Australia-and many more. The Liberal Party of Australia has strong and reasoned opposition to the ID card. As long ago as July 1985-about a year and a half ago-the Liberal Party's Federal Council opposed what we knew then of Labor's ID card proposal. We opposed it from the beginning, and we opposed it for very good reasons. At this stage it might be appropriate for me, on behalf of the Opposition, to move an amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time. I move: Leave out all words after `That', insert: `this Bill be withdrawn because: (a) it does not address serious administrative failings and operational deficiencies in the Australian Taxation Office which remain a main cause of failure to collect revenue due to Government; (b) the Card would not solve the problems of tax and welfare fraud, both of which generally involve people whose identity is not in question; (c) the costs have been grossly understated and the benefits grossly exaggerated; and (d) it will constitute an unprecedented and unjustifiable intrusion into the individual privacy of all Australians and will greatly damage our civil liberties'. The Government seeks this ID card, this compulsory internal passport, in a democracy, in peacetime, to allow the Australian Taxation Office to collect tax that is not now collected, to detect welfare fraud that is not now detected and to identify illegal entrants to Australia not presently identified. In a nutshell, the Opposition parties believe that there is no need for the card to collect more tax. The issue is to have the Tax Office do the job with which it is now charged, and which it is failing lamentably to do. There is no need for the card to fix the problem of welfare fraud. The Department of Social Security gave evidence that welfare fraud is not generally a question of wrong identity but is, rather, a question of wrongly stated circumstances with people whose identity is known. That is what the Department of Social Security said. There is, also, no need for the card to fix illegal immigration. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in giving evidence to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, which looked into the ID card, could point to no benefit at all from having or using the card. Mr Deputy President, the arguments against the ID card are under four headings: First, it is not necessary; secondly, it will not work well enough; thirdly, it will cost more than it will provide in benefits; and, fourthly, it will be the biggest ever invasion of your and my privacy and civil liberties. Not only this, but I come into this debate as one of a large number of philosophical liberals in this Parliament from a tradition which has fought continuously for personal freedoms and against restrictions by the state of the liberty and rights of individuals, a tradition which has fought to extend the opportunities for individuals to participate through the ballot box, in employment, in education, in the life of society-even if disadvantaged by events-and a tradition which sets in very careful balance any proposal to limit individual liberty, particularly if it is an unnecessary proposal. This Bill is offensive to liberals and conservatives. It is offensive to all members of the Opposition parties, and we intend to demonstrate why during this debate. First, this Bill is not necessary. A recent report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure-a committee of this Parliament-entitled `A Taxing Problem-Review of 5 Auditor-General's Efficiency Audit Reports into the Australian Taxation Office'- Senator Messner —Five? Senator PETER BAUME —Five. This report on inefficiencies in the Tax Office has revealed that the Tax Office cannot today, in 1986, use the information it presently has available to it. This report followed repeated criticisms of the Tax Office by the Auditor-General. The report contained some damning statements on the Australian Taxation Office. I will quote just a few of them. This is the first: . . . the ATO currently lacks the necessary processing capacity to effectively collate and process all information available to it. That is the first comment by the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee-in a unanimous report, from both sides of the Parliament. The second quotation is: Put simply, the ATO could not process all data it received. The third quotation is that this was because: The ATO had failed to take full advantage of technological advances that should permit computerised processing . . . The final quotation is in relation to the old fashioned computer system. The report said: Their ability to extract the required data and to be able to interface that data between different systems, is inadequate. This recent report concluded: This situation arises not simply because of highly organised evasion schemes. In large measure, it can simply be attributed to the ATO's internal inadequacies. So the bottom line from this report is that the Australian Taxation Office cannot today use that information which is flowing into it day by day, the amount of information currently available to it, even though it should be able to use that information, even though it is charged with using the information. We have a Taxation Office which is inherently unable and inefficient. This is part of the reason why there is a problem in collecting the revenue. Yet the Government claims that the additional information to be obtained from the ID card is necessary and essential to assist the Tax Office to raise more money from evaders and avoiders. Senator Messner —What rubbish! Senator PETER BAUME —As my colleague says, what rubbish, what nonsense. The first task is to make the Australian Taxation Office do its job, make it do its duty, and make it respond to the criticisms which have been laid upon it. To say that we have to give the Taxation Office more information for it to be able to do its job-- Government senators interjecting- Senator PETER BAUME —Senator Robertson seems to be interjecting. To say that we have to give the Taxation Office more information to allow it to do its job is nonsense, too. This is ridiculous, because the Taxation Office cannot now use the information it is receiving today, and surely the beginning point of any program to overcome tax cheating is to get ourselves a Tax Office that can do its job and about which a committee of the Parliament does not have to make the trenchant criticisms that were made even a few days ago. The Taxation Office has demonstrated no capacity to use the information it presently has and, until it has demonstrated such a capacity, the suggestion for an ID card is quite unnecessary. The second main argument against the ID card is that it will not work well enough. Unless this identification card, this internal passport, gives unique identification, unless it is resistant to forgery and unless the administrative arrangements which support it are impeccable-unless it has those three qualities-the card falls as a viable policy option, and this Bill should be opposed. This card does not satisfy those requirements. It does not pass those tests. It will not work well enough. Firstly, the ID card is supposed to provide a unique identification system. But consider this for one moment: Australian passports are supposed to require unique identification. A lot of time is invested in trying to ensure just that-that the passport identifies an individual uniquely. Birth certificates, photographs, certificates of identity on the back of photographs, and certificates from specified referees-they are all required to establish that the person seeking an Australian passport is indeed the person he or she claims to be. In spite of this, every major royal commission into illegal drug trade and crime in Australia-for example, the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, and the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs-has demonstrated the ease with which Australian passports can be and are forged. That is a matter of record. Each of these royal commissioners has said so, specifically and angrily, in the reports he has produced. Yet the Government assures us that the ID card will not be forged. How can it do so? The Government wants us to believe that while passports, which require more documentary information and identification, can be and are being forged regularly, its ID card of which it is so proud, which requires less unique identification, will somehow be forgery free and forgery proof. Does the Government not realise that the possession of a forged ID card of the kind it is proposing in the hands of a criminal will be like an open pass to engage in illegal activity, protected by a forged ID card and the false identity which the card will legitimise? I assure the Government that if it goes ahead and introduces this ID card, forged ID cards will be produced in Australia by organised criminal elements and this Government will not prevent them from getting into circulation. The consequences of the circulation of forged or false ID cards will be just as serious as passport forgeries. Senator Messner —Devastating. Senator PETER BAUME —It will be devastating, as Senator Messner says. It will be a fillip for organised crime and it may lead to worse tax and welfare fraud than we have today. The Government cannot seem to grasp this fact-there have been no adequate answers from the Government on this matter. The Government either does not understand or does not know or want to know of the dangers and shortcomings of what is really a shabby, flawed and inadequate proposal. That is why Frank Costigan is against the ID card. Nobody has spent more time hunting down tax cheats and organised crime than has Frank Costigan. He knows that the ID card will not stop organised crime or tax cheats. He has told the Government-why will this Government not listen to him? He has got it right and the Government has got it wrong. Secondly, the additional capacity which the Australian Taxation Office will gain from the ID card will provide information which cannot adequately be used, because we know that the Tax Office cannot adequately use the information it is getting now. How else are we to interpret the abject failure of the Tax Office to do the task entrusted to it with the information it now has? If the ATO cannot do its job now, with all the identifying information it receives-it gets plenty-and if it cannot even process information on the payment of interest, information it currently receives from financial institutions, why should we believe that giving it more identifiers will lead to a better performance? Thirdly, the ID card will not touch the cash economy. It will not touch those casual arrangements that people make to employ a cleaner or a gardner. The cash economy involves many home repairers, where no formal, written agreement exists. The ID card will not control those arrangements where there is collusion between an employer, often a householder, who is called on to pay less, and an employee who takes less but takes it in cash to avoid paying tax. The ID card will not touch that part of the cash economy. Even the threat of draconian penalties, in the best Walsh tradition, will do little to stem the tax loss from this source. Certainly the ID card will not do so. The fourth reason why the ID card will not work is that it will prevent very little social welfare fraud. The Department of Social Security gave evidence that less than one per cent-0.6 per cent-of welfare fraud is caused by mistaken identity, while 61 per cent is caused by overpayments due to misstatement of circumstances by people whose identity is never in question. If their identity is never in question, how do we expect that having an ID card will improve the situation? If the Government now says that the Department of Social Security has got it wrong and does not know the facts, let the Government produce some evidence. I am summarising evidence which the Department gave to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, which was that less than one per cent of fraud is due to errors of identity. Given the choice between backing this Government and backing the Department of Social Security, on this agreement I favour the Department every time. I have to conclude that this ID card will not save much money; it will not work well enough. The Government is not coming clean with the public when it suggests that the ID card could provide funds for a 15 per cent cut in taxes. Even for this Government that is a bit rich and a bit extravagant. The next objection we have to the card is that it will produce a new and costly bureaucracy. I turn to the cost of the ID card. The introduction of the card will require the employment of more than 2,000 new public servants; it will require all existing Medicare branch offices to be upgraded or relocated; it will require a cost to the Government over 10 years, by its own admission, of more than $1,000m; it will require a compliance cost to business in the non-government sector, estimated by a formula which has been given by the Government's own Business Regulation Review Unit to be in excess of $2,000m; it will require compliance costs for State and local governments; and it will require costs for the replacement of expensive capital equipment, especially computers. I could go on and on about the costs. I remind honourable senators that whenever this Government or any government sets up a new bureaucracy it always understates and underestimates the costs and it always overestimates the benefits. It has certainly done so again with this crazy ID card proposal. The ID card bureaucracy will entrench itself and, as time passes, it will seek and acquire more resources, more power and more influence. Finally, I deal with the most offensive feature, the most intrusive side effect of the ID card-our loss of privacy and the threat to our civil liberties from this card. Large parts of our lives are private, personal and no business of government. Provided we obey the laws of the land, what we do, where we go, how we spend or invest, where we save and how we make our medical arrangements are no one else's business and should remain that way. The ID card will undermine our right to privacy. The capacity of computers to locate, link, collect, collate and produce information from many sources on the activities of any citizen will be expanded significantly. At the beginning the Government said that the following organisations could have access to information on each of us-the Tax Office, the Health Insurance Commission, the Department of Defence, the Department of Social Security, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Department of Education, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs-for any purpose related to their functions. But this is just the thin edge of the wedge. The Government wanted many more organisations to have access to ID card information and it scaled down the number to try to get the proposal adopted. What about later on when the card is in and operating? How secure will this confidential information be? Madam Acting Deputy President, you and I remember that during the doctors' dispute in New South Wales a year ago, confidential Medicare information on the incomes of New South Wales doctors was leaked publicly and illegally. Senator Puplick —And deliberately. Senator PETER BAUME —And deliberately, as my colleague says. The Hawke Labor Government not only did not prevent this but also it did the least possible to find the leak and it did nothing at all to repair the damage to those about whom information in the possession of an agency of this Government and under the care of the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, who is seeking to introduce this ID card, had been leaked. That leak came from Dr Blewett's portfolio area. It might be instructive to hear Dr Blewett's views about our right to privacy. I quote from Dr Blewett's address to the 1986 conference of the South Australian branch of the Labor Party. Dr Neal Blewett, the Minister seeking to introduce this ID card, had the following to say: Let me say as a socialist that it is the interests of the community that should come before the individual right . . . we shouldn't get too hung up as socialists on privacy because privacy, in many ways, is a bourgeois right that is very much associated with the right to private property. That is the view of Dr Blewett, the man who is seeking to introduce this internal passport. He says we should not worry too much about privacy; it is a bourgeois concept, anyhow. We take an entirely opposite view. The centralisation and data linking under this proposal provides enormous capacities for personal and confidential information to be accessed, and the potential for abuse is tremendous. Because we do not trust this Government and because we saw how confidential information was leaked when it was to the advantage of the Government that it be leaked, we have no doubt that to give a central government, especially this central government, linked information on each Australian is not warranted, is not safe and cannot be justified. But our liberties are attacked not only by the collection of data on us; we will also be forbidden to undertake many every day transactions without using an ID card-buying land, selling stock, opening a bank account, getting a Medicare rebate and buying shares. A fine of $20,000 will be levied on organisations such as financial institutions, cash management funds, stock agents, real estate agents, stockbrokers, lawyers accepting trust funds and statutory marketing authorities if they dare to initiate business without requiring the production of an ID card. As well, if we lose our ID card and do not report it within 21 days we will be fined $500. Gone is our right to live unfettered. We are told we must live subject to the ID card. Most of us are honest. We are honest in our lives and we are honest in our businesses. Think of the inconvenience for us, for honest Australians, if this card comes in. No longer can we purchase shares, land or stock by telephone. Instead, we must travel at least once to our real estate agent, our broker or our stock and station agent, and we must at least once present our ID card in person. All other common law countries have considered and rejected the ID card. It reverses the onus. No longer will people be assumed to have an entitlement to invest, to bank money, to move money or to take a job. If this card is introduced all Australians will first have to prove that they have such an entitlement. Now let me bring all these arguments together. The Government wants an ID card to prevent tax and social security fraud but the overwhelming evidence from the Department of Social Security, given to a committee of this Parliament, shows that the ID card will have little effect upon welfare fraud. It is now abundantly clear that the problem with tax lies to a significant degree within the Australian Taxation Office itself. The findings of a committee of this Parliament are that the Australian Taxation Office is in disarray, through incompetence and inefficiency and through failure to modernise its operation as other arms of government have done and as it should have done. The Tax Office is failing now to use information coming into it from financial institutions and from taxpayers. The first task surely for a national government is to clean up the Tax Office and to talk to us about an ID card only if, having cleaned up the Tax Office, an overwhelming need continues to exist. Right across the spectrum of politics there is opposition to this proposal-from figures on the Left, from significant groups in the centre and from the Right, including every Australian organisation concerned with the protection of liberty and privacy of the individual. The opponents of this card are not friends of tax and welfare cheats; they are just good Australians. The ID card represents the thin end of a very nasty and un-Australian wedge. It is characterised by a large and costly ID card bureaucracy, by the increasing intrusion into the private lives of average, honest Australians and by increasing numbers of our ordinary, everyday activities becoming subject to the ID card. Not only is this ID card proposal a very dangerous instrument but also it is unnecessary. It is an enormous threat to the freedom that each of us now enjoys. The expedient thing for the Opposition to have done, if it was merely trying to ride away public opinion, would have been to say that it supported the card, because that was what the public opinion polls showed. But we, on a matter of principle, believe the card is bad and we are opposing it for good and principled reasons. We intend to vote against the Bill. We intend to oppose it at every step with all our vigour. For this reason, and because the privacy Bills are so much a part of the same proposal, we will vote against them. We recognise that under different circumstances we could find some good features in them but they are inextricably linked with the Australia Card proposal. I urge the Government to reconsider its direction, to withdraw the legislation, to proceed to implement the reform of the Australian Taxation Office called for by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure and to understand that this unnecessary, illiberal and un-Australian proposition is quite unacceptable in Australia. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(3.41) —The Australia Card issue provides a unique opportunity for us all to re-examine our priorities for the type of society in which we want to live. We need to ask ourselves two basic questions: Do we want a society where there is, first, fairness and equality in the tax system and, secondly, the delivery of government benefits only to those who have a rightful claim to them? We realise, of course, that as a government we need to balance against that any possible threat to civil liberties and privacy that could be created or posed by the introduction of a universal identification system. We are debating this issue today because this Government has had the courage and the foresight to tackle the twin problems of creating a fairer taxation system and stopping cheating in the social security system. At the outset the Senate needs to be reminded that the Australia Card was first mooted at the National Taxation Summit as part of a total package of reforms for Australia's tax system, reforms that were long overdue after years of the previous Government fiddling at the edges of the problem. We all know that taxation systems work only if there is a high degree of voluntary compliance by individuals and companies who have a belief that, generally speaking, everyone is paying his fair share. I believe, over the last decade Australian society has reached a critical point in that delicate equation. Successive investigations and royal commissions have brought before the public the alarming growth of the tax avoidance and tax evasion industry. There is a widespread belief among experts that this industry became a growth industry under the Fraser Government and it has only now been wound back by the constant and determined campaign being waged against it by the Hawke Government. Every step of the Hawke Government's campaign has been challenged vociferously by self-interested groups and by those who represent them in this Parliament. An integral part of that campaign involves the use of the Australia Card as a method of collecting revenue from those who seek to evade their tax responsibilities. Successive polls have shown just how popular the Australia Card is amongst the general public; a reflection, I believe, of the community's concern about the tax cheats who have always considered themselves above the law, protected as they have been by the apathetic, compromised tax policies of the previous Government. Put quite simply, the major problem with governments attempting to make the taxation system fair and equitable is the lack of capacity in the taxation system to draw together all the records of disparate incomes earned by individual taxpayers. For example, less than 5 per cent of interest in bank accounts and share dividends is actually reported to the Australian Taxation Office. Many accounts and trust funds are set up in false names or in the names of children. The provision for a universal numbering system under the Australia Card will make it easier and more convenient for the Tax Office, which has been criticised here today, to draw together those disparate sources of income. The Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card agreed that the estimates of evaded or unnotified taxable income are in fact conservative. There is little disagreement about the Government's estimate of tax losses of more than $4 billion over a 10-year period. Those of us on that Committee who wrote the minority report believe the figure is almost double that. The cost of establishing and running the system over the same 10-year period was estimated at less than $1 billion. Basically, that is $4 returned to the Government for every $1 spent setting up and running the system. So much for the cost effectiveness criticism being advanced by opponents of the Australia Card today. The cost of compliance with the Australia Card on the part of private enterprise is another interesting question raised by Senator Peter Baume. The opponents of the card have thrown around a figure of $2 billion. They cite as evidence the need to set up new reporting and recording systems to take on board the inclusion of an 11- or 12-digit Australia Card identifier. It takes five seconds to write down 12 digits if one is slow like Senator Peter Baume; four seconds for others. Yet the figure cited is $2 billion according to the Opposition's estimate. Let us take a suitable quotation from an authority that knows something about these matters; that is, the Australian Bankers Association. It makes the Liberal Party's opposition look like a joke. It was prepared to put a figure on costs. Its compliance figures were $60m setting up costs plus $4.6m per year to run the system. Its estimate makes a mockery of the estimates advanced by the Liberal spokesmen such as Mr Porter who the other day was, quite rightly, ridiculed by John Laws on his radio program about the same problem. I finish on the matter of compliance costs to private enterprise, by making this point: The Liberals' estimate of $2 billion to private enterprise over 10 years was based on a simple doubling of the estimated cost to government-sheer irresponsible and scaremongering guesswork that was calculated primarily to frighten private enterprise off the Australia Card. All I can say is that I am glad Senator Puplick and Mr Porter from the Liberals are not doing my tax return this year if that is how they do their sums. The other question raised by Senator Peter Baume concerns the protection of civil liberties and privacy. I guess, like many people, I believe that somewhere over the rainbow there is a party that is consistently dedicated to individualism and freedom, but I am afraid that the Liberal Party's record on protecting privacy and civil liberties is such an appalling one that it certainly does not fall into that category. This is the record of a party which opposes the Australia Card on the basis that that card will invade privacy. Where were those people during the Vietnam war, when 20-year-olds in this country were forcibly conscripted into the Army for two years and sent to fight in an unjust and immoral war and to die in another country-for a war that failed in every objective that we established for it? Where were they then? Where were they when 20-year-olds were dragged forcibly out of their homes and put in Holsworthy for two years because they refused to recognise the legitimacy of that war? So much for civil liberties on that angle. Where are the Liberals' views, for example, on private databanks that have existed in this country, particularly those that are related to credit reference information? I have been back through Hansard to 1981. I cannot find a single comment in Hansard from any member of the Opposition about the dangers posed to civil liberties and privacy by these growing databanks and credit reference organisations-not one word from them; not one public word to be found in any of the clippings in the Library. So much for that. There is a great deal of silence from that side of the House on that particular issue. Where are their comments, for example, on the powers of the Australian Taxation Office, particularly under sections 263 and 264 of the Income Tax Assessment Act which allow the Tax Office access to people's records, books and homes without warrant? Where are the comments on this? There is not one word. On the matter of the late Justice Lionel Murphy, that Party on the other side of the House used this chamber to pillory and to libel that man before he ever had the option of a fair trial. Honourable senators opposite based their attacks on the so-called Age tapes-tape recordings which were illegally obtained and which normally under our own civil and criminal law, that they espoused a quarter of an hour ago, would be inadmissible as evidence. No such legal niceties about privacy and civil liberties concerned them then when they set out in this chamber to destroy that man's reputation, ensuring that he could not get a fair trial anywhere in this country. Where was their concern about a person's inalienable right to a fair trial? Where was their concern about a person's right not to have illegally obtained tape recordings used against him? Further, we have seen in the last week what Neville Wran's reputation has had to suffer in this chamber from the very people who talk about privacy, civil liberties and rights. They have turned this Senate into an abattoir of people's reputations. So much for their concerns. The minority report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, of which I was a member, acknowledged the concerns of many witnesses about the purported invasion of privacy posed by the introduction of an Australia Card but concluded that compared with many databases already in operation the Australia Card would appear to represent at most a minor intrusion into the average citizen's privacy. Let me list in a little more detail some of those areas where little or no privacy currently exists. I have already mentioned the powers of the Australian Taxation Office under sections 263 and 264 in particular of the Income Tax Assessment Act. They provide virtually unlimited powers to the Commissioner of Taxation to gain full and free access to all buildings, places, books, documents and other papers without warrant and without the necessity even to notify the individuals under investigation. Has there been any comment from the Opposition on that? There has been none. I have also mentioned the massive growth of databases in the private enterprise area. Banks, for example, appearing before the Select Committee indicated that they routinely double check with other banks information given on loan application forms-without customer approval I might say. We are all aware of the two-way trading of credit information that occurs in the system. One credit reference group based in New South Wales has more than four million individuals on file. An examination, for example, of the American Express International Inc. application form shows that the customer must agree to `authorise American Express to confirm and exchange credit information concerning my financial affairs'. The situation is similar with Bankcard. I quote from a Bankcard application form. It states: I authorise the Bank to make any inquiries necessary concerning my credit from any source. With these private databanks few individuals are aware of what is on their file. Indeed, only in New South Wales do consumers actually have a legal and convenient right to examine the accuracy or otherwise of the information on their file, let alone to make corrections. The minority report on the Australia Card Select Committee put it: The consequences of this are not trivial: It is obvious that a poor credit rating constitutes a severe handicap in a society where access to credit is an integral part of people's lives. If that credit rating is based on incorrect information, it can have serious consequences for the affected individuals. Yet despite this I have seen no comment on this matter from any member of the Opposition. Government departments also maintain data bases on citizens ranging from Medicare files through to State and local government records. Many of those records are now readily accessible as a method of establishing telling profiles on individuals-as any private inquiry agent will tell honourable senators. Similarly, insurance companies are protecting themselves against fraud by establishing computer programs to draw together disparate information about claimants. Once again I quote from the minority report, which said: In short absolute privacy does not exist in a society which has up-to-date technology and accepts the use of that technology. If one is born, marries or begets children, if one buys or sells a house or land, if one borrows money, if one votes or receives an award wage, and if one pays tax, one is on a file somewhere and technology is already being used to draw those separate items of information together. The Government's decision to establish a data protection agency to defend individual privacy against the misuse of government files is a major step in the right direction and should be supported in this House by all parties. Similarly, logging of access to the Australia Card Register is a new element in privacy protection. For those unfamiliar with the process, logging will require a public servant wanting to see a person's Australia Card file to record each request together with the reasons for wanting that access. Access to the Register cannot be obtained until those requirements have been fulfilled. That record of access-that is, who looks at a person's file and why-will then be available for periodic inspection by the individual. Professor Whalan of the Australian National University, a noted civil libertarian, said in evidence to the Committee: Perhaps one irony would be if we do have an Australia Card with all those protections . . . our privacy may be better protected than it is now- and I cannot help agreeing with him. The question of crime is a matter that our friends on the other side of the House so often seek to neglect when they come into a debate on this issue. Australia is at the cross-roads in terms of its tax and income morality. There is a widespread awareness that much wealth has been obtained through illegal activities, especially in the sale and distribution of prohibited drugs. There is also a deep-seated concern that much of that wealth has been amassed through the avoidance and evasion of tax obligations by the individuals concerned. The Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and the McCabe-Lafranchi Report of Inspectors Appointed to Investigate the Particular Affairs of Navillus Pty Ltd and 922 other Companies have all lifted the lid on an unsavoury aspect of Australian society which has grown in the last two decades, accelerated, I might add, if not actually begun, by the Vietnam war and the thousands of desperate young Americans brought here on rest and recreation leave during those years. The problem is therefore recognised, but where political parties and informed individuals differ is in their views about the most effective way to combat this scourge. Costigan and Meagher, for example, prefer to upgrade the techniques they pioneered of targeting surveillance through the extensive use of computer cross-checking. Others call for special task forces and royal commissions. Some agree that the whole panoply must be used. All are agreed, however, that illegal or black money inevitably must return to the legal system of banking, real estate and property transactions, share dealings and other forms of investment. When opponents of the Australia Card talk about the capacity of criminals to defeat the challenge posed by the card, they are forgetting one consistent trait of those who are winning high financial returns from illegal activities. That trait is the compulsion to maintain a lifestyle commensurate with the rewards from their illegal activities. Real estate is bought; legal investments are made; and cash is generally converted to assets or investments-all creating a money trail that will be easier to follow with a universal identification system such as that proposed in the Australia Card. The Tax Office will then be able to link all sources of income to the one number. Royal Commissioner Costigan, quoted by Senator Peter Baume in another context, put it most succinctly in his report when he said: Criminals seek to possess wealthy homes, land, expensive cars, yachts, and incur high living expenses . . . They may pay for much by cash; but ultimately . . . they find the normal financial institutions far more convenient and seemingly no less safe to use . . . . . . This leads to the creation of large accounts with many taxation vouchers. Once located, those vouchers provide a fertile source of intelligence to the investigator. One person in the semi-criminal fraternity, whom I know, told me that the biggest problem with the cash economy in terms of these people-the big drug pushers, the Mr Bigs of the crime world-is the simple fact, as he put it most succinctly, that the chauffeur cannot carry a million dollars around with him because he often goes to the nearest airport and does not go home when he is told. I think that puts it most succinctly in terms of why these people inevitably end up putting their money back into the legal system, no matter how carefully they launder it. Both Commissioners Stewart and Costigan recognised the need to tighten banking procedures, to ensure that false identities are not used to open bank accounts and in investment dealings that are beyond the purview of the Australian Tax Office. Whilst Commissioner Costigan did not finally opt for the use of an Australia Card, it is difficult to reconcile his concern for privacy with the computerised surveillance targeting that he employed as an essential part of his royal commission inquiries. The linking of individuals through a sampling technique based on suspicion, I believe, has more consequences for a potential invasion of privacy than any possibility offered by the use of the Australia Card. Nevertheless, the conclusions of Costigan and the Government about organised crime and tax evasion are one and the same. To quote again from Costigan: It should be clear from the contents of this section of my report that, to assist the containment of illegal drug trafficking in Australia, I favour an approach which hits hard at the financial structures built up by the drug traffickers. This might even be to the exclusion in some cases of the imposition of criminal sanctions where there can be great difficulties in obtaining admissible evidence and convicting the offenders. With the attack on the finances-which would involve in the forefront the use of income tax legislation-would be coupled public exposure. The choice then is a society which still observes the mores of decency or one which increasingly is corrupted by the uncontrolled growth of illegal activities based primarily on the sale and distribution of illicit drugs. The Australia Card has a key part to play in that choice that we have to make. I will mention briefly illegal immigration because I think the arguments against that have been so thin that it is hardly worth wasting time in this chamber when many other speakers will be following me. It is estimated that there are more than 60,000 illegal immigrants in this country-people who have jumped the queue ahead of those who have applied in the appropriate manner. Those illegal immigrants are most vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous employers; they often pay no tax; and they often make demands on the social security system. By making employment more difficult through the production of an Australia Card, by registering financial transactions and by protecting the welfare and Medicare systems from abuse, the Australia Card will act as a major deterrent to illegal immigration. The point that I make is that in illegal immigration terms the Australia Card has a deterrent effect. It will not necessarily catch people at the moment. That is not our major aim. Our aim is to get the message through loudly and clearly to potential illegal immigrants that if they come to this country and if they wish to share the benefits of this society they will not be able to do it as easily as they have done in the past, due to the introduction of a universal, identifying numbering system as contained in the Australia Card. That message, I believe, will get through very loudly and clearly because at the moment, in terms of potential illegal immigration, we in this country are considered as a pushover in international terms. Until we stop being considered a pushover, illegal immigration to this country will continue in the way that it has in the past. Finally, I want to place in context the attitudes of the Liberal Party, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats which oppose the Australia Card and which even opposed it before the Joint Select Committee came down with its recommendations. A large number of influential Opposition members have supported the Australia Card in the past but, for politically opportunistic reasons, they have changed their minds. I will list them so that their opportunism is placed on record: Ralph Hunt, Deputy Leader of the National Party; Ray Braithwaite, then shadow Minister for Social Security; Charles Blunt, current shadow Minister for Social Security; John Howard and Nick Greiner, leaders of the Opposition for the time being; and Senator Janine Haines. The list is endless. Senator Haines nods her head. Senator Haines —She shook it actually; she said it should be investigated. Senator AULICH —She shakes her head; she denies that she said it. In a statement at the National Taxation Summit in July 1985 Senator Janine Haines said: Furthermore, the use of identity cards to limit tax avoidance-for example, the holding down of two jobs by people using different names- I apologise for her grammar- and social security fraud, including maintenance avoidance, must be considered. So she is saying that we must consider the use of identity cards. Where is Senator Haines now? She is sitting on the other side for opportunistic reasons. She cannot shake her head again. She cannot deny that she has supported the idea of looking at this whole Australia Card concept. When it came time for these people to put up their hands, to act as the community wants them to act against crime, tax evasion and social welfare fraud, where did they go? They went back into their fox holes, hiding behind the wimpish excuses of civil liberties, cost effectiveness and other cop-outs, so beloved by negative oppositions unwilling to tackle crime and tax evasion. We have heard it every time. When we talked about retrospective tax legislation to kill bottom of the harbour schemes in this country where did they go? They went back into their fox holes over the other side and the Democrats joined them. That is why our attacks against tax evasion in this country have not been as successful as they should be. It is one of the reasons that we have the Australia Card legislation before us here today. That was one of the major faults in the system that were allowed to continue as a result of that wimpish response on the part of Opposition senators. Even on the Select Committee examining the introduction of the Australia Card the Liberal Party and the Democrats sought to provide an alternative to the Australia Card. Their alternative of an upgraded tax file number was at best an ineffective and shoddy alternative, useful only to get them off the hook when they realised just how popular the Australia Card was out in the general community. But now, having spiked the Committee, they have dropped that alternative and are instead retreating to their bunkers uttering weird incantations of the type that Senator Baume was uttering today about improving the Tax Office, about making it `do its job', as they said-the very Tax Office that they were in charge of for seven years and failed to change. If the Opposition, combined with the Democrats, sink the Australia Card in the Senate today there will be many guilty consciences on that side of the Senate, especially on the part of the large number who know that, in the fight against tax cheating, crime, social security fraud and illegal immigration, the Australia Card is the only way to go. They know that. They know it privately but they are not prepared to stand up publicly and say it because they have been instructed to oppose any option which gives the Hawke Government the opportunity to bring in increased revenue, to beat tax evasion, and to hand out better tax arrangements in the future. They know that they cannot allow that to happen, so therefore they will oppose it all the way down the line. Those people who sat there supporting the Australia Card in private will have it on their conscience. The tax evaders and the social welfare cheats in this country will applaud them all right, but the ordinary taxpayers and the honest citizens of this country will regard them with a contempt they deserve. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.07) —Before I move into any consideration of the Australia Card Bill I suggest that Senator Aulich go to the nearest dictionary to check on the difference between `consider' and `accept'. Senator Elstob —That is what you said, though. Senator HAINES —Yes, I am not denying that at all. I said quite definitely in the National Taxation Summit speech that it ought to be considered along with a whole range of other things. I remind Senator Aulich that we consider all sorts of legislation in this place on a regular basis. We do not always, on either side of the Senate, necessarily accept those pieces of legislation. To look at the options, to consider all the options, and then to make a decision in the light of all the information available is, I would have thought, one of the major roles of members of parliament. That was certainly behind the establishment of the Joint Committee on an Australia Card. Until that Committee was established this Parliament and the community generally had no information. We had no access to the inter-departmental committee report. We had no access to the Health Insurance Commission report. It was not until the joint parliamentary committee of inquiry was set up that we realised exactly to what extent this Government and some of its bureaucrats were planning on having the concept of an Australia Card extended. It was not until those things were looked at, until we had called on several hundred submissions, and until we had seen large numbers of witnesses from a variety of organisations that we realised that there were some very real problems with the proposal as it was being brought forward by the Government. It is important that we make it quite clear from the beginning that this is not a debate, nor should it be turned into a debate, about whether people are opposed to or are supporters of tax and social security fraud. The debate on the legislation before us today and the alternative proposals ought to be about how best we combat the tax and social security fraud that is costing this country billions of dollars annually and how we do it without excessive imposts on the rest of the community. Quite clearly, most people in this country are opposed to tax and social security fraud, to tax avoidance measures that come perilously close to evasion, and to people who use and misuse the social security system in a way that was never intended. It seems to me, however, that from time to time there are some double standards in that some of the most frequent calls for attacks on social security cheats seem to come from those people who have turned tax minimisation into an art form and that more people in the community seem to be concerned about the $30m or whatever it is we lose each year to social security defrauders than they are about the $3 billion that we lose annually to tax defrauders. But I guess that that is a matter of their perspective and a question of double standards. We are confronted with an Australia Card proposal which, by the Government's own admission from time to time, will cost something like $600m to establish; it will take two years to put into effect, that is, before all people in Australia have been processed; it will take something like five years before it reaches a break even point; it will cost something like $110m annually to run; and it will be applicable to every person in Australia no matter what the age of that person is, no matter what the activities, financial or otherwise, undertaken by that person are, and no matter essentially whether there is a need for that person to be numbered and labelled at all. The Government is arguing, of course, that the average Australian favours this card. Certainly, at the time the debate originated some 18 months ago something like 76 per cent of the population who were polled indicated that they favoured the card. If recent opinion polls are any indication that figure has shrunk to something considerably less than 60 per cent as people have found out exactly what the card is all about and what impositions it will mean to them, to their lifestyle, to their behaviour, and so on. There is still, however, a large number of people, as there was 18 months ago, who have some odd misconceptions about what this card will achieve. They think, for example, that it will be able to be used by hoteliers to stop under-age drinking, that it will be able to be used-- Senator Elstob —They can't do that, and you know it. Senator HAINES —I am talking about what people believe. They believe that it will be able to be used to stop under-age drinking; they believe that it will make life easier for the proprietor of a corner shop who can demand that it be produced before somebody cashes a cheque; they believe it will help school students travelling on buses or trams or attending movies who want to get concessional rates; they believe it will help the State police forces check on people's identities from time to time. The people who believe these things seem to be unaware that there is a very precise list of people who will be entitled, without penalty, to demand this card, and that people who are not entitled under the Australia Card legislation to demand it but who do demand it will be subject to a penalty of $5,000 or two years imprisonment. But that does not stop people who have not seen this legislation and who have not had their misconceptions laid at rest by the Government or any of its Ministers believing that the Australia Card will be the answer to everybody's problems and that it will be able to be used for a much wider range of things than in fact it will be able to. People in the community also say things such as `there is nothing the matter with the Australia Card unless you are a crook', and `if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear'. Federal government departments and State government departments have information of one sort or another on many people in this country. Most of us do not have the faintest idea what information is stored on us in what departments, how accurate it is, how up to date it is and how relevant it is; nor do we know how that information can be used if it is taken out of context or misused in any way. Even if there is nothing that one particularly wants to hide in the plethora of information on one that is stored in government departments, one has to consider in what ways governments can misuse even that innocent information. I remind honourable senators of information that was put to the Committee in Adelaide earlier this year relating to an instruction by the Premier of South Australia, or somebody acting on his behalf, to all State Public Service heads of departments that checks be run on people's pay slips to find out who was not having union dues deducted. The names of those people were put into appropriate lists and sent off, one presumes, to the relevant union officials. Most of us, particularly those in the Public Service, do not have much to hide as far as information on our pay slips is concerned, but I am quite sure that, whether or not one is in favour of compulsory unionism, one would be opposed to the misuse of data in that way. Certainly it contravenes the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines on data use which indicate that data should not be used other than for the purpose for which they were collected. People say: `We all carry credit cards of one sort or another and we all have a driver's licence, or a lot of us do. There is a lot of information required for them, which we all produce'. Senator Aulich was busy waving around the application form American Express sends to people who wish to be provided with an American Express card. The point needs to be made that we all voluntarily apply for those cards because we believe that they will provide us with some sort of a benefit. We are prepared to offer certain limited information to American Express, to Bankcard, to the department of motor vehicle registrations or whatever because we want to derive a benefit and also because the information we offer is within our control and is very limited indeed. The important point is that the information is voluntarily supplied. That is not going to be the case with the Australia Card. The information will have to be compulsorily supplied by everybody in this country-man, woman and child-of any age. It is important that one of the first things that are understood about the Australia Card is that it is not the same as other pieces of plastic we use for credit purposes or anything else. Those cards are, most importantly, unique to their own organisations. They cannot be used to access information in other organisations, nor should they be. They are unique to a particular organisation and to a particular form of behaviour on the part of the owner of the card. They are not as wide-sweeping or as broadly effective as the Australia Card. The card the Government is proposing would enable access to information held by government agencies and private organisations, such as banks and employers. That is, the card will be backed by a centralised databank and will enable linkage of data. Apart from the fact that the information held may be inaccurate or incomplete, as I suggested earlier, the ability to place everyone under some sort of surveillance poses a very real threat to privacy, which was raised most recently in a document put out by the Law Society in its statement on the Australia Card. It raised the question of invasion of privacy in the context of the American investigations into the system. In 1973 the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems in its report to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare considered a proposal to expand the social security number from its unique purpose use to that of a standard universal identifier; that is, a general, all-purpose identification system. It rejected that proposal for a number of very good reasons: That the standard universal identifier, a mandatory personal identity card, would have to be presented whenever called for; that loss or theft of a card would cause serious inconvenience; and that the mere threat of an official confiscation would be a powerful weapon of intimidation. The report went on to argue against the changeover from the uniqueness of the social security card to the general nature of it by saying that the national population register which the SUI implies could serve as the skeleton for a national dossier system to maintain information on every citizen from cradle to grave. It went on: An unchangeable SUI used everywhere would make it much easier for an individual to be traced, and his behaviour monitored and controlled, through the records maintained about him by a wide range of different institutions. A permanent SUI issued at birth could create an incentive for institutions to pool or link their records, thereby making it possible to bring a lifetime of information to bear on any decision about a given individual. American culture is rich in the belief that an individual can pull up stakes and make a fresh start, but a universally identified man might become a prisoner of his recorded past. This Committee believes that fear of a standard universal identifier is justified. That United States report was not the only report that came down in opposition to moving towards a standard universal identifier. The Swedes, who have had one for some time, are concerned about the invasion of privacy it has caused and have contemplated abandoning the system. The Government proposes in this legislation to establish a data protection agency but it cannot offer any guarantees for future governments. Once the system is established, the potential for abuse is quite clear, which is not to say that we do not need a data protection agency in any event, whether we have an Australia Card or not. The fact is that we do, given the amount of information that is held already on any individual by both government and private organisations in this country. We need a DPA, if only to remedy existing abuse. I issue a warning to people who think that a data protection agency will be the answer to all problems facing people with concerns about civil liberties and the protection of privacy. The situation in Sweden indicates that this is not necessarily the case. The head of the Swedish Data Protection Agency resigned earlier this year, apparently on the grounds that the Data Protection Act and Board in his country were unable to stop what he called `our shrinking privacy and the extremely new vulnerability' of the computerised society. So a data protection agency is not an answer to the problem, although certainly, introduced in its own right, it would help put the brakes on existing abuse. Obviously, there is the potential civil liberties problem of people demanding the card for non-prescribed uses. There is a penalty for that, but it is a penalty that comes after the event. I suggest that large numbers of people in this country do not know the rights they already have, much less the rights they are implied to have under this legislation, and simply would not know when the card was being illegally demanded. The Australian Federal Police have warned that legislative prohibitions on this matter are virtually unenforceable. They are not the only ones who have indicated that it is likely that before long the card will be used in a wide range of proscribed activities. There are other problems concerning the efficiency of the card, even for its proposed uses. The Government has not told us, for example, how it will stop fraud and forgery of cards. If that cannot be stopped we might as well not have the card. It has not said how the cash economy will be stopped. Even those European countries which have a national identification system have not been able to stop the cash economy. How can they? Many people in the community, like many of us in this chamber, have some work done around the home for cash because it is convenient. They have their lawns mowed for cash, or pay cash to the person who cleans the house or washes the windows or whatever. What will be on or in or about this card that will ensure that the people to whom we pay cash in those circumstances will declare their earnings, either to the Australian Taxation Office or to the Department of Social Security, assuming that they are trying to defraud either or both of those systems? The only way we are going to get that sort of thing stopped is for every one of us, here or in the community, who pays that sort of money out in cash to be subject to a prescribed payment system or something of that nature. I suggest the administration of that system, not only for the Government but also for the average householder in Australia, would bring down any party which tried to introduce it. We are facing a problem of the unreliability of records on which the card would be based in the initial stages. A lot of people in this country have birth certificates, but there are a lot of people who do not, for quite legitimate reasons, such as that they were born overseas or were born at a time when births did not have to be registered. We all know the problems that currently apply to our passport system with people who are able to get more than one birth certificate and, hence, get more than one passport. I suggest that even an Australia Card with a photograph on it will not be immune to people changing their appearance and acquiring duplicate sets of documents that will enable them, in the two years it will take to get this thing off the ground, to have more than one card. The Department of Social Security certainly seems to have some concerns about the integrity of the card. It admitted to the Committee that it did not see the card as likely to be useful because of social security fraud usually arises from failure to notify change of circumstances, not from false identity. Then there is the question of organised crime, which is quite clearly and readily acknowledged in this country as being heavily into tax fraud of one sort or another. As Frank Costigan and others pointed out, there is no more likelihood of an Australia Card system stopping organised crime than there is of using a system such as a tax file number. So there appears to be very little point in going to all the additional expense and administrative hassles of an Australia Card when the tax file number system would be just as useful in this case. What we are looking at is really a system whereby the money trail can be traced by people who need to be able to trace it. The use of a tax file number for the sorts of financial dealings that the Government is talking about using an Australia Card for would suffice. We are looking at a system which is largely unworkable in the areas in which it ought to be working best. It is expensive, it is potentially quite dangerous and, worse, it has the potential of distracting everybody's attention from finding real solutions to the problems of tax avoidance and evasion. It was for those reasons that a majority of the Joint Parliamentary Committee, that was established late last year to examine the Australia Card proposal, came down against the card and instead recommended extensive constructive alternative measures which we in the Democrats believe ought to be adopted. I say `we in the Democrats' because I understand that members of the Opposition who were in fact signatories to that majority report have moved away from a number of the proposals in that majority report, primarily, apparently, having moved away from the recommendation relating to the tax file number. We intend to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading: `Leave out all words after ``That'', insert: ``this Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to reflect the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, as follows;'' '. This amendment, which I intend to move on behalf of the Australian Democrats, then lists the recommendations from the Joint Parliamentary Committee majority report. They include things such as a recommendation that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs upgrade the quality of its records; that the computerisation of all State and Territory registries of births, deaths and marriages proceed; that a data protection agency be set up to control the collection and use of personal data; and that the Commonwealth Government introduce privacy legislation based on the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission report on privacy as soon as possible. Indeed, we will be supporting-although we will be suggesting amendments to it-the privacy legislation that the Government has introduced cognately with this legislation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Senator Haines, it is inappropriate for you to move that amendment at this stage. There is already one amendment before the Senate. You may foreshadow that amendment and it will be dealt with at the appropriate time. Senator HAINES —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I therefore foreshadow that amendment. Following the debate on the Opposition's amendment, we will move our amendment. It is in order, is it not, for me to canvass the contents of the foreshadowed amendment? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Yes, that is quite in order. Senator HAINES —I will continue with the recommendations that were made in the majority report. It is recommended that the outstanding recommendations of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure on the control of prohibited immigration be implemented as soon as possible and that legislation be passed allowing Commonwealth departments and authorities to report suspected cases of fraud. It went on to say that, irrespective of whether a tax file number or an Australia Card number was introduced, a withholding tax on interest payments be imposed on interest bearing accounts which are not associated with a number and that the use, in fact, of the tax file number rather than another number associated with an Australia Card be extended to cover all the financial transactions proposed in the Government's submission for use of the Australia Card number by the Australian Taxation Office as well as for social security purposes. It recommended that the integrity of the tax file number be upgraded to that of the proposed Australia Card number and listed a number of premises on which that could be done. Finally, it suggested that, within three years of the introduction of the upgraded tax file number system, a parliamentary committee be established with the express task of reviewing the implementation of those recommendations. Certainly the Joint Parliamentary Committee majority report was concerned about approaching the question of tax and social security fraud in a positive way, but doing it in such a way that those people who were innocent of such behaviour did not unduly have impositions placed on them, did not unduly have their privacy invaded and did not unduly have infringements of their civil liberties. Since I am anticipating, perhaps out of order, that this legislation will be defeated on the second reading-the numbers certainly seem to indicate that that is the way it is going to go-I hope it is in order for me just to move on quickly to some of the concerns that are contained in some specific parts of the legislation. They include things such as the requirements for carrying the card, which are listed in clause 8. It states that there will, in fact, be no obligation to carry a card at any time except where the Bill requires it to be produced. Since there is quite an extensive list-such as claiming Medicare and social security benefits, buying or selling a home, receiving rental income and an assortment of other things-what is likely to happen, given that range of uses for which the card is mandatory, is that, for all practical purposes, the card will have to be carried by an individual. In addition, there is a threat of a penalty for not carrying the card in certain circumstances and a fine for failure to notify the loss of a card which would, no doubt, add to an individual person feeling that he or she is obliged to carry the card at all times. The outline of a prescribed representative in clause 11 has been of some concern to some people. The Bill allows persons to act as prescribed representatives on behalf of another person, including minors, people who are mentally or physically incapacitated and others who freely request that another person act on their behalf. Apparently representatives for classes of persons may also be prescribed by regulation. This raises a number of concerns, among them the fact that it would be possible for a regulation to declare that public servants may make applications for those who have not or will not make an application. Although the card would not be issued to someone who was unwilling to provide a photograph or signature, the application would generate a register entry which would not be accessible to the person because that person was not a card holder. Furthermore, since the ability to operate in a range of situations is contingent on possession of a card, circumstances, I suggest, could arise where people would be unable to achieve independence because they could not repossess their card from the prescribed representative who may be unwilling to give up that sort of control. Obviously, other concerns regarding access to the card register itself and, in particular, the role of the Data Protection Agency need to be raised. Although I am rapidly running out of time, I should point out that my major problem as far as the Data Protection Agency is concerned is that, of course, a vote against the Australia Card Bill could well be seen as a vote against the Data Protection Agency. This, of course, is not the case as far as the Australian Democrats are concerned. We believe that if the Privacy Bill is to be proceeded with and the Australia Card Bill defeated, all the details relating to a data protection agency, other than those relating to it specifically with regard to the Australia Card, should be inserted in the privacy legislation. I think it is important to repeat that the central register will be created from information that is demanded from individuals-information which is not provided by them voluntarily as is the case, say, with an American Express card-and extracted from some of the largest government data bases such as the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Social Security. The links with these sources may be maintained not just for the purposes of initial identification but, according to the Bill, `for any other purpose related to the performance of the Authority's functions under this Act'. So, in fact, the legislation has the potential for very wide sweeping powers and for a very wide sweeping intrusion into people's lives and for those reasons, if not for any others, it is to be deplored. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.37) —I rise to oppose the Australia Card Bill 1986, which seeks to establish a national identification system, and to support the amendment that has been put down by my colleague Senator Peter Baume, representing the shadow Minister for Health. The legislation which we are debating today was first canvassed by the Government in a draft White Paper on taxation reform which was brought down in June of last year in the infamous National Taxation Summit. While that document itself was most comprehensive and very useful, the legislative intent underlying the conclusions to the paper has since been found to be very badly flawed. In that White Paper the Government considered the necessity for the introduction of the national identification system, involving the issue of a unique identity card to individuals. The principle underlying the introduction of the card was the need to safeguard the integrity of our taxation laws-that is, to serve as a weapon in the fight against tax evasion and avoidance and, hence, to protect the tax base of the government revenue. I suppose the first point that we ought to acknowledge in debating that argument is that there is no doubt that persons with criminal intent will be provided with a magnificent opportunity, by merely forging identification cards, to appear to be legitimate persons who can undertake all kinds of activities in the community. Consequently, the creation of an identification system could well lead to a growth in criminal activity rather than its curtailment, as this Government envisages. The reason for that is simple-that is, a well forged identity card would become absolutely acceptable to the community. There will be no looking behind the card to see what the intentions of its holder are. There will be no check in respect of his activities and the card will become the be all and end all. If that is what the Government wants, it can well expect to reap the whirlwind of far more criminal activity in the future as a result of the introduction of this card. I well remember that in a visit to the United States only a year ago to investigate the very matters that are the subject of the debate today, I was told by the authorities in the United States that the fastest growing industry in that country was the forgery of the social security number card. The point was made then that once a card is in existence and once it is accepted, criminal activity spreads around it. The Opposition is also very concerned and alarmed with the ever increasing tendency of some taxpayers to seek out ways of avoiding or evading the current law. Quite clearly, since the establishment of the inquiry into the card, which happened some time ago, the Government seems to have become totally obsessed with the national identification system whereby every individual in this country will be required to obtain an authorised number, not from some voluntary agency-as happens, of course, with some credit cards-but from bureaucrats who are authorised to undertake that duty. While not disputing the need for an improved method of identification to improve the integrity of the current tax system, the Opposition's concurrent concern is for the very significant disincentives vested in our tax system that encourage the abuse through evasion and avoidance of the tax laws. Australia has by world standards a very high personal marginal tax rate structure relative to the total tax taken by government. Only in New Zealand, Denmark and Turkey do people contribute a higher proportion of their personal income taxes to overall tax revenue than do Australians. Moreover, since the early 1960s, the proportion of tax on individuals' income to total tax revenue in Australia has increased from about 31 per cent to 44.3 per cent. Significantly, as a proportion of gross domestic product in Australia, government tax receipts from an individual's income have increased from 7.1 per cent for the year 1961-62 to nearly double that today at 14.1 per cent. While the Government has recently claimed that it is attempting to address the concerns underlying these trends, it has not done so in a very meaningful way, as has been acknowledged only in the last few days since the introduction of the 1 December cuts. The Australian electorate has not been fooled by the illusion of tax cuts. Due to the ravages of inflation, which has been a condition of the Government's economic and budgetary policies, a family with a dependent spouse on average weekly earnings is currently paying an average of 20.6 per cent compared with only 17.5 per cent in March 1983. Hence, one can reasonably expect that a significant amount of revenue will be forgone each year through very low levels of compliance with the tax system because of the intolerable disincentives afforded taxpayers to undertake productive work and effort. The Opposition, when it comes to government, will seek direct action to ensure voluntary compliance with the taxation system. This will help to remedy the current situation whereby those who do not evade tax or exploit the system have been increasingly and unfairly shouldering the burden which should be met by others. For the benefit of honourable senators on the government benches, who are bereft of even the most simple understanding of the real issues, what that means is flatter and lower marginal rates of income tax. These are the policies which will restore incentives to the most basic of our economic agents-the individuals in our society. Hence, this is one of the most fundamental oversights of the Government in its perceived need for this identification system. Put simply, this system is not needed. The basic motivation behind the Government's ID card was to prevent losses to revenue through the tax system and through the payment of Commonwealth benefits. The four areas were: Tax evasion, social security fraud, illegal immigration and benefits protection and other areas of Commonwealth expenditure. I do not want to speak on these last three but merely focus on the question of tax evasion. Data on tax evasion, because of its nature, is necessarily incomplete. As indicated in the draft White Paper on tax, the Australian Taxation Office has estimated that income from tax evasion may involve a revenue loss of $3 billion a year. The seriousness was set out as follows: The loss of revenue through avoidance and evasion in other areas (including the business sector) is also likely to grow rapidly. In aggregate, revenue losses through the forms of avoidance evasion which are discussed in this paper could increase from the estimated existing level of around $4.5 billion to around $7 billion (in 1984-85 prices) over the next three years unless a concerted attack is made on these areas. The Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia consider the latter to be a truer indication of the extent of present evasion and avoidance practices rather than an estimate of potential revenue losses. Indeed, in evidence given to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card the Tax Office indicated that according to its estimates the tax evasion of about $3 billion was considered to be extremely conservative. The Tax Office also indicated to the Joint Select Committee that estimates in other countries are even higher, which suggests that tax evasion could be as high as 15 per cent of the gross domestic product. In dollar terms this means that the figure which can be attributable to the cost to the community through tax evasion could be as high as $14 billion. Yet the Government is trying to makes us believe that the identification card will somehow achieve a much lower target of something like a couple of thousand million dollars. Given these estimates, what will the card actually achieve? At best it will have a minimal impact and at worst it will be absolutely, totally, ineffective. In evidence presented to the Joint Select Committee, Mr Meagher, QC, a counsel to the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, was of the opinion that the system would have no effect on the cash economy. He noted that the cash economy occurs frequently in areas such as gardening or home duties where there is no tax deduction allowable for these payments. Consequently there is no incentive for either party to the cash economy transaction to declare his or her income to the tax authorities. In other words, the ID card proposal will have no effect in combating tax evasion in the economy. The point has to be made, and it exists whether or not we have any kind of identification system, that there must always be collusion between two parties for tax evasion to occur through the cash economy by one person agreeing implicitly or explicitly with another not to declare the revenue for tax purposes. With tax rates being so high under this Government, quite clearly an incentive exists for people to do that, and consequently they will do it irrespective of whether a card is in existence. The important thing to realise in any kind of system, such as is envisaged here, is that collusion between two parties is necessary for fraud to exist, and it will always exist whether or not the card is brought in. Let me give honourable senators an example. Let us consider a person selling drugs to another; one person committing an illegal act by selling an illegal commodity to another. Clearly there is no incentive for the user of the drugs to indicate to the authorities that he has purchased those drugs from another, nor is there any incentive for him to indicate the name of the person from whom he purchased those drugs. Is there then any incentive for the drug pedlar to declare the receipt of those moneys as income? Of course there is not. Does the Government suggest to me that a drug dealer, or a person who is buying the drugs, will require that the other person show him an identification card in those circumstances? Of course not. Quite clearly the card system will fail to identify people in those situations and it will be totally ineffective in controlling the cash economy. All of us know, to our great sorrow as a nation, that billions of dollars are tied up in the drug trade in this country. Of course that is not the only part of national criminal activity that goes on in this country which this identification card system will not touch. The card will be ineffective in laying a glove on the cash economy. I further point out that that opinion was shared very strongly by none other than Frank Costigan, QC, the head of the famous Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, which we all know so well. The Liberal and National parties assert that the cheapest and most effective way of dealing with the problem of tax evasion is at least to utilise more fully existing departmental resources within the existing legislative parameters. It has been reaffirmed by the reports of the Auditor-General and a report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure that all of those questions which were raised in the Select Committee of the Parliament were in fact correct. The House of Representatives Standing Committee has indicated that the Australian Taxation Office has been derelict in its responsibilities by not fully using the legislative, managerial and staffing resources at its disposal in order to collect revenue. It says that on current practices the amount being lost could be up to $2 billion. As I asserted earlier, the sum is probably far greater than that. The major area of concern identified by both the Select Committee and the House of Representatives Committee was in relation to revenue forgone through undeclared dividends and interest. These amounts range from $308m for interest and $512m for dividends; large sums of money but nowhere near as great as those which are lost through the cash economy. In receiving evidence from the Tax Office, the amount of interest was actually estimated to be only 18 to 20 per cent of total interest paid in Australia. It is quite likely that the Taxation Office detects less than 5 per cent of the total value of interest paid, yet the Government's answer to this problem is a belief in the effectiveness of the ID card. While a greater degree of matching may be achieved between interest payments declared and information on interest payments provided by banks with the introduction of a national identification system, the Liberal and National parties again disassert the necessity for such an all-encompassing proposal to ensure the integrity of the tax system. In the Auditor-General's efficiency audit report on checking dividends and interest, the Auditor-General expressed concern that the Tax Office had not taken full advantage of technological advances in respect of matching dividends and, more importantly, interest income. It is quite clear from evidence given to the Select Committee that the current approach to checking dividends and interest is inappropriate and virtually ineffective. The comments of the Acting Assistant Auditor-General go to the core of the Opposition's belief that existing resources could be more fully utilised and upgraded to combat tax evasion in a more cost effective manner than would the identification card proposal. The core of the problem is the Tax Office's apparent inability to employ modern day computers and other associated equipment, together with up to date systems in its chasing up and matching of this information which flows into it. Information compiled by the Department of Finance uncovered the fact that the Tax Office has, over a 10-year period, underspent $50m of its appropriations for computer plant and equipment. It simply did not get around to putting into place the systems that were necessary to undertake the kind of work that the Liberal and National parties believe should be undertaken. Another report has also identified lax and inefficient practices in the Tax Office with regard to the processing of income tax declaration forms and tax instalments. The report highlights the fact that the Tax Office was not carrying out any systematic or scientifically based checking of declarations and that, while some were subject to scrutiny, the vast majority of declarations, without being sorted or otherwise examined, were destroyed. While the Tax Office has improved its performance in this area in recent times, the Committee was of the opinion that greater efforts in the detection of false declarations and particularly in the targeting of higher risk groups for inspection were definitely necessary. An indication of the laxity and non-committal approach of the Tax Office in dealing with potential tax evasion practices was made clear by the Auditor-General when he stated: Of the 1.8 million individuals' returns assessed in the Sydney branch in 1983-84 no more than six had been referred by assessors during the year to the Compliance Branch for investigation or tax auditing. A total of six cases out of 1.8 million were referred for auditing. This has to be regarded as something of a record and merely shows up the vast problems in this Tax Office which have to be overcome through proper management practices and proper systems being installed and utilised. It is true that we would like to see the Tax Office clean up its own backyard before considering the development of such an expensive, intrusive and totally ineffective identification card system. Let us dwell on the ineffectiveness of this proposal for a moment and consider, as was made clear in a Press statement last Friday by the spokesman on health for the Liberal and National parties, Mr Porter, that by an analysis of the Government's own figures and by his own analysis of other figures, he has determined that the Opposition's proposals in respect of the whole ID card system will save the taxpayers $2.7 billion over the next 10 years. That compares with the Government's estimate of obtaining something like $2.7 billion overall. That, quite clearly, indicates the paucity of the Government's proposal and one really is drawn to the conclusion that there must be some other objectives in mind in introducing this particular card system. Quite clearly it is cost ineffective. Quite clearly it is intrusive, as my colleague Senator Peter Baume so ably pointed out during his speech on this matter, and quite clearly it is not going to produce the results in the tax evasion area that the Government claims it will. In fact, one is led to the conclusion that it will not achieve anything in the social security area and that it is quite unlikely to achieve anything in the illegal immigrant area. When one compares the tax practices that are currently undertaken within the Taxation Office, certainly the revenue prospects from welfare departments are going to outweigh the net benefits arising from the introduction of the ID card. That is why the Opposition is committed, when returned to office, to instituting proper practices in the Tax Office and in other parts of the Government to overcome the problems which the Government claims this card will achieve. Quite clearly the card represents a proposal from the Government to try to be seen to be doing something in this area. It has somehow fastened on to a popular view that this is somehow going to achieve wonders by stamping out fraud and evasion. There is absolutely no case for that, and the Government knows it. This is merely political window-dressing on the part of the Government to try to look as though it is doing something in this area. It neatly, of course, fits its objectives laid down in the Government White Paper to again mislead the Australian people about what kinds of tax cuts and tax system it is seeking to introduce in order to provide what are really non-existent tax advantages. This is basically why the Liberal and National parties are opposed to the introduction of the identification card and why we will campaign strongly against it. Put simply, it is a cost ineffective way of dealing with the tax evasion problem. The people of Australia must not be hoodwinked by a government that seeks to impose unnecessary hardship on and further bureaucratic interference into our daily lives. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(5.01) —The Government first considered the introduction of a national identification system arising out of the White Paper produced in the middle of 1985. One of the most compelling things about the White Paper, apart from its listing of a whole variety of avoidance schemes which have subsequently been tackled by this Government, was that it again raised the question of tax evasion. It estimated that the loss to revenue each year was somewhere in the order of $3 billion and furthermore that other estimates of draining of government expenditure, of the order of $150m to $450m a year, have been attributed to false claims in the social security area. It is out of those major concerns that the Government has moved to introduce the Australia Card Bill 1986 into both chambers of this Parliament. The operational cost of the Australia Card per year will be $55.6m, less any clawback through salaries and taxation on those salaries; so in fact it will run at less than $55m a year. Let us look at the increased revenue that the Government will derive. It has been estimated by the most accurate figures that I have seen that something like $932m in increased revenue will result each year. That, when one takes into account the operational costs, will mean a net gain of $877m a year to the revenue. They are minimum figures and they do not take into account any increase to revenue from penalties or from the discovery of people who have had prior understatement of income in these particular years. These are minimum figures I am talking about. From the moment this card is introduced to 1995-96, we estimate, an extra $4.7 billion will be added to revenue. When one considers the future problems that this country is likely to encounter in the economic area, imagine how much easier it will be to get the deficit down by bringing in those sorts of revenue figures. What is more important is that it places a lot more equity into the tax system. One of the reasons tax systems break down is the perception of inequity that exists in Australia's past taxation history. The average person out there says: `Look, this system is not equitable; why should I comply; why should I not cheat on my taxation when I have a belief that everyone else is cheating on their taxation?'. The greatest area of cheating in this country today is tax evasion. No one in this chamber supports tax evasion. We sling insults around from time to time about our attitude on tax avoidance, but when it comes to tax evasion I have never heard anyone in this chamber get up and support tax evasion or say anything that could be construed as supporting tax evasion, because it flouts the very laws that we are all put here to protect. We must get a system that does away with this sort of evasion and we must try as quickly as possible to get that system. A side benefit of the Australia Card has been alluded to by several senators-that is, that it will do much to crack down on the incentive for illegal immigration into this country. I will not spend a lot of time on this point but, as Senator Aulich said, what it does is put disincentive into the system to people coming into this country illegally in the future. It will not do much to detect those who are here illegally now-although it will make their lives much more difficult-but it will put a future disincentive into the system. In this chamber we all acknowledge, I hope, that we can have no more amnesties. We have had two and if we continue to have them it will mean that everyone will jump the queue and come to this country in the belief that there will be some future amnesty. Therefore, the introduction of an Australia Card will do much to discourage those who jump the queue and who stop the 60,000 other people who could have come to this country, but who had the honour and integrity to wait their turn in the queue. I turn to the point about the majority report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. That report is often quoted by honourable senators opposite in support of their arguments. But we have heard a very damning indictment of that in the course of the speeches of the last two Liberal senators. They are repudiating the views of the majority report, not just the minority report-- Senator Peter Baume —What rubbish. Come on. Senator ROBERT RAY —Well, Senator Baume came in here and said that there would be no real gain to revenue because the whole thing would cost more. That is what he said. Yet the majority report supported a tax file number. What are the views of Senator Baume on a tax file number now? Suddenly the matter of a tax file number has disappeared. That was the recommendation of the majority report, based on evidence given to the Committee that there were problems in the tax evasion and social security areas. Suddenly the tax file number proposition has disappeared from the Liberal lexicon. I understand that it has not disappeared from the views of the Australian Democrats and I understand that at a later time they will at least be consistent and move an amendment along those lines. We have a situation that is almost like a black hole. That recommendation has suddenly disappeared. Yet it was accepted by the majority including Senator Puplick, who will speak later, Mr Porter and Mr Blunt-if you like, the creme de la creme of the Opposition-- Senator Gareth Evans —My God! Senator ROBERT RAY —Well, there is not much to be creme de la creme about. All these people supported the proposition for a tax file number and then suddenly in a coalition shadow cabinet meeting it disappeared and I do not know where it has disappeared to. I can understand why it disappeared because there is no doubt that if we just had a tax file system in this country it would not be of high integrity and there would be no large revenue benefits from it. It is little wonder that the Australian Taxation Office rejected this as a realistic proposition. While we are on the subject of integrity, we have heard a couple of comments that anyone can just go out and buy one of these cards off the street. Senator Messner mentioned American social security cards, and I understand that Mr Downer wandered around Times Square at midnight earlier this year and found that one could purchase all sorts of cards there. But I bet he could not purchase a Visa card with a hologram on it. Technology is in existence today, through laser cards and through holograms, which gives a card enormous integrity and makes it very hard to forge. It is a little like a gambling system. There are gambling systems that work. The fact that one needs $50m, $60m or $70m to start off and the returns are very low means that it is about as worthwhile as forging high integrity cards. One would need the machinery and about $70m or $80m to buy that high technology machinery before one could start forging the card. Quite frankly, most of the crims out there in society who have $70m or $80m would probably invest it in areas other than forging ID cards. There is an interesting absence of argument from the Opposition benches about computers. Four weeks ago we had this bushfire going about how easy it would be for hackers to get into the system. That argument has been dropped. One does not hear Opposition senators now quoting the Australian Computer Society and its ridiculous claims. One did hear those claims four weeks ago but they have been decimated now because they were based on false information and premises. They have subsequently been destroyed by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and they have disappeared off the agenda. A lot of things have disappeared off the agenda as the Opposition has tried to light a whole range of spot fires so that it would not be engulfed by the bushfire of public opinion on this issue. As we put more and more of those spot fires out, Opposition members merely change ground and develop different arguments. I wish to go to some of the facts of the case. It will take two years to implement this scheme and it will be run by the Health Insurance Commission. It will result in one interview for each Australian at which each person will be required to have a photograph taken and provide a signature. What will appear on the card? There will be a person's name, a unique identifying number, an expiry date, a photograph, a signature and probably a hologram at the top. That will be the sole amount of material on the card. It is not compulsory for the card to be carried. It is only compulsory for it to be produced when certain transactions are being undertaken and those are specified financial transactions, employment and the receipt of or application for Commonwealth benefits or pensions, such as unemployment benefit. I reject the statement made by Senator Peter Baume earlier that this will be an internal passport. That is really taking the argument too far and I do not think even he believes that particular statement. It will not be an internal passport; it was never intended to be an internal passport and it never will be because there is no police function for the card and that distinguishes it from some of the other internal passports which exist around the world. It is true-I support this fact-that it can be produced voluntarily if the owner wishes to do so. There are some circumstances in which people would like to have a card that they can produce in order to do certain things in society and to furnish evidence. But it is up to them. Any policeman who demands the production of the card will be committing a crime. That is not permitted under the Bill and anyone who does demand it will be prosecuted. It is ridiculous for honourable senators to come in here and say that the card is an internal passport. It is true that concerns relating to civil liberties are always raised on the question of identity cards and the Government has gone out of its way in this Bill and in its suggestions to protect civil liberties. It has done this first by the establishment of a data protection authority. I refer the Senate to the comments of Senator Aulich when he mentioned the degree of lack of protection which exists now in data protection. All sorts of databanks have material on us at present. We can all pull out our wallets and go through our American Express card, our Bankcard or our Visa card and all the rest of the cards which contain an enormous amount of information on us at the moment. There is a need to protect that information. I have not heard honourable senators opposite get up and moan about civil liberties in relation to those particular cards. Let me run through the functions of the Data Protection Agency. Firstly, it is empowered to review all decisions by the Health Insurance Commission; secondly, it will issue guidelines and directions to ensure that information kept on the Australia Card Register is accurate and confidential; thirdly, it will inquire into complaints that the guidelines have been breached; fourthly, it will supervise the way in which the HIC keeps the Register and the separate births, deaths and marriages registers; fifthly, it will also publish records of all Commonwealth databases containing personal information and I would have thought that that would enthuse everyone in this chamber. It is also to research and monitor developments in computer technology and its effects on privacy and undertake educational programs to promote the protection of individual privacy. Finally, it will perform those functions conferred upon it by the Privacy Bill which we are debating in conjunction with this Bill. That is the purpose of the Data Protection Agency. It will be a welcome acquisition to civil liberties in this country. The second major objection to the Australia Card concerns the question of who will have access to the Australia Card Register. Quite simply, some public servants will have access, but to get that access they have to give a reason and put in their own identifying number. Therefore the individual concerned will know who has had access to his or her file. Within this legislation we give the right to every Australian citizen to have access once a year to his or her file in order to see who has had access to it. That is something that does not exist at the moment, or not as freely as it should. If I, as an individual, want to know which public servants have had access to my file, it is simply a matter of going along and finding out. If I want multiple accesses I have to pay a small fee, but that is only if I want it more than once a year. We have also moved for a national register of births, deaths and marriages. I understand that no one in this chamber opposes that. I think it is a welcome advance and I will not say anything further about that. It is interesting to note how many Opposition senators have attacked an identity system as a gross attack on civil liberties. When I look at a lot of the countries in the world that have adopted a similar system but with far less protection of civil liberties than this Government has introduced through this legislation, I wonder whether they are really non-libertarian societies and just brush civil liberties aside. Countries with similar systems are Canada, the United States, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland, France, Denmark, Israel, Belgium and West Germany. None of those systems, I repeat, would be as protective of civil liberties as the Australia Card proposition, but none would I describe as authoritarian countries. All have differing systems, maybe for differing reasons, but none, one could argue, are authoritarian societies. Many of them have a passionate commitment to civil liberties. Earlier Senator Peter Baume went through a list of people who oppose the Australia Card. I thought I might go to some documentation showing some of the people who have supported it and put it on the record. Let me turn first to Mr Ray Braithwaite, the member for Dawson, at that time shadow Minister for Social Security. On 16 May 1985 he said: What we need in Australia to effectively fight all forms of abuse is a proper identification of each Australian with a number, photograph and even a fingerprint . . . We do not go as far as that. Senator Maguire —What party is he from? Senator ROBERT RAY —He is from the National Party. To continue: This will identify each of those who are on the employment register or the taxation records, or those who are social security recipients and receiving health and education subsidies or any form of government assistance. We need a policeman to safeguard the public purse. A plastic policeman would be the most effective in preventing this abuse. Let us look at another National Party leader, Mr Ralph Hunt, who on 5 June 1985 said: The proposed national identification system offered dual benefits to the Australian people . . . The use of plastic cards for an effective means of identification would streamline the collection of tax revenue, imposing a greater accountability on the small minority of taxpayers who seek to evade their responsibilities to the community . . . He continued. The second major benefit would be to cut down on fraud affecting Government outlays, especially social welfare payments . . . I will be making representations to the Government strongly supporting this aspect of the `White Paper' proposals. Well, if you are listening, Mr Hunt, we are still waiting for your representations. Let us look at Mr Charles Blunt, who on 8 June 1985, before Mr Sinclair nobbled him, put these views on the public record: The introduction of a national identification system, using ID cards, offered benefits to the Australian people, which outweighed any civil liberties considerations. The use of plastic cards as a means of identification would streamline the collection of tax revenue, imposing greater accountability on that small minority who seek to evade their responsibilities to the community by not paying taxes. Another majority benefit would be a reduction of fraud affecting Government outlays, especially social welfare payments . . . They are three leading members of the National Party putting their views on this matter. Let us look at a less savoury character probably, Mr Nick Greiner, currently the seventh leader of the Liberal Party in New South Wales in the last 11 years. Of the ID cards he said: They are in the interests of the community. Only people who were acting dishonestly had anything to fear. I would not go so far as to say that those who oppose the card have something to fear. Maybe that was a little exuberant on the part of Mr Greiner. Let us look at the comments made by Professor Peter Groenewegen as reported in the Age on 25 March 1986. He said: Its purpose in this context . . . relates to improving the effectiveness of taxing labour income, interest, dividends, rental income and in a number of other forms of transactions to facilitate more effective taxation where evasion has been a problem. In all these cases, the Australia Card approach is seen as the preferred alternative. I could go through many other individuals and many of their comments, but I shall just refer to Mr Len Spencer of the Australian Society of Accountants who at the National Taxation Summit in July 1985 said: To fight evasion the Society favours national identity cards with appropriate safeguards. I would argue very strongly that the appropriate safeguards are in this legislation. I turn finally in support of the case to an Age editorial of Tuesday, 18 November 1986, a paper with a long history of civil libertarian tradition going back to its founder, Syme. The conclusion in that editorial was as follows: On balance we believe, the honest citizen and conscientious taxpayer has much more to gain and little to risk through the introduction of the Australia Card and its strictly controlled identity register. Mr Howard's contention that the proposed identity card meant treating `all Australians like cheats and criminals' is nonsense. Only cheats and criminals have reason to conceal or falsify their identity when it is properly required for taxation and social security purposes, and they are robbing the community of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Those are the views of a few other citizens of this country. The one criticism made by those opposite that would always be a concern to any Australian is the thin end of the wedge argument-that this card, although at the moment containing the appropriate protections, could in future be used for an inappropriate purpose by an authoritarian government. But I look at the traditions of Australia and I have never seen one of those authoritarian governments, no matter how good or bad governments in the past have been. It would need somebody to capture control of this chamber with an absolute majority. How I wish that my Party, or at some future date maybe even the Opposition, may have a majority in its own right, but I do not know that I will live to see it as long as I am in this chamber. I know that, given the civil libertarian traditions of my own Party, the Australia Card would not be abused by my Party. The only alternative at the moment, if members of the Liberal-National Party coalition are saying that this will be abused in the future, is that those opposite are saying that their own parties will abuse it. I tend to think a little higher of the end results of those parties-that they will not abuse it. I tend to think that all those rumour mongers who talk about the New Right taking over the Liberal Party are probably wrong, and I do not think we have much to fear in that regard. But if it is the thin end of the wedge and an authoritarian government gets control of both chambers, whether we have an Australia Card or not will not stop it being authoritarian. I point to the example that many people oppose plebiscites because they were a favourite tactic of the fascists in Spain, in Portugal and in Germany. Plebiscites also have an honourable history, in the same way that identity cards can have an honourable history. Having gone through quotations from a variety of coalition functionaries who have previously supported the Australia Card, I ask myself why they now oppose it. First, there is the question of civil libertarian concerns on the part of certain members of the Liberal Party. As I have said, I think that there are enough protections in the Bill, but I shall be gracious enough to recognise that those concerns are real. I also think that there is an element of reluctance in the Liberal Party in trying to enforce tax laws. It is an area Liberal members have not taken seriously enough. I think, more importantly, there is the desire among those opposite to deprive governments, especially Labor governments, of potential income because in many ways that creates a pressure cooker situation where, the more income one deprives governments of, the harder the Expenditure Review Committee's task is and the more cuts in community areas have to be made, with the consequential benefit of the garnering of votes for the Liberal Party from alienated groups. I think most members of the National Party support this proposal. Mr Sinclair does not, though I cannot imagine why he would object to having his photograph and signature on an ID card for financial purposes. It escapes me. I think the National Party view is: `Well, let us leave it to our smarter brothers, the Liberals. They know what is going on. This is a bit complex for us. We will just let our candidates in the marginal seats that we do not hold run around supporting the card'-as is already happening in Calare and a number of other seats. As for the Australian Democrats, I am not surprised that they oppose this proposal. We all know that the Democrats favour spending Government money. It does not matter what project comes up, it does not matter how rat bag it is or how much money it costs, they are in favour. Every time a revenue proposal comes into this chamber, we know that they will always be opposed to it. They are opposed to raising revenue and in favour of spending money. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that they do not support this proposal. Also, given the fact that the Australian Democrats is a minority party, the Democrats believe that there are votes in them thar hills-not a majority of votes. They do not face the same dilemma as the Liberal and National parties in trying to get 50 per cent of the vote; they are after 10 to 12 per cent of the vote. So they target disaffected people in the community who do not like a particular government action and concentrate on them as much as they can. It does not matter if they alienate another 80 per cent; they are not in the business of getting 50 per cent plus one. Why do a majority of Australians support the Australia Card? It is not for the reason Senator Haines advanced, which is a very patronising view, that most Australians do not understand it and they think it would be good to have the card to produce in a pub to prove that one is 18. Do not underestimate Australians. It is because Australians are sick and tired of having a tax system that lacks equity. In conclusion, I should like to comment on two or three of the points made by Senator Peter Baume. He said that Hugh Morgan, Mr Garrett and Mrs Coxsedge all support this proposal and how amazing that is. Senator Peter Baume —They oppose it. Senator ROBERT RAY —They oppose it. How many other times in this chamber has Senator Baume supported the views of Mrs Coxsedge, Hugh Morgan and Mr Garrett? On this occasion he is supporting their views only because of opportunism, because that whole bunch in the political spectrum-for whom I have very little time in general-support him on this matter. I look forward to Senator Peter Baume telling me in this chamber how brilliant Mrs Coxsedge's views are on the Middle East; or how brilliant Mr Garrett's views are on nuclear disarmament; or what he thinks of Mr Hugh Morgan's attitude to industrial relations. Of course, Senator Peter Baume quoted those individuals in the hope of demonstrating that a wide spectrum of people oppose the ID card. What he is saying is that a wide spectrum of the fringe groups in the community oppose the card. Senator Peter Baume said that he wanted the Australian Taxation Office to do more, that the Tax Office is at fault. He is suffering from his normal political amnesia. His Party was in government from 1949 to 1972 and from 1975 to 1983. Is he saying that there was some sort of Alice in Wonderland situation in which there was no tax evasion in those years? Why did the Liberal Party in government not tackle tax evasion in those years if it was simply a matter of telling the Tax Office to do it? At the beginning of Senator Peter Baume's speech he stated, as he has many times before, that he has a commitment to liberalism, to liberty, to less government interference in people's lives. I have heard all that before. People who make pleas for such things regard society as being very benign. A more accurate view of Liberal philosophy was evinced by Mr Everingham in a speech in which he acknowledged: Adventurers, authoritarians, opportunists-even scoundrels and blackguards-have contributed more than we might like to admit to our country's past success. He then went on to say: . . . I suggest, the turnaround in our fortunes will be brought about by the time honoured instincts of competitiveness, personal ambition, rivalry and profit seeking that survive in all of us . . . That is the other side-the darker side, if you like-of Senator Peter Baume's philosophy, one he does not like. When there is no government interference all sorts of avaricious characters try to oppress others. We have government in this society so that it will intervene to protect those who are not in a position to protect themselves. That is particularly true in the economic area; it is true in a whole lot of areas of society. It is very easy to come into this chamber and to quote Mill and all the other great libertarians of the world, but if it means having a laissez-faire approach to society in which there are some winners and many bad losers we on this side of the chamber reject that approach. The Government will persist in its support of the Australia Card because it will be a revenue raising measure. There are ample protections for civil liberties for every Australian in this proposal and it will mean a more just and equitable society. The fact that this chamber will once again reject a vital piece of Government legislation says less for this chamber than for the proponents of the scheme. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.30) —I had the honour to be one of the members of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card and to be one of those members who comprised the majority view that the Australia Card, so-called, should not be introduced. That majority, may I remind you, Mr Acting Deputy President, was composed of representatives of all the political parties represented in this Parliament-representatives of the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia, the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party. The work of that Committee and the conclusions of that Committee were based on the evidence that was put before it by the Government and by witnesses from throughout Australia. Evidence was put before it in numerous submissions and in public hearings held in every capital city of Australia. The Liberal and National parties had always indicated that to attract our support such a proposal would have to fulfil a series of criteria: First, it would have to be effective in dealing with the problem of tax evasion and tax avoidance. Secondly, it would have to be effective in the process of getting to grips with the cheating that goes on in the welfare system. Thirdly, it would have to have some impact upon the level and nature of illegal immigration in Australia. Fourthly, it would have to have adequate safeguards for the privacy of Australian citizens. Finally, it would have to be cost effective in its operations. Against each of those criteria we have measured the Government's proposals and found them wanting. The Joint Select Committee used those criteria to measure the Government's proposals and equally it found them wanting. I propose to say something briefly about each of those areas. The first concerned whether the Australia Card, so-called, would be effective in dealing with taxation avoidance and evasion. Senator Peter Baume made it perfectly clear in what he had to say in introducing this debate about the operations of the black economy, the cash economy, that that will not be the case. Senator Peter Baume and Senator Messner referred to the review by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. In a report entitled `A taxing problem' in chapter 5 appear the following conclusions: As this inquiry progressed it became obvious to the Committee that the ATO's current tax assessment and collection operations left a great deal to be desired . . . It is highly doubtful whether ATO has in fact gathered all the tax revenue possible . . . The lack of computerisation intertwined with the continuation of labour intensive work practices has certainly retarded ATO's efficient operation. And so the report goes on at some length. This was not the first report which was critical of the Taxation Office. I turn to the Auditor-General's report entitled `Report of the Auditor-General on an Efficiency Audit, Australian Taxation Office: unpresented group certificates, August 1986'. That report criticised the estimates of taxation lost or avoided according to figures put forward by the Tax Office itself. The Auditor-General stated: The ATO has estimated that the amount of tax evaded as a result of non-disclosure of salary or wages is about $100m per annum. Since this estimate was based on previous ATO projects of dubious value, Audit considers that the amount of tax evaded could be sufficiently greater than the ATO estimate. In other words, a careful analysis of the figures put forward by the Taxation Office has indicated to the Auditor-General that its data is not reliable. An article in the Bulletin was headed `$10 billion scandal caused by tax bungles'. `Computer-shy tax men accused of losing $2 billion' was a heading in the Sydney Morning Herald of only this month. The whole thrust of what we have said about the taxation system is that until the Australian Taxation Office can demonstrate to the Parliament, to the Expenditure Committee and to this chamber, something that it could not demonstrate to the Joint Select Committee, namely, that it was competent to do the job with which it has been charged, it should not be provided with a great addition to its bureaucratic powers, to its authority or indeed to its work load such as would be put forward by the proposal of the Australia Card. The last point I make about tax, tax avoidance and tax evasion is this: I am prepared to enter into a debate in this chamber or elsewhere at any time with any Labor senator to assert the proposition that no Treasurer in the history of this country did more than John Howard as Treasurer to come to grips with taxation fraud and taxation avoidance. There is no doubt in the world that the 17 specific pieces of legislation introduced by John Howard in his period as Treasurer made more of an assault upon the tax rorts in this country than legislation introduced by any Labor Treasurer, past or present. We are perfectly prepared to defend our taxation record, John Howard's taxation record and the Liberal and National parties' record in dealing with tax matters in any debate and under any circumstances. Senator Peter Baume —He put in his tax returns. Senator PUPLICK —As my colleague Senator Peter Baume said, one additional thing that we can say about John Howard as Treasurer is that he bothered to put in his personal tax returns. People ought to remember that. Senator Elstob —Big deal! Senator PUPLICK —Senator Elstob says `Big deal!'. John Howard obeyed the law and that is a big deal. As far as the Australian Labor Party is concerned it is a big deal for somebody to obey the law. I turn now to our second proposition; that is, welfare fraud and welfare evasion. Let me quote from what the Joint Select Committee said at paragraph 1.46 of its report: The Government submission reveals that DSS- that is, the Department of Social Security- would have no net gain from the introduction of a national identification system. According to the Government's own figures, there will be no net gain. We see this year in the report of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Temby, QC, a clear indication that he is distressed at the extent to which this Government is not prepared to follow up evidence of cheating in the welfare system when it is brought to its attention. An article in the Australian Financial Review dated 18 November headed `Serious welfare fraud not being pursued-Temby' makes his views quite clear. When we look at pages 18 and 19 of the annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions we see that this Government, according to its own Director of Public Prosecutions, has done nothing to take the necessary steps to deal with fraud, evasion and cheating in the welfare system. The card is supposed to be something which will overcome all these problems when, once again, as with the Australian Taxation Office, the tools are in the hands of a government if a government is prepared to use them. This Government is not prepared to use those tools. We are not prepared to impose additional costs and place additional burdens upon the people of Australia to pick up where the Government has been negligent in discharging its proper, legal responsibilities and its duty. I turn next to the question of immigration. The Joint Select Committee reproduced at paragraph 1.53 of its report some of the evidence given to us by Mr McKinnon, the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in which he talked to us about the 50,000 prohibited non-citizens in the country. When we pressed him for information he said: We have presumed that our apprehensions reflect the population of illegal immigrants . . . that is a very rough estimate . . . I must say I would not dignify by describing as more than guess work . . . If we did the same study now we probably could not find the same crystal ball that was used then . . . We are to take guess work, rough estimates and crystal balls from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and produce a figure of 50,000 and say that the card will deal with that matter. It is interesting that not one Labor speaker, not only in this debate but also in the House of Representatives debate, or anywhere else, has been prepared to give us an estimate, which he or she is prepared to back, of the number of illegal immigrants in the country and the effect that it would have, in a quantitative sense, if an Australia Card were around and in use. I come now to the question of the protection of privacy. Let us see the background against which the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, seeks to protect the privacy of all Australians. I quote from Dr Blewett's address to the 1986 South Australian Australian Labor Party conference, which is the same quotation as that which Senator Peter Baume used. Dr Blewett said: Let me say as a socialist that it is the interests of the community that should come before the individual right . . . we shouldn't get too hung up as socialists on privacy because privacy, in many ways, is a bourgeois right that is very much associated with the right to private property. That was said by the Minister who is allegedly responsible for protecting our privacy and our civil liberties with this Australia Card. That is the background of the man who was responsible for leaking information from the Health Insurance Commission about the incomes of individual doctors in New South Wales at the point at which those doctors were in dispute with the Government. The Government has no shame. It has not attempted to find out how it occurred and who was responsible. Nobody was prosecuted, nobody was brought to book and nobody was brought to account. But the Minister responsible for this outrage is now the Minister allegedly to be charged with access to everybody's records-financial records, health records and all the rest of them. As I have said, the Minister finds himself up against all the people in Australia whose real concern is with the protection of privacy. Let us look, for instance, to the Department of Social Security. We find an article in the National Times dated 21 September 1986, which is headed: `Personal information offered to debt collectors. For sale: Social security files'. One can see the way in which this Government has handled its record keeping. That sort of thing is frequent and occurs with regularity under this Government. Mr Ron Castan, QC, the President of the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties, indicated that the threat to privacy would be as a result of, to use his words: . . . de facto compulsory obligation to carry the card even though the legislation implied the card would be voluntary. Senator Robert Ray was anxious to quote from the Melbourne Age. Let me quote from an article in the Melbourne Age of 2 December 1986 written by Michael Barnard, which is headed: `Danger of ID card is the anonymity of its abusers'. That seems to me to be exactly the point. Michael Barnard writes: Underlying the wide and politically diverse opposition to the Hawke Government's proposed national identity card is the fundamental question of whether modern government of any political persuasion could reasonably be entrusted with a massive centralised dossier system of sensitive information on its citizens. The answer, I believe, is an emphatic no. That is correct. That is exactly the issue that gives us some cause for concern. Barnard goes on: How can one take seriously assurances from a Government which, as its own Left rump repeatedly reminds us, has broken one undertaking after another, and whose Treasurer cannot remember even to lodge his income tax return? This is the Government whose word we are to take about our own privacy. The Law Society of Australia put out a publication entitled `The Law Society's statement on the Australia Card', which indicates clearly its concern about the privacy aspect. It calls upon us as parliamentarians not to allow the Government to introduce this ID card. Is this organisation to be dismissed to some ratbag organisation, a body without experience in the law and in the field of civil liberties and without experience in the way in which the police and the judicial system operate? Quite the contrary. Let us see what the Privacy Committee of New South Wales attacks the card in its report entitled `Privacy Issues on the Proposed National Identification Scheme-A Special Report', dated March 1986. This is a body which was established under New South Wales State law and which has on it representatives from the New South Wales Parliament. Yet those representatives, including appointees of the Australian Labor Party, came down unanimously with a report from that Privacy Committee calling upon the Parliament not to introduce the proposed national identification system. Senator Peter Baume has dealt with the matter of costs, and I do not intend to go over that at any great length other than to indicate that these costs have varied over a prolonged period. The Joint Select Committee report, at paragraph 1.19, states: It is estimated that the full cost of the program over a ten year period would be $733 million. The costs of the proposal at present values (using a cumulative discount of 10 per cent) is $539 million. These new costings, which are significantly lower than earlier estimates, were provided by the HIC in its final planning report . . . Those costs have now been revised upwards again. We have had five different sets of costs given to us, each one of them by an authority of the Federal Government-five different sets of costs which, over the 10-year period, have varied from something like $540m to a figure in excess of $1,000m. What are we to believe? The only thing that we can safely believe out of all of that is that the Government has no idea. Despite all of the questioning by the Joint Select Committee and others, it has failed to give us any indication of the cost to State governments, any indication of the cost to local government, or any indication of the cost to the private sector, which has been estimated at anywhere from $377m-simply for the members of the Confederation of Australian Industry, according to their evidence-up to a figure of more than $2,000m. I want to take up a point that Senator Robert Ray mentioned. Senator Robert Ray is usually a very careful and very thoughtful contributor in these debates, but on this occasion he said: `Let us look at some non-authoritarian countries where they have national identity cards and see how they deal with the matter'. He cited Canada and the United States of America. Senator Elstob —And others. Senator PUPLICK —Neither country, Senator Elstob, has a national identification card system. Senator Elstob —Social security. Senator PUPLICK —Ah! So Senator Elstob is quite prepared-- Senator Elstob —He said `identity'-- Senator PUPLICK —He said `national identification system'. I propose to talk about the American national identification proposals. Senator Elstob —And then he said `social security'. Senator PUPLICK —Senator Elstob should stop wriggling on the hook, because he has been caught. The Joint Select Committee looked at the United States, and on page 186 of our report we deal with the report of the United States Federal Advisory Committee on False Identification, one of those members was a witness before our Joint Select Committee. That United States Committee recommended in these terms: The FACFI therefore strongly opposes any new type of state, or local government-issued ID intended to supersede existing documents. In short, FACFI opposes any so called ``National ID card''. The following year, the report of the Privacy Protection Study Commission appointed by the President of the United States recommended against the introduction of a national identification system. In 1980, the report of the General Accounting Office of the United States Government recommended against the establishment of a national identification system. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has recommended against the introduction of a national identification system. In Great Britain they have considered these proposals and recommended against them. With all of those other countries that were cited-which Senator Elstob now refers to-there is one very substantial difference. Would Senator Elstob like to tell me, when he has had a look at the list, which of those countries are in fact common law countries, or whether he believes, as the Health Insurance Commission believes, that there is no difference between common law and civil law countries and the traditions which underpin our societies? When the Health Insurance Commission witnesses came before us and we were told about the wonderful junket that they had to seven or eight countries to look at national identification systems, I asked them whether in fact they had looked at this question in any country which had a common law system rather than a civil law system. Madam Acting Deputy President, you will undoubtedly be as scandalised as I was to know that the representatives of the Health Insurance Commission did not even know what the difference between the two was. They did not even know what the difference between a common law country and a civil law country was-and they are Dr Blewett's principal advisers. I asked Mr Hazell: I wish to direct a question to Mr Hazell, as the person who was responsible for the overseas visit. Which countries did you visit which have legal systems based on British common law principles? Mr Hazell: Could you explain what you mean by that? Senator Puplick: Which common law countries did you visit as distinct from civil law countries? Mr Hazell: I am afraid I do not understand what you mean. This is the Government's principal adviser on the matter. No wonder one gets such a ratty report when it comes from the depths of such ignorance of what this society is actually all about. The last point I want to raise is the question which the Committee did not expect to find central to its deliberations but which was central, and that was the question of organised crime. In the Canberra Times of 19 November 1986 under the heading `Blewett says fake cards could pass', there is a reference to this answer given by the Minister in the House: A forged Australia card might not immediately be identified, the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, admitted yesterday. Yet we have had the attempt by the Australian Labor Party here today to say that we do not have to worry about forgery; that is nothing. Yet we know that the forgery and misuse of plastic cards and of identification cards around the world is an absolutely central and significant problem for anybody who is really concerned. Senator Chaney put out an excellent Press release the other day arising from a question which he had asked the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, in this chamber, and I quote: Money laundering through claimed dealings with bookmakers will be untouched by the Government's identity card proposal. One of the principal methods of laundering illegal money in this country, through the system of bookmakers, will not even be touched by this card-just as it will not touch the cash economy, the person on social security who does not declare his or her full income, or the illegal immigrant about whom the Government makes so much noise. Just as it will not touch the key elements which it is supposed to combat, it will not touch one of the key elements in the organised crime way of doing things. Let us go to the evidence of Mr Frank Costigan which was supported by evidence from the Australian Federal Police. He gave evidence to the Joint Select Committee on 6 February. He said: I have some trouble in understanding, except at a low level of crime, how an Australia Card would help in the fight against organised crime. He went on to say: I think it really is a big change in the way in which we have lived in our society. If you introduce something like a national identity card-again, going down the track 10 or 20 years, seeing as it would be then-I think you really have changed the kind of society we have. You have got to be pretty satisified that the benefits that you are getting out of that justify that. I certainly am not satisfied. Mr Costigan went on in his evidence to say: There really is a problem here because there is no doubt that the introduction of an Australia Card of the kind contemplated by the submissions that I have read is a significant intrusion into individual privacy. If one looks at the Press reports following what Mr Costigan said, one will see in the Sydney Morning Herald for 7 February, `Costigan says ID card not the answer'. The Telegraph said: `ID card plan a nonsense says Costigan'. The Canberra Times said: `Costigan attacks Australia Card'. The Australian said: `ID card plan faces strong opposition by Costigan'. The Melbourne Sun said: `Costigan hits at identity card plan'. The News in Adelaide said: `Costigan: No privacy with ID cards'. The Examiner said: `Inquiry told ID cards not needed'. The Mercury said: `Costigan criticises ID card ``intrusion''.' The West Australian said: `ID card an intrusion, says QC'. We could go back and look at the evidence of Mr Costigan and Mr Meagher to see that that is exactly the point they made. I come finally to mention something about the social implications. Unfortunately, because of lack of time, I will not take honourable senators through what Mr Lewis Kent, MP, had to say about the whole exercise smacking of authoritarianism; I will not go through his very detailed speech in the House of Representatives against it. I will not go through Senator Bolkus's paper to the Committee opposing the ID card; I will not go through the attack of Mr George Petersen, the New South Wales member of Parliament, attacking the ID card; I will not go through the threats of Mr Cyril Kennedy, Victorian MLC, to chop up his card; and I will not go through the comments of Mr Kennedy under the heading `Nazis used ID cards too-MP'. I think this proposal can be defeated without having to bring all these significant Labor people to our assistance. I will conclude by mentioning what is said in an editorial and in one portion of our evidence. The Catholic Weekly editorial of 22 October 1986, under the heading `An Identity Crisis?' said that very, very quickly this card would become a great burden. It said: The anti-ID card individual would quickly find life almost impossible. It concluded: Are there not practical alternatives to a National ID card in Australia? The Community generally does not seem to be aware of the implications of the proposed legislation and the consideration of alternatives must be examined. As things stand, the slogan, ``Don't leave home without it'' could have chilling consequences from a civil liberties point of view. An editorial such as that in the Catholic Weekly deserves to be taken seriously. When it says that the alternatives need to be considered it is clearly reflecting what Opposition members have said and what is stated in the amendment moved by Senator Peter Baume. Finally, I refer to what Bishop Challen, the Anglican Bishop of Perth, had to say when we took evidence from him. He said: A fundamental point we would want to make-you would not be surprised about that-is the impact of an identity card and information system on a fundamental reality about human relationships, namely the matter of trust. No family, no community and no nation can really work very happily except on the basis of trust, and trust is not a commodity which one gives to another. Trust is a quality and a response which you evoke out of another by, in fact, entrusting yourself to that person or group. If that sounds a bit theoretical I think it is far from theoretical. It is absolutely basic, whether you want to talk about family life, marital relationships or community life. At the moment our society, by and large, operates on the basis of trust. Now and then people are asked to identify themselves. It is the Commission's expectation that once a universal identity card system is established, that order will be reversed. Bishop Challen went on to say that nothing he knew of would so change the nature of relationships in this country as the establishment of this card-what the Health Insurance Commission calls the ability of entities to operate. The HIC never talked to us about individuals; it talked to us on the Joint Select Committee about `entities entitled to operate'. That is not the road of dehumanising conformity that the Opposition parties are prepared to go down. For that reason, together with all of the others that I have outlined and Senator Messner and Senator Peter Baume have outlined, we will vote against this card. We will defeat this proposal and we will explain our position to the people of Australia in a way which I have no doubt they will overwhelmingly endorse. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(5.59) —I rise to support the Australia Card. It is not surprising that the Opposition will not support this tax measure. Senator Georges —A tax measure? Senator ELSTOB —It is a measure to recoup money, so it really is a tax measure, Senator Georges. In one sense it is a tax measure. People who deprive the Government of revenue cannot be tolerated in any reasonable society. Let us look at the track record of the members of the Liberal Party of Australia. Why are they opposing this Australia Card measure? Anyone would think that it is a terrible thing, but let us go back to 1983. When the Australian Labor Party came to office, it realised that the money from the bottom of the harbour tax dodgers should be recouped. On 18 May 1983 we introduced a Bill which the Liberal and National parties opposed, as did the Australian Democrats, simply to stop the Labor Government from gaining revenue which should have been paid years ago. Senator Peter Baume laughs at me. Senator Crichton-Browne —That is not what the legislation was all about. Senator ELSTOB —I know what the legislation is. I am giving honourable senators the history of the legislation. Opposition senators have already four times let tax cheats get away with it, and this is the fifth time. That shows their track record. Honourable senators opposite do not like it, but that is the reality. The first Bill would have recovered $570m from the bottom of the harbour schemes. The next Bill was introduced on 23 August 1983 to try to recoup $270m. It was reduced to cover all of the arguments which had been put, but the Democrats and Senator Harradine opposed it, so we reduced it so as not to make it so harsh. The Opposition opposed that and stopped the Government from recovering that money. That was the second time. On 3 November 1983 we brought in a Bill which reduced the amount which would be recovered to $35m. The money which would have been recovered was taxes which people should have paid but had not paid-millionaires had got away with it. The Opposition rejected that Bill. That was the third time in 1983. On 2 May 1984 we reintroduced the same Bill which had been brought in on 23 August 1983, and that was also knocked out. The track records of the Liberal Party and the Democrats show that they have opposed any recovery of taxation which the criminal element in this country should have paid. Honourable senators may ask why they should do that; why upstanding Liberal, National Party and Democrat senators should do that. I suppose everyone can put their own interpretation on it. The Democrats probably are opportunists; they want to appease a small majority. As Senator Robert Ray said, the Democrats get 10 per cent but they want an extra 10 per cent. They also want a double dissolution, which is why they are opposing this measure. They desperately want a double dissolution. Senator Georges —I would have thought the opposite. Senator ELSTOB —It is very improbable that any of them would be returned without a double dissolution. What is the reason for the Liberal Party continually opposing Bills to recover money from people who are cheating the great majority of taxpayers in this country? They have cheated continually, but not once has the Opposition agreed that this money should be recovered. What is the reason? Senator Peter Baume —It is because they were retrospective. Senator ELSTOB —Retrospective, my foot! That is a ridiculous argument, and the honour- able senator knows it. It is because the people who support the Liberal Party have argued against these measures. It is the big money; that is what it is. All of the coalition's legislation over the years has taken from the little people and has released all the criminals. The difficulty for Liberal Party members is that they cannot stand being in opposition. They cannot take it. When they have no resources, they cannot operate. Senator Knowles —I thought this debate was on the ID card. Senator ELSTOB —It is on the ID card. This measure will stop the cheating going on in this country. That is its real purpose. It shows how criminal, how negligent, the Liberal Party has been. Senator Button —I rise on a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. I do not want to interrupt the honourable senator but I think he is entitled to be heard in some degree of silence. Senator Puplick was heard in silence. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —I agree. I was about to suggest that that be the case. Senator ELSTOB —Senator Puplick and the others like to howl and defend themselves. They do not like the truth. It is about time that this society became a fair and equitable one. As I have said here before, in law Australia is recognised as a fair society. When it comes to taxation Australia is not a fair society and never has been. It has been fair for the very wealthy but has been totally unfair for the poorer section of the community. It is the poorer section of the community-the people who pay as they earn, the wage and salary earners-that has had to foot the bill for everything. So many loopholes have been allowed to continue in order that wealthier people may avoid taxation, no matter whether they are in business or not. But that is also unfair for many business people. The majority of people in this country are honest and decent. If one manager is running a business illegally and is not paying tax, that may force another person out of business; so the system is unfair in business circles. Many small business people are forced out of business because of the unfair practices of their competitors. It goes right through society. The Australia Card will bring about a more reasonable society. No law is capable of stopping all these practices and bringing about equality, but the Australia Card most certainly will stop many things. As has been raised, how many illegal immigrants are coming into this country and are in this country at this moment? The estimate is 50,000 to 60,000. I would say that the majority of those immigrants are working and operating illegally. They are probably engaged in illegal activities. One would have to show an Australia Card in order to get a job. It would have to be shown to an employer just once, and that would be the case every time one changed employment. That would tend to stop illegal immigrants coming into this country. I, and I presume every other Australian, at least want to have a reasonable check on who comes in. We do not want all the worst from other societies coming in. Senator Crichton-Browne —The problem is not the coming in, Senator Elstob, it is the going out again. Senator ELSTOB —The thing is that it will stop illegal immigration. If the card leads to these people not being able to get jobs or social welfare, it will have some benefit. It may stop people thinking of coming here illegally. At present they come in on a visitors visa and overstay, as the honourable senator well knows. The real benefit of the Australia Card is that it will stop the majority of criminals in this country putting money into accounts and moving it from one account to another, using all sorts of names-such as Joe Blow or James Bond. Eventually they have to launder the money to get it back into circulation, and they do that. But they must have those illegal accounts. The Australia Card would help to overcome that. It is about time that we started to consider the damaging effect that drug pushers are having on our children. They make billions of dollars and all of this money is placed into accounts in fictitious names throughout the country. The Liberal Party says that we should not worry about that, that is okay and it would be unfair to act against it. At least 90 per cent of Australians are honest, decent citizens and if they have a credit card or a bank account or are on the electoral roll, most things are known about them. Any honest person really does not care about that. It is only the dishonest people who do not pay taxes and who are running all the rackets and making it very difficult for the great majority of the population who oppose it. Why does the Liberal Party oppose it? Is it because of the people who fund it? Is it because this measure may embarrass some of it own supporters? That may be the case. I do not know, and nobody else does but there is that suspicion. Do not members of the Liberal Party think that the honest, decent people need a fair go? One of the traditions of this country is to give people a fair go, but the Liberal Party has never done that and has never supported this Government's efforts to recover lost taxation. This has allowed the criminal element to get away with everything. Senator Puplick —If the crims kept their money to themselves the New South Wales Labor Party would be broke tomorrow. Senator ELSTOB —The Liberal Party has not once in the past supported the recovery of money that should have been paid by criminals into the Treasury. Such people are no different from those we are trying to catch. The Liberal Party has not supported us; it has supported criminal activity. That is the only way we can put it. That is how we must analyse the position. There is not one piece of evidence to show that the Liberal Party has supported the recovery of taxation, and decent people have had to pay up. It has done everything illegally-- Senator Peter Baume —Madam Acting Deputy President, that is really going too far. We have been pretty tolerant but Senator Elstob says that we have done everything illegally. He should withdraw that. Senator Elstob —On the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: I did not name one person. I referred to the Liberal Party, so I ask you to rule in my favour. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I ask you though, Senator Elstob, to stick to the Bill and address your remarks through the Chair and avoid being distracted by interjections. Senator ELSTOB —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. The Liberal Party has not played the game in any respect in relation to the recovery of taxation. (Quorum formed) Before the quorum was called Senator Peter Baume said that the only support is from the mad Right and the mad Left. Senator Peter Baume —I said no such thing. Senator ELSTOB —That is the reality. He referred to the people on the Left and the people on the Right. The mad people on the Right fringe are to me nothing more than fascists. The far Right in the Liberal Party of Australia are nothing more than fascists. They are the people who are directing the Liberal Party at the moment. Senator Vanstone —Name them. Senator ELSTOB —I will not name people. Senator Vanstone —What about your own party? Senator ELSTOB —We have some of the mad Left, which I acknowledge. They do not control us like the mad Right controls the Opposition. That is the difference. It may surprise many people that the Right and the mad Left get together, but this is what happens. I have seen it in industry and all over the place. They go right around and meet each other, but for very evil purposes. The people who support the Communist Party of Australia want to see any democratic society crushed economically. That is their real purpose. I say that quite openly. I have seen it in the trade union movement and in every field. But the people on the far Right are worse than the communists, and I have had dealings with them. The people who are in Senator Messner's Party-Senator Messner was laughing and smirking and the rest-are worse. If we look at the history of this world-Senator Peter Baume should understand this more than anyone-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! Senator Elstob, could I please bring you back to the Bill? Senator ELSTOB —Yes, thank you very much, Madam Acting Deputy President. The Australia Card Bill will not pass. Everyone in the Senate knows that it will not pass, because of the reasons of the mad Right and the mad Left. But the honest people of this country, the people out there who have been footing the bills, paying the taxes, unfairly are the people who have been ripped off for years. Honourable senators opposite, with their track record over many, many years, not only in not supporting the Australia Card, but also in not supporting the bottom of the harbour tax legislation which should have recovered-- Senator Knowles —What about the ID card? Senator ELSTOB —This is marvellous. The ID card will be used basically for three things. What a great and terrible trauma it is. What a terrible thing it is to take away from people all those rights. People's rights have been taken right, left and centre by honourable senators opposite through their not supporting a reasonable, decent taxation system. That is what the Australia Card is about: Bringing about fairness and equity. Honourable senators opposite do not even understand. Senator Haines, who is trying to interject, cannot control the Australian Democrats now. She wants a double dissolution; that is what she wants. She has political reasons. She will not have too many more members. They are deserting her and that sort of thing. I have gone through the figures and that is really what Senator Haines is after in respect of the Australia Card and the Liberal Party is protecting its friends once again. That is the real truth of it-it is protecting people who have footed the bill for the Liberal Party. That is why it is not supporting the Australia Card. Honourable senators opposite have supported these crooks for so long. They have never understood what it is to go out and earn money, to go out and get money for their political party, as we had to. With no money and no resources we beat honourable senators opposite. Honourable senators opposite have never understood that. They are in opposition now and they will stay in opposition because they are all fighting amongst themselves. There is no agreement. They are not acting as an opposition. They are treating the Australian population as mugs and they are not going to take it. They have been paying the bills. Honourable senators opposite have a chance to rectify that situation by supporting the Australia Card and they will not do it. It is the Australian people, the little people of our country, who have been put down over many years and they will not take it any longer. Honourable senators opposite are going to suffer the greatest defeat of their lives for their history of not recovering taxes that other people have to pay. The little people have always had to pay and it is just totally wrong. Senator Puplick —People who put their tax returns in may pay. What about people who do not even put in their returns? Senator ELSTOB —It is all right for you, Senator Puplick, with all your education, to criticise. You do not really know what it is about. You do not understand what it is about, and it is about time that you stopped supporting the criminal element of this country. That is what you are doing. You people have done nothing. Senator Puplick —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. That reference about supporting the criminal elements in this country was clearly made after Senator Elstob used my name, and I ask it to be withdrawn. Senator ELSTOB —I did not name anyone; I referred to honourable senators as a group. Madam Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: I did not refer to any individual; I was referring to a group. I am well aware of the Standing Orders and I do not breach them deliberately. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Puplick, I believe that no reflection on you was intended. Senator Elstob, I would remind you that if you will insist on addressing the Opposition by name you will tend to get into problems of this sort. I ask you again to please address your remarks through the Chair. Senator ELSTOB —Madam Acting Deputy President, I will be only too happy to oblige. With the interjections sometimes it is difficult, but I will endeavour to do that. How many times will honourable senators opposite reject money Bills that deny this Government the right to govern? That is what occurs. Senator Vanstone —Do you want a list of how many times you have done it-eight pages long? Senator ELSTOB —Senator Vanstone is a new member in this Parliament. She was not here then, so I cannot accuse her. Maybe her colleagues will teach her. Since the Australian Labor Party came to office it has endeavoured to do everything to reduce taxation. The Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia have done everything to stop us from reducing taxation for the Australian people. Senator Messner —Rubbish. Senator ELSTOB —Senator Messner says it is rubbish. It is all on the record. It is all there. This is the fifth time that honourable senators opposite have opposed measures to reduce taxation. That is what it comes down to-reducing taxation for the great Australian majority. Senator Messner —We did not oppose your tax cuts. Senator ELSTOB —They did it every time. It is all there. I have the dates and everything else. They are in the record. Senator Messner well knows it. This is the fifth time to my knowledge. If any more such measures come up honourable senators opposite will oppose them because, simply, honourable senators opposite must support the people who support them. Unfortunately they are not too savoury. But that is what is really going on. Why else are the Liberal and National parties not supporting these measures? I have to conclude that. As night follows day, the Opposition is totally wrong. I consider Senator Peter Baume to be a fair man. Members of the Liberal Party have said to me: `We would love to support the Australia Card'. They have not come out and said that. Why? They are being stood over because the Liberal Party would lose money. It would lose the support of the people who help it financially. That is what it is all about. The people out there are the losers. One day it will change, and there will be fair representation in this place. Then we will be able to get taxation down to a fair and reasonable level. The way the Senate is now we cannot bring in legislation to really reduce taxation. The people who run this country are the people who take off their coats and do a day's work, not the bludgers and urgers who have not paid their taxes. Senator Puplick —Or put in their returns. Senator ELSTOB —No one is immune from the law. If I did not put in my tax return I would expect to be fined, the same as anybody else. Senator Peter Baume —Like Paul Keating. Senator ELSTOB —Because he is a man who works extremely hard. No one in that position would deliberately do that. It was a mistake; undoubtedly he will pay for it. Do not wrap that round us. That was an honest mistake by a man who is working extremely hard. It is all right for this lot opposite; they have never done a day's work in their lives. That is the truth. They do not know how to work; that is their bother. As I said before, those in opposition do not have resources unless somebody is pulling out the big dollar and giving it to them. Opposition senators have never gone round the hotels to raffle chooks or work hard. That is how we beat them. That is below their dignity. It is easier to take the graft; it is easier to take the easy dollar. We have never done that. They cannot honestly say that they have not done it. If they had not done it they would support this Bill. That is the difficulty of it. I have taken surveys for years. Opposition senators should ask the people what they think of the Liberal Party for not supporting this Bill. They condemn the Liberals, and they will condemn them further. This will do them no good. It will be their greatest mistake. The people are not fools all the time. Those opposite have fooled the people for years. They have called us coms; they have done everything. Those days are over. They are in opposition, and they deserve to stay in opposition. This Bill will be defeated because they believe in evil. They do not believe in justice; they do not believe in a fair go. That is what it is all about. My time has nearly finished. The Liberal Party and the National Party will not benefit by not supporting this Bill. I support the Bill. Sitting suspended from 6.29 to 8 p.m. Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders- (a) the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till 9.30 a.m., Wednesday, 10 December 1986 and the hours of meeting for that day be as follows: 9.30 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2.00 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8.00 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; and (b) the routine of business for that day be as follows: (i) Petitions, (ii) Notices of motion, (iii) Formal motions-discovery of formal business, (iv) Government business, notices of motion and orders of the day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper. (v) At 2 p.m. Questions, and (vi) Further consideration of government business, notices of motion and orders of the day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(8.01) —I move: Paragraph (b), after `(v) Questions,', insert: `(va) any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64,'. The reason for moving that amendment is that the Government has followed the unusual course of having the Senate sit without some of the normal opportunities which are available under the Standing Orders for the Opposition to bring forward matters for consideration. It being the month of December and the House of Representatives having been away for over a week, there is a certain desire on the part of all honourable senators to deal with the business which must be dealt with. I certainly would be in that camp. However that is a quite separate question from the question of whether the Senate should sit under circumstances where the Opposition is deprived of opportunities to bring matters forward if it believes that it is in the interests of Australia or indeed in the interests of the Opposition to so do. That is why I have moved that amendment, which is to restore one of the traditional rights that are available to honourable senators-government as well as non-government-to bring forward a matter for discussion. I stress that I do that not because I believe at this stage that that is something I would want to do tomorrow but because, consistent with the view I have taken on other occasions, I am opposed to the Senate sitting under circumstances where the Opposition's role is removed. When there were discussions last week about the prospect of sitting this week and about the order of business, it was originally proposed that we should sit without Question Time. I acknowledge that the Government responded to my concerns in that matter by ensuring that we had Question Time today and it proposes under its motion to have Question Time tomorrow. I think it would be going too far to say that I am grateful for that because that is no more than is appropriate, but I am pleased that the Government saw fit to accede to that request. I ask the Government to reconsider the matter and, in the interests of what I think is the proper conduct of this Parliament, to accept the amendment I have moved. In the discussions last week I think the Australian Democrats indicated that they were sympathetic to the position of the Government in this matter. The Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Haines, indicates by nodding that that is still her position. Without wishing to take up much of the time of the Senate, I want to address that point because I think it is particularly disturbing that the Australian Democrats should take that view. It is the nature of government that governments want to deal with their programs and get the Parliament out of the way. That is natural because there is no particular advantage to the Government to have Parliament sitting; but it is undoubtedly true that it is often in the interests of the community to have the Parliament sitting and it is to protect the interests of the community that the Opposition and indeed the Australian Democrats are given certain rights to raise matters which are not put on the Notice Paper by the Government. I think that it is a simple, fundamental part of our democratic freedoms. It ought to be considered important by the Democrats, as it is considered important by the Opposition. Senator Vigor is shaking his head. I do not know whether that is in disagreement with his leader or in disagreement with me. Senator Vigor's shaking of his head reminds me of the fact that, in the recent weeks of sitting, a great deal of the time we have spent-the bulk of which we have spent, incidentally, on Government business, not on matters brought forward by the Opposition-has been taken up by the Democrats. Indeed, I was told by one of the record-keepers of the Senate that one, single Australian Democrat senator actually used up 14 per cent of the available speaking time on one day. Senator Boswell —Name him. Senator CHANEY —I do not wish to confuse notoriety with fame, so I will not name him. Given the situation in recent weeks, the Democrats should not be supporting the Government's truncation of our rights. I am glad that the nameless person is leaving the chamber. It is particularly bad and open to criticism that the Australian Democrats, having so amply used the opportunities which are available for debate so far, are now prepared to join the Government in truncating the rights of the Opposition, and indeed their own rights, in this way. I appeal to them, in the interests of simply the proper functioning of Parliament, to reconsider their position and to support our amendment. As I say, I have no present intention of bringing forward a matter of public importance or an urgency motion. I give no undertaking that I would not do so. If something developed which I thought required time to be taken in that way, I would bring something forward. As it is, the Government's proposal will simply mean that, if I wish to bring a matter forward, I will have to move for the suspension of Standing Orders. I have already given notice of motion that I would do so. Mr President, I can assure you that we would be able to have an interesting debate on a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders if we thought it was required, again in the national or in the Opposition's interests. Senator Button —Very good for protecting the public interest! Senator CHANEY —The Leader of the Government in the Senate chooses to make a joke of this matter but I believe that the Parliament is here to serve the public interest and that there are issues of concern to the public of which sometimes the Leader of the Government is very contemptuous. The Leader of the Government was particularly contemptuous of our concerns about, for example, the failure of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to file a tax return. The Leader of the Government thought that it was a paltry matter beneath our contempt and showed a lack of concern for the real problems of this country. I assure the Leader of the Government that millions of Australian do not regard the failure of the Treasurer to file a tax return as a paltry matter beyond their concerns. The contempt of a great majority of the Australian people for the attitude of the Treasurer and for those who support his cavalier attitude to the obligations they so cheerfully impose on other people is of very considerable importance. So the judgment of the Leader of the Government as to what are appropriate matters for parliamentary time and consideration this Opposition does not accept as being the test. We are just as entitled as the Government to decide what are appropriate matters for consideration by the Parliament. We will continue to do so. If tomorrow or on any other day we think that there are matters of great public interest we will bring them forward. The use, for example, of a VIP aeroplane to enable the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to play blackjack with his friends in Launceston we think is also a matter of public interest, given a Government which is imposing fees on students, delaying pension rises to pensioners and reducing Defence Force retirement benefits to pensioners. I suppose the Leader of the Government thinks that it is beneath the contempt of the Senate to be concerned about whether the Prime Minister uses a VIP aircraft to play blackjack. I suggest that very many members of the Australian community think it is perfectly appropriate for the Opposition to raise this matter in the Parliament as a matter to be protested against. Senator Boswell —Is that a fringe benefit? Senator CHANEY —I am glad that the honourable senator asked that question. The inability of Government senators to answer questions on the application of the fringe benefits tax, for example, to the living away from home allowance, claimed to the tune of some $17,000 by the Treasurer, is again an illustration of an area where the Opposition has seen fit to raise matters which are of great public interest-- Senator McIntosh —Mr President, I take a point of order. We are wandering far from the subject matter of this debate. I think you should draw that fact to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to give examples of the matters of public importance that he might raise under his proposed amendment. Therefore, he is in order. Senator CHANEY —Thank you, Mr President. On the other hand, we might be concerned about the fact that for the last 15 months primary producers in this country have had to pay interest rates of about 20 per cent. We might be concerned about the fact that for a period of up to three years they have been paying interest rates of more than 15 per cent. I think many people in Australia believe that the present rates of interest are not only driving farmers broke, but also preventing investment which is required if we are to have economic recovery in this country. I think many people are concerned at the fact that to avoid the consequences of its economic maladministration, to avoid the fact that this Government has no control over wages policy or fiscal policy, it therefore has to rely completely on interest rates to hold up the dollar and, indeed, to hold its economic policy together. I think many people in Australia would think that whilst the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, would regard these as silly matters which are beneath his contempt, they are matters of very considerable importance. Senator Button —No, you are regarding them that way, little school prefect. Senator CHANEY —I always find it fascinating that the Leader of the Government is prepared to refer to me as a little school prefect. If I said the same to him, as one Liberal senator was once silly enough to do, I remember a greatly affronted Leader of the Government in this place-- Senator Button —It is a question of pomposity. Senator CHANEY —Well-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to ignore the interjections and address himself to the amendment that he has moved. Senator CHANEY —I will, Mr President. My concern is this attempt by the Government to prevent the Opposition from having an opportunity to raise whatever matters it believes are in the national and in the public interest tomorrow or, indeed, on any day on which the Senate is sitting. In Australia not only do we have interest rates which run at something like 10 per cent more than those of our trading competitors, but also we are now moving into the grand situation of having an inflation rate of somewhere around 9 per cent. Again, one might say: `What does that matter?'. I seem to remember Senator Walsh sliding away from these unfortunate statistics. But the sad fact is that most of the countries with which we have to compete have an inflation rate which might be as high as 2 per cent or 3 per cent; in Japan it might be as low as half a per cent. We see this Government again in that area sending us down the gurgler. In so many ways, this country is being driven into the ground by this Government. The Government is now able to enlist the support of the Australian Democrats. It says: `We will keep the Parliament sitting, but we will let you discuss only what we, the Government, choose to discuss'. That is fundamentally the position that we are being placed in by this motion. That is not regarded in any way as a satisfactory way to conduct this Parliament. We regard the proposition that the Democrats would support that proposal as one which should be treated with contempt. We have put up with a good deal from the Australian Democrats. We have been told that they came here to `keep the bastards honest'. We have seen the Australian Democrats support the introduction of taxes which this Government promised not to introduce. We all remember, I think it was at the Labor Party's campaign launch in 1983, when the present Prime Minister made it quite clear that he would not introduce a capital gains tax. It was the most straightforward, obvious, clear promise ever to have been made by a politician. Senator Haines and her friends joined with the Government in allowing it to break its election promise. All I can say is that tonight's performance by the Democrats, which denies us the right which I believe any democratic parliament should provide to an opposition to bring forward matters which it thinks are of importance as against what the Government may put forward, is a contemptible attitude on their part. If they have any sense of integrity or honour they will change their minds and vote with the Opposition, not with the Government. In the interests of our resuming what is a fundamentally important debate on the question of the imposition of an identity card on every Australian, the forerunner to the greatest gathering together of a centralised bank of information on the Australian people that has ever been envisaged in a common law country, I do not wish to prolong the evening by dwelling on the sins of this Government and its abuse of Parliament. However, I want to say that I regard the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate as being no less than an abuse of the institution of Parliament. It is not just an abuse of the rights of the Opposition; it is an abuse of the rights of the people of Australia. I believe that if this Government had any honour it would not have moved a motion in the form it did. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(8.15) —In his remarks in support of his amendment to the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), Senator Chaney spent more time talking about the speaking habits of one of the better speakers in this chamber, the passage of the capital gains tax and an assortment of other issues than he did in justifying why we should join him in this little frolic of his to allow for discussions of matters of public importance or urgency motions under standing order 64. We have been brought back here at a cost of something like $100,000 a day because this Government wants to have the Australia Card Bill defeated this year for reasons best known to itself. Senator Vanstone —So do you. Senator HAINES —No, Senator Vanstone. It might interest the honourable senator to know that in the discussion between leaders and whips last Friday we did not want the Government to bring on this legislation this year. We were quite content that it wait until next year. So I suggest that until the honourable senator gets to the position of being a leader or a whip, she should not say things about which she knows nothing. The Senate is back here at a cost to the general public and the taxpayer of $100,000 a day to do better things than to follow Senator Chaney down some little path of his own concerning matters of public importance or urgency motions. Surely Senator Chaney is not seriously suggesting that if we allow a matter of public importance to come on for debate for two hours tomorrow and as a result we have to sit on Thursday we should be expected to accept some sort of amendment regarding the procedure to be followed on Thursday when, of course, it is the normal practice to deal with non-government business. We are here for one reason and one reason only, and that is to deal with the Australia Card legislation. Senator Walters —You might be. Senator HAINES —No, Senator Walters, we do not want to be here at all. We could have dealt quite comfortably with the Australia Card on the first sitting day in February. But in keeping with the enthusiastic way in which the Opposition parties have supported the Government this session in divisions they decided that they would support the Government's wish to come back here today and, obviously, tomorrow since there are some 30-odd speakers who wish to speak on the Australia Card legislation, notwithstanding the fact that this legislation does not need to be dealt with until next year. Senator Boswell —One of your members took up 14 per cent of the time. Senator HAINES —Senator Boswell raises the fact that a colleague of mine spoke on a large number of issues in which he is interested. Maybe he should speak to one of his own coalition colleagues who managed to spend well over an hour on one line of the Appropriation Bill which dealt with something like $1,500. Senator Walters —Oh, how dreadful! Senator HAINES —Senator Walters says: `How dreadful'. I am not arguing that she and her colleagues should not spend over one hour on a $1,500 line. What I am saying is that senators are entitled to speak in this place on legislation, papers and Appropriation Bills without the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) casting aspersions on the amount of time that is spent. If it is good enough for him to criticise a colleague of mine I suggest it is good enough for him to criticise some of the people on his side of the Senate who he tells me are ungovernable and uncontrollable and to whom he has to give time or he will be in strife himself. We have absolutely no intention of supporting Senator Chaney in his desire to have a matter of public importance or an urgency debate on something which could come up tomorrow and on which he would not have been able to speak anyway if it had not been for the fact that he agreed, with some alacrity, with the Government to bring us back on this occasion. It is unnecessary to add that little frolic of his. It is an additional cost to the taxpayer. Given the behaviour of some of the Opposition senators last Friday, when we could have started dealing with this legislation had they not engaged in some sort of filibuster on a Government report, I consider it quite outrageous that at this stage of the year, at this stage of a debate, and considering the cost to the taxpayer, Senator Chaney should be contemplating extending the sitting not just from Tuesday to Wednesday but quite likely from Wednesday to Thursday because he wants to have a matter of public importance or an urgency motion debate on heaven only knows what. But if it is on nothing more exciting than the one he had last week, on Neville Wran and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, I suggest it is hardly worth while spending the time of the Senate on that sort of thing. For that reason we will certainly be not supporting the Opposition Leader's amendment to the motion. We have every intention of expediting the debate on the Australia Card as quickly as possible, of defeating it when it comes to the end of the second reading debate, and then getting back to things in our constituencies that are quite likely to be more important than anything Senator Chaney can dream up on which to have an urgency debate or a matter of public importance debate. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(8.22) —I have heard all the arguments which have been put and I regret that, although I am normally persuaded by some of these matters, I was not tonight. Senator Chaney adopted a high profile in all of this, saying that we, as a government, had followed an unusual course, had denied the Opposition traditional rights, that this was disturbing, that this was a denial of the protection of the rights of the public, that it took away the Opposition's capacity to serve the public interest and, finally, that this was a government without honour. That is an interesting set of adjectives, but I would like to come back to that. We had a discussion about this last week. The business of this House would never operate if it was not done on the basis of understandings and agreements. Let me be frank about it: We put to the Opposition last week that we would agree to an early vote on the Australia Card legislation. We asked: `Would you like to nominate a fixed number of speakers?'. We suggested that we might sit on Friday night and again on Saturday night to finish the business. None of these things were agreeable to the Opposition, and that is all right. It is only for that reason that the Government agreed to come back this week. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator BUTTON —They can all laugh. Senator Chaney cannot. He knows that what I have just said is true. Senator Chaney —That's right. We should not sit on Saturday night, or Friday night. Senator BUTTON —It is a legitimate position that we should not sit on Friday night. I am saying that we put these things to Senator Chaney; we put a number of things to him. We then put to him that if we came back this week, we wanted to deal with the Australia Card legislation and nothing else. Senator Chaney said: `Well, we ought to have Question Time', and we agreed to that. There were a number of other things said. Certainly everybody who left that meeting, except Senator Chaney, understood that we would have Question Time, the Australia Card legislation and nothing else. I am not putting it any higher than a misunderstanding. I am not accusing Senator Chaney of any bad faith in that matter. But that was the understanding we had. That is why this motion has been moved. The logical extension of Senator Chaney's position that the Opposition is the protector of the public interest is that we should sit here every day, including Christmas Day. That is the logical extension of that argument. It would be a very cogent argument indeed if the things which Senator Chaney says are so important to this country-the situation of primary producers, the prevention of investment in this country, wages policy, fiscal policy and inflation rates as compared with our trading partners-had been the subject of any debate initiated by the Opposition in the Senate in the last fortnight. But the Opposition, in the last fortnight, was not interested in these very important things, which suddenly become very important, and they were not initiated by it because it is not concerned about them except when it happens to be a question of whether it might have a matter of public importance on a particular day-then those things suddenly become important. Senator Archer —It doesn't do you justice to carry on like a raw prawn. Senator BUTTON —If people just listen they will be able to decide whether I am doing justice or not. Let us look at some of the facts. The Senate might want to address the question of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) playing blackjack or other important issues and the Opposition has Question Time to do that. We have agreed to Question Time and those issues can be addressed then. Senator Boswell —But you never answer the questions. Senator BUTTON —That is a different complaint. The important thing from Senator Boswell's point of view is surely to have his question asked because however silly the question might be, he can then go back to Queensland and say that he did not get an answer. That is about the highest aspiration which a politician like the honourable senator can have-to be able to go back and say that he asked this question that really rocked them and that he did not get an answer. Let us not go overboard about this question of protecting the public rights because if that were so, as I said, the logical extension of that is that we sit forever. We are sitting here today, tomorrow and probably the next day, days on which the Opposition has 23 speakers on one Bill, and the Opposition has the facilities of Question Time available to it. Tonight we are arguing the question as to whether it should have a right on this particular Wednesday-I do not know whether it is Good Wednesday or Ash Wednesday-to move a matter of public importance of a character which it has not seen fit to move when the Parliament has been sitting in normal session. Senator Vanstone —That is your assessment, no one else's. Senator BUTTON —No, it is a matter of fact. The Opposition has to order its own priorities and it will do that. I really cannot see that in the circumstances the Government can be persuaded by the Opposition amendment, which is really rather pointless at this stage of the sitting. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Chaney's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Alston, R. K. R. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M. Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C. Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. McKiernan, J. P. Black, J. R. Macklin, M. J. Button, J. N. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Mason, C. V. J. Coates, J. Morris, J. Coleman, R. N. Powell, J. F. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A. Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Sanders, N. K. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Siddons, J. R. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Haines, J. Walsh, P. A. McClelland, Douglas Zakharov, A. O. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller) Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Withers, R. G. Jones, G. N. Townley, M. Grimes, D. J. Jessop, D. S. Foreman, D. J. Reid, M. E. Richardson, G. F. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(8.36) —When we were debating the Australia Card Bill before the dinner break, anybody listening to Senator Elstob's speech would have wondered whether we were debating the Australia Card or whether we were debating how the Labor Party raised its funds by screwing the trade union movement or whatever. The speech went on for quite a while, and quite rightly people were asking whether it was about the Australia Card or not. We are debating a most significant piece of legislation. If it is allowed to pass, it will have a far more pervasive and detrimental effect on the Australian community than any other law this Parliament has debated. It is appalling that the Government has attempted to blackmail the Opposition and prevent the Australian public from hearing criticisms of the legislation. The Government left the debate on this Bill until the very last minute last week, and suggested that the Senate would rise early if honourable senators did not speak on the Bill. Senator Button said the same thing just a while ago. We were told that if we had been good boys and not debated the legislation, so that it could be foisted on the Australian community without decent debate, we could all have gone home early. He spoke of head prefects and behaviour at school, but I think he himself was trying to be a bit of a schoolmaster. Through this Bill the Government hopes to curb the natural democracy that exists in Australia. It wants to curb our civil rights by forcing an identity card on a community that does not want it. The Government seeks to curb the democratic rights of free speech, a process which it began last week. This Bill is about democracy as we know it in Australia, about the rights and basic freedoms that each and every one of us currently enjoys. Those rights and freedoms are under threat. The Australia Card represents the greatest intrusion into individual privacy ever seen in this country. It will rank us equal to any communist country and put us in the same category as South Africa, with its pass law system. There are a number of speakers on this Bill and a great many aspects need to be covered. I shall therefore contain my remarks to two areas of concern. The first area on which I shall comment is the extraordinary number of ways by which the proposed card will interfere in the daily lives of average Australians. I doubt whether those who support the concept have honestly thought through the matter. The circumstances under which a card will need to be produced are wide and far-reaching. For example, a card must be produced for business with a financial institution; to invest with a prescribed borrower; to deposit money with a legal practitioner; to do business with a cash management or property trust; to transact business with a marketing authority, produce agent, or real estate agent; to buy or sell land; to gain access to a safe deposit box; to buy shares in public companies; to deal in futures contracts. In other words, any transaction that involves money, whether large or small, will require a sighting of one's Australia Card. That might not sound too much of an inconvenience but let me detail a few instances. For example, a farmer might find it not just a nuisance but a positive disincentive to business and a severe invasion of privacy. Clause 43 (2) of the Bill concerns marketing authorities. It reads: A marketing authority or a produce agent shall not, on or after the first relevant day, make to a person a payment representing the proceeds, or part of the proceeds, of sale of primary produce unless- (a) the marketing authority or produce agent requires, or has at some previous time required pursuant to this sub-section, the production of a current Card of the person as at the time of production; (b) the requirement is or was, as the case may be, complied with; and (c) the marketing authority or produce agent records, or has at some previous time recorded pursuant to this sub-section, the person's Australia Card number. The penalty for not doing that is $20,000. I suppose the Australian Labor Party does not think that is much, but that is just another impost on our society. Further, a farmer, after a good season, may decide to invest in some shares with a stockbroker in Sydney. At present he can get on the phone and undertake the transaction with the account being forwarded to him at a later date. Under the Australia Card regime he will have to take himself and his card to Sydney. A grazier selling cattle, sheep or whatever will have to produce his card when doing business. What of the grazier who decides to use modern technology and to buy or sell cattle through the computer aided livestock marketing network from a seller or to a buyer in another State? Does the seller have to go all the way to the buyer or does the buyer have to go all the way to the seller so that the card may be produced? Any transaction that a farmer or, for that matter, any businessman makes over the telephone will require production of an Australia Card. Why have a telephone at all if we will all be required to appear in person every time we want to buy, sell or lease anything? As the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), said in the other place, the most likely outcome of the proposal is that when farmers realise that they have to do those things they will go off their heads. The agents are more than likely to introduce an extra fee or a commission charge for the additional administrative problems they will have with the card requirements. People who own rental properties will be unable to collect rent or do any other financial transactions with the estate agent unless the person concerned has produced his card for the agent. Failure to do so, again, is punishable by a $20,000 fine. I ask people listening to this debate at home to think of every transaction that they make in their everyday lives. If they pay the milk account, hire a baby sitter, cash a cheque at a bank or elsewhere, accept a mail order offer advertised on television or do their invalid neighbour's banking they will have to produce their Australia Card. All these everyday occurrences will require production of this pernicious Australia Card. Yet the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) claims that we will not need to carry it at all times. But as in the case of the advertisement for a well-known credit card, one will not want to leave home without it. Look at what has happened in the last few years with our drivers licence. We did not always have to carry our drivers licence and nobody thought that would change. We thought in the past-and we were quite right in thinking so-that if we had an accident or were pulled up by the police we could produce our licence within 24 hours or, sometimes, seven days. Not now; we have to carry our drivers licence with us all the time. Will that not happen with the Australia Card? What of invalids, whether they be the chronically ill or those who are incapacitated for a short time? How will they get on? How will they organise their daily affairs-their banking, their rent or mortgage payments and their rates and electricity payments? The list could go on and on. As with the fringe benefits tax the unintended consequences could be discovered for years to come because we have only just started to see the implications, both trivial and serious, of the Australia Card. However, unlike the fringe benefits tax it will not have the opportunity to have its weaknesses exposed because this chamber will have the sense to throw it out. If many Labor senators were completely frank they, too, would agree that the legislation has no place on the Government's agenda. They would realise, as we in the Opposition do, that two wrongs do not make a right and bad legislation is bad legislation whatever its intended consequences. I have just listed a few of the instances where the Australia Card will be required. But what of the penalties for not producing it, which I have alluded to already? For a start this legislation provides no range of penalties; there is just a straight-out big, on top of the pile, $20,000 penalty. The legislation states very clearly that certain fines will apply. There is no range of fines as in other legislation, just outright amounts. Let me give a few examples. If an agent does not show a card or, for whatever reason, does not comply with the legislation there is a $20,000 penalty-not an amount up to $20,000 but a straight $20,000 on the nose. This may be what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was talking about in Hobart the other night when he was having a little flutter on the blackjack. Other fines for offences under the legislation are: A penalty of $5,000 or two years imprisonment for defacing a card; a penalty of $10,000 or five years imprisonment or both for processing a false card; a penalty of $1,000 or six months imprisonment or both for the dishonest use of the card with intent to deceive; and a penalty of $10,000 or five years imprisonment or both for being in possession of a card without a reasonable excuse-a man might inadvertently have his wife's card in his pocket. There is a penalty of $5,000 or two years imprisonment or both for making a false statement; a penalty of $5,000 or two years imprisonment or both for an unauthorised requirement that the card be produced; a penalty of $5,000 or two years imprisonment or both for a breach of security provisions; and a penalty of $500 for a failure to notify the authorities of loss, theft or destruction of a card within 21 days. I do not know what happens if one is in hospital or somewhere like that but there is a $500 fine most probably just for being away from home. This legislation makes the pass law situation in South Africa look tame by comparison. Members of the Labor Party go off their brains about the pass laws in South Africa yet they are trying to impose exactly the same thing on people in Australia. The whole thing seems absurdly out of hand. We have legislation in the Parliament that will fine agents $20,000 if they do not hassle a client into showing a card, irrespective of whether they have done business with that client for 20 years or have never seen him before, while the Treasurer (Mr Keating) fails to put in a tax return for two years. I do not know what will happen in that case but I suppose the Australian people will work out whether he will be fined for not obeying the laws of the land when he has been so strict on everyone else in the community. This Government neglects to mention the way in which the Treasurer made a profit on the sale of a shop, on which tax is leviable, yet he got off scot free. Maybe the people of Australia will decide who is to judge that too. Where is the justice and balance in that? What does this Government put up as a justification for introducing the Bill? It has tried very hard to sell the public on the idea that we need the card to stop the tax cheats, the social security fraud and the tax-free cash economy. But no one has yet been able to explain just how this legislation will catch those who do business strictly for cash. Senator Teague —It won't. Senator BROWNHILL —I know it will not, Senator. We know it will not, but we have to convince honourable senators opposite. They are the ones who need convincing. For example, how will it stop the market fruit grower who sells his produce on a cash only, no receipt basis? How will it stop the odd job man who does the handyman jobs around the district, again strictly for cash? How does one force two people entering into a verbal contract to insist on the production of a card? Even if they do, how will that reduce tax evasion? Even Labor senators admit that the card is useless. Senator Nick Bolkus, who is away at the moment, having taken a trip to the other side of the world, said: As people start to see the holes in it- that is, the Australia Card- as people start to see the benefits aren't there, this card will be seen as a boomerang which will hit us all in the face electorally . . . Senator Bolkus said that the card was a `Mickey Mouse scheme' justified with `shonky figures' and would invariably infringe on civil liberties. He is somebody from the Government side of the House speaking about his own Bill, in another place at another time. Even more significant are the comments from the Health Minister, Dr Blewett. He was quoted earlier tonight and I would like to quote him again, because I think it is good stuff. He has not had a puncture; he has had a blow-out on this one. He said: We shouldn't get too hung up as socialists on privacy because privacy, in many ways, is a bourgeois right that is very much associated with the right to private property. That was quoted earlier today by Senator Peter Baume; it has been repeated by Senator Puplick; and it will be quoted around the country for years to come. So here we have it in black and white. It does not matter to the Australian Labor Party that this card is an invasion of privacy and will undermine basic freedoms found in all democracies. After all, those freedoms are, in the Minister's own words, merely a bourgeois right. Is that really what people on the other side of this chamber want? I do not believe it is. I think that there are many Government senators who are opposed to this card as much as we are. But they are bound by their Caucus rules, so I feel sorry for them, in their anguish, when they must support legislation that they know in their hearts is morally wrong. I am sure those same honourable senators would also not approve of the ridiculous Big Brother penalties that are attached to this Bill-the $20,000 here, the $500 there. They appear to be figures picked out of the Minister's imagination, because they bear no relation to other penalties attached to breaches of other laws. I will give an example of two penalties attached to other laws. For example, the Social Security Act provides for fines of up to $2,000 or 12 months imprisonment for false and misleading statements-$2,000, not $20,000. Under the Bankruptcy Act making a false statement can attract a fine of $200 or six months. Even forgery attracts only three years imprisonment, while failure of a bankrupt to declare property can attract a maximum of only 12 months. How does that compare with the $20,000 fine or the two years imprisonment or both? We have in the Australia Card Bill ridiculous conditions and draconian penalties. But of course a closer look at the Bill shows that, in true socialist style, all people are equal. Senator McKiernan would know all about that. He has tried to make them equal all the time by pulling the ones who are having a go down to join the ones who do not want to have a go. Some are more equal than others. I will give an example. One advertises for a casual worker, and a fellow applies who appears to be suitable. Senator Vanstone —A casual worker? That's McKiernan. Senator BROWNHILL —Very casual. The fellow says: `I'm actually on holidays here in this district and I didn't think I would be working, so I haven't got my card with me; but I will write home and have it sent to me'. The employer is desperate for the fellow to get started. It could be cherry picking or hay carting. It could be anything. The employer cannot afford to wait to have him start, so he says: `Okay, start today'. By doing that the employer has just made himself liable to a fine of $20,000. So when Senator McKiernan asks for such a job without his ID card-if the legislation ever passed this place-I would have to say that he would not get the job. But somebody lying to the Department of Social Security to get the dole when he or she is not entitled to it would be fined only $2,000. Where is the justice in that? Yet this legislation is supposed to reduce the number of people cheating the social security system. To do that, it will attack the innocent employer who simply wants to get some work done-get the hay in or get the cherries picked-and it allows the dole cheats to escape the system. The basic flaw of this legislation is that it simply does not do what the Government says it will. The all party Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, of which Senator Puplick was a member, said so and the Department of Social Security said so. Virtually no one says that the card will do anything to curb social security fraud, except the Government, but even its own departments are not in total agreement on this. The Department of Social Security admitted that only 0.6 per cent of social security fraud was caused by false identity, while Senator Walsh claimed in the Senate last Friday that the identity card would solve the Department's problems. I do not think that he has looked at the Bill or at what it would do if it passes this place. How can one understand that reasoning? The opportunities for abuse of the card are numerous. The assurance from the Minister for Health that this card will be the safest and most closely protected card in Australia is worthless. He cannot guarantee that the central records will be inaccessible, nor can he guarantee that professional frauds will not be able to duplicate the card. I am told that forged passports are quite easy to come by if one has the money. The Opposition has outlined what needs to be done. One of the Opposition's proposals is to tighten existing legislation. The Government has started clamping down on and has started to do a little bit about the work test. That has resulted already in some 15,000 people losing their dole payments. I commend the Government for that, but why does it not go on with that, rather than foisting on the community the Australia Card, which would take away so many of the basic freedoms on which we rely at the moment? Tighter interpretation of existing taxation and social security laws would bring an effective and significant reduction in public capital outlays. The savings that have already been shown to be possible could be continued without any expansion of the bureaucracy, without the enormous expenditure needed to set up the Australia Card framework and without the appalling abuse of civil liberties that this legislation embraces. I believe that a clear recommendation is given in the booklet `A Taxing Problem' as to where the collection of taxes can be much improved and the Australian Taxation Office can be much improved by implementing some of the suggestions in that booklet. The issue of the Australia Card is of vital significance to every Australian citizen and is one that I do not believe the Government has satisfactorily justified to the electorate. The support in the community is for less abuse of the taxation system and less abuse of the social security system. It is a total fallacy for this Government to tell the electorate that its Australia Card will solve both of these problems. It will not and cannot solve these problems. It is about time that the Government stopped dodging the real issues, stopped misleading Australia about the state of the economy and stopped passing the blame for its ineptitude to other people. If the Government really wants to crack down on social security fraud and tax evasion, it can start today without this card. This card has nothing to do with those problem which I have outlined; it is just another attempt by a socialist government to keep unnecessary records and to intrude unfairly into the personal lives of Australians. The Government cannot get away with it and we, the coalition Opposition, will not let it. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(8.59) —I rise to speak briefly on this very important issue. Of course, an identity card is a very emotive issue which gives honourable senators a great opportunity to make rousing and emotive speeches and to speak at great length on the issue. I firmly believe that, by the time all speakers on this long list of speakers have been heard by the Australian public, most Australians will be heartily sick of hearing from senators. Nevertheless, as I am now essentially-at least for the time being-an independent and as it is quite likely that the vote on this important piece of legislation will be quite close, I believe it is my responsibility to make my position absolutely clear. I propose to do that briefly. As far as I am concerned the Australia Card as it is now proposed is a classic example of the over-bureaucratisation of our society; a trend that has gathered momentum through governments of both persuasions over the last 20 years. Mr Costigan and Mr Meagher, two great Australians who have done more than any other individual to expose organised crime in this country, have made a very important contribution to this Australia Card debate. They have said that most of the objectives that the Government has set down could be achieved if a verifiable tax file number were issued which could be used in all financial transactions. That is a much easier, more straightforward and less bureaucratic approach to solving this very severe problem that exists in our community-that is, fraud. Instead we have seen the Government going for the overkill and the bureaucratic and complicated approach which is very much in line with the way it approached the fringe benefits tax. It was a problem that could have been solved simply and without the bureaucratic humbug that we now have to put up with. I believe the Government has bought the argument of the bureaucracy hook, line and sinker to burden the Australian people with an identification system which is excessively bureaucratic and above all poses great dangers to our civil liberties. Quite simply, about 2,000 additional bureaucrats will be required to apply the system. Those who work in the Health Department may be delighted; they are probably rubbing their hands together at the prospect of another 2,000 bureaucrats. But do we need another 2,000 public servants to keep an eye on us? Why do we not look for the simple approach? Why do we not look for some means of tackling our problems without all this overkill which seems to be the approach of the Government on all sorts of issues ranging from ID cards to the fringe benefits tax. I will not be supporting this legislation. I believe the all party parliamentary committee majority report on civil liberties and the privacy issues involved has not been adequately addressed by this legislation. I believe there is a great danger that the civil liberties and privacy of Australian citizens will be jeopardised by this legislation. I do not believe it necessarily tackles the very real problem of fraud, and the prospects of introducing it in this complicated form is quite daunting. The problem of interviewing the entire adult population of this country almost makes one shudder. The thought of the chaos is absolutely horrendous and smacks of the Mary and Joseph pilgrimage when they travelled to Bethlehem to register for the Roman census at the time of the birth of Christ. We have seen many examples of governments trying to keep tabs on the entire population by getting files and reports on them. This practice has always been an infringement of civil liberties and it is not something we can trust any government or bureaucracy with. There is no way that the information on the ID system will be kept confidential as more and more departments gain access to it, as we have already seen in so many cases in both State and Federal departments. There is no way that we can guarantee the confidentiality of the information that the Government proposes to gather on every adult citizen of this country. My position is simply this: I cannot risk the civil liberties of my fellow Australians by voting for this legislation. I would propose that better use be made of a verifiable tax file number which could be used when all financial transactions are undertaken, such as when opening bank accounts, applying for jobs and applying for welfare benefits. The quoting of a simple verifiable tax file number would, I believe, solve 90 per cent of the fraud that exists today. It would be a very simple and straightforward approach. It was, in fact, the recommendation of the parliamentary Committee, it was the recommendation of Mr Costigan and Mr Meagher, and it is the solution to the problem that I would vote for. The legislation, in its present form, will be opposed by me. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(9.06) —I rise to speak tonight on the Australia Card Bill which has been introduced by the Hawke Labor Government. The Australia Card is an integral part of the Government's tax reform package and, as I have indicated before in this place, the package introduces very far-reaching reforms of the Australian taxation system. Our key objective in reforming the Australian tax system is to bring more fairness into the community. That is the operative concept behind the tax package-to introduce more fairness into Australian taxation, to reduce the burden of taxation on the ordinary Australian taxpayer and to reduce the unfairness of the current Australian tax system. Our tax package will go a long way towards restoring the very important ability to pay principle in taxation. To give effect to that, the Government has introduced the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax, abolished negative gearing-that is, the situation where people involve themselves in property purchases to offset interest payments against their incomes-and brought about the end of the free lunch. All of those things have been designed to stamp out the tax avoidance practices that flourished under the Fraser-Howard Government. All of those reforms have been introduced with one objective in mind; that is, to introduce more fairness into the Australian taxation system. I am very pleased to say that, as a result of our reforms, those people who have the greater ability to pay will be paying more taxation in Australia, and I commend the Government for introducing those measures to ensure that those with more pay more. All of those practices to which I have referred-the provision of tax-free benefits, the free lunch and, in the past, the exemption from taxation of capital gains-cost the ordinary taxpayer more and more taxation. The burden of taxation was shifted on to ordinary Australians as a result of the non-taxation of those particular practices. Mr Howard's solution, when he was Treasurer, was really to make up the shortfall in revenue by shifting more and more of the tax burden on to the ordinary taxpayer. In fact, Mr Howard and the coalition Government licensed the great Australian tax rip-off by pushing ordinary Australian pay as you earn taxpayers into higher and higher tax brackets. That was the fact of life under Mr Howard as Treasurer. Unlike the Labor Government with the Australia Card, the Fraser Government, with Mr Howard as Treasurer, was not prepared to tackle tax avoidance and evasion head on. In fact, it chose the easy option. It chose the politically expedient option, the option which forced the ordinary pay as you earn taxpayer to pay more tax to cover the tax evasion and tax avoidance practices of a wealthy minority in this country. They were the facts of life of taxation under the Fraser-Howard Government. I regret to say that, when Mr Howard was Treasurer of this country from 1978 to 1982, income tax became voluntary for the wealthy people of this country. They did not pay what tax the Government required them to pay; they worked out what tax they thought it fair to pay. That is the way the system operated when Mr Howard was Treasurer. There was no fairness and no equity in income taxation in Australia when Mr Howard was Treasurer. No responsible government in this country could tolerate a taxation system which forced low and average income earners to subsidise the lurks and perks of the rich. That was what was going on. By closing the loopholes and by eliminating the rorts, the Hawke Government's tax reform package will redistribute revenue in the form of tax cuts. The Government is showing great leadership and great decisiveness in hitting the tax rorts, the tax lurks, head on. It is leadership that was lacking in the Fraser-Howard Government, a government which was not willing to attack tax avoidance and tax evasion on a comprehensive basis. The record speaks for itself. With the Government's tax package, we are paying back into the community some $4,500m in tax reductions and collecting some $1,500m in extra taxes. The Opposition always tries to obscure the point that we are talking about a tax package, an integrated set of reforms. Revenues are being paid back into the community, just as revenues are being raised. The revenue from the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax, for example, will help finance the tax cuts which have now come into effect. The Government is easing the burden on ordinary taxpayers by taxing the evaders, the avoiders and the cheats. Whereas the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax are part of the Government's crackdown on tax avoidance, the Australia Card, which is what we are debating this evening, is directed at tax evasion and welfare fraud. The Australia Card is in effect one of the final elements of the Government's tax reform package, aimed at creating a more equitable and fairer tax system. That is what this Government stands for-more fairness and equity in the Australian taxation system. The use of false identities is a major contributor to tax evasion. False identities and misstatement of financial circumstances are also major factors behind welfare fraud-that is, cheating of the social security system. The Australia Card will provide to each person a unique identifier of the highest integrity, coupled with a photographic card of the highest security. I believe that a unique personal identifier is vital in this country. We have only to look at the activities of certain criminal elements, and I refer to the well documented cases of criminals from Melbourne catching the morning flight to Sydney, checking out the death notices in the Sydney Morning Herald, looking for people of their age group who had died in Sydney, going to the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages in Sydney and getting birth certificates for those persons, then saying that those birth certificates belong to them, and flying back to Melbourne that evening with new identities. That is what was going on under the Liberal Government and that is the sort of thing on which the Government will crack down by its reforms in this area. We will have a unique identifier, and those criminal activities will be hit very severely by the introduction of this measure. The Australia Card is designed to combat tax evasion and welfare fraud by determining eligibility for social security benefits and a wide range of financial transactions. It will enable the Australian Taxation Office to draw together financial information about an individual to ensure that that person is subject to a proper taxation assessment. There is the case of a person working in two different jobs under different names and obtaining two tax-free thresholds of $4,500. That is one of the very common things that have been going on in Australia. By having a unique identifier the two different employment activities will be drawn together and the proper tax will be assessed. That is the sort of thing that will be checked. The Australia Card will also help prevent persons double dipping in social security and obtaining benefits by using false identities where their financial circumstances should preclude them. We have heard a lot of nonsense already today from Opposition members about the Australia Card. It is very important to ask: Exactly what is the Australia Card? What are we talking about? It is certainly something that is very popular in the community at the moment. It is overwhelmingly popular, in my experience. The members of the community among whom it is most popular are the Liberal Party's supporters, who are making it very clear in conversations with me that not only do they want an Australia Card but also they want-- Senator Walsh —Are they going to change their votes? Senator MAGUIRE —That is a moot point. They are, certainly in my experience, the persons in the community who are the strongest supporters of the Australia Card. The card will contain a name, signature, special identification number, the period of the card's validity and a photograph. Basically, that is what the Australia Card will involve. It is interesting to look at the history of the Australia Card. The first public indication of interest in the Australia Card, to my knowledge, was at the Labor Party Convention in South Australia in June 1984 when a motion was put on the agenda by the Kilburn Sub-Branch, which includes the northern suburbs of Adelaide, a working class district. The people there moved a motion that `an identity card be issued to all residents of Australia 16 years and over'. To my knowledge that is the first occasion on which there were public proposals for such a card. Those working class people saw the logic of such a card; they saw the sense and the fairness in hitting the tax cheats in Australia. They understood what was going on in the community and they saw the need for some sort of identifier to hit the tax cheats. The Australia Card was later examined and taken up at the National Taxation Summit in July 1985. Registration for the Australia Card will begin in late 1987. I stress that it will not be compulsory to carry the card, nor will it be used as a means of general identification, nor will it be an internal passport. I was rather concerned to hear the opening address in this debate this afternoon from Senator Peter Baume-he is a senator for whom I have had some regard in the past-who claimed unequivocally that the card would be used as an internal passport. I do not know who wrote that for him and I am not sure whether he was saying what he actually meant, but he did say, claim, allege that this particular card could be used as an internal passport. It is clearly proscribed; it is not compulsory to carry the card. That is made abundantly clear in every statement that the Government, the Minister and members of the Labor Party have made regarding the Australia Card. It will not be compulsory to carry the card, and police authorities will not be able to ask for it. That is made quite clear in the provisions for the card. My esteem for Senator Peter Baume went down a lot when he made that ridiculous statement this afternoon. He has damaged his credibility enormously in this place by coming out with such a nonsensical claim about what the Australia Card will be used for. The information on the Australia Card will be contained in the Australia Card Register, which will be a centralised register. It will contain only personal identifying information such as a person's name, residential and postal address, date of birth, sex and a digitised photo and signature. It is very basic information simply to enable verification to occur. Contrary to the claims of the Australia Card opponents, the Register will not be a comprehensive central data base. It certainly will not contain information about marital status, family composition, religion, employment, or political affiliation. Some claims of this nature have been made by irresponsible sections of the community. The information contained on the card and on the Register will be confined to existing basic identification data-not new data-for the legitimate business of government departments. Much of the existing data contains duplications and inaccuracies which will be resolved by the Australia Card. That is a very important thing to bear in mind-inaccurate current data will go out. In fact, it will be scrubbed. There is a lot of inaccurate data in the system. The centralisation of information will enable the system to rid itself of a number of inaccuracies. There will be strictly limited access to information on the Australia Card Register. Only officials from the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Social Security and Medicare will have access to the Register. They are the only Government departments and authorities which will have access to the Register. That access will be only for tax linkage purposes and for establishing identification for welfare payment purposes-for example, to check the person who may be working under different names in two different jobs. Access to information on the Register will need to be specifically authorised and the authorisation will be approved by the Government's new Data Protection Agency, a new watchdog body which is to be established specifically to protect the rights and privacy of individuals by controlling the collection and use of personal data for the Australia Card. The Government believes that by making the Australia Card mandatory for a number of specific uses, and only for those uses, it will be possible, for example, to achieve substantial revenue gains through a reduction in tax evasion. It will be possible to achieve greater fairness between members of the community in contributing towards the cost of providing government services and in the distribution of government welfare payments, a very important objective. It will be possible to provide a convenient, high level of integrity means of identification without affecting honest individuals. As was indicated earlier today, the card will have some effect in regulating future illegal immigration. The specific uses of the Australia Card are set out in the legislation. Uses beyond those specific ones are proscribed. The card will be mandatory for opening an account with a bank or a building society, for the purchase of stocks or shares, for the receipt of interest on investment funds and for employment purposes. The employer must sight the card. It will be mandatory to produce the card to obtain Commonwealth benefits, allowances and pensions and so forth. The Australia Card will be mandatory for those purposes only. It will not be compulsory for any other purpose. It will be an offence for the card to be requested by private sector bodies, State governments and law enforcement agencies. So much for the nonsense, hoaxes and myths the Opposition has been putting about the country on this subject. The major benefit to be obtained from the Australia Card will be increased taxation revenue arising from the reduced incidence of tax evasion. The Government estimates that the Australia Card will cost $55m a year to operate but will provide total savings to the Government of $932m a year. So the savings far outweigh the costs of establishing the system. On a cost-benefit ratio, the card will recoup $5 of revenue for every $1 outlaid in establishing the system. By 1995-96, that is, in 10 years time, it is estimated that the Australia Card will have saved some $4,700m which would otherwise have been lost in tax evasion and social welfare fraud. So overall, as I indicated earlier, the objective of the Government's tax reform package and the objective of introducing the Australia Card is to help bring about a fairer taxation system. That is what this country has severely lacked. Under the Fraser-Howard Government we did not have a fair tax system. The introduction of the Government's tax reform package, including the Australia Card, will help make our taxation system fairer and more soundly based on a person's ability to pay, a very important principle. The Australia Card legislation includes measures to give effect to very important safeguards to protect the rights and privacy of the individual and to prevent abuses of the card. As I have indicated, there is absolutely no requirement for a person to carry the Australia Card. The legislation specifies all the permitted uses of the card with all other possible uses totally prohibited by the legislation. As I have also indicated, the Australia Card legislation establishes the independent Data Protection Agency which will ensure that data collected for the Australia Card and by all other government agencies is used for the purpose for which it was collected and that access to data is properly controlled. The Agency will issue guidelines and directions to ensure that data kept by the government agencies is both accurate and confidential. It will investigate breaches of those guidelines, if there are any breaches. Individuals will have the right of access to all information held on them so that they can check it. That contrasts with the current situation in this country. From estimates that are available, much data is kept of a personal nature by credit reference agencies, financial institutions and other bodies but it is very difficult to get access to that data. It is very difficult for the individual to be able to verify the data that is kept and to ensure that it is accurate. No individual or organisation other than the prescribed user agencies-the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Social Security and so forth-will be able to obtain personal information from the Australia Card register. That includes the Federal and State police forces. They will not be able to get the data and they will not have access. That is a very important factor to be borne in mind by those opposite who are trying to run scare stories in the community about the impact of the Australia Card. Identification cards have been used for a number of years in a wide range of liberal and social democratic countries abroad. Identity cards with or without photographs operate in Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain and West Germany. A very long list of countries, which are essentially democratic countries, operate systems of identity cards. There are social security numbering systems in operation in Canada and the United States of America. They operate as national de facto identity systems. Opponents of the Australia Card have used a combination of highly emotive and blatantly cynical arguments. The opponents of the card have used contradictory arguments to try to scare people about the possible effect of the Australia Card, but it is very evident that the arguments and allegations put forward by those in the Opposition have singularly failed to turn the community against the Australia Card. They have had little impact; they have been a total failure. Opinion polls taken on the Australia Card have consistently shown overwhelming support for the concept. People in this country want a fairer tax system and greater fairness in the Australian community. They have shown this through their support in opinion polls for the concept of the Australia Card. A recent Morgan gallup poll showed that 48 per cent of the population were in favour of an Australia Card and wanted the introduction of an identity card; others wanted some other form of identification. That is the indication coming from the community. The opponents of the Australia Card and the Opposition are clearly out of step with community feeling. Honest and hardworking Australians, the great majority of our community, know they have nothing to fear from the Australia Card. The ordinary taxpayer in this country knows that he or she has absolutely nothing to fear from the introduction of the Australia Card. Honest and hardworking Australians are absolutely sick and tired of paying through the nose to subsidise the tax evaders and the welfare cheats. They know the system is stacked against them. The honest and hardworking Australian knows just how unfair the current tax system is in this country. They want action to stamp out tax evasion and welfare fraud. I know because they have told me. They have been into my office and told me that they are sick and tired of the tax bludgers out in the community who are not paying their fair contribution towards the operation of the Australian community. They want these sorts of reforms to bring about greater fairness and equity in the Australian tax system. The news that Opposition and Democrat senators are voting against the Australia Card will bring a smile to the face of every tax evader and welfare cheat in the nation. That is the reality; that is the fact. By voting against the Australia Card, the Opposition and the Democrats are placing themselves on the side of a selfish and greedy minority in the Australian community. They are allying themselves with a selfish and greedy minority in the community. As I indicated earlier, within the Opposition-that leaderless, indecisive, knocking and negative Opposition-a range of contradictory statements have been made about the introduction of the Australia Card. This afternoon Senator Robert Ray referred to previous statements by Mr Braithwaite, a National Party of Australia front bencher, in support of the Australia Card. He also referred to a statement by Mr Ralph Hunt, who is the Deputy Leader of the National Party, in support of the Australia Card. He referred to statements by Mr Charles Blunt, who is the Opposition spokesperson on social security matters, endorsing the concept of an Australia Card. These are the sorts of statements that have been made. We now have this negative and carping Opposition trying to destroy this legislation which would bring greater fairness into the Australian community. In addition to those statements, I would like to refer to one made by Mr Trevor Griffin as reported in the Adelaide Advertiser on 13 November. Mr Trevor Griffin used to be the Attorney-General of South Australia in a Liberal government. He is a close confidant and ally of Senator Teague and Senator Messner who are in the chamber at the moment. Of course, Mr Porter, the Opposition spokesman on health-the one who has been going around the country trying to whip people into a frenzy against the Australia Card-is also a South Australian. Mr Griffin recently called in the Adelaide media for the introduction of ID cards with photographs as a means of preventing under-age drinking. That is what a Liberal front bencher in the South Australian Parliament wanted-an ID card with a photograph as a means of regulating under-age drinking. This is a tremendous contrast to the statements that have been made here today by other Liberals. Senator Messner from South Australia, who is a close colleague of Mr Griffin, and others have knocked the concept of an identification card whereas this gentleman from South Australia endorses the introduction of such a card. It seems that members of the Liberal Party will not endorse under any circumstance identification cards for the purpose of regulating tax evasion but they want them for the regulation of under-age drinking. That seems to illustrate the priorities of the Liberal Party in this matter and its priorities in the community. It is disappointing that once again the Australian Democrats have chosen to join with the Opposition, this time in blocking the Australia Card. Once again the Australian Democrats are voting against legislation aimed at stamping out tax evasion in the Australian community. I recall that in 1983 some of the Australian Democrats-in fact, Senator Haines, Senator Mason and Senator Macklin-voted repeatedly with the Opposition to block legislation introduced by this Government to crack down on the so-called bottom of the harbour schemes. The Australian Democrats voted on every occasion to block the Government in cracking down on these criminal tax evasion schemes which were costing the Australian taxpayer dearly. One of the Bills they blocked would have recouped some $570m for revenue of the Commonwealth. The three Australian Democrats voted on every occasion to destroy that legislation, to deny the Government revenue and ever since that time they have been calling for the Government to spend more and more money in areas designated by them. But the Democrats on this particular occasion are shaming themselves; they are voting with the Opposition to try to destroy the Australia Card. They will help to keep about $1 billion a year in the pockets of tax evaders and welfare cheats if they vote that way on this legislation. They will continue to cost Commonwealth revenue a billion dollars every year until the Australia Card or some similar legislation is finally introduced. Recently we had the spectacle of the present Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Haines, criticising this Government for deferring pension rises for six weeks. The honourable senator had the gall to do that and yet, for example, as a result of her vote in 1983, the Government was denied $570m of revenue. Senator Haines, Senator Macklin and Senator Mason now want to vote as they did in 1983. They want to ally themselves with this discredited, carping, negative and knocking Opposition. Now they want to ally themselves with that Opposition and to vote against this legislation which will inject an enormous amount of respect into the Australian tax system by bringing more fairness into it and making it more strongly based on the principle of ability to pay. This Government wants to bring the tax cheats in Australia to book. The Government is introducing this card to help bring the tax cheats to book. It wants to stop taxation being voluntary for anti-social elements in the community. As a result of this measure the Government is aiming to weed out welfare fraud, and that is exactly what the Australian community wants from this Parliament. It wants us to bring the tax cheats to book. It wants us to weed out the taxation rorts of that anti-social element and to weed out welfare fraud. It certainly does not want us carrying on the way the Opposition is at the moment-that is, opposing for the sake of opposing. That is the record of activity of a very negative Opposition in this country. Senator PARER(Queensland)(9.36) —Much has already been said about the Australia Card. When the Australia Card was first mooted I was somewhat relaxed about it and my superficial thinking was similar to that of many other Australians. Like the great majority of Australians, neither I nor my family had anything to hide. If the Australia Card was to be a foolproof method for catching the real crooks out there, whether they be criminals in organised crime, social security cheats, tax cheats or dole cheats, on the face of it what was the problem? Major questions, however, had to be answered. Firstly, would an ID card be effective in combating welfare fraud? Secondly, would an ID card facilitate the collection of taxes? Thirdly, would an ID card control illegal immigration? Fourthly, would the system be cost effective, and fifthly, would personal privacy be safeguarded? These were the critical questions which had to be answered. On the initiative of the Liberal-National Party Opposition a detailed examination of the Government's proposal was carried out by a joint select committee. The majority of that bipartisan committee concluded that the ID card proposal failed on all tests. Honest Australians asked two questions about welfare fraud. The first concern is the so-called dole bludgers. Stories are legion. Any farmer or small-businessman will tell us that they can get only short term labour provided they pay cash so that the recipient continues to collect the dole. For instance, recently an approach was made to the Commonwealth Employment Service office at Southport on the Queensland Gold Coast for six people to work for eight weeks. The CES office was embarrassed in that it had 1,000 people registered as looking for employment and those unemployed were prepared to work only one day a week. They did not wish to put their unemployment benefit in jeopardy. This problem is endemic throughout Australia and will not be overcome by an ID card. The only way to overcome this problem, this disease, is to ensure that every able bodied person who receives a benefit must do some work to receive that benefit. It is grossly unfair that those who do work are paying for those who can work but who will not work. We must have a system which is quite unequivocally no work no pay. Clearly, claims by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) that work for the dole would cost an extra $800m or so, because of supervision, are arrant nonsense. What the Minister neglects to recognise is that in many instances the people supervising the work would otherwise be receiving the unemployment benefit themselves. The other concern of honest Australians in the welfare area is social security fraud. I understand that the greatest fraud in this area, in fact 99.4 per cent-this comes from the Department of Social Security-is the deliberate provision of false information and failure to report changed circumstances rather than through false identities and names. The example most cited is the single parent not living in a single situation. Senator Messner —How is the card going to pick that up? Senator PARER —To correct this fraud does not require an ID card. In fact, an ID card will have no effect whatsoever, Senator Messner, on that problem. It requires, rather, vigilance by the Department of Social Security and a crackdown on those who avoid their responsibilities by not supporting their deserted families. What about tax evasion? By far the greatest area of tax evasion is the cash economy, or the black economy as it is called. The only solution to that is a broad-based consumption tax, which was part of option C and which was rejected by this Government because of the influence of the unelected de facto government of this country-the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The ID card cannot identify cash transactions and will only serve to encourage the cash economy. Dividend imputation was another factor put up by the Government as an area in which it would achieve savings or benefits. That is nonsense. In fact, it will be eliminated because any problems associated with the non-declaration of dividends will disappear under dividend imputation as the companies will be paying. The Taxation Office as pointed out in the Auditor-General's reports, needs to lift its game. It is already able to make use of returns from banks and other financial institutions as to interest payments but apparently does not make effective use of them. It does not need an ID card to do that. What about cost effectiveness? At a time when Australia is in one of its worst financial crises in history, if not the worst, when government spending is totally out of control, when our inflation rate is four times that of our Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development partners, when interest rates that affect every Australian, whether they be small businessmen or home buyers with mortgages, are more than double those in comparable overseas countries, when tax rates, particularly on families, have increased since the Hawke Labor Government came into power and when what we need is a reduction in government expenditure, this Hawke Labor Government wants to increase government expenditure to the tune of another 2,000 public servants at a cost of over a billion dollars. The shadow Minister for Health, Mr James Porter, has quite conclusively spelled out that the Liberal-National coalition, with its policies, can achieve the same results with a saving of $2,735m and, more importantly, without the unwanted intrusion on the privacy of individuals which the Australia Card will inevitably bring about. Senator Messner —Did you say that the Liberals would do it better and save $2 billion? Senator PARER —Yes, and that has been proved quite conclusively. I will not go into those details as they have been covered by other senators, including Senator Messner. Honourable senators should be reminded-this is something that is forgotten-that during World War II people were issued with ID cards. Australians could be and were stopped in the street by police and asked to produce their cards. If they did not have them with them they were given 48 hours to produce them to a nominated police station. The wartime ID card was hated by Australians in 1945 and was repealed a few months after the end of the war. This ID card, if introduced, will be hated by Australians in 1986 or 1987 and be feared by those who have come from socialist countries. Recently I had the opportunity to speak to some people from the Australian-Hungarian Association and their concerns were real. They said: `We do not understand why Australians who have lived here all their lives, do not appreciate that the things that have happened to us in Eastern bloc countries can happen here. The very thought of an ID card flashes red lights in front of our eyes'. The ID card will be open to forgery, irrespective of what other comments to the contrary have been made. Organised crime-the Mr Bigs-will have no trouble whatsoever obtaining false ID cards just as they can buy false passports from forgers. I heard a previous speaker from the Government benches talk about the ID card being used to control drug trafficking. It is worth remembering that Donald Tate, currently serving a sentence in gaol in Thailand for drug running, was found to have international ID cards, complete with photographs, for every international airport and airline of every country in the world in which he was involved. He had had no trouble whatsoever in obtaining those cards. While the ID card will fail in its objective of preventing tax evasion and welfare fraud, it will be eminently successful in its attack on and destruction of the liberty of every individual Australian. In a soft sell, Dr Blewett's Health Department brochure tells us that all Australians will be `invited' to apply for an Australia Card. What it does not say is that without one a person cannot live. It is an invitation that Australians cannot refuse. In simple terms, the card is compulsory. That is what the Labor Government has avoided saying in all the brochures it has put out. The card is compulsory. If an Australian loses his card and does not tell the Government within 21 days, he is liable to a fine of $500. A person who employs a gardener, a handyman or a baby sitter or buys a bag of chaff will be liable for a fine of $20,000 if he or she does not identify that person and report the details of the ID card to the Australian Taxation Office. It is appropriate at this stage to refer to an answer to a question given by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) to Mr Howard on 17 November in the House of Representatives. In that answer Dr Blewett, in order to support his flimsy case, quoted the Council of the Small Business Organisations of Australia-COSBOA. He said that COSBOA had stated earlier that it saw the need for a colour photograph to maximise the effect of the Australia Card. He said that COSBOA had indicated its support for the concept of a national identity card, complete with a colour photograph, at the National Taxation Summit last year. COSBOA felt so strongly about Dr Blewett's answer that it was forced two days later to issue a Press release. Of particular concern to the members of COSBOA were real estate transactions. The real estate industry was concerned because the Australia Card would require 5.5 million transactions each year to be collated and presented to the Australian Taxation Office. This would mean a huge administrative burden. Discussions were held with Dr Blewett and a representative from the Australian Taxation Office. Representatives of the real estate industry asked why it was that they could be subject to a fine of $20,000 if they did not supply that information. Dr Blewett commented-I think in good faith, although I am not sure-that this was not really meant to be; that the Government had meant the fine of $20,000 to cover wilful fraud. The representatives then pointed out that when they had looked through the legislation they did not find any reference to wilful fraud. Dr Blewett said it was unintended. Is this another unintended consequence, like the unintended consequences we have with the fringe benefits tax? I think it it worth quoting from the Press release put out by COSBOA on 19 November. It said: The Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia gave earlier support to the concept of a national identity card with a colour photograph. This was the sort of reaction that many of us had until we really looked into the proposition to see what its effect would be on every person. The Press release continued: Our main concerns which were expressed to Dr Blewett in Parliament House on Wednesday, 7 May 1986 are- COSBOA is now unconvinced that usage of the card will achieve the ends the Government hoped for. The Press release continued: Public sector implementation costs appear absurd; No estimate of private sector costs has been provided by the Minister for public debate; Over 95 per cent of private sector administrative costs will be wasted as data demanded by the Tax Office will be stored to threaten Australians, not used to assess their proper returns. The media release continued: The threat to fine a small business proprietor $20,000 for an error in paperwork he is preparing free for the government compared to a $2,000 fine for wilful fraud by an individual is stupid and contradicts assurances given to COSBOA . . . The card will not be demanded to verify each welfare payment as originally expected-postal fraud will continue. Other legislation in the welfare area does not appear to support the taxpayer's right to demand proof of welfare recipients' identities. Existing tax collection legislation is not being enforced immediately to avoid the developing `Australian Card fix all' mentality. What were regarded as basic rights inherent in being a free person will now be a privilege to be exercised by permission of government. What is being trampled on is the recognition that governments are the servants of the people. People are not the servants of government. That is what the Magna Carta was all about, diminishing the power of the king. What are the Labor Government's long term initiatives? Senator Walsh —Hand it over to the barons, not the people. Senator PARER —It is interesting, I point out to Senator Walsh, that the Government, in its submission to the Joint Select Committee, suggested that the following departments and instrumentalities have access to the Australia Card Register: The Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Department of Housing and Construction, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Institute of Health, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the Department of Foreign Affairs, and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. The submission said: At present access has been limited to the Australian Tax Office, the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security. The submission went on further to say: While the Government cannot rule out categorically the possibility that at some future date additional uses may suggest themselves as being desirable or essential to meet emerging problems in the taxation and welfare or other areas, such uses would require amendment to the legislation to give effect to them. No matter what this Labor Government says, this proposal will be perceived by the people as a foot in the door. Finally, it is worth quoting two people as the two quotes clearly differentiate between the Liberal Party view and that of the Labor Government. I realise that these quotes have been used by my colleagues Senator Peter Baume and Senator Puplick. However, firstly, Dr Neal Blewett, the Labor Minister responsible for the ID card, said: We shouldn't get too hung up as Socialists on privacy because privacy, in many ways, is a bourgeois right that is very much associated with the right to private property. That is a chilling statement which could be an extract from the communist manifesto. The second quote is an extract from Sir Robert Menzies in his 1949 policy speech and is in stark contrast to Labor's unchanged socialism. Sir Robert said: Socialism must mean the reduction of human freedom. You cannot have a controlled economy without controlling human beings, who are still the greatest of all economic factors. You cannot socialise the means of production without socialising men and women. There may be some people who think that the only freedom that counts is to have a roof to sleep under, clothes to wear, food to eat. Those are very necessary; governments must be pledged to do all in their power to assist people to secure them; but they are not freedoms at all. Each can be obtained in a state of utter slavery. The real freedoms are to worship, to think, to speak, to choose, to be ambitious, to be independent, to be industrious, to acquire skill, to seek reward. These are the real freedoms, for these are of the essence of the nature of man. Socialism will have none of them; for unless people do what they are told, work where they are told to work, learn what they are drafted to learn; in a sentence, fit obediently into their appointed place, the Socialist ``planned State'' falls to pieces like the false and shoddy thing it is . . . What a contrast there is between the attitude of Dr Blewett and that of Sir Robert Menzies. We of the Liberal Party reject this proposal for an ID card. There has rarely been such a presumptuous and unwise proposal as the Australian identity card. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(9.56) —The Senate is debating the Australia Card Bill, which will allow a national identification system to be established in this nation. This system will help in the fight to eliminate tax evasion and social welfare fraud. Yet this legislation, which would be of enormous benefit to the millions of honest, hardworking Australians, faces defeat in this chamber. The official Opposition's attitude to this legislation is mystifying. Many people must be asking now, and will continue to ask until the next election, why the Opposition is so intent on throwing out a piece of legislation which will eliminate opportunities for the dishonest and lighten the tax burden being borne by the honest. Why indeed! Is it political opportunism or is it because some of the Opposition's friends are up to their elbows in tax evasion? I shall return to that matter shortly, but before I do I must raise three matters. Firstly, if this legislation is defeated in this chamber it will be brought back again and again. On each occasion the Government will highlight to the Australian people that the Opposition in this national Parliament is intent on giving free rein to the tax cheats in this country. Secondly, defeat will come only because the Australian Democrats will also oppose this legislation. Why are they lending their weight to the friends of the tax dodgers? In doing so, they are showing themselves for the political opportunists that they are. I have no doubt that they are spoiling for a double dissolution. This is the only way that they can hope to escape severe losses at the next election. I doubt that their ploy will succeed, but even if a double dissolution does occur, they will face oblivion. Their previous leader, the former Senator Don Chipp, boosted the Democrats' fortunes by saying that his Party would keep the so-and-sos honest but the electorate is now asking who will keep the Democrats honest. No, their meandering policies have lost appeal and they will have a hard job convincing an electorate which will fully understand their personal reasons for voting against this legislation. Thirdly, the Opposition and the Democrats obviously do not know how strongly the Australian people are in favour of the introduction of this card. Recent polls show that more than twice as many people want the card as do not. In addition, about 60 per cent of Australians do not want the legislation blocked in this chamber. Allow me to turn to the official Opposition and its reasons for opposing this legislation. There are many occasions on which I disagree with the editorial stance of Brisbane's Courier-Mail. I have been reading that newspaper for about 40 years and I have always regarded its editorial policy as anti-Labor. I doubt that the newspaper's executives would disagree with me. Yet the Opposition's stance on the Australia Card was just too much for this conservative newspaper. The Courier-Mail, in its editorial on 14 November this year, commented, amongst other things: . . . the attitude of the Liberal and National parties to the Australia Card is difficult to fathom. They have said on occasions that a proper method of identifying taxpayers and social security recipients is necessary. Faced with just such a method of identification in the Australia Card, however, the Opposition decides merely to oppose. The decision smacks of political opportunism at its worst. The editorial in that issue of the Courier-Mail went on to state: With proper safeguards, and with no compulsion either to carry it or to produce it for any reason other than those laid down in the legislation, the Australia Card should be a useful method of detecting tax and social security cheats. The expected savings could make it well worthwhile . . . some members of the Opposition have indicated that they would not be too uncomfortable with a national identification system. They have their chance for one now; they can hardly wonder if they are characterised later as the friends of tax and social security cheats. That is the end of the quotation from the Courier-Mail. On this occasion I agree with the Courier-Mail. The defeat of this legislation will be seen by the Australian people as a direct result of opposition by-as the Courier-Mail stated-the `friends of tax and social security cheats'. Let us examine some of the statements which have been made by Opposition members in the past. Some of them have been in fulsome praise. Going back three years, the Hon. Don Dobie, the Liberal member for Cook, in referring to the Hawke Government in the Hansard of 13 October 1983, said: . . . I encourage it, to use the positive words that the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) dared use, to move into the field of identity cards. In this age of high technology we require proof of identity for almost every second thing that we do. People need an identity card to enter this building . . . I believe that in order to solve this grass roots problem of identity, we should bring in an identity card system. Mr Dobie is still the honourable member for Cook. Does he still have this same attitude? Almost 12 months later, the Liberal Party member for McPherson (Mr White) spoke of the need for a personal identity card. In the Hansard of 3 October 1984 Mr Peter White said: We cannot go on condoning this fraud against the Department, the Government and the taxpayer . . . The problem is how to combat it . . . I believe that the time has come when we have to look seriously at issuing all Australians with some sort of personal identity card. That suggestion has been put forward many times. It has usually been rejected on the basis that no one wants to be numbered . . . However in terms of cutting down on social security fraud and in a whole range of other matters where identification is necessary, given the fact that all of us probably carry two or three cards of some description now, I think the time has come to look seriously at introducing some form of personal identification or at least some attempt to cut down on this massive fraud in our community. These were fine words from Mr White but I wonder whether Mr White pressed the Opposition to support the Australia Card legislation. In 1984 there was a spate of support for a national identification system. On 8 June 1985, Mr Charles Blunt, the Opposition spokesman for social security, said in a Press release: . . . the introduction of a national identification system, using ID cards offered benefits to the Australian people which outweighed any civil liberties considerations. The use of plastic cards as a means of identification would streamline the collection of tax revenue, imposing greater accountability on that small minority who seek to evade their responsibilities to the community by not paying taxes . . . Identity cards were now used extensively for banking and other financial transactions and . . . no real infringement of civil liberties in their introduction . . . With the Government's White Paper on tax reform recommending the introduction of ID cards, there is now broad bipartisan support for this measure. It should therefore be implemented. Indeed, Mr Blunt, I believe that it should be implemented. I can quote from many members of the Opposition who support a national identification card. Included amongst these are the honourable member for Gilmore, Mr Sharp, the honourable member for Dawson in Queensland, Mr Braithwaite, Mr Jim Carlton in his role as shadow Treasurer and the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, Mr Ralph Hunt. The past comments of the Opposition members make interesting reading. Yesterday they were the champions of the taxpayers. Today they are the friends of someone else. Yet I feel compelled to remind the Senate of comments made by the temporary Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, when he was speaking on the television program Sunday on 15 September 1986. He said: I personally see some merit in having an ID card, providing the civil liberties concerns that people have voiced can be looked after and provided the Government can satisfy the community that there is some cost benefit in it. Now, I haven't gone overboard in supporting it, but, as a matter of principle, I think there's some merit in giving it favourable consideration . . . In referring to a possible inconsistency between supporting deregulation and support for the ID card, Mr Howard stated on the same program: I don't think there's any inconsistency . . . The United States has had a social security card for generations and yet the United States economy is the most deregulated economy in the world. I don't think there's any conflict at all. I just wonder what happened to the merit about which Mr Howard spoke. Did political opportunism again get in the way? Has he totally disregarded the comments of a well reported and senior Commonwealth public servant who felt so strongly about this matter that he bravely went public about the need for an identification system like the Australia Card? The Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Boucher, has the responsibility, amongst other things, to collect taxes on behalf of the Government. He sees his task and the task of his officers made far too difficult without what he called a `high integrity identification system'. On an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio program, AM, on 12 March this year Mr Boucher was asked whether he would be disappointed if the Australia Card legislation was not passed. He replied: If there is to be an effective attack on evasion practices throughout the community there must be in some form a high integrity identification system. When asked why this was so, Mr Boucher remarked: In order to be able, with the aid of computers, to secure a flow of information and to match that information against taxpayer records to relate it to particular taxpayers. Finally, on that program Mr Boucher said: As a tax administrator I would have to say that anyone who opposes the use of an appropriate high integrity . . . identification system, for tax purposes is putting a fetter on tax administration. I agree wholeheartedly with these comments and so, too, does a sizable majority of Australians. Without a high integrity identification system-and I remember seeing Mr Boucher remark on television that he had seen none better than the Australia Card-those who want to run the race of tax fraud will have one less significant hurdle to jump. So far my comments have assumed the need for the Australia Card Bill. In this respect it is pertinent to mention that a key aim is to provide a major weapon to counter tax evasion. The most conservative estimate put forward by the Australian Taxation Office of revenue gains under the Australia Card program is $724m a year, and that does not take account of additional taxes and penalties which would arise where omissions of income have been detected, nor does it take account of amendments to prior returns. Even the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card considered that those two factors, that is, the additional taxes and the amendments to prior returns, together with an acknowledgment that the estimates of evasion and, therefore, the estimates of benefits were extremely low, could more than double the revenue gains to the Government from this legislation. The existence of tax evasion in this country is indisputable. According to the 1984-85 annual report of the Commissioner of Taxation, in the financial year ended June 1984, 57,000 taxpayers were found to have underestimated their income by a total of more than $470m. In the following year nearly 66,000 taxpayers understated their income, by a total of $472m. If these amounts can be detected through the efforts of the Taxation Office without the Australia Card, it is not surprising that estimates of tax savings under the Australia Card program of $4.1 billion over the first 10 years are considered conservative. With total costs over the same period of far less than $1 billion, it would be clearly ludicrous to claim that the program would not be cost effective. The Australia Card program is expected to return $5.37 for every $1 spent. Over the first 10 years it will provide net benefits of $4.7 billion, after costs of $759m. The benefits figure includes gross benefits of $4.1 billion in savings in taxation revenue and $1.4 billion in savings by the Health Insurance Commission, the Department of Social Security and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. With regard to fraudulent claims against the social security system, there is no need to stress that the Opposition often refers to social security fraud, rather than tax evasion, when referring to a national identification system. It would be foolish in the extreme to suggest that social security fraud is not a serious problem and one which has to be tackled with vigour. It is my opinion that social security fraud pales in significance when compared with tax evasion, but that does not mean that the Australia Card would limit the opportunities for a great deal of social security fraud and, therefore, the fraud itself. I cannot understand that some of those who rightly highlight that fraud occurs in this area steadfastly refuse to endorse the Australia Card legislation. Only a short time ago the National Party member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) used a new form of arithmetic to suggest that $2 billion has been lost to the Hawke Government because of the unemployment benefit fraud. His figures were based on totally incorrect assumptions and the $2 billion suggestion is false, yet this person, who previously supported the use of an identification system, now steadfastly refuses to endorse the principle of the card. His concern for abuse of the social security system is phoney. There are other aspects of the debate on this matter which are worth pursuing, including the disgraceful suggestion that attempts could be made to forge the Australia Card, but I will leave those arguments for another time. At this stage I reiterate that the legislation is essential if the public purse is to be protected from plunder. Tax evasion and social security fraud are obviously regarded by some Opposition members as harmless national pastimes. Quite correctly, the Australian public does not concur with this action. I remind those who would vote against this legislation of the words of the Courier-Mail that `they can hardly wonder if they are to be characterised later as the friends of tax and social security cheats'. That is indeed how they will be characterised. I support this Bill and urge other senators to do the same. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(10.14) — Privacy is not a luxury or some indulgence; it is basic to our liberty. Not even the Government can invade our privacy without some lawful or reasonable excuse. In a free society such as we have in Australia it is the people who scrutinise the Government, not the other way around. This is why we have elections with secret ballots, maximum terms for governments, an independent judiciary, the reserve powers of the Crown, freedom of the Press, and the Constitution. All those instruments are there to limit the powers of government. It has taken us 2,000 years to get to the stage where we can guarantee those rights and freedoms. On the other hand, governments work in the opposite direction, always trying to expand their powers and influence. Successive Federal governments have been doing this for some years and the machinery by which they have tried to do that has been various referenda to decrease the power of the Senate and increase the power of the Prime Minister and the Executive. They have tried using various constitutional commissions to attack the rules by which we live. They have tried what I call abuse of the treaty power whereby they sign some international treaty and then think that that gives them the power to bypass the people of Australia and the Australian Constitution in working their will on the people. This numbering card is just another part of the package of concerted attack on the privacy and rights of the people of Australia. Senator Aulich —But this Government does not steal people's letters from the Tax Office. Senator SHEIL —That just shows us that we cannot guarantee privacy within the Public Service. That is what I am pointing out. A number for all of us would give the bureaucracy and the snoopers and bovver boys enormous power over us. A number for all of us would destroy our privacy, as the power of information over people is the power of blackmail. Socialists deny the right of privacy. Of course, that is a comment by the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, which has been quoted tonight many times. He is the man who will be put in charge of running this system. Incidentally, he has been running the Medicare card; I believe 20,000 of them are running wild in the country at the moment and heaven knows how many have been lost overseas. He particularly denies the right of privacy to us. He says that, if the right does exist, it is some sort of bourgeois right that is akin to the right of private property and therefore to be decried and denied. This is the exact opposite to what should exist in a free country like Australia. As I said before, privacy is essential to our freedom. If one looks at socialist governments, and this is one-- Senator Aulich —Does it happen in South Africa? Senator SHEIL —Honourable senators opposite insisted that South Africa give up the identity card for the blacks to give the blacks more freedom. Now they are bringing in an identity card for Australia. Is that to give us more freedom? No, it is to take it off us. So their argument falls to the ground. All socialist governments, including this one, operate in secrecy. They want to have maximum exposure, delving into the affairs of the people while they, in a close knit, iron circle fashion, operate in secrecy. On the other hand, the coalition takes exactly the opposite view. We want open government. We have freedom of information legislation, ombudsmen and administrative appeals tribunals so that we can get at government, so we can open government up. It is free societies that strive for open government and the rule of law. The numbering system eventually-even from its inception-will break into the innermost secrets of people. It will get at our hopes, our fears, our dreams and even those things we do not want to share. All of us live behind some sort of screen, and this screen can be torn from us by a numbered identity card, by selective exposure and by forced exposure, which is what the Government will be able to institute. Only the gravest social need could ever justify the exposure of personal privacy. There are two parts to this Australia Card issue. People have concentrated on only one. They have been concentrating on the card side of it all. When this issue started it involved a numbering system called NINS-the national identity numbering system. It was realised that people would wake up to the danger of having a number attached to them. In the debate tonight members of the Government have brought up the fact that we have lots of plastic cards available to us at the moment. We have credit cards, club cards and driving licences, and they are all numbered and they do not upset us. But the important thing about those cards is that the number belongs to the card. One can have any number of credit cards but it is the cards that have the numbers, not the person. But with the national identity card the number belongs to the person. That person can be traced anywhere through his affairs. They are an open book to the Government, but not to anyone else, apparently. Honourable senators opposite seem to think that because the Government is the holder of all the information things are safe, but governments are the greatest robbers on earth of human rights. Why should we trust government to have all that information and to keep it private to government? So I see the number as the important thing, not so much the card itself. Of course, to make the card attractive to us the Government has dressed it up and coloured it green and gold to appeal to our patriotism. It has taken the number out of the heading for it. It has taken the photograph off it to make it more appealing. But, of course, the Government does not need a photograph if it has a number, because the number can be used to trace any part of one's activities at any time. To make it even more palatable the Government has put a supposedly non-threatening organisation, the Health Insurance Commission, in charge of it. The Health Insurance Commission is a threatening organisation and, of course, the gentleman running it at the moment is a most threatening man. The Government wants the number introduced because, although it has an awful lot of information about us at the moment scattered about in various data bases in the different departments, these data bases cannot talk to each other. If we are given a number the data bases can talk to each other, and with computer linkage of these data bases the Government will not need a big central register. In fact, I think the Minister for Health has mentioned that there will be no need for a big central data base. That is quite true because, once we are all numbered, at the flick of a switch any one of those remote data bases in any department can be accessed for the information that is wanted about us. We have heard that a number of departments are recommended to have initial access to this card. I do not know whether they will have immediate access. They are the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the Department of Social Security, the Australian Taxation Office, and the list goes on and on. There will be nothing but danger in giving all the information to the Government. The key to unlocking it is the number on our identification cards. As I see it, this identity card will make mincemeat of us to feed to the fat cats in the bureaucracy, and I can just see them slavering in their lairs waiting for this Bill to go through. Fortunately, with the good sense of honourable senators, we will knock it out because, as has been mentioned here, it is one of the really great threats to our privacy and to our freedom. To mention the experience of countries overseas, about four or five have identity systems. Sweden has one-that Valhalla of the socialists that has been cited to us in the Senate time and again as the utopia we should follow. France has such a system; the United States of America has been mentioned; and Italy also has such a system. All those countries have the most exuberant underground economies one could imagine. Up to 30 per cent of their gross national product is in underground economies. So there is no reason to think that the identity card will stop tax avoidance here in Australia. In fact, I think it could start a whole spate of legal tax avoidance. The easiest way to avoid paying tax, of course, is not to earn money. Senator Brownhill —Or don't put your return in, like the Treasurer. Senator SHEIL —Yes, but one can be had up for that unless one is the Treasurer. He gets nice letters; other people do not. People now do extra work to earn extra money to live. If they have a card and cannot earn more money they simply will not work. That has happened in the United Kingdom. Also in the United Kingdom people have started providing their own goods and services; they grow their own vegetables. A recent estimate is that 51 per cent of the productive work time in Great Britain is spent-- Senator Aulich —Growing vegetables. Senator SHEIL —Growing vegetables and providing their own goods and services. It is an awful waste. The argument that it will bring out the underground economy falls to the ground, too. I do not wish to waste much time talking about welfare fraud. I think it has been demonstrated quite clearly tonight in the debate that identity problems represent about one per cent of welfare fraud in Australia. To think that we should enslave ourselves to a national numbering system because of that when it could quite easily be rectified by tightening the services in the welfare area is a misuse of the terminology `welfare fraud'. Identification is not the big problem that Government senators have been saying it is. With regard to the immigration problem, the United States of America has identity cards, such as social security cards. It also has work permits. At the moment there is an enormous industry in forging these cards. They are freely on sale. Over the border, in Tijuana, one can get social security cards or work permits. If we were to introduce the Australia Card many factories would gear up and start producing forgeries. Senator Michael Baume —You can get them only if you have the brass. Senator SHEIL —That is right. Senator Short —Create a new industry. Senator SHEIL —Yes, a whole new industry. We would open up new vistas for criminals and bureaucratic crimes with the introduction of the Australia Card numbering system. The immigration argument also falls to the ground without really adding anything to the evidence to support the introduction of the card. It is supposed to stop a fair amount of criminal activity but, even if it did stop any criminal activity, it certainly would generate much more. With regard to transactions and the like, the higher the integrity of the card the greater the risk of forgery and impersonation. The more people accept that the card is a sure-fire way of identifying people, the more value it will be to the criminal element. One has only to realise that if a number appears on bank accounts or cheques it will be very easy for somebody to correlate a name with a number and then impersonate the holder of a card. No one would feel safe with the number any more. We are asked to trust the bureaucracy. We have had examples in Australia already of the dangers of that. One of them has been cited in the debate tonight, and that was the misuse of information from the Taxation Office in the Greek conspiracy case, when information was used to target directly certain doctors. Another case, of which no one seems to have taken much notice but which horrified me, is the fact that the entire microfiche records for Victoria in the Department of Social Security were stolen from the Department. They were later recovered, but they were gone for a week or more. Things like that must be inside jobs. That is why I say we cannot trust the bureaucracy; corruption will occur with the use of the card. From experience gained in countries such as the United States, Sweden, France and Italy which have exuberant economies, in the tax evasion area, it is clear that the people revolt when the taxes are too high or, as would be the case here, when the surveillance is so high that they cannot earn enough money to support their families. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! Pursuant to order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.30) —What a pleasant surprise to see you, Mr President, and all of us here today. At present we are theoretically doing what we can in Australia to stimulate exports, to help this nation out of a serious balance of payments problem. I say theoretically because some aspects of government seem to be doing their darndest to prevent Australians from exporting and earning export income. I have received a letter from an old friend who lives in Lawrence, in northern New South Wales. I will briefly outline the problem he has. It is a problem that relates to the ludicrous and expanding bureaucracy which is choking off in this particular situation the prospects of earning export income. Rather than incorporate this letter, parts of which are private, I will read elements of it so that the Senate will get an idea of what the problem is. The letter states: We own a 2,500 acre freehold property on the North Coast on which grow the common Banksias in weed proportions. They flower prolifically and the blooms are all going to waste. Knowing that they appeal strongly to overseas people, in July 1984-2 1/2 years ago-we asked permission of the National Parks and Wildlife, Canberra, to export Banksia blooms; not the plants or seeds, just the flowers. We were told that because they were self sown (``in the wild'') no export would be allowed without a Government controlled ``management program''. If artificially propagated, such a program is not required but an export licence still is! After more correspondence, they told us in April 1985- that is going from July 1984 to April 1985- that they were ``now consulting'' with N.S.W. National Parks and Wildlife. Not hearing anything further for 4 months, we wrote to Neville Wran on 2nd September 1985 asking for help. We heard from Wran on 17th Sept. 1985- he replies more quickly than the Federal authorities- saying that he had passed our letter on to Minister Bob Carr. Bob Carr wrote on December 1985 that the N.S.W. authorities had advised Canberra that they had no objections to the export of our Banksia blooms. After 17 months he reached the situation where the New South Wales authorities had no objection. That is made clear in the letter dated 24 February 1986 received by my friend from Professor J. D. Ovington, the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, saying that he had been advised by the National Parks and Wildlife Service in New South Wales that it had no objection to the export of flowers of species of banksia propagated or occurring on my friend's property. After 17 months that was the situation. In the letter of 24 February 1986 from Canberra the organisation that Professor Ovington leads stated that it wanted my friend to give an indication of the proposed quantities of each species to be picked, the area from which flowers were to be taken and the proportion of available flowers that would be left after harvesting. This was after the New South Wales authorities had said that it was fine, to go ahead, as there were no objections. The letter goes on: All this when (1) we haven't the faintest idea of how many bushes we have-they are impossible to count over 2,500 acres, and (2) Banksias flower over a 6 to 7 months period and in that time can produce over 50 blooms per bush. Also we are surrounded by National Parks which have literally millions of Banksia bushes so why on earth is this information required. To try and sort out this nonsense in April 1986 we took the trouble to visit the powers that be in Canberra. After much discussion with three people in conference, we made another written submission in May 1986. To date, 7 months later, we have not had even the courtesy of an acknowledgment. Two small cheques have met the same fate. As the key to this mess seems to be the magic words ``in the wild'' we are now knocking down mature Banksia bushes and replacing them with artificially propagated plants-we have produced 4,000 so far. Having been planted in rows they will be easier to harvest but it's just a pity that Banksias take 4 to 5 years to flower. We could have exported samples in 1984. We could have started an export industry in 1985 (from Feb. to Aug. when they flower) and also in 1986. The way things are going, we are going to miss out on 1987 as well. Not only have we missed out on export income but there would have been a need for pickers and planters etc. etc.- clearly jobs have been lost- There can be no excuse for this. The Banksias we produce are by no means protected . . . they are extremely common. Banksia seeds can be bought on the Chicago U.S. market. And our land is freehold. There is no need for this Federal body, it is purely a duplicate of the State bodies and it seems to be getting bigger. And the blooms? They are still going to waste-and picking and pruning does the bush the world of good. Here we have a classic example of how Federal bureaucracy, Federal intervention, is destroying the capacity of someone to earn export income for Australia, to provide jobs for Australians and to assist Australia out of the difficult situation it is in. I could not agree more. It is absolutely ludicrous that after the State instrumentality concerned, the National Parks and Wildlife Service of New South Wales, said that it had no objection on 30 April 1985 we are still, in December 1986, having a Federal bureaucracy mucking around asking damn fool questions and preventing these people from exporting. I plead with the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) to take up this matter with the appropriate Minister in his Government. This is the sort of thing that not only makes Australia a laughing stock but also explains one of the reasons why we are not exporting the way we should. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.37) —I would like briefly to take the time of the Senate to raise two quite distinct issues; I will try not to take too much time on either. One issue relates to the Government's attitudes towards the staff of the now abolished Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs and the other relates to transit security arrangements applying in Australia. On the first issue, the Government, as we are all aware, earlier this year announced the abolition of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. That was done on 12 August when, in the context of a statement on the new Federal strategy for multiculturalism, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Hurford, stated: I am particularly concerned that the expertise of AIMA which has served the cause of multiculturalism with dedication and skill should not be lost. Subsequently on 13 August the Minister sent the following telex to the Director of the Institute, copies of which were given to the staff of the Institute: Would you please accept yourself- that is, the Director- and convey to your colleagues on the staff of AIMA my deep regret at the personal inconvenience caused by the Government's difficult decision to wind down the Institute. You have all worked hard for the cause of multiculturalism. I and the Government appreciate your dedication very much indeed. We shall continue to pursue the cause-you can rest assured about that. If there is anything I or my private office can do to seek to enlist the help of Government to ease the pain on a personal basis would you please let me know. In response to that seemingly sympathetic telex from the Minister, Mr Hurford, both the Professional Officers Association and the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association sent a telex the same day, that is 13 August, to Mr Hurford which sought firstly deferral on the decision until the Jupp Review of Migrant and Multicultural Programs was released, public comment was sought and proper consultations had taken place. Secondly, it sought advice on how the Government intended to retain the expertise of AIMA, given that the staff were to be retrenched. No reply was ever sent to that telex from the associations, although Mr Hurford did reply to a later telex from the POA, noting that some matters to do with the nature of the redundancy package would be referred to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and that some positions in Victoria would be open to applications by persons outside the Public Service. That situation related to quite a significant number of very skilled, very professional and very dedicated people. On 30 September there were still 33 staff remaining at the Institute of Multicultural Affairs. They were served with notice of termination or notice of redundancy, as appropriate. Various staff have left and others are still unemployed. The situation has been fluid over the period since 30 September. From 2 December the situation was as follows: There were still 14 staff at the AIMA-five had sought immediate retrenchment but their departure was deferred; eight were working out their notice of redundancy and one had a contract expiring at the end of the year. Whilst actively seeking work, not one of these 14 people have secured alternative employment. Of the 19 staff who have left since 30 September, one who was previously on maternity leave has left again on maternity leave; one has set up his own business; two are travelling, eventually overseas, for some time before seeking work; four have found employment, although in one case for one year only; three are doing casual work while seeking permanent employment; and eight remain unemployed. The reason why I raise this matter tonight is that whilst the Liberal and National parties did not oppose the Government's decision to close the Institute of Multicultural Affairs, we were very concerned indeed to ensure that the Government did take full account of the needs of ethnic communities in Australia and full account of the need to replace the Institute with other appropriate arrangements. It is very significant that, since the Government announced the establishment of a separate unit to look after the issues that were dealt with by the Institute of Multicultural Affairs, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has shown such a total lack of confidence in his Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that he has located that unit in his own Department. The point I really want to make tonight is that the Government has displayed an enormous lack of concern for human beings who were recruited and employed in good faith. They took jobs 18 months ago and longer when the Government assured them of a future with the Institute of Multicultural Affairs. With the sudden, dramatic and traumatic closure of that Institute one would surely, in normal circumstances and on normal personnel management grounds, have expected a sympathetic response and at least a supportive response from the government of the day. The Chairman of the Multicultural Institute-he was the Chairman until last week when the Institute had its last council meeting-Archbishop David Penman said: The hard-heartedness and lack of care for the many members now out of work has been distressing in the extreme. They are a fine group of people and have deserved far more than they have received through these recent decisions. The fact that neither the Chairman nor the members of the Institute have received any contact whatsoever from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on matters affecting their future since the time of the announcement in August, I believe, is to be totally deplored. The second issue I wish to raise is in many ways more serious. It relates to the security arrangements affecting Australia so far as the entry into, exit from and transit through Australia of certain persons are concerned. The toing and froing that went on in the corridors of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs over the transit of eight South Pacific islanders on their way to Libya last month raises a number of very serious and important questions. According to an Australian Broadcasting Corporation report on 12 November the eight who were refused transit entry were on their way to be trained as bodyguards for top Vanuatu Government officials. This has been interpreted by many, including me, to mean that the eight were almost certainly on their way to Libya for terrorist training. Given the actions of Libya over many years in terms of fermenting instability in our region of the world and elsewhere, this is not an unreasonable interpretation. The refusal of transit on 11 November appeared to be possibly interpretable that at long last this Government had adopted a tough policy regarding allowing radical political agitators transit facilities through Australia. Could it have been, for example, that the upper echelons in the Australian Labor Party have realised that links forged between our South Pacific neighbours of the likes of Father Walter Lini's Vanuatu with Libya and the Soviet Union are damaging to the long term security interests of Australia? However, hopes that the Hawke Labor Government had overturned the attempt by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) to liberalise the entry of people under the `controversial visitors program' were dashed when it was subsequently reported that the eight islanders were allowed transit through Australia the second time around, and that only two days after the original decision to refuse transit. An article entitled `Pacific Delegation to Libya Obstructed' appearing in the socialist newspaper Direct Action reported that `the Australian authorities were forced to allow the eight islanders through' on 15 November. Forced to allow them through-what could that mean? The question that this apparent about-turn by the Australian Government raises is: Why did the Government change its mind? Why did the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs refuse transit first time around when the group produced the necessary documents to show their travel arrangements 24 hours after they had been requested to do so? Why, only two days later, were transit rights allowed? After the visit in September this year by Mysoon Shaath, the Palestine Liberation Organisation activist, and, more recently, in November by Abdul Akhbar Mahammad, the radical anti-white racist preacher whose visits caused so much controversy, Australians were alerted to the weak security arrangements within the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and to the serious lack of co-ordination and co-operation between that Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs. In the case of Mr Mahammad, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the responsible Minister were unaware of that gentleman's presence in the country. In fact, the responsible Minister, Mr Hurford, explicitly informed the Parliament that Mr Mahammad would be refused entry into Australia. The following day he appeared on the Ray Martin Show advocating violence as a legitimate political weapon. This, as I have said, followed the visit to Australia of PLO activist Mysoon Shaath in September. The Department of Foreign Affairs knew of that visit, but the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs did not. The growing alliance between Vanuatu and Libya and the Soviet Union has made our region less safe, particularly from the terrorist activities of Libya's Colonel Gaddafi. If there is a friend that Australia does not need, surely it is Colonel Gaddafi. Yet only three months ago the self-acknowledged nazi and the leader of the so-called Australian People's Congress, Robert Pash, led a delegation to Vanuatu, all in the name of developing fraternal relations with Vanuatu's ruling Party the Vanuatu Party. It should be noted that it was Mr Pash's Australian People's Congress, which organised Mr Akhbar Mahammad's recent visit to Australia. Was, or is, the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of the activities of the Australian People's Congress and its attempts to forge links with Vanuatu and Libya with Mr Pash's recent visit to Vanuatu? The visits to Australia over recent months of people who have well-known links with terrorist organisations raise very serious doubts about the Hawke Government's concern for security arrangements. These doubts are held by very many Australians. They need a response from this Government. I specifically ask the Government, through the Minister at the table, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who is showing splendid inattention to this very serious matter, for answers to the following questions: One: Did the Government refuse transit to eight Pacific Islanders en route to Libya in early November? Two: Did the Government subsequently allow the eight transit facilities? Three: If so, why did the Government reverse its original decision? Four: Was the Government told that if it did not provide transit facilities `a diplomatic incident' would occur? Five: Is the Government aware of the existence in Australia of the Australian People's Congress and of its activities? Six: Is the Government satisfied with the overall security arrangements applying in Australia? Are we sure that Australia is not being used as a base from which to generate political instability within our region? If we are not sure, I very strongly demand that the Government lift its game immediately in the interest of Australia and of its citizens, because there is no more important function and role of government, surely, than to do all it can to protect the security of its citizens. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(10.53) —Mr President, my remarks are directed to you. I have been here for some time, so you will excuse me if I reflect upon the past. In doing so, may I confess to an impression that we run here a two-ring circus, one here and one in the other place, and the members are merely the performing animals. Senator Brownhill —Animal welfare. Senator GEORGES —No, just the performing animals. We perform a function here, to keep the place running, and surrounding us is a whole group of people who really direct the destiny of the Parliament by the decisions that they make. This concerns me. I resent being taken for granted. I want to express my resentment now. I find it very difficult to accept the information that seems to percolate through, that is transmitted around the corridors, that certain organisational changes are taking place within the Parliament which will affect the status of this House, the Senate. They may be minor changes, but to my mind they affect the status of the Senate. We have a bicameral system; we have a Senate and a House of Representatives-not, as many people believe, a lower House and an upper House, although there are many here who would make decisions, and who have made decisions, which might give one the impression that it is otherwise. Nevertheless, we have a bicameral system, which is a very effective system in the Westminster mode. In fact, it might be an improvement on the Westminster style of government. I do object to any decision being taken by the executive of the Senate or the executive of the House of Representatives, through the Presiding Officers, without the Parliament being aware of those changes which may affect the status of this House. It may be that, because of the frustration of being here an extra day, I have misinterpreted the rather bemused information I have received today. It seems to me that in the recess, while the Parliament is not sitting, certain decisions will be taken which will affect the status of this House. Certain decisions will be taken in regard to the organisation of the Parliament which will affect the position of the Senate. I do not want in any way to give the impression that I am angry, because I very seldom get angry in this place, but I am disturbed that decisions can be taken without the Parliament or the Senate being aware of them. Senator Gareth Evans —What are you talking about? Senator GEORGES —What I am about to get to-- Senator Gareth Evans —It is a very elaborate preamble. Senator GEORGES —It is a very elaborate introduction to it. Senator Gareth Evans —Invoking the shame of Jim Odgers and God knows what else. Senator GEORGES —Yes, but I want to ask the President whether there is some reorganisation taking place which will affect the status of the attendants. Is it the intention of the executive, through the Presiding Officers, to alter the organisation of the Parliament? Is there a move which will bring the attendants under one supervision? Is it the intention of the executive to place the attendants in the position where they will serve both Houses of the Parliament? Is there not to be a separation between those who attend to us in this place and those who attend to members of the House of Representatives? Although it might be only a minor change which will serve the convenience of some people, nevertheless, fundamentally it is an important change. If the attendants who serve us in this chamber are to be interchangeable with the attendants who serve the House of Representatives, a step will have been taken which will affect the position of the Senate. Senator Gareth Evans —Not before time too. Senator GEORGES —I know what Senator Gareth Evans's view is. Senator Gareth Evans —I thought it was your view too. Senator GEORGES —It is not quite. Senator Gareth Evans —You have done a bit of backsliding over the last 10 years. Senator GEORGES —I might have done a bit of backsliding over the last 10 years. That backsliding might not have taken place-this might become evident over the next two days-but for the arrogance of the Executive and the failure to recognise the rights of members of parliament. It seems to me that the rights of members of parliament are now being diminished and that the executives are all powerful, whether they be the executives of the Government or the executives of the Parliament. It seems to me that they have taken the position where the rights of members are being considerably diminished. Let me say to Senator Gareth Evans that if I have backslid, I have backslid because of the view that back benchers like myself have no role to play in this place. It might be because back benchers like myself find themselves with no role to play in the Party they have served for so long. Maybe that is the reason why I have backslid in some way. It seems to come strangely from a person like Senator Gareth Evans, who for so long has taken an independent view, that a senator should be completely subservient to the powers within his own Party upon which he depends for his own advancement. There may be a bit of bitterness in what I say. Senator Gareth Evans —It may be improving the job satisfaction of the attendants if they did have a bit of diversity. Putting up with this lot in here would make anyone go crazy, wouldn't it? Senator GEORGES —Yes. Let us just explain what happens in this place and the process through which one goes, having moved from a point of absolute loyalty to a point of doubt. Senator Evans has raised a question that reflects upon the attitudes that we take in this place when back benchers are completely ignored. Let us forget about back benchers of a political party which for the time being finds itself in government and let us take a look at the position of members of this Parliament who suddenly find that decisions are being made without any consultation-decisions which can affect the Parliament, either rightly or wrongly. Let us say that these are the right decisions, but nevertheless they are being taken without the knowledge of the Parliament. I am just asking whether the President is prepared to make a statement to the House which indicates what decisions have been made which will affect the whole structure of this Parliament and which will, in effect, diminish the status of the Senate in relation to the House of Representatives. I see that the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Evans, is shaking his head. Perhaps he is puzzled by the position I am taking. Senator Gareth Evans —You are being cantankerous and reactionary, George, and you are not a cantankerous and reactionary person. Senator GEORGES —No, I am not reactionary; I react to decisions or procedures which are not consultative, procedures which one might even consider to be undemocratic. I served on the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House, and one might wonder why I was on it. Senator Gareth Evans —You were a very distinguished member of that Committee. Senator GEORGES —Oh yes, for a short time. I was there for a purpose and that purpose was to frustrate an attempt on the part of the Executive of the Parliament to separate the Executive from the rest of the Parliament. Certain physical changes were to take place in the new Parliament House which would separate the Executive and put it under different security and attendant arrangements, and which would prevent the ordinary member from having easy and free access to the Executive, to the Ministry. We frustrated that because we insisted that the whole of the Parliament, including the Executive, should come under the control of the Presiding Officers because we put our complete trust in the Presiding Officers to protect the rights of the members and the Houses they represent. What troubles me about what is happening at the moment is that certain subtle changes are taking place which will affect the position of the two Houses. Senator Evans, if he wishes, can come to the conclusion that Australian Labor Party policy is for the abolition of the Senate, but we have moved away from that and it is no longer our policy. We have moved away from it because we have started to realise that complete control in one single House without a supporting committee system could be to the detriment of fair and good government. We have accepted that the Senate has a role. If Senator Evans does not think that the Senate has a role, he should not be troubled by what is happening. I am concerned about the role of the Senate because, in the time that I have been here-perhaps I have been too close to the Senate-I have started to appreciate the role that this chamber can play in the bicameral system and I am offended by any attempt to change that. I am saying that the system is to be changed and I object to the fact that it will be done in the recess. It will be done without the members of Parliament knowing. We will come back here and we will find out that there is no separation between the Senate and the House of Representatives. Suddenly we will find that a decision of the Executive will mean that all attendants in this place will come under one line of supervision and control. We will find, when we come back after the recess, that all the attendants will be interchangeable. I might be incorrect in saying that but I think we will find that all the attendants, be they House of Representatives or Senate attendants, will be dressed alike. That may be a small change but it is a fundamental change-- Senator Gareth Evans —An insignificant change. Senator GEORGES —The Minister says that it is an insignificant change. It may be insignificant in his mind-- Senator Gareth Evans —I do not know whether it is happening or not. Senator GEORGES —Yes, but there is a change-- Senator Gareth Evans —Why don't you ask the attendants whether they like it or not? Maybe they would like more job satisfaction. Senator GEORGES —Maybe they would, maybe they would like an increase in pay. Maybe the Government is not prepared to give them an increase in pay unless they accept certain changed conditions. To Senator Evans it might be insignificant; to me it might not be insignificant. But the crux of the matter is that changes are taking place without our being aware, without members being told or informed. I get back to the fact that this is merely a small ring circus with the larger ring circus elsewhere. We are the performing animals that go through various functions but we are kept in the dark and we are fed fertiliser. Trivial as it may seem, I believe this matter to be important. I suggest that the President take the opportunity to respond and to inform us whether any changes are taking place and if those decisions have been made why we were not informed beforehand. I object to the subtle way in which decisions have been made in this place which have led us to a position of being over secure. I have argued on this matter on other occasions. I object to older people coming through this place and having to be searched. I have said for years that it is not necessary. There are times when increased security may have to be applied but let it be applied downstairs with the sophisticated surveillance instruments that we have. But it is objectionable not only to people concerned but also to certain members of the Senate that people have to be searched before they come into the galleries. I have objected but we are now conditioned to it. Now I am objecting to this change. Eventually we may become conditioned to it, but I object to it now. I put on record that I object to changes taking place here by Executive decision without parliamentarians being properly informed. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(11.07) —I rise briefly to pay tribute to Miss Catherine Weigall, who is the longest serving member of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. She is due to retire on 19 December. In an article in today's Australian Financial Review she makes certain remarks about the ownership rules brought in by the Government. She has expressed some reservations on the way the new media ownership guidelines have been formulated. Apparently, she said-I quote from the article: . . . the problem with a Government department and minister making decisions so relevant to the community was the lack of public input. ``The media is such a basic thing in everyone's lives that such decisions ought to be open. ``There oughtn't to be the possibility of pressures behind closed doors and public confidence would be greater if there was an avenue of appeal. ``No-one knows on what information the decision-makers are acting and that is not the best or most democratic way to make such important decisions.'' I believe that we should take some note of what is said by somebody who has served the Tribunal since 17 April 1980, who is to retire on 19 December and who has some experience in this area. I wish to thank Miss Weigall for the work she has done for Australian broadcasting and to bring to the notice of the Senate and the Government the remarks she has made concerning the process of open government and the process that is necessary in making open decisions about media ownership. I thank Miss Weigall for her service to the community on the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.10) —I am sure that relevant Ministers will take on board the comments that have been made about their respective portfolios. I do not know whether, Mr President, you wish to comment on the matters raised by Senator Georges. I shall leave that to your judgment. The PRESIDENT —I will look at and consider what Senator Georges has said tonight. As I understand it, all arrangements that have been made to date between officers of the Parliament representing the Presiding Officers and the attendants have been made as a result of discussions with the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union and the Australian Public Service Association, the two unions which represent the body of attendants in the Parliament. Extensive consultations have also been held with the staff concerned. The Presiding Officers have decided to streamline the organisation of parliamentary attendants. Where within the existing Parliament there are three bodies of attendants-the Senate attendants, the House of Representatives attendants and the Joint House attendants-we have decided that half the Joint House attendants should go to the Senate and half to the House of Representatives. We are reducing the responsibilities for security and other attendant duties from being carried by three departments to two. In view of the number of people who will have to be employed in the new Parliament House the existing arrangements in this provisional Parliament House cannot be transposed into the new Parliament House because the cost would be astronomical and the public would not bear it. As responsible Presiding Officers we have just had to have a look at the situation. As I understand it, the functions and salary levels and so on of all staff concerned will be maintained as they are at present. As I understand it, the staff have already been advised and are aware of which department they will go to. As I have said, the streamlining is to bring about some increased efficiency, bearing in mind that within 18 months we will have to move from this provisional Parliament House to the new Parliament House, to eliminate duplication of services and to prepare a base for a more cost-effective security arrangement not only in this House but also in the new Parliament House. As I have said, all discussions that have taken place so far have taken place with officials of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union and the Australian Public Service Association. If I remember correctly, further discussions are to take place either on Thursday or on Friday of this week between officers of the Parliament and officials of the Australian Public Service Association. As I understand it, all attendants are now being trained in security arrangements. The time has arrived when the Parliament has to look at its overall cost structure and efficiency. The Government has announced that it has established an efficiency unit to look at all aspects of the Australian Public Service. I believe it has been the responsibility of the Presiding Officers-I accept full responsibility as President of the Senate-to have a look at the cost efficiency of the Australian Parliament. I have done it conscientiously and with the idea of improving the efficiency of and overall service to the Parliament. I do not think for one moment that the delivery of attendant and security services to senators and members will be impeded; I believe it will be considerably improved. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.14 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Fisheries Act-Fisheries Notice 1986 No. 181-Prohibition relating to the taking of prawns off Northern Australia. Public Service Act-Determination 1986 No. 87. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1398) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 25 September 1986: (1) What measures or options are available to the Australian Government, in view of the continuing and crippling trade marketing practices being conducted by the United States and the European Community in the field of agriculture to combat such practices. (2) What measures does the Australian Government envisage against the government of the United States and the member countries of the EC, unless the present marketing techniques being employed by both groups against each other and in particular against the interests of Australia and its primary producers, are stopped. Senator Button —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There is limited direct or effective leverage which Australia could apply with a view to bringing about fundamental changes in US and EC agricultural support and trade policies, which are the root cause of the aggressive subsidisation practices they are both employing in the hope of expanding their shares of world trade for their surpluses of major agricultural products. The present crisis in world agricultural trade is in large measure due to the lack of effective GATT rules affecting the agricultural sector, the refusal of sovereign governments to negotiate to liberalise trade in agriculture and, hence, to moderate the excesses of their domestic agricultural support and trade protectionist regimes. Over many years Australia has followed a firm policy of making strong representations to foreign governments on all issues likely to have detrimental consequences for our agricultural trade and has used the GATT processes to the fullest possible extent to defend our agricultural trade interests. This activity has been intensified over the last two years first by strengthening our representation at the GATT and in key overseas capitals and by escalating the frequency, strength and level of our formal representations to other governments on specific trade issues. Whenever a suitable opportunity or particular need has arisen to do so, I and other Ministers have put Australia's views and requests forcefully to other Governments. The Prime Minister has also taken up these matters personally with President Reagan and President Delors. In the last two years top priority has been given to our concerns about various aspects of the United States Food Security Act (1985) and the continuing slow pace of developments in the European Communities on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. In our preparations for, and during, the recent Punta del Este Ministerial meeting of GATT contracting parties, the Government has taken strong initiatives to ensure that these same issues will be addressed as priority concerns in the new round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. For example Australia was responsible for arrangements which resulted in the formation of the CAIRNS Group of fair traders in agriculture. At the Cairns Ministerial Meeting in August 1986 Ministers (or their representatives) from Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Fiji, Hungary, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, New Zealand, Thailand and Uruguay emphasised that the new round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations must address agricultural trade issues as a high priority; that there must be a serious and genuine attempt to seek the removal of market access barriers, substantial reductions in agricultural subsidies and the elimination of export subsidies; and that additional efforts were needed to secure early changes in the domestic farm support policies of those countries whose policies adversely affect international agricultural trade. The solidarity of the Cairns Group was a major factor in the successful launch of the new GATT round by the Ministerial meeting in Punta del Este in September. For the first time, agriculture will be dealt with comprehensively in the Round and all forms of subsidies affecting agricultural trade will be subject to negotiation. The strength of small and medium-sized agricultural exporters acting in concert has been clearly established and will be drawn on, as appropriate, in working for effective trade reform and for a better deal for farmers in efficient countries like Australia. In order to maintain the momentum for reform evident at Punta del Este, the Government has proposed that major agricultural subsidising nations freeze the levels of their subsidies affecting agricultural trade to establish a solid basis for international negotiations on agriculture. The EC has been receptive to this idea and the Government intends to urge the US Administration to join in this effort. Our immediate objective remains the creation of focused pressure on the majors for early progress on agriculture in the MTNs. We do not expect the cease fire to be a solution to the broad set of agricultural trade problems but, if it is in place, it should be easier to negotiate a framework for broader, more lasting solutions. To generate further support for the ceasefire, we intend to take follow-up action, for example, in the OECD, in the preparation for and discussions at the Taupo (NZ) meeting of trade ministers in March, and in the Cairns Group. We also intend to continue to press ahead with organising or supporting research into the production and trade policies of the majors, quantifying protection levels and assessing trade distortions and costs (both domestic and international) associated with subsidies and restrictions on access to markets. This type of work is potentially relevant in influencing attitudes to farm support in subsidising countries and in mobilising international pressure for more liberalised agriculture trade. The Government's basic aim remains to rollback subsidies (and phase out agricultural export subsidies) and to improve access to markets. (Question No. 1441) Senator Morris asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 14 October 1986: What consideration is given to the environmental impact of the proposal on the new site when considering funding for non-government schools classified as ``new'' on the basis of relocation. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The assessment of environmental impact of relocation of a school to a proposed site is the responsibility of the appropriate State and local government planning authorities. The Commonwealth does not therefore give consideration to the environmental impact when considering the eligibility of a relocating school for Commonwealth financial assistance. (Question No. 1446) Senator Brownhill asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: (1) Were 2 people detained at Sydney International Airport on Monday 14 September 1986 attempting to illegally import foreign birds. (2) What numbers and varieties of birds were involved. (3) What happened to those birds. (4) Have charges been laid against the 2 people involved; if so, under what legislation, and what are the charges. (5) If charges have not been laid, when are they to be laid; if none are forthcoming, why not. Senator Button —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes-2 people were intercepted on Monday which was 15 September 1986. (2) The birds were identified as: 2 x Pintail Wydah (Vidua Macroura), 4 x Red Crested Finches (Coryphospingus Cucullis), 2 x Paradise Wydah (Vidue Paradisea). (3) The birds were transferred to an officer of the Australian Quarantine Service for disposal. (4) A brief of evidence against both persons has been prepared and is under consideration with a view to laying charges under the Customs Act, the Quarantine Act and the Wildlife Protection Act. (5) See (4). (Question No. 1525) Senator Jessop asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 17 November 1986: (1) Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware of a recent report in the National Times on Sunday, of 12 October 1986, regarding a new technology designed to extract heat energy from Hot Dry Rock and has the Department received or requested details concerning the trial run Hot Dry Rock project at Los Alamos. (2) Does the Department intend to evaluate the recent Los Alamos experiment, and other Hot Dry Rock projects around the world, in order to determine whether this technology may become economically viable, and under what circumstances it would be economically viable. (3) Using present Hot Dry Rock technology how does this energy source compare with other energy sources such as coal, oil, nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal and solar, in terms of economics, the environment, availability and potential reserves. (4) Are there any areas in Australia which would be considered suitable for the exploitation of this Hot Dry Rock technology. (5) Are there any Hot Dry Rock projects planned for Australia, and is anybody working on this technology in this country. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The Hot Dry Rock (HDR) project being conducted by the Los Alamos National Laboratory is one of a number of international collaborative energy R & D projects being undertaken under the auspices of the International Energy Agency (IEA). Australia has access to progress reports on the project. (3) Present indications from the Los Alamos work are that by 1988 it should be possible to establish finally whether high temperature HDR energy systems are technically feasible in volcanic regions such as those occurring in New Mexico. At this stage it is not possible to make definitive cost projections for electricity produced from such plants. However, current indications from the UK are that HDR plants will not be capable of producing electricity at costs competitive with those of Australian coal-fired power plants. In view of Australia's vast reserves of low cost coal, it would appear that HDR technology will have little relevance to Australia in the foreseeable future. (4) On economic grounds the answer is no. (5) My Department is not aware of any HDR research projects currently being undertaken in Australia. Given the state of the technology, it is premature to undertake extensive assessment of Australian resources until it becomes apparent whether the technology can be commercially employed. However, there are real prospects for using Australia's geothermal water resources in regions of Australia remote from the major electricity grids. Communities and homesteads located in such areas are reliant upon a high cost electricity supply provided by diesel generators. Last month I awarded a grant of $573,000 to Enreco Pty Ltd, a company based in Alice Springs and Adelaide, to install a geothermal power plant at Birdsville in western Queensland. Water, which is discharged from the town's artesian bore at a temperature of 99*C, will be used to operate a 120kW heat engine developed by the company. The text of my Press Statement on the project follows: ``The Commonwealth Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, QC, has announced a grant of $573,000 to an Alice Springs company, Enreco Pty Ltd, to harness the Birdsville artesian water supply to meet the town's electricity requirements. Water, which is discharged from the artesian bore at a temperature of 99*C, will be used to operate a 120kW organic rankine cycle heat engine. ``For many isolated Australian communities relying on diesel generators for their electricity, hot artesian bores used in conjunction with organic rankine cycle heat engines could represent an economic alternative. ``These heat engines can also be used with other low grade sources of heat and a prototype of the Enreco heat engine is being used to produce electricity from a solar pond in Alice Springs. ``The installation at Birdsville, which will be only the second of its type, will build upon earlier experience gained with a smaller system which has been operating at Mulka Station in north-eastern South Australia since May this year. The Birdsville system is eight times the size of the Mulka Station unit and will incorporate a number of design improvements.''