Wednesday, 1 April 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the honourable the President and members of the Senate, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned for the future stability of the Tasmanian forestry industry as a result of continued attempts to disrupt our vital industry. We humbly draw your attention to the continued efforts by the Tasmanian Government and all those persons who derive their livelihood from the State's forestry industry to abide by guidelines established as a result of several Environmental Impact Studies, State regulations and a Memorandum of Understanding between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian Governments. Your humble petitioners therefore call upon the Federal Parliament to do everything possible to ensure stability of our industry by informing the people of Australia of the moves being taken by the forestry industry in Tasmania to preserve the environment and to farm our forest resources for the mutual benefit of all Australians now and in the future. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 41 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 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 Brownhill (from 175 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned are deeply concerned at the impact of the proposed Australia Card Legislation on the following grounds: 1. We believe that it represents potentially undesirable interference in the lives of honest Australians and a grave interference in the civil liberties of Australian citizens; 2. That it will not address the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud; 3. That it will create unnecessary expansion of the bureaucracy; and calls on the Senate to reject the legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 156 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 Australia Card. (2) That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combatting 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 pray. by Senator Reid (from 98 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1 There is no legal barrier to the importation of X-rated videos into the ACT or to their sale in the ACT. 2. The Government has ignored the repeated protests of the Senate and the people of Canberra on this situation. 3. As a result X-rated videos are being sold from Canberra to other States, although they are banned in all States. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to put pressure on the Government to ban the importation and sale of X-rated video material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 129 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we consider the decision to curtail the landscaping at the New Parliament House is a false economy. The landscaping is an integral part of the building and environs which together will be one of the world's most exciting examples of architectural design this century. Incomplete it will be a monument to our lack of resolve as a nation. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to: (a) Reconsider the reinstatement of the landscaping according to to the present plans; (b) Consider savings which may be made in other areas to ensure this may be achieved. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 156 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ask the Federal Government to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth that: The ever expanding exorbitant interest rates are casting farmers and city dwellers along with their wives and toddlers into dust and mud stricken roads, as they plod along without success, for alternative accommodation. Your petitioners therefore pray that your House eliminate this outrageous and unjust castigation of our population which is leading to the downfall of this country. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 72 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should: 1. Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices; 2. Not increase or extend fuel taxes; 3. Maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the import parity pricing policy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 74 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 73 citizens). Petitions received. Motion (by Senator Boswell) agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in my name for this day, for the disallowance of the Northern Prawn Fishery (Special Provisions) Management Plan, as contained in Plan of Management No. 12 of 19 January 1987 and made under the Fisheries Act 1952, be postponed till 2 sitting days after today. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Application of best practicable technology to water management at Ranger uranium mine-report of the technical working group-19 December 1986. 2. Variation agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Seanorth Pty Ltd dated 20 February 1987-pursuant to sub-section 9c (5) of the Fisheries Act 1952. 3. Australian Security Intelligence Organisation- report to Parliament 1985-86. 4. Aboriginal Development Commission-annual report 1985-86-pursuant to section 40 of the Aboriginal Development Commission Act 1980. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Motion (by Senator Sanders) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to make provision for terminating the Agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth and the Government of the United States of America relating to the establishment of a Joint Defence Space Research Facility, and for purposes related thereto. Bill presented by Senator Sanders, and read a first time. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(10.05) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill represents the first attempt to establish parliamentary control over foreign bases on Australian soil. It requires the Government to wind up operations at the Joint Defence Space Research Facility-better known as Pine Gap-by terminating the agreement under which it operates here. This is the first in a series of Bills which the Australian Democrats will introduce to remove all foreign bases from Australian soil, including Nurrungar and North West Cape. The Australian Democrats believe that it is high time that Australia was governed in the interests of Australians; foreign bases are not in our interests. Pine Gap, North West Cape, Nurrungar and others are integral parts of the United States nuclear war machine. They threaten the world with holocaust, and make Australia a nuclear target. The Government is taking this threat seriously enough to be drawing up civil defence plans to cope with an attack on the bases. These plans are only good for salving the consciences of politicians and those in the military who have exposed us to this risk. They can not protect the public; civil defence against nuclear attack is a dangerous fantasy. The Government and Opposition claim that the bases contribute to nuclear deterrence, which they say keeps the peace. The theory of deterrence is that each side will launch a massive nuclear attack in response to a first strike by the other. This is an appalling policy; it threatens to kill billions of people and destroy the global environment in the name of defence. It is immoral and illegal, and Australia should have no part in it. But in any case, deterrence is dead. Instead, the United States-and probably the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics-has plans to use nuclear weapons during a previously non-nuclear conflict. They do not intend to sit and wait to be attacked with nuclear weapons before using theirs. In fact, the United States has had a formal blueprint for launching a nuclear first strike since the dawn of the nuclear age. It is called the Single Integrated Operational Plan-SIOP for short. The Government and Opposition also say that the bases contribute to the United States' ability to verify arms control treaties, which they believe also keeps the peace. The best response is to look at the dismal history of arms control, which has done nothing to reverse or even curb the nuclear arms race. Verification has been manipulated to help weaken and destroy arms control agreements, setting back the search for peace rather than advancing it. There is no doubt that treaties do need to be verified. However, the US and USSR are not the countries which should be doing it. Australia should be contributing to an international disarmament monitoring agency, which could not be manipulated for political purposes. Hosting the bases is a completely unhelpful contribution to verification. Perhaps the most powerful reason that the bases enjoy political support in Australia is the belief in an economic quid pro quo. In other words, if we allow the bases to stay, then we will get preferential economic treatment from the United States of America. This notion has taken a severe beating as a result of the wheat war, in which the US is paying no heed whatsoever to Australia's economic interests. They are unlikely to do so in the future, as they try to fund a massive military budget through exports from a declining economy. There is no economic kickback from the bases. Having decided that the bases are contrary to our interests, it is quite another matter to try and get rid of them. This Bill seeks to direct the Australian Government to use the termination clause of the current agreement covering Pine Gap. This clause states that 12 months notice to quit can be given any time after 19 October 1986, meaning that this Bill could be acted on as soon as it became law. This assumes that Parliament has the right to direct the Government to give the U.S. notice to quit. But treaties are made and broken under the external affairs power, which resides in the Executive Council-the Governor-General, Prime Minister and Cabinet-and not in Parliament. However, Parliament does have constitutional power over defence matters, for which purpose the bases exist. It is arguable, therefore, that Parliament can remove the bases, but it is not certain. It may be that this question can only be resolved by a test case in the High Court. As well as requiring the Pine Gap agreement to be terminated, the Bill also requires all US personnel working at the base to leave. It provides for American equipment to be shipped back to the US, and also allows for an agreement between Australia and the US to wind up operations. Finally, the Bill prevents the Government from renegotiating the agreement during the 12 months after which notice has been given. This is an important provision, because a renegotiated agreement could include a long period during which the agreement cannot be terminated. The Pine Gap agreement has included two non-terminable periods of 10 years. In other words, past Australian governments have signed away control over the base for a total of 20 years. This is a shameful abdication of control which should never happen again. Conservatives in this country have a knee-jerk reaction to any talk of closing the bases. Nuclear winter will get us all even if we are not a nuclear target, they cry. Getting rid of the bases is pointless isolationism which will not protect Australians from the effects of a nuclear war. This argument misses the point completely. Removing the bases is not simply a health and safety measure. It is a political act. It would demonstrate that Australia is a sovereign nation, and not the servant of one of the two most dangerous nations on earth. If we had the courage to ban all foreign bases from Australian soil, the world would stand and take notice of Australia's views on peace and disarmament. At the moment the nations of the world nod politely when we talk-if they bother to listen at all-and smile behind their hands. We are too compromised to be taken seriously. Removing the bases would not be isolationism-quite the reverse. It would give Australia a credible voice in world affairs. At present, the Government cannot criticise US military policy because it is under the United States' thumb, and it cannot criticise Soviet military policy because to do so would be hypocritical. It is a little difficult to protest loudly about the Soviet presence at Cam Ranh Bay while saying nothing about US bases in the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Micronesia, and, of course, Australia. The US alliance is not compatible with an independent foreign policy. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. Because the Hawke Government bent over backwards to allow US nuclear weapons to transit through this fake nuclear free zone, it lost an opportunity to lock the Soviet Union out forever as well. The Australian Government believes that Australia can influence the peace process most by staying loyal to the United States. But the fact is that nuclear disarmament will not happen until the so-called super-powers are forced to do something by international opinion. They are not going to act out of goodwill, because the nuclear threat serves a useful purpose, namely, alliance control. While they continue their endless negotiations in Geneva, their smaller allies dutifully stay in line to avoid disrupting this delicate process. However, alliance control can only work if, while the negotiations go on, the actual threat escalates. If the negotiations were to succeed in reducing the threat of war, there would be less need for military alliances. To stay on top of the international heap, the US and USSR must appear to be doing something about disarmament without actually succeeding. This is precisely what is happening today. No agreement covering nuclear disarmament or even arms control has been signed since SALT 2 in 1979. That treaty was never ratified, and was abandoned last year by the United States. Another major treaty, the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, will be grossly violated by the first test of Star Wars weapons outside the laboratory. The Soviet Union has helped to set the stage for US violations of these treaties by pushing each of them to their limits. Meanwhile, the nuclear weapons arsenals of both countries are burgeoning. Plans for a `limited' nuclear war are being drawn up, which if executed would result in a global holocaust. Highly accurate nuclear missiles are being developed and deployed to support these plans. They include the Tomahawk and SS-N-21 cruise missiles, the Trident-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile, and the MX, Midgetman, SS-X-24 and SS-X-25 inter-continental ballistic missiles. Because the arms race is really about alliance control, it follows that there will be no point in building more bombs if enough countries leave alliances. New Zealand has given a lead to the rest of the world. Australia should go next. For the record, I want to describe what Pine Gap does, as far as we know. Pine Gap's most important role is gathering and decoding radio communications intercepted by satellites hovering above the equator. The satellites are from the Rhyolite, Argus, Chalet and Magnum programs, and are amongst the most secret of the United States' surveillance satellites. They have been described as electronic vacuum cleaners, which suck up radio transmissions across the electromagnetic spectrum, from the Soviet Union, China and other Asian countries. The transmissions are decoded using powerful computers at Pine Gap, and the decoded messages are sent to the US by satellite or radio link. Pine Gap is essential to the planning and execution of any war in the Pacific region involving the United States. It allows the US to monitor ship and troop movements, from which the Soviet Union's military readiness can be assessed. Pine Gap also allows the air defence radar network on the Soviet east coast to be mapped. Gaps in this network can be identified for bombers and cruise missiles to pass through undetected to their targets. Pine Gap also monitors telemetry from the Soviet Union's ballistic missile tests, for the purposes of verifying SALT 2. It verifies the ABM Treaty by measuring the characteristics of Soviet early warning radars. It should be understood that verification is only a secondary function of Pine Gap, which is first and foremost a military base. In any case, as I mentioned before, SALT 2 is dead, and the ABM Treaty is dying. Furthermore, verification as practised by the US and USSR has become just another pawn in the competition between those two countries. A key example of this is the United States' allegations that the phased-array radar at Krasnoyarsk in the Soviet Union violates the ABM Treaty. While there is no doubt that it is a technical breach, it does not violate the Treaty's spirit. This has been acknowledged by the CIA and the British Intelligence. However, the Reagan Administration is persisting with the claim to prepare the ground for the complete destruction of the ABM Treaty by Star Wars. As I mentioned before, Australia should not be involved in helping either the US or the USSR verify arms control agreements. Instead, the Government should be promoting the establishment of an international disarmament monitoring agency, or IDMA for short, an IDMA would not be under super-power control, and would prevent the manipulation of verification for political purposes. However, if anyone is worried about the US losing its ability to verify Soviet radars and missile tests, he need not fear. The US could compensate for the loss of Pine Gap by placing more low-orbit ferret satellites in space. Ferret satellites are not monitored at Pine Gap or any other base in Australia, and the US already has plans to increase the number of them in orbit. There have been suggestions in the past that Pine Gap itself could be taken out of US control and handed to an IDMA for verification purposes. This is not a realistic suggestion, as it would require the active technical co-operation of the US. They are about as likely to help out as they are to throw open the CIA's files to inspection by the KGB. There have also been suggestions that the base be handed over to Australian control. The US again would never agree to this, but even if it did, all that would happen is that Australia would be directly involved in nuclear war preparations, rather than indirectly as we are now. Pine Gap exists for American purposes; Australian control would only mean installing a new monkey, without changing the organ grinder. The Government has often claimed that Pine Gap serves Australian purposes, by giving us access to intelligence gathered by the base. While I am sure a great deal of the intelligence gathered on the Soviet Union and China is interesting, I doubt that much of it is directly relevant to our security needs. The intelligence Australia needs is from our nearest neighbours, which I presume is one of the reasons for establishing the spy base at Geraldton. In any case, we should learn the lesson that the US is a fickle sharer of intelligence. Christopher Boyce, and other CIA employees have revealed that intelligence flows from Pine Gap to Australia were virtually cut off during the Whitlam years because the US did not like the colour of our government. If this Government is serious about achieving defence self-reliance, it should not be relying on the US to supply intelligence. In conclusion, Australia, and the world, would be better off if Pine Gap were to be dismantled. The cause of peace, nuclear disarmament and Australian sovereignty would be helped enormously. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 contains a number of amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act which are important to the Australian veteran community. The main purpose of the Bill is to introduce into the Veterans' Affairs sphere the poverty traps reforms announced by the Treasurer in his statement of 19 September 1985. These poverty traps reforms have been incorporated into the Social Security Act 1947 and will come into effect on 1 July 1987. At the same time, the opportunity is being taken to make minor changes and correct minor drafting errors which have come to light since the veterans' entitlements legislation came into operation on 22 May 1986. The Bill also contains measures to combat health fraud which reflect those provisions contained in the Health Insurance Act 1973. In his second reading speech on the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Bill on 16 October 1985, my colleague the Minister for Social Security expressed the Government's concern that Commonwealth programs can interact to disadvantage the people they should help by trapping them in poverty. He recognised that the most savage of these poverty traps occurs when taxation and social security interact. This is no less true for Veterans' Affairs pensioners. Poverty traps work in pernicious ways. High marginal tax rates are faced by people endeavouring to supplement pension payments with small amounts of extra income. This is a disincentive for these people to provide for themselves through, for example, part time work. Two measures in this Bill will directly attack this problem. First, the amount a service pensioner can earn privately before the rate of service pension is affected by the income test will be increased from $30 to $40 a week for single pensioners and from $50 to $70 a week for service pensioner couples from 1 July 1987. Second, the additional amount of income that can be earned by a service pensioner with dependent children will be doubled from $6 to $12 a week for each child from 1 July 1987. This will mean that a single pensioner with one dependent child would be able to earn up to $52 a week without any effect on the rate of service pension payable. This is an increase of $16 a week or over 40% over the existing amount allowable. The third measure will attack the problems of service pensioners who pay rent for private accommodation. The Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 provides for a special payment called rent assistance of up to $15 per week. However, the payment of rent assistance is subject to a separate income test which contains no `income free areas' but reduces from the first dollar of income. This separate income test will be abolished. Only disability pensions will be taken into account in assessing the basic rate of rent assistance payable, as is the case at present. Rent assistance will become another addition to service pension in a similar way to guardians allowance and additional pension payable where there are dependent children. Rent assistance will be subject to the normal income test applicable to the payment of service pensions. Pensioners whose service pension entitlements are assessed under the assets test will be eligible for the additional pension for rent on the same basis as pensioners assessed under the income test. As I have said, these measures will parallel those changes made to the Social Security Act 1947 by the Social Security (Poverty Traps Reduction) Act 1985. They represent real assistance to pensioners treated inequitably by the present system. The other major purpose of the Bill is to reflect in the Veterans' Entitlements Act those provisions in the Health Insurance Act which may be used to combat fraud in the provision of health services to Veterans' Affairs beneficiaries. To ensure consistency in the Commonwealth's approach to the provision of services by health care providers, the amendments would reflect the provisions of the Health Insurance Act 1973 dealing with the making of false statements; bribery; prohibited practices in relation to the rendering of pathology services; offences and their prosecution; recovery of amounts paid because of false statements; and protection for health care providers in relation to prosecution for statements made during counselling The equivalent provisions in the Health Insurance Act 1973 were inserted after an extensive process of consultation with the professional associations whose members were most affected. The health provisions were endorsed by the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Dental Association and the Australian Optometrical Association which have also agreed to their inclusion in the Veterans' Entitlements legislation. The Bill accordingly does no more than apply those provisions to the Veterans' Affairs sphere. The Bill will also make minor amendments to correct drafting errors and omissions in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1986, the Seamen's War Pension and Allowances Act 1940 and other Veterans' Affairs legislation. The main amendment to be made to the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940 is to provide a formal mechanism for review of decisions relating to the grant of allowances and benefits payable under the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Regulations. The proposed amendments are similar to those incorporated into the Veterans' Entitlements Bill during the passage of that Bill through Parliament. Those amendments were made in response to comments made by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Following passage of that Bill, the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances drew attention to the lack of similar review rights in the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act. The amendments to that Act will remedy this situation. The measures to be provided for in this Bill will involve additional expenditure of $29m in 1987-88 and $28.6m in 1988-89. The Veterans' Affairs legislation has provided a sound basis upon which the Government can continue to improve the benefits and services provided to veterans and their dependants. One matter I would mention is the establishment of a monitoring committee to report to the Government on the first 12 months operation of the Veterans' Entitlements legislation. We are now approaching the end of that 12-month period. It is hoped to be able to announce the establishment of that monitoring committee in the near future. Some of the improvements that the veteran community would have noticed in recent times include the quite dramatic reduction in the backlog of claims and applications awaiting determination. In the period from June 1985 to December 1986 the backlog of outstanding entitlement matters has been reduced by some 63 per cent and for assessment matters the backlog has been reduced by around 70 per cent. The average time taken to process entitlement claims in the same period has been reduced from 391 days to 112 days. For assessment matters the reduction was from 328 days to 93 days over the same period. As the veteran population ages the Government's responsibility turns more towards health care. The Department is moving ahead with the implementation of the recommendations of the Brand Review of the Repatriation Hospital System. By the end of 1986, 141 of the 230 accepted recommendations of the committee had been fully implemented. It is the objective to have all recommendations, with the exception of those dealing with rationalisation of hospital services and integration of the hospitals into the State health system, implemented by 30 June this year. Spending on capital works and equipment at Repatriation hospitals continues to be high. Since 1983-84 capital works to the value of $85.8m have been scheduled for commencement compared with $23.5m allocated to new works during the four previous years. Spending on specialised equipment has increased from $9.9m to $28.4m in the same period. In 1986, $21m was approved in the Federal Budget for new construction at Repatriation hospitals and $10.49m for specialised equipment. From this the Government can be seen to be conscientiously shouldering its responsibilities to care for sick and injured veterans and their families. The Joint Ventures program has been an outstanding success, with 65 projects approved in 1985-86 during the first year of the program and a record number of submissions received for projects to be funded in 1987. Services are provided under Federal Government funding for frail aged Australians in need. In 1985-86 services provided under the program included day clubs, social support programs, home maintenance, a telephone link-up for blinded veterans, a wood chopping service and the emergency accommodation centre to be run by the Vietnam Veterans in Brisbane. The Australian community can rest assured that the Government will continue to ensure adequate care of our veterans population in such tangible ways. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bills received from the House of representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.08) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. The speeches read as follows- JURISDICTION OF COURTS (CROSS-VESTING) BILL 1987 The purpose of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Bill 1987 is to establish a system of cross-vesting of jurisdiction between Federal, State and Territory courts. The Bill is the result of extensive consultations between the Commonwealth and the States in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and is an attempt to resolve difficulties that presently exist in determining the jurisdictional limits of Federal, State and Territory courts. The Bill will not detract from the existing jurisdictions of those courts. The Bill will be complemented by the enactment in each State and the Northern Territory of reciprocal legislation. I would take this opportunity to thank the Special Committee of Solicitors-General for its hard work in the development of the cross-vesting legislation. The essence of the cross-vesting scheme, as provided for in the Bill and proposed complementary State legislation, is that State and Territory Supreme Courts will be vested with all the civil jurisdiction, except certain industrial and trade practices jurisdiction, of the Federal courts-at present the Federal Court and the Family Court-and the federal courts will be vested with the full jurisdiction of the State and Territory Supreme Courts. The reasons for the proposed scheme are that litigants have occasionally experienced inconvenience and have been put to unnecessary expense as a result of: (a) uncertainties as to the jurisdictional limits of federal, State and Territory courts, particularly in the areas of trade practices and family law; and (b) the lack of power in these courts to ensure that proceedings which are instituted in different courts, but which ought to be tried together, are tried in the one court. Jurisdictional difficulties do the law and the community no good. They result in litigants with a genuine dispute requiring judicial determination being faced with the anguish, delay and additional expense which flow from the sterile and pointless need to search for a court, or courts, with jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. The seriousness of these jurisdictional difficulties to the community is all the more pressing because they occur in areas such as family law and trade practices which touch the everyday activities of so many people and corporations in Australia. We are thus confronted with growing frustration in the community and the legal profession with a system of courts with geographic and other jurisdictional limitations which get in the way of the efficient resolution of the disputes of litigants. Despite efforts by the High Court to resolve many of the jurisdictional problems that have arisen, problems still exist which require legislative action for a solution. Governments and parliaments have a responsibility on behalf of the community to find solutions to these problems which at present impede the efficient administration of justice. The cross-vesting scheme as contained in the Commonwealth Bill and proposed complementary State legislation seeks to overcome these problems by vesting the Federal courts with State jurisdiction and by vesting State courts with Federal jurisdiction so that no action will fail in a court through lack of jurisdiction, and will ensure that no court will have to determine the boundaries between Federal, State and Territory jurisdictions. The scheme, although simple in concept, amounts to a radical change in the Australian judicial system. The Bill seeks to cross-vest jurisdiction in such a way that Federal and State courts will, by and large, keep within their `proper' jurisdictional fields. To achieve this end the Commonwealth Bill and the proposed State legislation make detailed and comprehensive provision for transfers between courts which should ensure that proceedings begun in an inappropriate court, or related proceedings begun in separate courts, will be transferred to an appropriate court. The provisions relating to cross-vesting will need to be applied only in those exceptional cases where there are jurisdictional uncertainties and where there is a real need to have matters tried together in the one court. The successful operation of the cross-vesting scheme will depend very much upon courts approaching the legislation in accordance with its general purpose and intention as indicated in the preamble to the Commonwealth and State legislation. Courts will need to be ruthless in the exercise of their transferal powers to ensure that litigants do not engage in `forum-shopping' by commencing proceedings in inappropriate courts or resort to other tactical manoeuvres that would otherwise be available to them by reason of the fact that State courts would have most of the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal courts would have the full jurisdiction of the State courts. The courts themselves would also be expected not to take advantage of the legislation to aggregate business to their own courts in matters that would not otherwise have been within their respective jurisdiction. I have every confidence that the courts will approach the legislation in accordance with its spirit and purpose. Under the cross-vesting scheme, no court will need to decide whether any particular matter is truly within Federal or State jurisdiction since in either event the court will have the same powers and duties. This is because, in any particular proceedings, in so far as the matters involved are within Federal or Territory jurisdiction, the powers and duties will be conferred and imposed by the Commonwealth Act, and in so far as the matters are not within Federal or Territory jurisdiction, the powers and duties will be conferred by complementary State legislation. Provision is made in the Bill to recognise the special role of the Federal Court in matters in which it now has, apart from the jurisdiction of the High Court, exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction. In particular, the Bill provides for the compulsory transfer by a State Supreme Court of any `special federal matter' unless it appears to the Supreme Court that, by reason of the particular circumstances of the case, it is both inappropriate for the matter to be transferred to the Federal Court and appropriate for the Supreme Court to determine the proceedings. The expression `special federal matter' refers to matters of special Commonwealth concern, being matters that at present are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Two examples of special federal matters are matters arising under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and matters within the original jurisdiction of the Federal Court by virtue of section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903, this being jurisdiction with respect to any matter in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against certain Commonwealth officers. This special role of the Federal Court is also recognised in relation to appeal matters which presently lie within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The Schedule to the Bill lists certain Acts such as the Bankruptcy Act 1966 and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Appeals in matters under the listed Acts will remain within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Full Federal Court. The Commonwealth regards it as an important factor in its agreement to the scheme that a committee of Chief Justices of State and Territory Supreme Courts and the Chief Judges of the Federal Court of Australia and the Family Court of Australia be established for the purpose of monitoring the operation of the scheme and to report regularly to the Standing Committee. The Commonwealth attaches great importance to the purpose and intention of the scheme as described in the preamble to the Bill. After a trial period of three years each party to the scheme would have the right to withdraw from the scheme upon the giving of notice to the other parties. I think it is worth emphasising that both this Bill and the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 reflect the agreement of the Commonwealth and the States following lengthy and detailed discussion in the Standing Committee. At their meeting on 5 March 1987, the Attorneys-General reaffirmed their full support for these proposals. I commend the Bill to the Senate. JURISDICTION OF COURTS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1987 This Bill effects important changes in relation to the exercise of Federal jurisdiction by the Federal Court and by State and Territory courts. In the area of intellectual property-copyright, patents, designs, trade marks and the like-it is proposed to vest original civil jurisdiction in the Federal Court, concurrent with that at present exercisable by State and Territory Supreme Courts. However, appeals from decisions of the Commissioner of Patents and of the Registrars of Trade Marks and Designs are to lie exclusively to the Federal Court. Appeals from State and Territory Supreme Courts will continue to lie exclusively to the Federal Court. The Government originally proposed, consistently with the report on Patents, Innovation and Competition in Australia given that the Government in August 1984 by the Industrial Property Advisory Committee, that original jurisdiction in all intellectual property matters, including appeals from decisions of officials, be vested exclusively in the Federal Court. However, following further consultations with State and Northern Territory Attorneys-General, the Government has decided that it would be preferable at this time for the Federal Court jurisdiction to be concurrent with that of State and Territory Supreme Courts in all matters other than appeals from Commonwealth officials. Appeals from Commonwealth officials are of particular significance to the Commonwealth and thus should be within the specialist jurisdiction of the Federal Court. Commonwealth taxation law is very specialised in many of its applications, and matters of great complexity are often involved. The Government considers that it is now desirable to bring this jurisdiction under the aegis of the Federal Court. The Federal Court has, virtually since its establishment, exercised appellate jurisdiction in taxation matters. Coupled with the fact that many of its judges were, as senior members of the bar, recognised tax specialists, the Court has, in its appellate jurisdiction, built up an acknowledged expertise in this area of the law. The Government believes that transfers of original jurisdiction in taxation matters to the Federal Court will bring a consistent approach to the interpretation of taxation law at the trial level. In addition, it is anomalous for the Supreme Courts to retain this jurisdiction now that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, from which appeals lie to the Federal Court, has taken over the review functions formerly undertaken by the Taxation Boards of Review. Taxation matters in which hearings have already been commenced by the Supreme Courts will be finalised by those Courts. The backlog of cases awaiting hearing in the Supreme Courts will be transferred to the Federal Court. The Federal Court has, in the short time of its existence, gained an enviable and justified reputation as a highly efficient and learned Court. Litigants, the legal profession and the public as a whole will be well served by the conferral on the Court of jurisdiction in these areas of the law. These arrangements have the full agreement of the State and Northern Territory Attorneys-General. Divisions 1 and 1A of Part V of the Trade Practices Act deal with areas of consumer protection, such as misleading or deceptive conduct, bait advertising, pyramid selling and product safety standards. Examples of the diverse types of cases that arise under these Divisions are disputes with motor traders, unsolicited advertising and unsafe consumer products. At present the Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction in the area. However, the community's best interests are not necessarily served by this. Many complaints involve relatively small amounts of money or are disputes of a local character. The general interest, and that of the parties, may be better served by these matters being heard in a State Court rather than the Federal Court. The Bill therefore confers concurrent jurisdiction on State and Territory courts within the limits of their respective jurisdictions. The Bill enables the Federal Court to transfer a matter to an appropriate State or Territory Court, and for an inferior court in one State or Territory to transfer a matter to an inferior court in another. As a result of these changes the Federal Court will be gaining jurisdiction in new areas, with intellectual property matters to be shared with State and Territory Supreme Courts. In trade practices it will be sharing the consumer protection jurisdiction with State courts. The overall effect of the changes to the Federal Court work load will, of course, be carefully monitored. I think it is worth emphasising that both this Bill and the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Bill 1987 reflect the agreement of the Commonwealth and the States following lengthy and detailed discussions in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. At their meeting on 5 March 1987, the Attorneys-General reaffirmed their full support for these proposals. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS —I table revised explanatory memoranda to the Bills. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(10.09) —This is the second occasion that a Bill to introduce the Australia Card has come before the Senate. Once again the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats will oppose it. They will be opposing it at a time when ordinary, decent Australians are saying: `Enough is enough'; when decent Australians are saying that loudly and clearly-- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator AULICH —Mr President, this promises to be a very interesting debate, judging by the fear that is on the faces of a few people on the other side of the House. Decent Australians are saying that enough is enough. Decent Australians are saying loudly and clearly that there must be equality in the tax laws, that social welfare payments should go only to those who need them, that illegal immigrants should not be permitted to live off this country free of charge, and that criminals should be behind bars, not thumbing their noses at law enforcement bodies. I welcome the opportunity to explain why this country needs an Australia Card because I will be expressing the concerns of ordinary people whose voices are not often heard in the Senate. Let me start with those who work closely with the poor and the disadvantaged. Where do they stand on the Australia Card? For over a year we have been hearing from professional civil libertarians and affluent lawyers about the dangers to civil liberties supposedly posed by the introduction of an Australia Card. Their views have been trotted out by the Opposition on numerous occasions. I want to talk about another civil right-the right to be treated equally before the law, the right to be treated equally and fairly as a taxpayer or as a person in need of help and care. A number of organisations concerned with the genuinely needy and disadvantaged summed up this in their submissions to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. Their views speak for themselves. I read first a letter from the Sydney City Mission which I think summarises very clearly this whole attitude. This is to the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card from the Sydney City Mission: Dear Senator Aulich, As a welfare organisation, we would welcome the introduction of the Australia Card with a photograph. The Card will provide a valuable means of identification for people with drug or alcohol related problems, the homeless, or families in need of emergency relief. This would provide the best possible means of rationalising the distribution of moneys allocated to us by Government and help us deliver the money and services to those who most need it. I am sure we can speak on behalf of all welfare organisations in saying that following the introduction of the Australian Card we would treat all our records in the strictest confidence just as we do at present. Also, it is often said that welfare recipients are more likely to lose their cards than other members of the community. This is not true. Our people develop ingenious ways of looking after their few possessions. Many of them carry their Medicare cards in their shoe or other secure places. The letter finishes on this note: For welfare recipients more than most people in the Australian community, the proposed national identity card with a photograph is a chance to be equal in a community that very often treats them as less than that. Secondly, Mrs Jackie Byrne, the Director of the Queensland Council of Social Service, in her evidence to the Joint Select Committee, said: I meant to make the point when I stated that civil liberties are very much the province of the middle class. When you have to start thinking about where the food is coming from for the next week, you really do not have that liberty to think about those sorts of esoteric things. In theory we all ought to have the same civil liberties, but I think one of the major civil liberties is the right to be able to feed your kids, to see that your kids have the same education as the people down the road and to see that they have access to the same health and welfare services as everybody else. I think there are a couple of million Australians who are having their civil liberties grossly invaded because they do not have the same standard of living as the rest of the population. We are talking about 2.75 million people in this country living below the poverty line: 750,000 of them being children. That is a gross invasion of civil liberties as well. That view, of course, is shared by the Salvation Army, which gave very detailed evidence about the requirements and the need for an Australia Card in this country. These are not trendy people sitting comfortably in their armchairs, sipping pinot noir, swapping anecdotes about the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation or barking at the Government from the other side of the Senate, as we saw this morning. They are people who are genuinely working with the disadvantaged, and they know the score about the Australia Card and its value for people in that area. If that is not enough, I refer to the survey done by another valuable organisation in this area-that is, the Smith Family. In a survey of the poor and disadvantaged people who are helped by that organisation, more than 75 per cent said that they wanted an identity card. These poor and disadvantaged people do not have American Express, Visa, Diners Club or Ansett credit cards like our middle class friends on the other side, and most of us. Many of them do not have drivers' licences, access to birth certificates or other methods of identification that we normally take for granted. They want a high integrity card and they want one to help them overcome identity hassles, which are very real to them. Identity cards are not an armchair idea to these people. They are an essential requirement for day to day survival. Those organisations that are working with the poor and the disadvantaged are not the only ones who want an Australia Card. The Returned Services League, for example, representing a substantial proportion of the older generation, those who fought for this country to remain free, want the Australia Card. So, too, does the Council for the Aged, an organisation which everyone in this chamber accepts as an effective representative body working in the interests of older people. In the area of alcohol, drugs and medical research there are many organisations working at the coalface coming into contact with those who have drug and health problems, and most of them want the Australia Card. I name some of them: the Alcohol and Drug Foundation of Tasmania, the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse, Medical Records Association, and the Australian Hotels Association. The list goes on, but the theme is the same-that the Australia Card should not be rejected by the Senate. In the business world, where the need for honesty and fair taxation is obvious, support for the Australia Card is just as strong. The Australian Retailers Association, representing the honest retailers in his country; the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, representing those who are prepared to have a go in a competitive business environment-both those key organisations are strongly in favour of the Australia Card. Joining them on the employees' side is the Australian Council of Trade Unions, representing most of the unionised labour force. It recognises very clearly indeed why the Australia Card is an essential part of any fair tax system. I could add to that list, but I believe that there is a clear indication that those organisations, covering a wide range of community and business interests working out there in the real world, are joining the Australian public at large in saying: `Enough is enough. Bring in the Australia Card'. Why is the Australian public in public opinion poll after public opinion poll, after such a long debate, still so supportive of the Australia Card despite the efforts of the Liberals and Democrats to scare them off it? The answer is simple. They are sick and tired of shouldering the tax burden while a significant minority cheat on the system. Ordinary people know it. They know that after the last decade there has been a substantial growth in the tax evasion area. In fact, a veritable industry has grown up around that area to service those wealthy people who seek to escape their fair share of tax. Trusts, especially family trusts, undeclared income, the use of loss companies- Senator Puplick —Those who do not put in their tax returns and who fiddle their travelling allowance. Senator AULICH —Senator Puplick is familiar with these; he is able to parrot them with me. The use of hidden or false identities, all the available techniques have been used by criminals and tax cheats to escape paying their fair share. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator AULICH —The Opposition members may be deaf to the appeals of decent ordinary people but the Government is not. We have already moved in to reform what was a rotten tax system in a significant campaign against tax cheats. We have enacted legislation to cut out the free business lunch, the tax free luxury company cars, the tax free company paid for private school fees-all the perks that benefited the wealthy and the privileged at the expense of ordinary citizens. We have attacked the tax shelters, the capital gains rorts and the negative gearing schemes that enabled those wealthy, privileged people and their friends on the other side of this chamber to escape their obligations. The benefits are obvious in the tax cuts that are now flowing through to wage and salary earners. But we need one more measure to put the tax dodgers back in their place, to make it possible to force them to pay their way like everyone else in the community. That measure is the national identification system known as the Australia Card, a system which will help the embattled tax authorities track down the cheats in a cost effective manner. I sometimes wonder whether the Opposition really believes that tax cheating exists and, judging by the noises I hear today from Opposition members, I doubt whether they do, or whether they will ever be willing to bite the bullet and do something about it. For the record, let me indicate the degree to which tax evasion exists. Explicit and quite specific information on tax evasion is contained in the 1984-85 annual report of the Commissioner of Taxation. In the financial year ending June 1984, 57,000 taxpayers were found to have understated their incomes by a total of more than $470m. In the following year, nearly 66,000 taxpayers understated their incomes by $472m. If these amounts can be detected through the efforts of the Australian Taxation Office without the assistance of the Australia Card, is it any wonder that estimates of tax savings by the Australia Card-about $4.1 billion over a 10-year period-are considered conservative. With total costs over the same period of $759m, it is clearly ludicrous to assert that the Australia Card program would not be cost effective. No wonder the Australia Card is supported by tax experts and influential economists such as Eric Risstrom of the Australian Taxpayers Association, Professor Fred Groenewegen of Sydney University, and Mr Richard Krever of Monash University. The Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, of which I was Chairman, concluded unanimously that significant tax evasion existed and that some sort of universal numbering system was needed to make it easier to match people's real income with their stated income. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator AULICH —Of course, Opposition members have a thousand excuses for not supporting the Australia Card, some of which are being brayed out across the chamber at this very moment by people such as Senator Puplick. Let us look at the first excuse. Opposition members say that the Australia Card is not cost effective, that the return from an Australia Card is not worth the effort. Let us look at the figures. The Government proposes spending $759m on the Australia Card over the first 10 years, but the return is conservatively estimated at $4.7 billion. That means $6 returned for every $1 spent. That is a substantial saving for ordinary taxpayers that can be returned to them directly or spent in socially useful areas, such as education and public health. Another point made by the Liberals is that more than 2,000 bureaucrats will be added to the public payroll in order to establish the Australia Card. In one sense that is true. But, of course, the Liberals conveniently forget to mention that half of those employed will be mainly on contract and their employment will be for the first 18 months interviewing period. Most of the bureaucrats will work not, in Canberra, but in Medicare offices throughout Australia and half will end their employment after 18 months. Further, as everyone knows, this Government has a responsible record in making sure that the Public Service does not grow at the expense of the taxpayers. For example, at the end of this financial year more than 2,000 unnecessary Public Service jobs will have been cut from last year's total. Therefore, the public should have no fears at all that we will be building an army of public servants in Canberra to run the Australia Card. The Liberals say that this card is an attack on privacy and civil liberties. As everyone now knows, the Government is introducing special privacy legislation and a data protection agency to ensure that this does not happen. It will also restrict the access to the Australia Card Register to only three organisations-the Department of Social Security, the Australian Taxation Office and the national Health Insurance Commission. State governments, private organisations or other Commonwealth government departments will not have access to the Australia Card Register. Individuals will be allowed to inspect their files at least once a year to see what is on them, which public servants have looked at them and for what reasons. That information must be logged and the public servants must identify themselves before they can access a file. In that way individual privacy will be protected. It is very interesting to see what significant real and potential invasions of privacy or civil liberties currently exist-without the Australia Card-in the present system in private enterprise and government bureaucracy. One should note the deafening silence from the Liberals about these areas. These born-again defenders of our civil liberties and privacy, what have they said about this matter over the past few years? Nothing. The Australian Taxation Office, which this Opposition wants to beef up, already has extraordinary powers to invade privacy, especially under sections 263 and 264 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, which allows the Tax Office access to people's records, books and homes without a warrant. What have Opposition members and senators said about that? Nothing. The Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, conducted by Frank Costigan, QC, had more than 100 employees investigating certain citizens in very great detail, and information about those citizens was continually being leaked to the Press, presumably by some of those employees. What did the Liberals say about those breaches of civil liberties? Nothing. What about the enormous explosion of credit cards and private credit information companies? That has hardly been mentioned. One New South Wales based credit organisation alone has over four million names on file. Few people are aware of what is on those files; but it does not take a genius to realise that of course they contain more than just a person's name, address and serial number. They contain extremely detailed credit information on over four million people in this country, and that is just one organisation. What have the Liberals said about that? Nothing. What about the trading of information about customers between banks, often without the approval or knowledge of those customers? That evidence was given to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card by the banks themselves. I will mention only in passing the greatest attack on civil liberties that has occurred in this country in the last 30 years, and that was the conscription of 20-year-olds into the armed forces, many of them to fight and die in Vietnam in an unjust and unwinnable war, brought to us by the courtesy of none other than the Liberal-National Party Government of that time. Ironically, those 20-year-olds had no opportunity to protest about that massive invasion of their civil liberties and privacy because they did not even have the vote. In those days they were not even allowed to vote. They could be conscripted for two years into the Army, they could die in Vietnam for this country, but they did not even get a vote. So, I ask: Just how genuine is the Liberal Party's concern about civil liberties and privacy? Where were all those other professional civil libertarians, the Queen's Counsellors in the Liberal Party, when all the potential and real invasions of privacy and civil liberties first became apparent? The members of the Opposition have the temerity to attack the Australia Card concept when we all agree here with the distinguished and genuine civil libertarians, such as Professor Robert Hayes and Professor Whalan, that at the end of the day, as a result of the Australia Card and the privacy legislation accompanying it, there will be greater protection of privacy and civil liberties than we have ever had in this country. For the first time we will have a comprehensive system to protect and enshrine our privacy and civil liberties. What is the other point that the Liberals have been making? They have said that the Australia Card will have to be carried and produced like an internal passport. That is untrue. There are heavy penalties in this legislation for people who demand production of the Australia Card. Nor is there a requirement to produce it in person every time one transacts business with a bank, a stockbroker or a stock and station agent-contrary to the suggestions of Opposition members. They just simply have not read the legislation, or they are blind to its implications. The card will need to be produced only when one opens a bank account or engages a stockbroker for the first time. Already banks are required to ask for evidence of identity before they open an account. What stockbroker or station agent is going to allow someone to open an account if he is asked to do so over the telephone? I would not have much confidence in any agent who got a phone call from someone for the first time and established an account on that basis. Let us look at the other question that the Liberals raised-the cost to business of complying with the Australia Card legislation. First, banks need the Australia Card because in many cases their computer systems are already due to be replaced. The Australian Bankers Association estimated their costs at $60m to establish requirements to fit in with the Australia Card. In the long run, in terms of their total costs, it is chickenfeed. But after that their system will cost virtually nothing to run. The Council of Small Business Associations of Australia and the Business Council of Australia favour the Australia Card. They recognise that the cost to business of filling in a 12 digit number is minimal, but the benefits of keeping business dealings honest are enormous. After all, nobody wants to compete in a business world in which tax cheating is a key factor in the survival of a business. The Liberals have quoted, for example, the Government's Business Regulation Review Unit. In a paper written in the early days of the Australia Card proposal the Unit was quoted as saying that the cost to business of complying with the card would be double that of the cost to the Government. This is arrant nonsense as the major point of the cost of the Australia Card proposal will be met by the Government. After all, the Australia Card legislation is not like an ordinary business regulation ordinance in relation to which the Government makes a paper decision which then has a greater and imposed cost on government-far from it. Let us look at the question of the Tax Office and the fact that, according to the Liberals, it needs to be improved and given more power. This is its final cop-out when faced with the necessity to bring in an Australia Card. The Tax Office already has considerable powers, but it does not have the capacity to link all the information it has about taxpayers. For too long the Opposition has criticised the Tax Office, but it did nothing about giving it a modern method of processing information and tracking down the tax cheats when it was in office. The Australia Card, with its universal identifying number system, is the only way to ensure that the Tax Office can carry out its functions effectively against people who, for example, open false bank accounts and do not divulge income from a trust, stocks and shares or other commercial activities. Even the Liberal Party has retreated from its view that a revamped tax file system would do as well as an Australia Card because it knows that there are already too many false identities in any tax file system, with many people already holding multiple tax file numbers-some in false names. A system based on tax file numbers is now not taken seriously by anyone, apart from, say, Senator Haines. Let us look at the other view, that there is very little cheating in the social security system. The Joint Select Committee could not prove that there was cheating on the social security system, but it was aware that it went on. Since the publication of the Committee's report, the Department of Social Security has done checks of its own, and it is now its view that an Australia Card system will assist, especially if it is run in conjunction with the Tax Office. The Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, has already made public statements to that effect. Today, for the first time, I want to read correspondence from Minister Howe, which indicates quite clearly that the Social Security Department sees the Australia Card as a key weapon in the fight against those who cheat on the social security system. This letter is written to the Honourable Neal Blewett by the Minister for Social Security, Brian Howe. He said: I noticed in the Hansard reporting of the debate on the Australia Card . . ., that a number of the Opposition speakers have misrepresented my department's position on the matter. There is absolutely no foundation for comments that the Department of Social Security will not use the Card or rely on it, that it is sceptical about the proposal, or that officers of the department who gave evidence to the Joint Select Committee overwhelmingly rejected it and I would appreciate you taking steps to refute these assertions. My department will use the Australia Card as the principal means of identifying claimants for social security assistance. He went on to detail what those principal means will be. He continued: The Card will also play an important role in the comparison of taxation and social security records in order to detect undisclosed income which could affect welfare payments. The letter continued: The likely savings from such uses are very difficult to estimate. But, to argue that the absence of such estimates constitutes a denial that the Card has any value, is a distortion of the facts. The letter is signed: Yours sincerely, Brian Howe. Very briefly, the Liberals have said that illegal immigration will not be stopped by the use of the Australia Card. We want to place quite clearly on record our view that it is the deterrent effect of the Australia Card to illegal immigration that is the key importance of that card. There are 60,000 illegal immigrants in this country, and they will have something to fear because, without an Australia Card, people illegally coming to this country will not be able to enjoy the benefits of our society, such as Medicare cover, legal jobs, bank accounts and so on. In other words, an Australia Card will be a deterrent to those who believe that Australia is a land ripe for plucking as far as the social security and tax systems are concerned. I turn to the question of organised crime and the use of the Australia Card to follow the money trail. Successive royal commissions and inquiries have shown that drugs, prostitution and related criminal activities have now become big business in this country. Those commissions have pointed out just how difficult it is for overworked law enforcement agencies to track down those organised criminals, many of whom maintain a respectable front at arm's length from the activities that bring them their wealth. The major technique, as we in this chamber all know, to defeat those criminals is to follow the money trail, to look at their assets, their investments, their financial transactions and their attempts to launder illegal money through legal activities. As Mr Costigan said, criminals seek to possess wealthy homes, land, expensive cars and 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. Whereas Costigan came to the conclusion that the Australia Card has civil liberties implications, this Government and the Australian Federal Police know that an Australia Card with its universal identification system is the only effective way to ensure that the law does count in this country. Finally, we have to ask ourselves: What kind of society do we want to live in? I know what sort of society I want. I want my children to grow up in a society where fair taxation is the order of the day, where social security payments go only to those who deserve them, where cheats and criminals do not set the pattern for business activities. I want a society where justice not only is done but is seen to be done. That is why I want the Australia Card. My views are shared by the majority of the community. The Senate should respect those views and pass the Australia Card legislation today. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.36) —One ought to draw attention to a couple of things right at the beginning of this debate. The lead Government speaker in this debate, Senator Aulich, in his speech virtually flagged a warning for the future that this card could and would be used as an identification card. He made that point quite strongly. I suggest that he made it with intent so that the Government, when we finally are regimented, can say: `But Senator Aulich said that in the debate'. The Government has left the door open for this card to be what we on this side of the House greatly fear-a gross, unwarranted and highly expensive intrusion on the liberties of Australians. When reading Hansard and looking more carefully at Senator Aulich's words on police attitudes to the Australia Card, I think we will find hints there of the Government's intentions for this card in the future and the way it can be used to nail down any class of people, because if it can be used to nail down criminals it can also nail down any other group in the community which a government in the future might want to nail down. The second initial point I want to make is largely to the Opposition. I think that the way the Australia Card Bill 1986 (No. 2) is being presented is much less than honest. It is being presented in the shadow of a threatened double dissolution of this Parliament at a time when the Opposition may feel, quite rightly, that it is in disarray and not ready for an election. It is highly improper that a matter as significant and important to Australia should be brought before the Senate with that type of consideration in the background. This matter has very long shadows going into the future for the Australian community. I call on Opposition senators not to look at what I will call the Jessop plan, that those opposite can pass the Bill and then, when they get back into government, repeal it. They might not get back into government. Those opposite cannot guarantee it-especially once there is an Australia Card to put tabs on and persecute people. So I ask those opposite not to do that. It would be a wrong and improper thing to do. It is the duty of those who believe it is wrong for an Australia Card to be introduced to vote against that card. It is one of the most important things we can do for the Australian community at this stage. Certainly, all Australian Democrats senators oppose this Bill. After very carefully consideration of it we are in no doubts about our position. We will all vote against it with a very clear conscience and with the knowledge that we are doing our duty to the community in so doing. That is not a new view because, at the time the Government first mooted this proposal at the National Taxation Summit, the Democrats warned that the effectiveness and civil liberties aspects of such a suggestion would need to be very carefully examined. Since then a joint parliamentary committee has inquired into the card and alternative proposals. A majority of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, including representatives from all political parties, recommended against the card and supported the the use of the upgraded tax file number as a part of option B to address the problem of tax cheats and social security fraud. Option B does not sound much. It sounds a bit of a mystery at first so I will take this opportunity to explain briefly just what option B is and the reasons why it would be preferable to tabbing and carding Australians at such a huge cost and with such potential to work to their disadvantage. Option B consists of a few simple changes to our current tax and welfare system which would include, importantly and firstly, increasing the integrity of the tax file number to a high level by requiring proof of identity for new file numbers. So eventually the tax file number is a fiscal identity which is, of course, what is required. That is what the Go-vernment is asking for; it is not what it is propo-sing. It really wants a fiscal identity. It says that it wants to control tax cheats and social security fraud and that is the way to go about it. To reinforce that argument the Government gives sufficient funds under option B to the Department of Social Security so that it can confirm the eligibility of all welfare recipients over a five-year period. That is a sensible and rational way to go about doing it. Currently tax file numbers are for internal use only by the Australian Taxation Office. One is given a file number only after one is given a job. Under option B our tax file number would be used to maintain a record of our financial dealings with the Government by both the Taxation Office and the Social Security Department. It is really that simple and, of course, it can be done as easily as that. The Australian Democrats strongly suspect the Government's motives for pushing ahead with an unnecessary and unwieldy expensive card organisation. What does the Government have in store for the Australian community? I hope that later Government speakers reply to that question. Of course if one is not in receipt of wages, other income or social security payments one does not even need a tax file number. If one has had a tax file number for more than five years one will not have to be interviewed. One's health, education, travel, war service and other personal records will not be mixed up with one's financial records but they certainly will be under the Australia Card proposal. Because option B does not require us all to be interviewed and photographed, because option B uses an existing system of identification, because option B limits access to personal information to only two go-vernment departments, it will be much cheaper, more efficient and less open to abuse than the Australian Labor Party's Australia Card. It is the course of action on which the Government should proceed and the Government knows that quite well. It is a course of action that would be supported by this Parliament. I think the Go-vernment is bringing forward this legislation in an unamended form in a dishonest way for improper purposes. The Democrats have repeatedly pointed out that the Australia Card, a universal personal identification system, is not the same as other plastic cards we all use. Those other cards are unique to their own organisations and they cannot be used to betray information to other organisations. Also the Australia Card would enable access to information in government agencies and information held by private organisations such as banks and employers because the card will be backed by a centralised data bank and that will enable a linkage of data. So apart from the fact that information held could easily be inaccurate or incomplete, the ability to place everybody under surveillance-the Government would have this ability-poses a very serious threat to privacy. While the Government proposes to establish a data protection agency it cannot offer any guarantees for future governments. Once the system is established the potential for abuse is clear and plain. The Democrats are not saying that we do not need the Data Protection Agency. Of course we do even if only to remedy existing abuses. Another potential civil liberties problem is people demanding the card for non-prescribed use. While Senator Aulich and the Government say that there will be legislative prohibitions on this, as we know they are virtually unenforceable. Even Senator Aulich made the point-I repeat it-that there are people in the community who will want the card for that purpose and once it begins to be used for that purpose it will be required of everybody. The potential is there for the card to be used for a wide range of activities. Those arguments alone, as they become better known in the community, are increasing the number of Australians who are very unhappy about the Australia Card. To begin with the Government put forward a very simple proposition. It asked: `Do you want tax cheating and welfare cheating to go on?'. People naturally said: `No'. Nobody wants those things to go on. But to say that that necessarily implies approval of the Australia Card as the Government has presented it, logically involves a very excluded middle clause. The point is that it can be done another way. The Democrats undertook a little experiment in South Australia. In a doorknock exercise we got 170 people's views on the Australia Card after we had given them information about what option B was. By the way, 50 per cent of them said that that information helped them; that they did not know about option B previously. That point is highly significant. As a result, 57.1 per cent of the respondents said that they would prefer the option B system. Even more strikingly, only 16.5 per cent said that they wanted the Government's ID card. The rest said that they were undecided or did not know. There we have very striking figures. Of the peopled polled, 57.1 per cent want option B, and only 16.5 per cent, in that independent and honestly pursued survey-incidentally, this was a bigger sample than that of the Morgan gallup poll in South Australia-said that they wanted the Government's card. As time goes on, more and more of the public are understanding of the dangers of the card and fewer and fewer actually want it. I notice with some interest that the identity card is now opposed by the Australian Chamber of Commerce. That organisation was quoted in Monday's Sydney Morning Herald as opposing the card. I could do worse than quote the actual words used by the President of the Australian Chamber of Commerce, Mr Chris Cullen. He said: In true Orwellian style it will enable `Big Brother' to observe many traditionally private affairs of ordinary Australians-most especially personal financial transactions, such as loans, mortgages and credit. The Sydney Morning Herald report adds: Mr Cullen said the chamber feared criminals and computer vandals-known as hackers-would gain access to the system and do untold damage to innocent citizens. The Democrats would agree with all of that. I would point especially to the relative ease with which computer hackers can and have broken regularly and successfully into information systems, no matter what safeguards have been introduced. There is no way at all that the Government can guarantee that information held on its citizens, if the ID card project goes ahead, will not fall into the hands of the curious, if not the criminal. If the Government gives that undertaking, it is less than honest in doing so. I have also had a thoughtful letter from the Emeritus Professor of Geography at the University of Western Australia, Professor Martyn Webb, which is indicative of a great deal of informed opinion on the matter. Professor Webb says in his letter: No amount of assurances as to confidentiality by even the most well intentioned of governments can allay the very real fear that once introduced, successor governments could very easily enlarge (a) the scope of the data; (b) the list of those who can have access to it and (c) the penalties for non-observance. And, inevitably, force all to carry the card and produce it on demand. Such was the risk of this happening that Australia and the UK both abandoned their War Emergency Identity Cards System soon after the end of World War II . . . They did this sensibly and rationally. So the Hawke Government is going backwards in time in trying to implement this Orwellian concept. Professor Webb continued: Nor can we rest happy in the belief that ordinary people have nothing to fear from such a draconian measure. They have the most to fear from a surveillance system which will make us all subject to the attentions of a permanent Costigan-like Commission of Inquiry. In practice, the existence of a central register would reverse the basis of natural justice in that All Australians would be regarded a priori guilty of what in Russia are known as `economic crimes'. The Government seems to see the Australia Card in a rather one-eyed way. It does not appear to have taken into account some of the things that I have mentioned already and things that other informed people in the community have said. The Government seems to see the card as a panacea for all the ills besetting our tax and social security systems. Indeed, it was presented by the lead speaker, Senator Aulich, in that simple naive light. The scheme seems to have become such a nostrum to the Government that it can admit of no possible problems with its execution even though those problems are becoming glaringly obvious to more and more of the community. The Democrats agree with the Government that tax evasion and social security fraud are major problems. But the answer is not an identity card which would watch our every movement like Big Brother. The Government has been reminded often enough-and I remind it again-of the majority report of the Senate Committee, which favours option B. I think option B ought to be given serious consideration now and that the Government ought to withdraw this Bill before this protracted debate continues, and do its duty to the community by looking at what so many responsible people on one of its own committees have said to it. It has failed that duty so far. The Government estimates that the system will cost $600m to set up and $100m each year to run, with a five-year wait before the system breaks even. It also estimates that there will be an initial growth of 2,000 in the bureaucracy. That is a very heavy cost to pay. It does not take into account at all the cost in the community itself-the cost to business, the cost to people of the actual nonsense of having to trail around and be photographed. The cost of this must be assessed in billions of dollars when we imagine the amount of personal time that is going to be involved in respect of members of the community. Even based on a modest hourly rate, the cost is going to be enormous. The most important aspects of the legislation are the ones that have been dismissed by the Government as irrelevant-the invasion of the individual's right to privacy and the use and misuse of the central data bank associated with the card to increase control by the state, the Government, private organisations and even criminals over ordinary Australian citizens. In other words, the real beneficiaries from the card are going to be the unscrupulous, the ill-intentioned and the dishonest. The real sufferers from the card, the ones who are going to be penalised and victimised, are the ordinary decent citizens. They are the ones who are going to suffer. Senator Aulich talked about how great the card would be to pursue organised crime. I lived for a number of years in Singapore, where I had to carry an identity card. One of the most flourishing aspects of organised crime in Singapore is the forging of identity cards. One can buy them for a certain amount of money anywhere. We will be able to buy them here, because one of the faults of the card is that it is not really based on any sensible system of identification. In other words, the Government, presumably, is going to go ahead with its idea of basing the card on birth certificates. I had occasion recently, because the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has a persistent habit of losing one's birth certificate copy, to send to New Zealand for a copy of my birth certificate. I had to give a few details, which any stooge of organised crime in the Auckland registry office could have got, and pay a certain fee. That copy came to me without any trouble at all. If the Government really believes that that cannot be done on a massive scale, it is naive. Anybody can get birth certificates very easily. Of course, in many countries organised crime makes a habit of acquiring the birth certificates of people who have recently died and selling and purveying those documents in the community. So there will be that forging aspect, which is hopeless. The system's potential is what really frightens the Democrats. I do not expect this Government to start putting a yellow Star of David on the ID card of every Australian Jew or a pink triangle on the ID cards of homosexuals. But once this legislation is in place it would be very simple for some less well-intentioned future government to employ nazi-like tactics of that kind to ensure that anybody in any group that is held in suspicion by anybody in that government is easily identifiable and is, therefore, constantly in danger of arrest, incarceration or even execution because of some physical or other trait over which he has no control. I draw the attention of the Senate to Senator Aulich's comments about the usefulness of the card in pursuing criminals. I suggest that all honourable senators and members of the other place should study his words very carefully because I think there is a key here to an intent that could be used in this way. I think it would be disastrous and tragic if we forgot the lessons of World War II so soon. Let me give an example of what could happen. This is very much in the area of speculation, but I think it is useful to look at what potential there is in the introduction of such a card. The acquired immune deficiency syndrome virus is known by some as the gay plague, obviously because of its propensity to affect homosexuals. The AIDS virus is a very dangerous one with a potential to kill inevitably and in a most uncomfortable manner. The print media in particular has sensationalised the problem, and in some sections of the community the fear of AIDS is transformed into a very real fear of homosexuals. The point I am trying to make is that we now have a certain potential for the type of campaign that Hitler used against the Jews-a campaign which used their identity cards to identify them. Let us be in no doubt about that. That is still remembered in the Jewish community in Australia, and rightly so. There is the potential there: Fear of a small, politically weak, identifiable section of the community; the need to remove public scrutiny from the state of the economy and focus it elsewhere; and then, of course, the final element, the means whereby this section of the community may be easily identified for future persecution-a national compulsory identity card. At this stage of the debate I think it would be constructive and enlightening to look at the results of similar legislation in West Germany. I recently read an article on this subject by a responsible writer which outlines the working of the identity card in that country in quite a chilling manner. It is something I think we in Australia ought to look at. In West Germany a computer-linked plastic ID card, very similar to the proposed Australia Card, has been in use for many years. Very soon after the introduction of the German ID card it became obvious that it would be useful for identifying those whom the Government saw as communist subversives, radicals, or opposed to the basic tenets of democracy. In quick succession, State and Federal parliaments, with the noisy approval of the Press, introduced specific amendments to basic legislation, which included the introduction of university fees, banning of political meetings at universities and greater police powers to control demonstrations. Fearing that the state and the constitution would be undermined by `radical graduates', the Government also introduced, in 1971, legislation which prevented political activists whose behaviour was not sufficient to preserve or uphold the basic order from joining the public service and becoming teachers, engine drivers, postal workers or any other branch of the public service. That little bit of background, I think, is illuminating. It indicates to some people why there has been an outburst of urban guerilla warfare, street terrorism, Baader-Meinhof gangs and that sort of thing in West Germany. It is because the Government there led with its chin in this respect. That is not to excuse that terrorism and those atrocities-far from it. But it is up to legislators to have the wisdom to recognise that those sorts of tendencies exist in the community and that one must maintain a fair, equitable society which will not allow those kinds of potentials to assert themselves. I suggest that the identity card is a lead-in to a situation which, as it has in West Germany, would encourage eventually those sorts of very counterproductive-to put it mildly-effects in the community. When this treatment produced those unfortunate results-urban guerilla warfare and terrorist acts-the Government felt it had to do more. It was really now in the trap, because its response served only to snowball the problem. Apart from introducing tough anti-terrorist laws which curbed the rights of defendants and lawyers, as well as increasing police powers at the cost of civil liberties, the Government also decided to use much more extensively the existing identification system and databanks to seek out and watch all of those whom it thought might be terrorists, those who were presumed to be sympathetic to terrorist causes, or those who might turn violent in the future. This, of course, is notoriously the habit of those who accumulate data. It becomes their preoccupation to accumulate data on as many people as possible in as many ways as possible. This is notorious; it has been documented many times. In West Germany, boosted by a massive budget increase, the police department's idea was first to establish a profile of what a terrorist looked like and how he or she lived, thereby casting an intolerably wide net into the community. Such people had to be 25 to 35 years old; they were seldom at home; they lived in high-rise apartments; they rented cars; and there were a range of other considerations. Following a terrorist or a related incident, the police were then asked to look for people fitting such descriptions-particularly at demonstrations, trials of terrorists or sympathisers, border crossings and airport terminals-and to feed all information gathered back into a central computer. Called Information System of Police, or INPOL, it currently has 2,600 input terminals connected to it. Should anyone appear to have some of the basic characteristics of a known or suspected terrorist, he or she would be singled out for further investigation without the person's knowledge. Since this surveillance system was wide open to the police interpretation of who or what might be a potential terrorist, caught in the net were: People who buy a diverse number of newspapers; people who live in communes; people who pay with cash for their electricity; I know this sounds bizarre but it is documented-occupants of flats who pay their rent in cash; people with a certain type of glasses; people who sit in on anarchist trials; people who use transit lanes to Berlin; people who cross frequently into East Germany or France; people who meet members of parliament in Bonn; people who often change their place of residence; people who correspond with people under suspicion of using drugs; people who cover their faces during demonstrations; people who visit imprisoned terrorists; people who have cars with anti-nuclear stickers; people who patronise leftist pubs; and squatters, rockers, prostitutes, psychiatric patients, punks, pacifists, unionists, leftist journalists, song writers and academics: They are all listed in this area. That is the sort of thing that can happen. That is the picture of the future which is not fictional. It is something I have described in detail here because I want to underline the Democrats' deep concern, and the concern of those responsible people in the community who have been in touch with us who know about this kind of thing. This article, as it happens, appeared in a university newspaper. As a result of that, I want to beg the Government not to go ahead with this cynical debate-this debate on which something like 33 speakers are now listed, which will make it one of the longest debates ever to take place in this chamber. If everybody speaks for the due time, it would be something like 16 to 20 hours of speeches. Senator Tate —How about setting a good example, Senator? Senator MASON —I am setting a good example, Senator Tate, because I want intelligent, enlightened people on the Government side like yourself, who probably understand some of the things I am talking about, to just go back to their party and say: `This is wrong. The Government is taking a wrong step. We are doing the wrong thing. Let's step back from it while there is still time'. When the Bill was last defeated in this place we were under the impression that the Government would take some heed of the points that had been made and that we would get it in an amended form. At least we thought the Government would make some concessions to the views in the community that have been expressed about the proposal. But no, that has not happened. The Bill has been brought back to the Senate in its original form. The Government is bringing the Bill back into the Senate in its original form-and there are, indeed, areas of it where the Government secretly believes it ought to have made some changes; I am positive that that is the case-only because it knows it cannot get the double dissolution trigger which it appears to crave for without so doing. Senator Elstob —And you don't crave for anything! Senator MASON —It is a fact, Senator Elstob, that if the Government made necessary, sensible changes to the Bill and brought it back to this place and it was rejected by the Senate, the Government would not have a double dissolution trigger. Let us not argue over that. The Government brought it here in that dishonest way for that reason. The Australian people have to know that. They have to know that the Government is short-selling them; that it is trying to sell them a pup; that it is trying to force something dangerous on it; and that it is trying to blackmail the Opposition in this place into passing that dangerous thing. They have to know that, and the more they realise it I think the less sympathy the Government will get from them if it attempts to use the Bill in that way. To summarise, I can again only say that the Bill is a bad thing for Australia. More and more Australians are realising that. In the next few years more and more will come to understand that. It is not wanted by the majority of Australians. It will not achieve the objectives the Government says it will achieve. Those objectives can be achieved in much simpler, easier and less dangerous ways. Finally, I ask all those honourable senators on the Liberal side of the chamber to look at their due responsibility to this country and its future and to be in no doubt whatsoever that they vote decisively-it will be a decisive vote-to defeat this monstrous piece of legislation. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.04) —Among the many records that this Government has set in its four disastrous years in office is a new record for cynicism and a new record for misleading the people of Australia. On 5 February 1987 the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, put out a Press statement headed: `Changes to Australia Card Bill'. Dr Blewett, in his Press statement, said: The Federal Government has decided to amend the Australia Card Bill before it is reintroduced in the coming Parliamentary session. The Federal Health Minister, Dr Neal Blewett, said today that the Government's decision to make minor amendments to the Bill demonstrated its willingness to accept any reasonable suggestions which would improve the Australia Card program. I quote Dr Blewett's words from that release: The Government has decided to make a number of minor changes to machinery aspects of the Bill to improve the program and take account of constructive criticism. I will wait with interest for Senator Elstob to explain why Dr Blewett was prepared to put out a statement on 5 February, saying that this Bill would be amended, and then come back to this Parliament with a Bill which was unamended, other than for the reasons of sleazy cynicism with which this Government is covering itself on every available opportunity. I have referred to the words of the Health Minister less than two months ago, betrayed and denied in this place simply in order to provide some sort of sleazy mechanism for a double dissolution to dishonour yet another of the Hawke Government's commitments-that is, for this Parliament to run its full term. One, of course, is not surprised by the attitude that Dr Blewett takes in these matters. After all, this is what he told the 1986 South Australian Conference of the Australian Labor Party: 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. There are certain rights, including what Dr Blewett thinks are bourgeois rights about individual privacy, which the parties on this side of the chamber are determined to defend, and to defend by defeating this Australia Card legislation. Senator Aulich, the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, who could not even keep all of the Labor members of the Joint Select Committee on track to supinely recommend the Australia Card, because the majority of members of the Joint Select Committee, including one of the Labor members of the Committee, recommended against the Australia Card, said today, among other things, that the attacks on the Australia Card have been made by what he described as `professional civil libertarians and affluent lawyers'. Let us hear which of those categories is supposed to cover Mr Lewis Kent, a Victorian member of the Labor Party in the House of Representatives who spoke in that House on 13 February 1986 denouncing the Australia Card, saying that it was akin to the system that the nazis had introduced, and that nobody who believed in decency in Australia would support it. On the following day the Canberra Times ran a story headed: `MP summoned after ID card attack'. Let Senator Aulich tell us into which of the categories Mr Cyril Kennedy, the Labor Party Whip in the Victorian Legislative Council, fits. He put out a statement in May 1986 denouncing the use of the Australia Card. Let him tell us into which of those categories Mr George Petersen, MP, the Labor left wing New South Wales State member for Illawarra, fits. On 5 May 1986 he was reported in the Illawarra Mercury as attacking this proposal. Let him tell us into which of those categories Mr John Saunderson, MP, a Labor member of the House of Representatives from Victoria, fits. He wrote an article in the January-February 1986 issue of the Journal Civil Liberties headed `ID cards: the case against'. Let him tell us into which of those categories the Federal Labor Party legal and administrative committee fits. It resolved in February 1986 to oppose the card. Let him tell us into which of those categories Senator Nick Bolkus, Labor, South Australia, who put in to the Joint Select Committee a submission denouncing the Australia Card, fits. Let him tell us into which of those categories Senator Georges, who laid his political career on the line in regard to this matter, fits. Into which of those categories-the professional civil libertarian or the affluent lawyer-are all of those members of the Australian Labor Party to be fitted? Let me come to the next point in Senator Aulich's pathetic attempt to justify this card. He told us three things. He said: `I have a letter from Mr Howe addressed to Dr Blewett'. Peace in our time, I suppose, between the warring departments. He said: `I will tell you about the 60,000 illegal immigrants in the country, and I will tell you about the Australian Federal Police'. Let me address each of those three, not on the basis of his spurious claims, but on the basis of the evidence put before the Joint Select Committee. Surprise, surprise! The Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, wrote a letter to Dr Blewett, saying: `I would love to have this card and we will make substantial use of it'. But when the Department of Social Security came before the Joint Select Committee, it told the Committee that the Card would not work and would be of no use. Paragraph 1.46 of the Committee's report states: The Government submission- I repeat: The Government submission- reveals that DSS would have no net gain from the introduction of a national identification system. What a surprise it is that Dr Blewett got a trumped-up letter from Mr Howe saying that he would use it, when the Department told the Joint Select Committee-and, as Senator Walters will state, it told the Estimates Committee in its last hearings, that there was no benefit to the Department of Social Security from this card being introduced. Senator Aulich referred to 60,000 illegal immigrants. What does the report of the Joint Select Committee state? Paragraph 1.56 reads: From the above exchanges- that is, with the Secretary to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, who has now been shuffled off to become High Commissioner in New Zealand- it became clear that the estimates for illegal immigrants were based on guesswork, the percentage of illegal immigrants who worked was based on guesswork, the percentage of visitors who worked illegally came from a departmental study based on guesswork. And Senator Aulich wants to tell us that he knows all about 60,000 illegal immigrants who can be picked up or deterred by the card, when the figure of 60,000 illegal immigrants is denounced in the evidence put to the Joint Select Committee as guesswork. The considered view of the Joint Select Committee was that that figure was not worth hanging anything upon, let alone hanging Australian citizens upon. Senator Aulich said: `The Federal Police would like to have something to do with this because it will help tidy up problems of organised crime'. I refer again to the report of the Joint Select Committee. Paragraph 1.64 refers to the submission from the Australian Federal Police, which stated: The AFP adds, however, that there are no realistic grounds for anticipating any impact on the level of organised crime generally. It was referring to the introduction of the Australia Card. So the evidence from the Australian Federal Police-and the Minister responsible for the Federal Police, the Special Minister of State, Senator Tate, is in the chamber-to the Joint Select Committee was that no significant impact on organised crime would be achieved by having this card. Yet Senator Aulich tries to pretend something to the contrary. We come to the question of the views of Mr Costigan. Senator Aulich was concerned to quote Mr Costigan-Mr Costigan's fight against organised crime and the necessity for following various money trails. Before I come to Mr Costigan's evidence, I will refer to an interesting book which was published recently, entitled Card-Carrying Americans-Privacy, Security, and the National ID Card Debate by Joseph W. Eaton. Eaton in his book deals with the questions of national identification systems in the United States of America. I draw people's attention to the fact that the Joint Select Committee noted that the Federal Advisory Committee on False Identification in the United States recommended against the introduction of the national identity card. It stated: The Federal Advisory Committee on False Identification 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 same thing was said by the Privacy Protection Study Commission in its report to the President of the United States, and in the 1980 report of the United States General Accounting Office. Professor Tracy Westen, Professor of Communications Law and Policy at the University of Southern California, in reviewing Eaton's book, says: . . . Eaton blinds himself to the virtually limitless capacity of such a system for error. Some estimate that 50 per cent of current FBI records are inaccurate or incomplete, that only 13 per cent of Federal agencies audit their own systems, and that state criminal records are only 12 per cent to 49 per cent accurate. Pity the poor citizen caught in a web of computer errors generating false arrests, lost jobs or damaged credit ratings. When Mr Costigan came as a witness before the Joint Select Committee, he was as equally concerned about this. He said on page 1232 of the Hansard transcript of evidence to the Joint Select Committee: If you introduce something like a national identity card-again, going down the track 10 or 20 years, seeing it as it would be then-I think you really have changed the kind of society we have. You have got to be pretty satisfied that the benefits you are getting out of that justify that. I certainly am not satisfied. Costigan said substantially in his evidence: `Do not introduce the Australia Card, do not proceed down that track'. We are told by Senator Aulich of the wonderful things that will be achieved by this system. It will, he says, be tamper-proof, foolproof and forgery-proof. Yet we saw only a couple of weeks ago in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of 13 March 1987: Children are paying $50 to $100 for fake driving licences in Sydney's west to enable them to buy alcohol and to get into nightclubs. We have a statement from Senator Archer, the Shadow Special Minister of State, dealing with the case of Frank Duggan which shows up the folly of trying to rely on identity cards which can easily be forged. Senator Archer indicates how Duggan's allegations show the consummate ease with which organised crime is able to provide false driving licences, passport and medical certificates in collusion with allegedly corrupt taxation and transport department officials. We have a statement from Senator Walsh, made in answer to a question in the Senate some months ago, that money laundering through dealing with bookmakers would be unaffected, untouched by the introduction of a national identity card-that was admitted to by Senator Walsh. An item in the Canberra Times of 19 November 1986 under the heading `Blewett says fake cards could pass' reads: A forged Australia Card might not immediately be identified, the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett admitted yesterday. That is why he wanted to make amendments to the legislation, but those amendments have gone by the board to facilitate this shabby Government's cynical attempts to betray the people of Australia in order to provide itself with a double dissolution trigger and dishonour the Prime Minister's repeated pledges that this Parliament would run its full course. Senator Aulich today in this chamber bleated on about all the people who were in favour of the card. Yet even in the last couple of days we have seen an enormous upsurge of people who really know what the situation is indicating their opposition. The Law Council of Australia, under the chairmanship of Mr Darryl Williams, QC, put out a press statement on 24 March indicating how the Law Council remains opposed to the ID card. The Australian Chamber of Commerce on 30 March said that it is opposed to the introduction of the card. The Australian Bankers Association put a submission to the Government and the major points raised in this submission are that it is considered unrealistic to expect, as would appear to be the case from provisions within the Bill, that the banks would be able to cope with the demands to be put upon them or that it would be cost effective, or that there would be any way in which the banks would support the system being brought forward in its present form. Senator Aulich today told the Senate about the Australian Taxation Office. I believe that the Taxation Office would have more opportunity to get on with catching the tax cheats in this community if senior people like Deputy Commissioners did not have to keep ringing the Labor Government's Federal Treasurer to remind him to put in his personal tax forms. Then the Tax Office would be in a position to get on with doing things. The Tax Office has been slammed by parliamentary committees-- Senator Elstob —If that is all you can come up with, your argument is pretty poor. Senator PUPLICK —I am not surprised to hear Senator Elstob trying to defend those who do not do the right thing by the tax system. He has got to, because his own Federal Treasurer is part of that. Further, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure in its report `A Taxing Problem' said that the Tax Office is responsible for most of the problems that arise. Senator Aulich asked why did not the Liberals in office give the Tax Office the capacity to get on with these things. He knows that the evidence that was given to him when he was presiding as Chairman of the Committee indicated that the Tax Office had been given five times as much money as it had spent to get its systems into place. Does anybody know any Commonwealth department, other than the Tax Office which, when given five times as much money as it could actually spend, would not find a way of using that money to get its systems up to scratch? He knows full well where the fault lies. He should be asked what his Government has done in the last four years to make the slightest dent on the Taxation Office. He has the hide to come into the chamber and talk about civil liberties and drag up the conscription argument. Senator Tate looked embarrassed over that, because Senator Tate knows that he was the Chairman of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee which recommended that that conscription legislation should be taken off the books. I was a signatory to that report and would support that being done, but this Government has not done that. Senator Aulich wants to talk about conscription legislation, when he has had the opportunity for four years to repeal the legislation. Senator Tate's committee had recommended unanimously that that legislation be repealed. Where is the activity from Senator Aulich's Government when he wants to pretend to us that it is concerned about civil liberties? Senator Aulich also wants to talk about the security of departmental files. Let us look at that matter. I quote the National Times on 21 September 1986: `For sale, Social Security files'. There was a response in a news release from the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, on 21 September 1986 which states: The Minister for Social Security, Mr Brian Howe- it will be remembered that it was Mr Howe's letter that has been dragged in here today to tell us how it is that Mr Howe wants to have the card- today said that there had been very few cases detected of breaches of confidentiality in information supplied to his department, but any breach was a matter of serious concern. What has happened about the breach? Nothing. Has anybody been prosecuted? Have any systems been changed or action taken? The answer is no. In fact, quite the contrary. We now have Mr Howe saying that he wants to have the card. His Press release continued: Any organisation with extensive records is vulnerable to such approaches. Has he done anything about it? No. Has he changed any systems? No. Has he changed any personnel? No. What he has done is that he has come into the chamber today with a piece of paper given to Senator Aulich to parrot on his behalf saying that what he really would like to do would be to have access to the whole of the Australia Card system. We then come to the question of the leaks which have occurred in relation to doctors' incomes and things of that nature. We all know from listening to Senator Walsh in this place day by day how unbelievably concerned Senator Walsh is about the reputation of doctors and their position in the community. Mr Loy, Senior Private Secretary in the office of the Special Minister of State, in a letter relating to these leaks, addressed to the Private Secretary to the Minister for Health and dated 11 November 1986, said: Dr Blewett and Mr Young have exchanged correspondence concerning the number of people who may have had access to information published in the Sydney Morning Herald last year . . . Last year! Senator Tate is the Special Minister of State and he should pay a bit of attention to this. A leak which occurred in May 1985 and which his Department gets around to responding to only in November 1986 indicates the real concern that this Government has about people's privacy. The letter said: Dr Blewett and Mr Young have exchanged correspondence concerning the number of people who may have had access to information published in the Sydney Morning Herald last year on certain doctors' Medicare incomes. In its earlier investigations the Australian Federal Police (AFP) said they had identified 197 persons through Australia who had access to the information published in the Herald, notwithstanding the fact that only a small number possessed computer access codes. Only a small number possessed the codes, yet 197 people had access to the information. Now this Government has the unmitigated nerve to tell the people of Australia that it can put together a system in which their privacy will be protected and, indeed, that it cares a tinker's curse about people's privacy. It has taken the Government 18 months to get to even that stage. When the Special Minister of State responds to this debate he can tell us what steps he has now taken to do anything about that matter. The answer to that will be none because he is too busy gearing up the Australian Electoral Office for the prospect of some sort of double dissolution and altogether too concerned that he might actually beat Mr Keating's record as the shortest term Labor Minister ever to hold office between the time of his appointment and the time that his Government goes to the polls and gets defeated. The whole problem is that the Government has absolutely no concern about this matter. When Dr Blewett wrote to Dr McNicol, the National Co-Secretary of the Australian Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons, he said: It is thus always known who has accessed the raw data and who has received information in summarised or extracted format. It is always known-the 197 people mentioned in Mr Loy's note to the Private Secretary to the Minister for Health! And we are supposed to believe any of the assurances given by this Government in exactly the same way as we are supposed to believe the assurances that there will be no capital gains tax. Indeed, we were also supposed to believe, as Senator Walters has pointed out on a number of occasions and as she pointed out in her speech of 10 December 1986, the Prime Minister's famous proposition: Let me make a promise so that even the Opposition can understand it. There will be no capital gains tax. Those were the words of the Prime Minister and we are supposed to put the protection of our civil liberties and the integrity of our personal files on the same level and on the same basis as Prime Minister Hawke's assurance that there would not be a capital gains tax. We are supposed to take Mr Howe's letter to the Minister for Health as overriding what his Department told the Joint Select Committee. As Senator Walters will point out later, representatives of the Department of Social Security have said in various Estimates Committee hearings that the Australia Card is of no use whatsoever and of no interest whatsoever to them, because they know that it will not work. I come to an editorial in the Catholic Weekly published on 22 October 1986. Is somebody going to include the Catholic Weekly in Senator Aulich's litany of `professional civil libertarians, affluent lawyers, tax cheats, criminals and frauds'? Or will Government senators take this editorial as being a significant indication of community concern? Under the heading `An Identity Crisis'-- Senator Elstob —They are your friends; not ours. Senator PUPLICK —Senator Elstob says that the Catholics are our friends. I am perfectly happy to have the Catholic Weekly people as friends of mine. I am sure that he would reject them as friends of his. I am not in the least bit surprised that Labor senators would denounce writers for the Catholic Weekly as being no friends of theirs. They have no reason to be friends of theirs when one considers what the Government has done to their school system and what it is doing to their civil liberties. Under the heading `An Identity Crisis', the editorial indicates the extent to which that significant newspaper is concerned about the Australia Card. Part of the editorial says: The anti-ID card individual would quickly find life almost impossible. We then come to Bishop Challen, the Anglican Bishop of Perth, who gave evidence to the Joint Select Committee in Perth. He gave evidence as to why we should not introduce the Australia Card. Perhaps Senator Elstob wants to intervene now and say that the Anglican Church in Western Australia is no friend of the Labor Party. It should not be a friend of the Labor Party when one considers what the Labor Party has done to it. Bishop Challen came before the Joint Select Committee and indicated that we should not introduce this wretched Australia Card because of the extent to which it would change the fundamental nature of the relationship between people and government in our society and why it was not worth pursing. We on this side of the chamber have made clear the extent to which we have been prepared to support any reasonable legislation dealing with the abuses of the taxation system. I remind members of the Government that no Treasurer in the history of Australia has introduced more significant or more numerous pieces of legislation to combat the abuses and the fraud in the taxation system than John Howard did when he was Federal Treasurer. I remind Government senators that we have said that we will co-operate in any reasonable system which will tighten up the provisions of the social security and immigration systems and which will make the Australian Taxation Office work more effectively. None of those has been taken up or acted upon by the Government. It has been determined to pursue this Australia Card legislation despite the clear statement made by Dr Blewett on 5 February 1987, from which I quoted, that changes would be made to the Australian Card legislation allegedly in order to make the legislation work more effectively. Instead of actually discharging its responsibility to the people of Australia to at least bring before us a Bill which would take up the concerns exposed by the Joint Select Committee, exposed in the debate and exposed in the public arena, the Government comes before us again with the same flawed Bill. This is the same Bill that the Joint Select Committee rejected; the same Bill that Senator Bolkus attacked; the same Bill that was attacked by Mr Kent, Mr Petersen, Mr Saunderson, and Mr Kennedy; the same Bill that the Labor Party's own policy committee on law reform attacked. The very distinguished Senator Georges also attacked this Bill and he was prepared to be abused. People in this chamber will remember Senator Elstob's disgraceful personal abuse of Senator Georges for having had the courage to speak his own mind and to put the interests of the people of Australia ahead of the dictates of Caucus. People will remember Senator Elstob's disgraceful behaviour on that occasion. Instead of bringing back a Bill which tried to address the issues that had been raised by the Joint Select Committee, the councils of civil liberties, the Law Society, the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the bankers and the trade unions that put in submissions opposing the card, the Government brought back the same piece of legislation in a cynical and sleazy attempt to get a technical trigger for a double dissolution. Let me tell the Senate this: Even if the Government uses this Bill as a trigger, we will be perfectly happy to go out on to the hustings with Government members, at any time of their choosing and under any circumstances of their choosing, and debate not only the Australia Card but the whole approach which this failed and rotten Government has taken towards the economic, social and personal welfare of the people of Australia. We will give them one almighty hiding, at which stage the Australia Card will meet the same fate as this Government will meet at the polls, when both of them will be decisively rejected. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(11.34) —I rise to support the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2]. At the outset I must clear up one misunderstanding. When I interjected during Senator Puplick's speech I had no intention of being discourteous to any church-Catholic or Protestant. I was saying that the Liberal Party of Australia is the friend of the tax cheats. I make that quite clear. That clears up that misunderstanding. The Australia Card is just another weapon to use against the tax cheats. The Opposition has been in power for 30 of the last 36 years. Do not misunderstand that. Australian laws are recognised throughout the world as being some of the fairest and greatest; but when we come down to taxation laws we cannot say the same. Australia is a lucky country to live in. It is a great country, but we cannot say that our taxation laws are great. Opposition senators interjecting- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections from the Opposition benches. Senator ELSTOB —I can handle them, Mr Deputy President; do not worry about it. We can always handle the friends of cheats. They are easy to handle. Why did the Opposition parties not rectify the injustices in our taxation system during their rule of 30 of the last 36 years? Senator Puplick asked why Dr Blewett has not brought in changes to this Bill. I will answer that. Senator Puplick —`As soon as I can think of one'. Senator ELSTOB —No, I do not have to think about it at all. When Mr Fraser was Prime Minister, he instituted an investigation into the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union in Melbourne. He, and some other members of the Liberal Party, thought that the results of that investigation would embarrass the Australian Labor Party. But who did it embarrass? Who did it put out of government? When Mr Costigan really looked into the activities of the painters and dockers, he found that the friends of the painters and dockers were members of the Liberal Party. Senator Puplick —Name one, go on. Senator ELSTOB —It brought the honourable senator's government down. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Puplick, you are interjecting too much. Senator ELSTOB —It is a known fact that some people, through the bottom of the harbour scheme as it was commonly known, were not paying their taxes. When Labor got into government we said: `Enough of this'. Knowing that the wage and salary earners of this country had been footing the bill for 30 of the last 36 years, we brought Bills into this Parliament to recover that money. People of great wealth take it upon themselves to opt to pay their tax or not. The whole history of taxation in this country is a thorough disgrace. I remind honourable senators that the first Bill we brought in, on 18 May 1933, was to recover the money that was shown up in the Costigan report on the Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Senator Vanstone —You meant 1983, did you? Senator ELSTOB —It was 1983. The Bill that was brought in on 18 May 1983 was to recover $570m. It was justified that the Government should try to recover that. What happened to that Bill? The friends of the cheats, the liars and everyone else, in association with the Australian Democrats, rejected that Bill. Once again the people who should have been paying their taxes escaped. We considered that we would reduce the amount of fraud, and this is why Dr Blewett did not alter the Australia Card legislation. We have done this before. To try to accommodate people and to be compromising, on 23 August 1983 we brought in another Bill to recover $270m, and once again it was rejected by the coalition and the Democrats. On 3 November 1983 we brought in another Bill to recover only $35m in respect of some minor taxation matters. Once again the Opposition rejected it and enabled the people who regard paying taxes as optional to get away with it. The Bill which we introduced on 23 August 1983, to recover $270m we reintroduced on 2 May 1984, but once again the Opposition rejected that Bill. Consequently the people who should have been paying tax have never paid it. We have a long history of total inequality for the taxpayers of this country. How can honest business people operate when someone else, who is, say, manufacturing identical articles, is not paying any tax? The person who is honest has got to either go out of business or become evil and crooked like his competitor. That is what is happening in this country. The system is driving honest, decent people into operations that they have no wish to go into. They do not want to be thieves. The great majority of Australians want to be honest and decent. But our taxation laws and systems have encouraged all the wrong things for too long. Senator Puplick said a great deal about-- Senator Knowles —What did he talk about? Come on! Senator ELSTOB —That is true. Senator Puplick spoke about civil liberties. He said nothing about the private databank. It is just pie in the sky for anyone who understands the financial system in this country to say that this Bill is going to interfere with privacy. They are just crocodile tears. Any bank in this country can get information on anyone who wants to buy land, a house, a second hand car or a new car, or anyone who wants to undertake any financial transaction and to borrow money. The banks can ask how much money a person owes, whether he owes money on a house, furniture or any other property, and within two minutes they can tell whether a person has accurately filled in a loan application form. Senator Lewis —Do you believe that is right and proper? Senator ELSTOB —I do not believe it is right, but let me go on. I think there should be some restraint on that. Senator Lewis —Why would you give the Government open slather? Senator ELSTOB —The honourable senator has had his say. It is simply commenting on what Senator Puplick and everyone on his side is saying. It is totally unfair to attack on this basis just the Australia Card. The Opposition has not said that this accumulation of knowledge by the banks, which has been going on for many years, is an intrusion into people's lives. There is no doubt that it is such. The banks do not ask whether the people want that intrusion. They do not ask: `Do you mind if I check on how much money you owe?', or anything else. I think that should be asked. I agree that something should be done about fraud. Under the Australia Card Bill, public servants have to have written permission to inquire into anyone's private affairs. That is not happening today. I think that is important. It is not a perfect world, as we know. Senator Lewis —We ought to be trying to make it perfect. Senator ELSTOB —The Bill tries to make it perfect. It is a much improved system on what goes on illegally, in my opinion, today. It requires a public servant to record each request, together with the reason for wanting access to the Register. Information cannot be obtained until those requirements have been met. Professor Whalan, who is a noted civil libertarian, said in evidence to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card that perhaps one irony would be that if we have an Australia Card with all those protections our privacy may be better protected than it is now. That is very important. There should be some regulations, and I do not think people should be able to inquire into one's privacy on a whim. If people want to borrow money or enter into some financial transaction it is fair enough that they fill out forms, but at least they should be aware of being investigated. Any person should have records available to him so that he can see whether the information recorded on those records are accurate. He should have the right to add or delete information from those records if they are incorrect. That is where the whole system as it is falls down. I believe at the moment the system is illegal and unjust. If it were better controlled under the Australia Card we would have a better system. Senator Lewis —So you would extend it to the finance companies, then, would you? Senator ELSTOB —I do not say that. I am saying that it is already there, and I am saying that it is wrong that it is there. Under the Australia Card legislation when a person applies for a job he will have to show his Australia Card. That is reasonable, and there is a reason for that. About 50,000 to 60,000 people have visited Australia and overstayed. They take jobs away. At the moment in the vicinity of 50,000 to 60,000 people are working illegally in Australia. I believe it is only fair and just-- Senator Lewis —That they should starve. Senator ELSTOB —That people should prove who they are. I am not saying that anybody should starve. The honourable senator cannot take me down that track. I believe in a just society. I want to know what types of people are let into this country. If a person comes here as a migrant he should be properly documented and properly investigated. I do not want all sorts of people coming into this country unless I know that they have been thoroughly vetted. It is absolutely dishonest for them to come out here and take our jobs. That is one reason for showing the Australia Card when applying for a job. The next reason is in relation to the banking system. There are so many illegal bank accounts today; money is shuffled around in all sorts of names. Senator Lewis —The card won't stop it. Senator ELSTOB —The card will help follow that money trail of all the criminals, the people who do not pay their taxes and the people who take so much away from their business and put it into false accounts. They park it in those accounts-it is common-and then they take it out and put it in the Totalizator Agency Board. Senator Lewis —What you are saying is not true. Senator ELSTOB —It is true. They also give it to bookmakers, and I understand that the going fee is about 10 per cent. These people bet on a horse and the bookmakers give them cheques. These are two ways of laundering money. They go to the TAB and get cheques from it, and they go to the bookmaker on a Tuesday or whenever it is that he pays out and get cheques from him. That is another way of laundering money, but they have to park it in accounts to do so. They do not leave it to flutter around. There are so many people with accounts in false names. In 30 of the last 36 years the Liberal Party's track record has been disgraceful. It is absolutely disgraceful. Our taxation system is unfair, and the Liberal Party has done nothing. Why has it not supported legislation to recover money from-- Senator Lewis —Because they are retrospective. Senator ELSTOB —Does the honourable senator tell me that if a person has been dishonest and somebody has been paying more than his fair share that money should not be recovered? That argument is totally incorrect. Senator Puplick also had something to say about the Australian Federal Police. He said that it did not agree with the Australia Card proposal. During the Committee's hearings the Chairman asked a question of Chief Superintendent Brown, and I quote: You also qualified that to say that the foot soldiers, the small-time people, are an essential part of the overall strategy and that the key to opening up some of those larger organisations may well be a universal identifier which enables us to track the money trail and the identity trail through to people who are much bigger in the scheme of things as far as criminal organisations are concerned. Is that a fair summary of what you were saying? Chief Superintendent Brown of the Federal Police said: Yes, it is very accurate . . . Senator Puplick said that the Federal Police was not saying that. The quote that I have just read out is in the Hansard transcript of proceedings of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card on Friday, 28 February 1986, and it is at pages 2790 and 2791. Senator Puplick conveniently does not remember all those things. Let us look at what is going on in the Department of Social Security. I believe that many people in our society are desperately poor. The worst case that I have heard of is that the unemployment benefit was paid 24 times to an individual. In other words, that individual had 24 names. The cost to revenue was something like half a million dollars. We do not know just how much cheating there is on our social welfare system. As I said, many people in our society are trapped in poverty. I for one would like to see us raise some money for these desperately poor people, but how can we when we have cheats who are taking more than their fair share? It is an impossibility. The card will be at least another weapon. I am not saying that it is the be-all and end-all. It is a big part of our battle against unfairness in our taxation and social welfare systems. It is another weapon against people coming into this country, overstaying their visitors' visas and taking jobs. These people are here illegally, and we do not want them. Some of them are part of the criminal element. Most of the people in crime today are involved with drugs. That is one of the big crimes that pays. It is very profitable-marihuana, heroin and the rest. With the Australia Card system we will be able to follow a trail of money. If people make money in some illegal way they will want to spend it. They show it through property or something else. The Australia Card will stop people having a dozen bank accounts in different names and continually changing their addresses. Now it is an impossibility to stop them. All this came out when the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union was investigated. It shows the depth of crime that is undetected in Australia. If we are to keep Australia as a reasonable and decent place for our children to live in the future, the Australia Card is one of the weapons that we can use to make it possible to make this country great. It is a great country and I am a very proud Australian. We are lucky people but, as I have said, our taxation system is not fair to all Australians. It is an utter disgrace that the Liberal Party and the Australian Democrats are opposing this Bill. We all know what the Australian Democrats want. They want a double dissolution. Senator Haines would probably stand the best chance of getting back into the Senate. In politics, one has to count. If one cannot count one should not be in politics. I have gone through the figures for the last five elections in South Australia, both Federal and State, and on any count Senator Haines cannot get back into the Senate in a single Senate election. If she cannot get back, not one Australian Democrat will get back. They want a double dissolution-and that is why they are opposing this card-so that they can get back into the Senate. Why then is the Liberal Party opposing this card? Senator Lewis —Because it is wrong. Senator ELSTOB —That is not true, and the honourable senator knows it. If those opposite want a fair and equitable society the legislation is not wrong. Unfortunately, members of the Liberal Party have had it good for too long. They have been in power for 30 of the last 36 years. They have forgotten how to work. They have had resources over those years. When they were in government they received a lot of extra resources. The Liberal Party today has forgotten how to work and that is its greatest downfall. It has forgotten how difficult things can be. Money was showered on those opposite. They asked for donations from many of the people who were getting the benefits of an unfair taxation system. Those people contributed to the Liberal Party and, although those opposite did not look too closely at those organisations, they knew what was going on. That is the reality. That is one of the reasons we want public funding and people to disclose money obtained. It makes politics a lot better. The Liberal Party has lost its way. The Australian Labor Party, through hard work-we had to work for every dollar that we earned to get here-and with no resources, learned how to work. That is what those opposite are losing. They are all fighting each other. It is a disgrace. In a democratic society, those opposite are not fulfilling the job of an Opposition. They oppose schemes that are trying to make taxation fair. They are continually hanging on to old systems and ways and they want that unfairness. That is what they call democracy. It is not our way of democracy. There will be a fair system of taxation and we will keep bringing these Bills forward to make this country a fair place to live in. If we do not do this we cannot develop our industries. The people who take their coats off to work know jolly well they are being ripped off. Year after year they are paying. Look at the fringe benefits tax and the amount of money people were paid in the form of a motor car or other perks. Their wives had cards to go to certain shops to buy dresses; there were overseas trips; their children's schooling was paid for. Those opposite put up with all those things. But the wage and salary earners had to pay extra for that. Those conditions will no longer prevail. Those opposite say that if they win the next election-heaven forbid-they will reverse all those decisions. But the people of this country have woken up. They will not pay forever. They cannot be fooled all the time. They are much better educated today. They understand that with a fairer system this country will develop better. The spending power of ordinary people will improve conditions in this country. It is true that the Opposition and the Democrats will combine to defeat this Bill, but in the long term it will do them no good. The Labor Party stands for fairness. We will keep bringing these Bills forward to make the system fair. Sooner or later the Australian people will understand that it is of no use voting for Australian Democrats or Liberals who will perpetuate an unfair system. The majority of people in this country will be Labor people and will vote for the Party that will provide honesty and fairness in society. Once again we will be proud to say that this is a great country. It is a great and fair country but our taxation system is the worst in the world. It is totally unfair and should be changed. I have pleasure in supporting the Australia Card legislation. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(12.02) —The reintroduction of the Australia Card Bill, which quite frankly should be known as the licence-to-live Bill, is a monumental piece of hypocrisy. All other common law countries throughout the world have seen fit not to introduce a Bill such as this, not to have any form of national identification system-but not this Government here in Australia. I have found the debate thus far rather amusing. I made a full page of notes on some of the absurd assertions that Senator Aulich made earlier this morning. I turned over the page to make some notes on some of the things that Senator Elstob was talking about but unfortunately I have been left with a blank page because Senator Elstob, charming as he is-and he is a very decent chap-really did not make any contribution to this debate today, as he did not last December. The fact that this Bill is here before the Senate in an unamended form is a sure indication that this Labor Government is concerned only with playing politics and giving itself an option of having an early election and not with tackling the problems of tax evasion and welfare fraud. We have yet another Hawke promise of no early election being broken in the same way in which he has broken the promises that there would be no capital gains taxes, no student fees-and on the list goes. We have had broken promise after broken promise. But as my colleagues have mentioned before, as recently as February this year the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) was quoted in the Australian newspaper as stating that the Government would reintroduce its licence-to-live Bill with a number of changes relating to the clarification of safeguards in the legislation. The Minister was quoted as saying that the Government would: . . . take account of any legitimate suggestions for ways of improving the legislation. While I do not necessarily believe that such foreshadowed amendments would be sufficient to remove the grave and genuine objections of the Liberal Party towards the identification card system, they would certainly have deserved consideration on their merits. Now that they have not been included and not one comma has been changed in this Bill, we can have no further consideration of this Bill because it is identical with that produced last year. But, of course, the Government wants this Bill to be identical because it is the only way to provide the constitutional grounds for a double dissolution of Parliament. It raises the question as to whether the Australian Labor Party truly wants to see this Bill passed or whether it is just a means to an end whereby the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) can achieve his stated aim of wanting to be in his high office for the Bicentenary. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the Government knows the scheme is unworkable and that it now has far greater political value than any practical application. The possibility of winning an election is now more important than solving any tax or welfare fraud problems. The Prime Minister could call an election at any time but would prefer, of course, to blame the coalition instead of wasting money without having a scapegoat. We do not need an early election; it is not time for an election. The Prime Minister has admitted that in the past but seeks to equivocate on that position now. Refusal to amend this Bill will surely disappoint some honourable senators within the Government. When we debated this legislation only in December last year Senator McKiernan expressed the hope that the concerns for civil liberties raised by the Opposition be taken into account before this Bill was reintroduced. Certainly he and others in the ALP-including, I believe, five Ministers who clearly are unhappy with the original Bill and that, of course, means this Bill-will now be extremely disappointed. We should also call to mind the reported statement by Senator Bolkus in the Australian Financial Review of 23 July last that those opinion polls that showed support for a national ID card were based on loaded questions. It would now appear that this Government wants to ask the same set of loaded questions of the Australian public in toto via the form of a costly, unnecessary and opportunistic election. If we look at the matter objectively, what real justification does this Labor Government have for making the Australia Card the basis for a double dissolution election? This Government cannot possibly claim that the Senate has prevented it from running the country. The only reason the licence-to-live Bill is being used in this way is that it is the only piece of government legislation that the Senate has rejected for quite some considerable time. Indeed last year the Opposition adopted a deliberate and responsible policy of ensuring that all legislation connected with the Budget was passed through the Senate, even when it was legislation of which it disapproved. Senator Puplick —They broke their promise on freedom of information when we passed it. Senator KNOWLES —The Government has broken its promise on everything. I could list a string of broken promises but we believed that this Government, in a time of economic crisis, was entitled to its revenue measures and that is why we allowed its Budget Bills to go through the Parliament last year. Was the Australia Card a major plank of this Hawke Labor Government's 1984 election campaign? Of course it was not and it cannot be claimed that it has formed part of the declared mandate of this Government. The Government mentioned nothing of the sort prior to the last election. It has just been another wild dream that has been dreamt up since the Government got into office in 1984. What compounds the hypocrisy of this Government is the fact that it could have made a similar issue in 1985 with the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Bill that was rejected by the Senate. Of course the Government preferred to accept this defeat because it knew that that draconian legislation would have had a disastrous effect on business and its employees. In 1985 the Government did not want an election. That was the only real factor and the legislation meant little or nothing. Finally, can it be said that this Bill will save or recoup revenue for the Government and so reduce the current Budget deficit? The answer is no. We have only to pick up the Bill to establish that fact clearly. Quite frankly, the exact opposite applies. The Government's figures-not only the Opposition figures-show that no money is to be saved in either the short or long term but a vast amount of money-taxpayers' money-is to be spent. For example, the Government claims that it can save $69m over 10 years in Medicare, based on the vague assumption that the benefit outgoings will be reduced. It says that this Bill will be able to achieve that by preventing illegal immigrants and also those who use multiple identification from claiming Medicare benefits. The first question that needs to be asked about that statement is: Why would it be necessary for people to use multiple identification in the first place? If the claim is accurate, why cannot the Government substantiate the assumption? Also why cannot the Government supply any factual detail or evidence as to the position regarding illegal immigrants claiming Medicare benefits? If the Government thinks or knows that illegal immigrants are claiming health benefits, why is it not, in the first instance, ensuring that they cannot obtain a Medicare card without adequate primary identification? Also why has the Government allowed twice as many Medicare cards to be issued as there are those entitled to be holders? Of course it begs the question: Will that same eventuality come about with an ID card whereby twice as many cards are issued as there are those who are entitled to hold them? Last year during debate on this legislation I was told by a gentleman in Victoria that he had arrived in Australia on a visitor's visa and was able to obtain five Medicare cards in one week. That is how easy it is to bluff Medicare and the Government refuses to do anything about it and a licence to live will not stop that from happening either. All of these questions are obviously far too difficult for the Government to come to grips with, let alone answer. Why does the Government also claim that it can collect extra revenue to the tune of $36m by having a card with a photograph? This is yet another wild bluff that cannot be explained. The question needs to be asked: What happens to people-both men and women-who change their appearance by the colour, length or style of their hair, have surgery or whatever? Penalties are involved for anyone in this game who loses his card. What happens if he wants to change his card? He will have to pay another fee to change his card. We know that both men and women change appearance, some more frequently than others, so what does that mean? They will be trotting in and out of Medicare offices getting cards every week. What will happen to the old cards? As I mentioned in my speech on this Bill last December, the Auditor-General's report made it crystal clear that the Australian Taxation Office has failed to collect hundreds of millions of dollars of tax on income generated by banks, building societies and the like. It is simply not good enough that the Australian Tax Office is losing between $308m and $512m each year because it has neglected to use available funds to buy compatible computer equipment. Once again the Government needs to answer the question as to why it will not move to tighten up this area first of all by ensuring that all new equipment is compatible with the existing equipment and that the information readily provided is acted upon. I suppose that is all too simple and it would not provide dossiers the Government wishes to collect on all Australians and place into a central computer for future reference. Senator Aulich mentioned that individuals are able to inspect their files once a year. This is all very well but the question may well be asked on that point: What will be deleted from those files prior to access? The Bill promises only future revenue benefits that are highly debatable and to date totally unsubstantiated. The Liberal Party, government departments, expert witnesses and a substantial number of Government Ministers, senators and members see the fact that the ID card will be clumsy and inefficient in fulfilling its declared task of recouping revenue, quite apart from the objections on libertarian grounds. Sadly, as per usual, those government senators opposed to this Bill will not have the opportunity to vote that way because Big Brother will not allow it. Thirty-four speakers are listed to speak on this Bill and only eight government senators are even game enough to open their mouths. Does not that in itself indicate the sincerity with which some government senators are approaching this Bill? I state this fact reiterating the conclusions last year of the all party Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. Only in the last few weeks we have again seen confirmation of the fact that the legislation will impose immense compliance costs on the banking industry-$70m according to the Australian Bankers Association. Yet we heard Senator Aulich say a little while ago that the amount of compliance costs in the banking industry was going to be chickenfeed. All I can say is that one heck of a lot of chooks can be fed on $70m if he thinks $70m is chickenfeed. Once more the Auditor-General has issued a report questioning the effectiveness of an ID card whose cost- effectiveness has been badly understated by the Health Insurance Commission. The Liberal Party is not opposing this legislation from a negative standpoint. We realise that there is a pressing need to combat welfare fraud and to ensure that the Australian Taxation Office fulfils its requirements to obtain information as to interest and other currently unreported payments. Where we take issue with this legislation is its reliance on a clumsy and expensive quick-fix solution when the program that we propose will produce more immediate revenue gains without the massive cost to the taxpayer and to the private sector. It is not good enough that the ATO staff, however competent and dedicated they may be-and I believe they are-are employed in an unplanned, labour intensive operation that can involve staff processing 270 returns each day or 35 returns per hour. It is small wonder, then, that out of 1.8 million returns assessed in the Sydney office of the Australian Taxation Office in 1983-84, only six were referred to the compliance branch for further investigations-six out of 1.8 million. It is not good enough that information is not demanded as to interest payments from the Reserve Bank of Australia, which has outstanding some $50 billion in borrowings, of which up to $15m are in private holdings. It is not good enough that only 20 per cent of all interest paid is reported and only 50 per cent successfully matched. This again points to the failure to provide proper computer equipment. It is also not good enough that information that is available through the prescribed payments system-which, I might add, is a Liberal Government initiative against tax evasion in the cash economy-is not fully used by the ATO. We heard a little while ago a claim that the cash economy and criminals are going to be caught up, that the reins are going to be tightened on them, through the introduction of an Australia Card. What absolute rot! Does that mean that criminals are now going to go into a bank and open a bank account? I suppose they could if they were that stupid. They could go in and open a bank account under a name something like Mr I. M. A. Criminal. That would clearly identify them. This shows the absurdity of the Government's proposal. It is absurd to think that the problems raised by the cash economy and organised crime are going to be solved in this way. A mass of data on possible tax evasion is being absolutely wasted. According to the House of Representatives Expenditure Committee, only 1,664 of 22,000-plus detected non-lodgers under this system have undergone tax audits. Both this Committee and the Auditor-General have presented a picture of glaring deficiencies that this Labor Government fails to rectify. A Liberal government will therefore ensure that the efficiency and the computer capacity of the Taxation Office are upgraded so that returns can be matched with information on interest payments provided by all financial institutions. Other aspects of the problems for which the licence to live is supposedly designed will be more effectively tackled by a centralised register of births, deaths and marriages and by a tighter work test at the Commonwealth Employment Service. Only last night on the Willesee program we saw a fellow who had been offered a job at more that what the dole pays. That fellow turned the job down. The other interesting aspect of that item on Willesee last night was that that same person had bothered to apply for only 20 jobs in 52 weeks. He had not even applied for one job a fortnight, let alone one or five jobs a day as many unemployed people do. So we propose to tighten the work test. I say `tighten the work test', but as the Government is not using it at all at the moment I suppose I could say `reintroduce' it. We also propose to improve the identification procedures for obtaining social security benefits by primary and not secondary identification. We will ask for a birth certificate, not a driver's licence or a credit card. As Senator Puplick said earlier, young kids are going out and getting a number of driver's licences just so that they can drink in hotels, let alone claim welfare benefits. Private sector compliance costs would be $75m under our proposal; they will be $2 billion under the Government's proposal. This socialist Government has, of course, refused to provide any estimation of what the licence to live would cost business and the community generally-down to such matters as employee time off for official photographs and interviews. Senator Aulich had the audacity to say in his speech this morning that people in the business community are supporting the card. I would just like to find out where the following organisations fit in: The Confederation of Australian Industry, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, the Real Estate Institute of Australia, the New South Wales Council of the Australian Small Business Association Ltd, the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges, and the Victorian Chamber of Commerce. The list goes on. Surely these organisations are made up of people in the business community. They are not supporting this Bill. They have indicated quite clearly and unequivocally that they are opposed to this Bill. Yet Senator Aulich had the audacity to come in here this morning and say that the business community wants this Bill. Because the Government has refused to state what the compliance costs on business are going to be, we feel quite justified in quoting the figure of $2 billion that I mentioned earlier. The Government has not even remotely refuted that figure. It is not game to. The Liberal proposal is $2.4 billion less expensive than the licence to live. There can be no question whatsoever that it will be far less burdensome on the private sector and the individual. We believe that our proposal to overhaul the Taxation Office will provide over $3 billion in revenue gains over 10 years. What is certain is that it will raise money more quickly than any licence-to-live Australia Card at a stage in our economy where Budget deficits must be reduced now and not in five or 10 years' time. The licence-to-live ID card will raise nothing until 1989-90, and even then it is doubtful exactly what that revenue will be. This reinforces the fact that a program under a coalition government would be far less intrusive and much more cost-effective than what this Government is trying to propose. When as a Liberal I express concern about compliance costs to the private sector, I am far from being concerned solely for large employers, such as the banks. The people who will be massively inconvenienced by ID cards remain in particular the primary producers of Australia, who are currently being hit by everything-spiralling interest rates, charges, wage costs, and so on. They are confronted with sheer survival problems. It has been pointed out by the New South Wales Farmers Association that the licence-to-live Australia Card Bill, when law, will force 48,000 wheat growers to present their cards to seven Australian Wheat Board offices in the State capitals. This is, of course, due to the requirements of clause 43 of this legislation-that presentation of the card is necessary to receive payment from a marketing authority or an agent of sale. Senator Walsh —Once. Senator KNOWLES —It may well be true that they may have to produce it on only one occasion. But it is absolutely absurd that someone from the Kimberley in my State of Western Australia should have to go down to Perth for this purpose. The position of 80,000 wool growers accustomed to dealing with agents over the telephone will cause very similar headaches when they must personally make contact with their brokers. I do not believe that the people who are struggling to survive now because of the position in which they have been placed by this Government in terms of interest rates and taxation generally, should be put through the further inconvenience of having to trot all around the country to prove who they are when they have been operating in a certain way for years. The administrative costs of the changes will, of course, come back to the farmer. The New South Wales Farmers Association is concerned that stock and station agents and some marketing authorities intend charging producers an additional administrative cost. I am absolutely adamant that I will not see the rural sector go through any more hardship than it already is enduring. That reason alone would be enough not to vote in favour of this Bill. This Bill will do a number of things, none of which is desirable. As I have said right through this debate, it will establish simply a licence to live. On the first occasion that one does anything one will have to produce one's licence to live. It will intrude into everyone's privacy. It will provide jobs for 2,000 plus more public servants. I quite honestly thought that the size of government was too big now and that we should be reducing it. But no, this Government will provide jobs for another 2,000 plus more public servants. It will create another 300 more Medicare offices. It will fine people if they dare to lose their licence to live. It will cost the taxpayer $1 billion; it will cost business $2 billion. Businesses will be fined $20,000 if they dare do business without seeing a person's licence to live. The Government will discriminate against the aged, the sick and country people. This measure will encourage the cash economy. It will assist the operators of organised crime. Once again, Senator Aulich said this morning that it will stop organised crime. So Senator Aulich is saying that he knows better than Frank Costigan, QC, who headed many royal commissions into organised crime. Mr Frank Costigan, QC, has stated to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card that organised crime will flourish under an ID card system because just the intrinsic value of the ID card will make it worth falsifying. But no, once again Senator Aulich knows better than Frank Costigan, QC. He says that organised crime will be stopped with this stupid, idiotic card. Do we want legislation that does all of those things and absolutely nothing positive? No, we do not. The licence-to-live Bill, otherwise known as the Australia Card Bill, remains a gross violation of individual privacy. As I have stated repeatedly, it will be nothing less than a licence to live, despite its supposedly voluntary nature. Voluntary? What rubbish. If one tries to open a bank account or do business with anybody without one's licence to live, one cannot do it. So one cannot say `I have voluntarily chosen not to use my licence to live', because one will not be able to operate. The identity card scheme is not cost effective and has been shown time and time again not to be so. Now this Bill is being put forward as a cynical political exercise-without the justification that the people of Australia are entitled to expect-in its unamended form purely and simply to make sure that this Government, if the polls show it can win, can go to an election. If the polls and its own research show that it cannot win, it will choose not to go to an election. But the Government wanted this Bill back in this place to make sure that it had that option. People are entitled to make sure that governments run their full terms. I make no apology for the fact that we too, when in government, had early elections. I believe this Government should be running its full term. The country is in crisis. The rural sector is in absolute crisis; the business community is in crisis; families are finding it hard to live; yet we have a Bill before us today that is saying quite clearly: `We want to give you a licence to live'. We must reject this Bill out of hand. It is an absurdity to put more restrictions on people in already excessively hard times. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(12.30) —This morning when I entered the chamber I took the liberty of picking up a copy of the Bulletin and glancing through it. I saw yet again further evidence of what the Australian community thinks of the Australia Card Bill. It is not surprising to see a poll that says 69 per cent of Australians say yes and 27 per cent say no. It is not surprising because that has been consistent all the way through. Two-thirds of Australians have consistently said: `We want an Australia Card'. But I think the significant part of the survey is to look at what Liberal Party of Australia voters think of an Australia Card, because 57 per cent of Liberal Party voters surveyed also wanted an Australia Card. Senator Walsh —They are not as silly as their parliamentary representatives. Senator RICHARDSON —Well, nobody could be as silly as some of their parliamentary representatives. I would like to make the point that the reason the Liberal Party has got itself into all the difficulties of the last few weeks-and if one has been reading the papers one might have noticed just a few of them-is that it has totally lost touch with public opinion. I can think of some reasons for that. One of them, of course, is that opposition takes practice. If one wants to be good in opposition, one has to have had plenty of practice. The Liberal Party has not had enough practice in the last four decades. Fortunately, in the next four I can see it getting a great deal more. The community obviously-as I said, not just on the basis of the Bulletin survey, but on the basis of survey after survey now for several years-has accepted the Government's arguments for the need for a card to enable the Hawke Government to govern fairly and effectively, with the full understanding that it will financially catch the tax avoider, the fraudulent welfare seeker and the illegal immigrant. The community obviously realises that the Australia Card is part of an overall tax package, one that is now placed in danger by Liberal-National Party intransigence and by the Australian Democrats once again seeking to frustrate and delay. If the benefits of the tax cuts are to flow through to the community, obviously we have to put the brakes on tax avoiders and tax evaders. But every time in this chamber in the last four years that this Government had attempted to put a brake on the activities of tax avoiders and tax evaders, what has happened? The Liberal and National parties band together-even if it is one of the few things they can get together on these days-to protect those tax evaders and tax avoiders every single time. Besides these special practical considerations, of course, there is the ethical responsibility; that we, as citizens in our democracy, have obligations as well as rights. It is the duty of government to make sure that taxpayers' funds are not misused and that a fair share is paid by all. Australians already carry many forms of identification. We do not have only our licences-some States now have photographs on their licences; I notice that my own State of New South Wales is moving in that direction as well-we carry Medicare cards; many of us have credit cards, much to our own cost at times; many agencies have records and details of our personal lives; the Australian Taxation Office has records of our finances; the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has details of our passports; the Australian Electoral Office has 10 million names and addresses; State governments know if we own a car or if we have a licence; and legally all births and deaths are registered. It appears to be something of an illusion to think in Australia today that the details of one's private life can be kept only to oneself. Already agency after agency carries intimate details of our every day lives. In fact, I believe that the Australian people, the community at large, realise that the Australia Card we have offered, with all its checks and balances, is quite acceptable. They are prepared to give it a go in an effort to restore some equity to the taxation and welfare systems and justice to our immigration system. Once again, I can only repeat: In the latest survey 69 per cent of people support the Australia Card. To fly in the face of that smacks not only of irresponsibility but of stupidity. Let us look at the history of the Australia Card and that Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card that I saw battle on for some months before it came down with its final report. There was the view of the majority of members, and a minority view. Both reports supported the Government's belief that the problems of tax evasion, social welfare fraud, in particular-- Senator Puplick —You wouldn't have let that happen if you had been Chairman, would you? Senator RICHARDSON —If I had been the Chairman, I am sure that I could never have done as good a job as Senator Aulich. It was a superb performance by Senator Aulich, as was his speech earlier in this debate. I am proud to have put that on record. As I said, both the majority and minority reports supported the Government's belief that we needed some sort of unique identification numbering system. Both reports, as far as I can recall, supported the view that there would be massive savings from the introduction of such a system, although I noticed today that several speakers have attempted to walk away from that point. Senator Knowles in her contribution certainly did. The Government and the majority report, as far as I can see, agreed in principle, but disagreed as to the best way to achieve the end result. So we were in agreement about what we were attacking; we just disagreed about how we would get there. That is very different from what happened in regard to the report of the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation, when we disagreed about everything. Senator Puplick —But you had the numbers. Senator RICHARDSON —I often try to, Senator. There was agreement also with most of the 12 recommendations, subject to some modifications. As far as I can recall, some were even referred to relevant Ministers for consideration and report to Cabinet. Let us look at the areas of agreement between the Joint Select Committee and the Government. In regard to inequities in the tax and welfare systems affected by lack of proper identification processes, it was agreed that they should be attacked by the introduction of a unique numbering system. It was agreed that current birth, death and marriage registries were inadequate. It was agreed that the Commonwealth should provide mechanisms and finance to computerise those inadequacies. Let us look at the agreement in regard to civil liberties concerns. There was no disagreement, apparently, about the fact that a data protection agency should be established to control the collection and use of personal data. Again, there was no disagreement about the fact that privacy legislation was needed, incorporating the information privacy principles. The right of the individual to have access to and correct personal data on a database under the Freedom of Information Act was agreed to. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, it was agreed, should upgrade the quality of its records, and all records should be transferred to a computer database as a matter of urgency. There was only one main area of disagreement-the type of identification system that was needed. So we all knew what the goal was; we just disagreed about how we would get there. The Government, of course, opted for the Australia Card, not simply because most Australians want, demand and cry out for it, but because we believed it was the most effective system to help to restore fairness and equity to our tax and welfare systems. At the same time we supported the protection of individuals and of their civil liberties. The Australia Card system, when fully operational, would provide savings to the Government of almost $1 billion a year. I think that $880m was the actual figure used. This meant that by 1995-96, in that 10 year period, savings would reach almost $5 billion-about $4.6 billion. It is an extraordinary and enormous amount of money. No government, be it a conservative or a Labor government, could afford to knock that back. The majority proposal was for a tax file number identification system. The net total savings under that system would be about $280m annually, which is $600m short of the savings under the Australia Card proposal. By 1995-96 there would be a saving of $1.6 billion-$3 billion less than what could be saved under the Government's Australia Card proposal. How long can the Liberal and National parties go on kidding anybody? The reality is that at some stage of the game even the Liberal Party, which knows no shame, must give up protecting tax avoiders and tax evaders. That $3 billion it wishes to allow them to continue to evade over the next decade could do a hell of a lot for Australia's poor, for our education system and for all sorts of areas that can suffer in times of restraint. Both reports cited the need to restrict access to an absolute minimum. Both reports agreed that there should be access to only three departments-the Health Insurance Commission, the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Social Security. If one looks at the Opposition's stance on this matter, one would have to say that it is in disarray. That is a word that we have used a lot lately in looking at the Opposition's stance on anything. It does seem to have its difficulties. The confusing, contradictory somersaults it has done over this issue make even John Howard's performance on taxation, as evidenced in the paper this morning-he has once again backed down to the National Party-look like that of a piker. In May 1985 the Australia Card was enthusiastically supported by a range of Federal and State Opposition members-even by senators-as well as party officials around Australia. In 1985 the Australia Card was very popular amongst the Liberal and National parties. Ray Braithwaite, Charles Blunt, who was then, or subsequently became the spokesperson on social security, Ralph Hunt, the Deputy Leader of the National Party, no less-at least for the time being, until Bjelke-Petersen has his say-Nick Greiner, Leader of the Liberal Party in New South Wales, Eda Ritchie, the President of the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party, all supported the Australia Card. I noticed that Senator Knowles referred to `this stupid and idiotic card'. I hope that she would not refer to her leader, Mr Howard, as stupid and idiotic. Senator Walsh —Why not? Senator RICHARDSON —Because it would make him cry. He is in enough trouble on his own at the moment. On 15 September 1985, when the Leader of the Opposition was asked where he stood in regard to the proposed ID card, he answered: I personally see some merit in having an ID card providing the civil liberties concern . . . can be looked after . . . the United States has had a social security card for generations. That was what John Howard said. Yet, as in so many cases, the Liberal Party, that once great party in Australian politics, from November 1985 to November 1986 switched, somersaulted, and turned around again. It now wants an alternative identification numbering system-that is, an expanded tax number. Charles Blunt, Jim Porter and Senator Puplick all signed the majority report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card supporting the introduction of an upgraded tax file number identification system for tax and social security purposes. The Senate should remember that this is the only substantive point on which the majority and minority reports disagreed-the actual form of the ID system, not whether there should be one. But now the Opposition has apparently amended that stance and has abandoned its support for either the Australia Card or the tax file number. That means that it has dumped Senator Puplick. He is used to that. It also means that it has dumped the Opposition spokesman on health, Mr Porter, and Mr Blunt, who had supported the tax file ID system. The proposal was dumped despite their support and despite the recommendation of an all-party report entitled `A Taxing Problem' by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, which stated: With or without the adoption of the Australia Card the Australian Taxation Office take the necessary steps to establish a high integrity ID system which would ensure maximum taxpayer compliance. In the last debate on this legislation the Opposition opposed an amendment by the Australian Democrats to introduce a tax file number ID system-the very thing for which the Opposition had opted only a couple of months earlier. The breathtaking pace with which members of the Opposition can change their minds is staggering. Perhaps that is because, as I said, they have not had much practice in opposition. Under their present leadership they bend and change at the will of the National Party, or some of its members, at such a bewildering pace that no one in the Liberal Party knows what to expect anymore. The published alternative policy of November 1986 fails completely to come to terms with the necessity for any high integrity form of identification. Let us look at the need for a security numbering system and a card. The present tax file number has very low integrity. No proof of identification is required before the assignment of the number. The tax file option proposed that taxpayers with continuous tax records of more than five years be accepted as genuine unless normal audit, over time, revealed otherwise. That sort of system is wide open. How many would be subject to a normal audit? Only a tiny percentage. All the built-in abuses that have crept into the tax system over years and years would continue unidentified. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that, as will be evident from my assuming a seat above my station, Senator Button is absent from the chamber for Question Time today as a result of his chairing the Australia-China Joint Ministerial Economic Commission. Any questions in this chamber which would normally be directed to Senator Button in relation to his portfolio or those that he represents should be directed to me. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I wish, on behalf of the Opposition, to acknowledge the fact that Senator Button gave the Opposition early advice of the Australia-China meeting that he was chairing. I wish to acknowledge that courtesy and to say that, although the Opposition regards it as essential for Ministers to be present if possible, we accept that on this occasion it is a very important meeting and that it is appropriate that the Minister should be chairing it. Senator NEWMAN —I refer the Minister for Education to her answer yesterday, in which she categorically denied that the Commonwealth Government was paying the $250 administration fee for some teachers in the Australian Capital Territory. I refer the Minister to page 38 of the Additional Estimates explanatory notes issued by her own Department and, in particular, to the section that reads: Increased requirement due to need to pay administration charge of $250 each for 85 teachers attending courses in first semester 1987. The cost of that item is $21,250. Why did the Minister mislead the Senate yesterday? Will she now apologise and answer the other part of yesterday's question-namely, is there any plan for the Commonwealth to pay the charge for others in its employ? Senator RYAN —I think that the honourable senator is getting a little over-excited. If she looks at what I said yesterday in answer to her question, she will see that I said that there is no payment via Austudy of the charge, and that is the case. However, my attention having been drawn to this matter by her question, I then investigated the matter and found that at officer level, without any consultation with me or with the Finance Minister, some officials had decided that, because the enrolment was a condition of employment for technical and further education teachers, the charge would be paid. Opposition senators-Ah! Senator RYAN —Before Opposition senators get too excited, let me say that I also understand that there have been some officer level decisions at the Public Service Board along the same lines. However, I am now investigating the possibility of reversing that decision. I shall have discussions with my colleague Senator Walsh, who has just suggested to me that he would be keen to see the decision reversed or not implemented. When there has been a further investigation of whether any charges have been paid-and that has not yet been ascertained-it will be considered by Senator Walsh and me and a decision taken by us. Senator NEWMAN —I ask the Minister a supplementary question. Does that mean that once again the Minister has got caught up with a bit of paper that she has not read thoroughly? Is she not responsible for the actions of her Department? Will she not take responsibility for the actions of her Department, and how is it that members of her Department can be operating without her authority? Is it not a fact that yesterday in answer to my question she said it was impossible under policy-- Senator Elstob —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. Supplementary questions are supposed to supplement. I put it to you that Senator Newman is not asking a supplementary question, but making another speech. The PRESIDENT —Order! The question was relevant, but it was too long. However, the Minister should answer the question. Senator NEWMAN —I have a further part of the question that I have not finished. I was stopped in mid-sentence. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Newman to ask her supplementary question as quickly as possible. Senator NEWMAN —In her answer yesterday she said that under the policy it was impossible for these teachers to have their $250 tertiary fee paid. It is quite specific in Hansard. Does she deny it? Senator Walsh —What a harpy! The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walsh, will you withdraw that comment? Senator Walsh —Very well. I withdraw the comment that she is a harpy. The PRESIDENT —Withdraw unreservedly, Senator Walsh. Senator Walsh —The comment was that she is a harpy. I just want to make it specific, and I withdraw it. Senator RYAN —I simply repeat to Senator Newman, who seems to be in a state of dreadful excitement about all this, that if she checks in the Hansard what was asked yesterday and the answer given, she will see that what was asked was whether, via the Austudy scheme, payments were being made. They are not. However, the rest of the answer is as I have told her, and I have nothing to add at this stage. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Minister able to comment on an allegation made by Senator Alston during the debate on matters of public interest on 26 March that the Department of Foreign Affairs had improperly informed the media in Hobart of a visit by the Tasmanian Attorney-General to Europe? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Alston raised this matter in the Senate on 26 March and specifically requested me to make inquiries and to report back to the Senate. I take the opportunity of Senator Elstob's question to do so. Senator Alston alleged that the Department of Foreign Affairs had improperly telephoned the media in Hobart on 20 February to inform it that the Tasmanian Attorney-General, Mr John Bennett, intended travelling to Europe. Senator Alston said that this was a serious breach of the responsibilities of a Federal Department. In his statement in the matters of public interest debate the Senator failed to mention that, according to media sources in Tasmania, the media became aware of Mr Bennett's travel plans as a result of a journalist overhearing a phone call that Mr Bennett made to a Hobart camera shop on 20 February seeking advice on camera purchases in Europe. Also, in the Tasmanian Parliament on 10 March-not 26 March as Senator Alston claimed-Mr Bennett revealed that the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment volunteered information on 20 February that it knew Mr Bennett's travel plans. Nevertheless, this allegation made by Senator Alston has been investigated and the Minister for Foreign Affairs advises me that he rejects it as having no foundation. So far as can be established, no officer from the Department of Foreign Affairs advised the Press about Mr Bennett's travel plans. Honourable senators will know that the Department, on request, conveys by telegram to Australian missions requests for assistance from State and Federal members of parliament. Such matters are certainly not discussed with the Press. Routine advice was sent to missions about Mr Bennett's travel by the Department on 20 February. It would appear that in all the circumstances Senator Alston has made, perhaps through misinformation, an unwarranted slur on the Department's professional integrity. I note finally, on behalf of Mr Hayden, that Mr Bennett has not complained to the Department of Foreign Affairs about the alleged incident. Senator CHANEY —My question is to the Minister for Education and follows the question asked by Senator Newman and not answered by the Minister. I remind the Minister that what was asked of her yesterday had nothing to do with Austudy. Senator Newman asked her yesterday what was the estimated cost to the Government of the $250 tertiary education administration fee being paid by the Government for Australian Capital Territory teachers attending courses. The Minister in her reply, which raised the question of Austudy, and the position of people receiving Austudy, said among other things: The students who have their $250 paid for them are students in receipt of Austudy, and the only students in receipt of Austudy are full time students who meet the family income test. So there is no way that anybody employed as a teacher would be in receipt of Austudy, nor would such a person be exempted from the charge . . . She went on to say: So, under the policy as it exists, it is not possible for someone employed as a teacher to be having the $250 charge paid through my Department . . . Senator Ryan —Through Austudy. Senator CHANEY —Through Austudy. But in fact that was not the question. I ask the Minister: Does she now agree that she misled the Senate yesterday; that she said there was no way that this $250 could be paid, when Estimates documents which a Minister would normally have cleared have come to this Senate from her Department? Does she admit that it is clear now that it was intended to make payments for these student teachers? Will she now agree that she has misled the Senate and will she apologise for her error? Senator RYAN —As Senator Chaney aided the Senate by reading out the answer that I gave yesterday, the Senate will be aware that what I said yesterday is right-that the only people having their administration charge paid through Austudy are those in receipt of Austudy benefits and no full time Commonwealth public servant can be in receipt of such benefits. To the extent that it went, that answer was correct. I have acknowledged that further information has now come to me that decisions have been taken at officer level that the charge can be paid where it is a condition of employment. However, I am seeking advice on having that decision reversed or not implemented and I will be assisted in this matter by my colleague the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh. Senator COLSTON —My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health relates to invoices issued by a particular pathology firm in Queensland. These invoices state in large print that the Commonwealth does not fully rebate pathology services. Is this assertion correct, or would it be more accurate to say that the pathology firm charges more than the schedule fee? If so, are there any figures which indicate the extent to which pathology firms charge above the schedule fee for services rendered? Senator TATE —I have a brief available from the Minister for Health which informs me that Medicare benefits are payable at 85 per cent of the schedule fee, or the schedule fee less $20, whichever is the greater. Where a medical practitioner, including a pathologist, direct bills for the service, the Medicare benefit must be accepted as full payment for the service. Where a practitioner bills the patient there is no such restriction. The amount billed may be below, at or above-it is normally above-the schedule fee. Therefore, except when the patient is direct billed or charged at the benefit level, it is correct to say that the Commonwealth does not fully rebate the cost of pathology services. However, some pathologists, including some Queensland pathology firms, charge at levels above the schedule fee. Figures produced from Medicare claims processed in the December quarter last year show that about 51 per cent of pathology services in Queensland were direct billed while 32 per cent were billed to the patient at a fee in excess of the schedule fee. The figures for a year earlier were about 56 per cent direct billed and only one per cent charged over the schedule fee. So there has been a considerable change there. In August 1986 the Government reduced the schedule fees for 18 pathology tests. This was partly in response to abuses identified by the Public Accounts Committee in its report on fraud and overservicing in pathology. Those 18 tests were mainly automated, generally involved minimum specialist input and were highly profitable because fees had not been adjusted although the technology involved had become more efficient. It is clear from the figures that some pathologists in Queensland have not reduced the fees they charge, thereby increasing the cost burden to patients. This is not confined to Queensland, but obviously Senator Colston has knowledge of a particular instance. Of the four largest pathology firms in Queensland, two direct bill almost all services and one direct bills some services but issues bills to patients for a substantial number of other services. The fourth firm charges patients rather than direct billing. The statistics show that both firms charge above the schedule fee. Senator VIGOR —My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications flows from the Government's restoration to both the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service of the $1m slashed from each of their budgets at the last moment last year and passed off as possible merger savings, together with the $5m cut from the ABC earlier. In view of this debacle, will the Government in future consult with the national broadcasters before setting impossible targets at the last moment? Do the Prime Minister's comments at the end of the last week mean that the Government will not now bring the defeated ABC-SBS merger legislation back into the Parliament? Will the Government now implement its November 1985 decision that a Special Broadcasting Corporation should be established, or will it continue to try to undermine the morale of SBS staff and supporters with constant threats of absorption into the ABC? Senator WALSH —One of the most attractive features about having an early election-an election held earlier than it might otherwise have been-is that it would get rid of Senator Vigor earlier than might otherwise be the case. Senator Ryan —Very tempting! Senator WALSH —Yes, it is very tempting. We would not have to put up with him at another Estimates committee in the Budget session, either. Senator Haines —On a point of order, Mr President: I fail to see what that has to do with either the question that Senator Vigor asked or the answer that the Minister should be giving. I ask you to draw the Minister's attention to the need for relevance. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order, but Senator Haines is correct. Senator Walsh should answer the question. Senator WALSH —I entirely agree with both Senator Haines and you, Mr President. Coming to the substance of the question, if that is not too complimentary a way to describe it, Senator Vigor referred to the `defeated ABC-SBS merger legislation'. In fact, that legislation has not been defeated; it has not yet been dealt with by the Senate. Having corrected that assertion, let me correct another implicit allegation. The Prime Minister said that there would be no administrative merger if the Senate were to reject the merger Bill. On the policy question, members of the fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden party-or those who belong to the fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden school of thought-find that it is never necessary to count the cost of anything that seems to be a good idea. Such people can always be on the side of the angels, supporting every seemingly worthy call on the public purse by various groups without ever having to face the responsibility of supplying the funds that are required. Senator Button has stated on numerous occasions-and this is a comment with which I entirely agree-that only one or two countries in the whole world have one national broadcasting authority which is entirely funded by the taxpayers. In Australia we either have or are on the way to having two such authorities. Australia cannot afford two national broadcasting services which are entirely taxpayer funded. The Democrats' position on this matter, and particularly the actions of Senator Vigor, reflects a typically opportunistic and irresponsible approach. What is far more disgraceful is the fact that the official Opposition, while ostensibly supporting a policy of public expenditure control, has, for entirely opportunistic reasons, decided that it, too, will oppose the legislation. I hope that sometime between now and when the Senate finally determines the fate of this Bill, the Opposition can put a bit of steel-or at least a bit of bone-into John Howard's backbone so that he can make Opposition senators behave in accordance with the policy principles that his Party has enunciated. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister for Education aware that the retention rate to year 12 of Victorian students has reached 58.6 per cent this year, compared with 40 per cent in 1982, and that this increased rate is particularly evident in government schools? What contributions have Federal Government initiatives made to this marked improvement in the retention rate of secondary students? Senator RYAN —I have been delighted to see the progress being made in all Australian States in improving the school retention rates because a major policy plank of our strategy for young people is that they should get more opportunities for education. It is a question related to the preparedness of young people to become skilled and productive workers; it is also a question of equity. With both those considerations in mind our Government, in co-operation with the State governments and the non-government school system, set out to increase retention rates. The Victorian Government, and particularly the Victorian education Minister, Ian Cathie, is to be congratulated on this excellent performance of improving retention rates in schools within its responsibility. Everyone who is aware of and has been monitoring this heartening development will know that Commonwealth initiatives, such as the participation and equity program, have certainly assisted teachers in government schools where retention rates had previously been very low to bring in new and improved curricula, to set up new and improved relationships with parents and employers in the community and to give young people an education which they judged was worth while having. As well as the success of the participation and equity program in assisting improved retention rates, there are, of course, the great increases in the Austudy payments to 16- and 17-year-olds. These have now been increased by over 100 per cent on what they were when we came into office, and undoubtedly by targeting this sort of education assistance to poorer families we are giving them a very real and concrete form of assistance so that the young people can take advantage of education. I was delighted to see the Victorian results. I am also pleased that other States are showing improved participation, although the rate of increase in Victoria has been truly outstanding. Senator CHANEY —My question is to the Minister for Education and it follows the answer she has given about the very welcome increase in retention rates among young Australians at school-something that is certainly welcomed by the Opposition. Given that increase in retention rates, how does she explain the increase in unemployment in the same group, given that a smaller proportion of that age group are now available for employment because more of them are studying? Since the Priority One: Young Australia program commenced there has been an increase of several percentage points in youth unemployment. What policy failures can she point to to explain that? Senator RYAN —The answer to that is somewhat complex. It is current practice to express youth unemployment in terms of the percentage of young people who are seeking employment. Senator Walsh —In the labour market. Senator RYAN —That is right. Senator Chaney —But there are fewer in the labour market. Senator RYAN —I do not think I need Senator Chaney's assistance. If he wants to answer his own questions, why does he not do so while he is on his feet? The fact of the matter is that the measured rate of unemployment for young people is often interpreted to be a proportion of the whole age cohort. I am not quite sure what the current measured rate is, but say it was 12 or 15 per cent, it is often understood to mean that is 15 per cent of all young people in the age cohort. In fact, the actual figure is 8.8 per cent. What we are looking at is a decreasing number of young people on the labour market- Senator Teague —Youth unemployment is 25 per cent. Senator RYAN —Why does Senator Teague not pay attention to this? Because more and more young people are staying on at school, taking up traineeships or doing technical and further education courses, and because the increasing participation has been so enormous, the young people who are now on the labour market, say in the 16- and 17-year-old group, are the least qualified young people and therefore, understandably, have a harder time finding employment than would young people who had more education and more capacity. So we are looking at a narrower range of young people who are now unemployed. I remind the Senate that the statistics sound high because they apply only to those who are seeking employment. They are not statistics which are the rate for the entire age cohort. So because we have seen a dramatic improvement in school retention rates, TAFE participation and so on, we are seeing the least able to be employed young people in that age group actually seeking employment and therefore having a great deal of difficulty. Our response to this is to try to develop more options, such as staying on at school, traineeships and various TAFE courses, so that youth unemployment in that teenage group will eventually disappear. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Will the Minister provide the Senate with information on progress made to clean up potential deadly plutonium particles and other matters in the Maralinga area, the site of nuclear explosions in South Australia in the 1950s and 1960s? What developments have there been in the negotiations with the United Kingdom Government regarding the provision of resources for the much needed clean-up operation? Senator GARETH EVANS —I gave a detailed statement to the Senate in September last, setting out the Government's response to the various recommendations of the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia between 1952 and 1963. I noted at that time that we had set up a technical assessment group and a consultative group to work towards the identification of the problems in detail and the remaining problems of the clean-up. I noted that in response to an interim report from the technical assessment group, we decided that at least six studies should be carried out over a two-year period to enable determination of an optimal clean-up program. Since that time officials of the Australian and United Kingdom governments have resolved outstanding details for the conduct of those studies, and some of these have already commenced. The United Kingdom Government is willingly providing resources to assist in the present study program, in keeping with its undertaking to continue to provide technical advice on further decontamination measures. I am satisfied that the commitments of resources to the study by the United Kingdom and Australian governments are broadly similar. I have quite a lot of detail about the state of play on that. It is perhaps more appropriate for me to seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard rather than to burden the Senate at Question Time. Leave granted. The document read as follows- The study program is being managed on behalf of the Government by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, which has negotiated an agreement with the traditional owners, Maralinga Tjarutja, for an anthropological study to quantify Aboriginal Lifestyle characteristics. A related radiological study has been commenced by the AAEC to collect samples of soil, fauna and flora from the Maralinga and Emu areas which are contaminated with radioactivity. The United Kingdom National Radiological Protection Board will undertake laboratory experiments on the uptake of plutonium and americium from inhalation and ingestion. It will also carry out chemical and radiochemical analyses to determine the levels of contamination in animal and plant material, air filter and soil samples. The Australian Radiation Laboratory has commenced a study to assess exposures associated with the inhalation of dust at Taranaki and other contaminated areas. The United States Department of Energy has entered into a contract with the AAEC to provide sophisticated airborne radiological survey equipment and expert staff to determine the extent of the contamination at Maralinga and Emu. The United Kingdom Government is providing two fully crewed and supported RAF helicopters to act as platforms for this survey, due to commence at Maralinga on 1 May 1987. The United Kingdom Government will also undertake subsequent ground surveys of contamination to determine depth profiles and contours of contamination levels. They are also providing health physics support for both these operations. The influx of scientific and support staff at Maralinga has necessitated a considerable upgrading of facilities at Maralinga, including accommodation, water, power, sewerage, transport and catering. Both the United Kingdom and Australian governments are contributing to these essential facilities. The results of these activities, expected to be available in the second half of 1988, will enable the TAG to advise the Government on practical and cost-effective clean-up options and their costs. In the meantime the governments of Australia and the United Kingdom have agreed to put to one side the question of liability for clean-up costs. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Can the Minister confirm a report in today's Australian, in the higher education section, that research has shown that the Government's $250 administration charge has already had a marked effect on the distribution of tertiary students as between full time, part time and external students? Is it a fact, as reported, that there has been only a moderate 4.7 per cent rise in full time university enrolments, but, alarmingly, a fall of 8.6 per cent in part timers, and 10.9 per cent in external student numbers? Will the Minister confirm the claim by a member of the Higher Education Administration Fee Monitoring Committee, Ms Tracey Ellery, that one survey in Western Australia and another covering students in four other States have shown the adverse impact of the fee? Finally, has the Minister had access to this research, and, if so, why has she refused to answer questions that have been put to her in the Senate concerning the impact of the charge, particularly on part time students? Senator RYAN —As I have told the Senate on a number of occasions, I am awaiting a report from the Monitoring Committee, which is monitoring the research project carried out through the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, to see what the nationwide effect of the charge has been on particular groups. That report is not complete and I do not have it available to me. It sounds, from that newspaper report, as if one member of the Committee has decided to have discussions with the media. Whether she is in possession of all the information available to the Committee, I do not know. I would suggest that it was somewhat premature for a member of the Committee to be having discussions about the impact of the charge when the Committee itself has not yet completed the report and passed it on to the Government. When it does, we will look at it very carefully. The information will be available to the Senate and we will make our decisions accordingly. Senator TEAGUE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister does not deny the facts that are set forth? Do they not unequivocally show that this is a failure in its effect on part time and external students as we predicted it would be? Senator RYAN —I am not in a position to confirm or deny the alleged facts in the article in the Australian. As to whether the charge has been a failure or not, I simply remind honourable senators, students and prospective students that under a Liberal coalition government, if ever such a fate were to befall Australia, most of them would be paying thousands of dollars every year. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Are false claims being circulated in the community about the capacity of the economy in the short term to provide increases in average living standards, in particular through tax cuts, despite the fall in national income resulting from the collapse in prices being paid for our major export commodities? What would the implications be if economic strategies were implemented which were predicated on the basis that those false claims were in fact true? What are the sources of those claims? Senator WALSH —I will deal firstly with the earlier part of the question. The lie is being peddled by a number of irresponsible or ill-informed groups that it is possible for living standards to increase via taxation cuts. The truth is that, on the most recent indications, $8 billion or $9 billion has been wiped off Australia's national income because of the export price collapse, and in addition we have a substantial recurring cost in servicing an existing level of foreign debt. Under those circumstances, as an arithmetic truism, there is no way that average living standards can be maintained at the level that they were two years ago, let alone increased, unless we are to accumulate and go on accumulating foreign debt at an accelerating rate. Anybody who peddles the lie that average living standards can at this time be increased is a snake oil salesman. If the policies that flow from the people who peddle that lie were to be implemented-that is, if there were to be large reductions in income tax and large reductions in government revenue not offset by commensurate reductions in expenditure-the Budget deficit would blow out and inflation would go through the roof, along with interest rates, leading ultimately to a major economic collapse. One alternative of reducing government revenue and cutting off government services by, for example, abolishing Medicare would have no effect on living standards. It would simply transfer expenditure from the public sector to the private sector without any net effect on living standards. I was asked from what sources the claims were coming. The foremost and the most vocal source, I suppose, of that false claim is Petersen. The next most vocal is the Federal Opposition. It is worth noting that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition, being somewhat worried that he had been caught out, put out a Press statement in which he claimed that there were no commitments by the Opposition in relation to taxation other than scrapping the fringe benefits tax, scrapping the capital gains tax, scrapping Labor's lump sum superannuation tax and scrapping the assets test, which he said amounted to $870m. For the record, on 22 August Senator Messner sent a telegram to the Restaurant and Catering Association, which was published on that day and which said: I refer to article in the Australian today claiming that the Liberal and National Parties have cast aside their policy on allowing tax deductions for legitimate business expenses such as entertainment. It is wrong that there has been any withdrawal of commitments in the taxation area. That was from Senator Messner on 22 August. That is $400m in addition to what Mr Howard said yesterday was the exhaustive list. On 16 November, before the Victorian Division of the Liberal Party, Mr Howard said: Only the Liberal Party has a taxation policy that includes income splitting for single income families. The cost of that is nearly $3 billion, and that is out of Mr Howard's mouth. On 16 November, again to the Victorian Division of the Liberal Party, he said: Only a Liberal Party has a taxation policy that includes . . . tax rebates for child care expenses. That was from John Howard again-about $115m which was not in his exhaustive list of commitments issued only yesterday. On 4 February this year before the National Press Club John Howard said: The rate of corporate tax will be reduced in line with reductions in personal tax. The reductions in personal income tax which have been prepared by Senator Messner, with a top marginal rate of 35 per cent, will be spread through to the corporate sector. That is another $4 billion. Out of either Senator Messner's mouth or Mr Howard's mouth-in most cases Mr Howard's mouth-we have more than $7 1/2 billion worth of additional revenue losses because of firm promises given by the Leader of the Opposition or members of his front bench which are not included in the allegedly exhaustive list of firm Opposition commitments which the Leader of the Opposition put out only yesterday. I could go on-I have two pages of quotations here from various members of the Opposition, including one which has a $5.6 billion price tag on it and which was delivered only last Sunday by the Deputy Leader of the National Party-but I think I have made the point already that that Press statement put out yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition about what he claimed was an exhaustive list of firm tax commitments by the Liberal Party, amounting to $870m, is out by a factor of about 90 per cent. Senator COLLARD —My question, to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, refers to strong criticism from the Burke and Bannon governments of the Hawke Government's decisions affecting the housing industry. In particular, I draw the Minister's attention to the comments of Mr Keith Wilson, the Western Australian Minister for Housing. Does the Minister agree with Mr Wilson that the pressures on the home rental market have arisen from taxation changes introduced by the Hawke Government? If not, what has caused the rental accommodation crisis? Does the Minister share Mr Wilson's concern that the housing package will cost 3,000 jobs in the Western Australian building industry alone? Senator RYAN —I do not know Mr West's views on Mr Wilson's comments. I will refer Mr Wilson's comments to Mr West and get his views on them. Senator CROWLEY —The Special Minister of State is no doubt aware of the awards under the Order of Australia and the considerable underrepresentation of women on those lists, particularly at the highest level of awards. Can the Minister give any reason for this unequal distribution? Can he say what is the constitution of the committee making the decisions about awards? Can he say what steps he will take to see that the number of women receiving awards more accurately represents their continuing and excellent contribution to Australian achievements at all levels of society? Senator TATE —I regret to inform Senator Crowley that, as this matter is peculiarly within the province of the Governor-General and Government House, I am unable to provide an extensive answer to her, except to say that of course I would wish to see in the lists of names of those who are awarded the distinguished honours under the Order of Australia scheme a representation of women in Australia. As far as the awards and the statistics are concerned that might help to underpin a better understanding in the community of the distribution of those awards. I certainly undertake to give Senator Crowley and the Senate a full analysis of the awards broken down by way of gender and perhaps geographical distribution and other factors. Senator SANDERS —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence: Is the recommendation from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence to increase military aid to the Philippines to be implemented? If so, what form will the increased aid take, and what is the rationale for the increase? Senator GARETH EVANS —My understanding is that the report of the Joint Committee in question recommended that the Australian Government continue its defence co-operative program with the Philippines. The DCP with the Philippines consists of the training of members of the armed forces of the Philippines on Australian Defence Force courses. The emphasis is on staff college, professional and technical training. This is consistent with the Joint Committee's support for Australian efforts to assist with `the development of a modern professional military force in the Philippines'. Ninety-one members of the Philippines armed forces trained in Australia in fiscal year 1985-86, and we expect some eighty-six this financial year. The estimated expenditure this financial year is a little over $1m against some $1.3m in financial year 1985-86. So it is not a matter of increasing aid; it is really a matter of continuing the program with a slightly reduced level of expenditure and activity. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to calls by the National Farmers Federation, and endorsed by others, for the abolition of excise on all fuels, at a cost to revenue of $5.6 billion. Would abolition of the excise on all fuels have a beneficial effect on the consumer price index of some 6 per cent, as claimed by the National Farmers Federation? Has this proposal ever been supported by the Department of the Treasury? What would be the effect of implementation of this proposal on the farming sector? Senator WALSH —In response to the last part of the question, along with a number of other snake oil recipes which are being peddled by the National Farmers Federation ostensibly on behalf of its members is the notion that the abolition of excise on refined petroleum product would be a good thing for farmers. It is not so, for the very simple reason that for the last two years and for the first time ever distillate used on farms incurs absolutely no product excise. There used to be a product excise when Mr Howard was Treasurer, but there has been no product excise on it for the last two years. So the abolition of the excise for distillate, which is the fuel most used on farms, would have no effect on the price of fuel. It is, of course, true that farmers use some petrol. They use very little on the farms and quite a lot on the roads. On that, excise is paid by farmers along with everybody else. But if $5.6 billion were wiped off government revenue by the abolition of product excise, it would have to be recovered somewhere else. One way of recovering that revenue would be to introduce a value added tax at a level of about 6 per cent which would have an impact on farmers much more severe than the excise on refined petroleum products, which, I repeat, in the main farmers do not pay. The claim that the abolition of excise would reduce the consumer price index by 6 per cent is again wrong. The direct effect of the abolition of petroleum product excise would be to reduce the CPI by between 1.9 per cent and 2.1 per cent-that is, by 2 per cent, not by 6 per cent. One expects there to be some flow-on effects that would increase that 2 per cent figure somewhat, but not to a figure anywhere near 6 per cent. If one looks at the whole area of indirect tax collections or excise collections with a view to reducing the CPI, it is difficult if not impossible to find a more cost-ineffective way of reducing the CPI by that route than by abolishing the excise on refined petroleum product. Excises on refined petroleum product are not CPI sensitive. Excises on a number of other products are extremely CPI sensitive. So if the Government were to judge that it is worth sacrificing some revenue in order to get the consumer price index down it would be difficult to find a more inefficient way of doing it than by the abolition of petroleum product excise. I find it not at all surprising that that course of action is being urged by the National Party Deputy Leader- Senator Brownhill —Hear, hear! Senator WALSH —`Hear, hear', says Senator Brownhill. He wants to abolish the excise on refined petroleum product, which farmers in the main do not pay, and to impose a VAT which farmers will pay. That is the policy of the National Party and I am glad to have it confirmed by Senator Brownhill, and possibly by Senator Boswell as well. It does not surprise me that the National Party lacks the arithmetic capacity to work out what is and what is not in the best interests of farmers and what is and what is not cost efficient in terms of reducing the consumer price index. Nor does it surprise me that the National Farmers Federation jumps on the same populist bandwagon. Finally, I want to make two more points. It is claimed by some that such a revenue loss would be offset by a reduction in government expenditure. I put this question to Senator Brownhill and to the National Farmers Federation: In that list of expenditure cuts, do they propose to abolish the underwriting-to renege on the cost to a future Budget of $300m or more which it will cost to underwrite the guaranteed price for the 1986-87 wheat harvest? That means that $300m from some future Budget will go into underwriting the guaranteed minimum price for wheat for the last harvest. Is that on the National Farmers Federation hit list? Is that on the National Party's hit list? Is that on John Howard's hit list? Senator Bolkus —What about John Stone? Senator WALSH —Or is it on John Stone's hit list? I am invited to comment on John Stone's hit list. I have noticed that John Stone has offered to work on the `Petersen for PM' campaign. Senator Chaney —I take a point of order. Senator Cook —Sit down. Senator Chaney —I am glad to have the assistance of Senator Cook in making the point of order. Like me, he is sick of the nonsense that the Minister is going on with. Mr President, I simply draw your attention to the fact that the Minister clearly is debating the question. He has been speaking for a very long time. He is obviously turning Question Time into a farce, as is his wont. I ask you to call him to order. Senator Bolkus —On the point of order, Mr President: If you look at the initial question you will find that the Minister was asked about the position and attitude of the Department of the Treasury on the proposal. By the Minister's canvassing what he has and what he is about to, he is very much within the ambit of the question. The PRESIDENT —I think that the Minister is beginning to debate the matter. He mentioned twice that he was in conclusion. I ask him to conclude as soon as possible. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. The attitude of the Department of the Treasury, I expect, would be to oppose this proposition very strongly unless it was to be offset by an equivalent expenditure cut. Indeed, I expect the Department of the Treasury to suggest that there would be-as, of course, there are-other indirect taxes which would be cut for the same revenue cost and which would have a much greater impact on the CPI. In particular, I would have expected the former Secretary to the Treasury to oppose such a proposition in the days when he was Treasury Secretary, but since he has taken his white shoes out of the closet he will probably become a hired gun and recommend anything he is paid to recommend. Senator DURACK —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation: Will he now confirm that he has received a letter dated 27 March 1987 from Skywest Airlines Ltd informing him that, when the airline was awarded the coastal surveillance contract in 1982, it had been in business for 20 years, employed 59 pilots, operated 20 aircraft and was one of the biggest aviation operators in Australia? Does the Minister recall telling the Senate last week that as a result of his investigations he had determined that Skywest was `at a similar stage of establishment' as Amman is today? Given the falsity of that statement revealed by the Skywest letter, why did the Minister so blatantly mislead the Senate last week in the answer he gave me? Senator GIETZELT —I find it somewhat incredible that Senator Durack is continuing his line of questioning in respect of a matter that has been properly handled by the Minister with respect to a tender which has saved the Commonwealth something like $2.5m. An Opposition which claims to have a weight watchers or waste watchers committee is seeking to save public funds and a Minister of the Crown in the Labor Government has accepted a tender which saved the Commonwealth some $2.5m-and we have persistent questioning by Senator Durack, one of the leading members of the Opposition, who is allegedly concerned about saving taxpayers' money. It is true that Skywest, after hours on Friday evening, sent a fax to my office. As the Senate will be aware, I was absent with two of my senior officers all day on Monday attending two functions in Sydney. At the time I answered the question yesterday, that correspondence had not been placed before me. The correspondence establishes that Skywest, which is the losing party in a tender for air surveillance around the coast of Australia has put before me evidence which I accept in good faith. There is no doubt that the organisation is well established and I had no intention, nor have I now, of reflecting upon it. In response to a question asked of me about a week ago by Senator Durack I said that there were establishment problems when Skywest's tender was accepted during the period in which the Opposition was in government. I stand by that statement. There is no dispute that Skywest was a large established company at that time but it is also true that it had no aircraft specifically fitted out for the task in which it was successful in 1982 nor did it have the complete complement of specialised staff required to undertake the task as it was required in the tender at that time. I am informed that it took Skywest some 3 1/2 months from the date the contract was accepted to get the five aircraft on line. This is a similar state of circumstances which existed in respect of Amman Pty Ltd, the successful tenderer accepted by the Government after the due processes of tendering had been followed. In no way have I sought or desired to mislead the Parliament or Senator Durack. I said on the first occasion I mentioned this matter that I knew very little about the issue, only what I had read in the Canberra Times just a few minutes before I came into the chamber. I know sufficient about Mr Morris's integrity to know that the correct tendering processes would be carried out, were carried out and will continue to be carried out by this Government. The reason why Skywest's tender was not acceptable in this case was that it was $2 1/2m above the successful tenderer. It was not even second on the list; it was third below the tender price. Therefore in those circumstances the Government acted properly, the Minister acted properly and the Minister in this place, in responding to the question, also acted properly. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. On this occasion my question to the Minister was not directed at whether the Government had acted properly but whether he had acted properly when giving answers in the Senate. I draw the attention of the Minister to another paragraph in the letter that he now admits having received from Skywest which points out that Skywest originally established the coastal surveillance contracts in Western Australia in 1978 and had had as much experience in coastal surveillance work as any other operator at the time of the 1982 tender. I ask: How does the Minister again maintain in his answer this afternoon that Skywest was in exactly the same position in 1982 as Amman airlines is today which does not have any aircraft in this country fitted for the purpose? Senator GIETZELT —I do not know whether that is a supplementary question. The brief, which has been provided to me by the Department of Transport and the Minister, states and I repeat: . . . I am informed that it took Skywest some 3 and a half months from the date of contract acceptance to get five aircraft on line. Senator REYNOLDS —My question, which I direct to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, relates to an article in the Courier-Mail which quoted the Mayor of Brisbane as saying that it was the Federal Government's fault, in introducing the assets test on age and service pensions, that up to 3,500 Queensland pensioners would lose their Brisbane City Council rate concession discounts. How is it that apparently only Brisbane ratepayers seem to have this problem? Can the Minister explain why this problem seems to be unique to Queensland? Senator GIETZELT —All honourable senators would be aware that fringe benefits are an important ingredient for many millions of citizens in Australia and that they are the subject of many representations from time to time. The Commonwealth's involvement in fringe benefits as far as veterans are concerned is restricted largely to telephone subsidies and travel on Australian National railways. Senator Reynolds referred specifically to an article in the Courier-Mail that suggests that the Lord Mayor of Brisbane stated that the Commonwealth was somehow responsible for the difficulties that war widows and pensioners in that State face in qualifying for a subsidy on local government rates. The Senate would be aware that subsidies for rates-they are called rebates-are matters for the State or local authorities. For example, in my State of New South Wales each local government body has the responsibility of determining its policies. In some cases it gives no subsidies and in others it gives a 50 per cent subsidy. In my municipality or shire persons eligible for a rebate receive 100 per cent rebate; in other cases it is limited to a certain fixed sum by decision of the local authority. However, in Queensland, ratepayers are probably the worst off of any in Australia as a result of being led by the National Party of Australia. This particularly applies to local government discounts to pensioners, or to city government discounts for the residents of Brisbane. For a start there is no legislation in Queensland to safeguard pensioners' fringe benefits as there is in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia which, incidentally, are all Labor States. Queensland's policy in respect of local government rebates is laid down by the State Government in a document entitled `Guidelines to Administration of Schemes for a Subsidy of Rates and Charges to Local Authorities for Approved Pensioners'. When I first read the article I took the view that responsibility for this matter rested with the Brisbane City Council. However, that is not the case. This matter was a feature story in the Brisbane Courier-Mail, I think yesterday, and as it particularly affected war widows I asked my office to establish the areas of responsibility. In Brisbane war widows are specifically excluded by the guidelines provided, not by the Brisbane City Council but by the National Government in Queensland. I compare the differences that exist between the National Party's policy on this matter and that of the other States. Western Australia has a 50 per cent discount with no ceiling at all and war widows are included subject to a means test. In New South Wales a 50 per cent rebate is provided up to $300 and there is a possibility, which is a variable determined by the local government authority, of receiving up to a 100 per cent rebate for all those who are eligible for fringe benefits. In Victoria a 50 per cent rebate is given up to a maximum of $135 for those eligible for fringe benefits but in Queensland the situation is entirely different-it is the opposite. Concessions are available only to those who apply and who are receiving the maximum rate of service pension. Concessions do not apply to war widows so to that extent Senator Reynolds's interest in this matter is similar to mine. The Queensland Government's policy does discriminate against war widows. Senator MESSNER —I refer the Minister for Finance to the increasing public speculation that the Government is considering the introduction of new taxation measures in the superannuation area and the concerns that have been raised in respect of those proposals, particularly by the Business Council of Australia. Will the Minister inform the Senate of when he first became aware of recent proposals to change the present tax concessions and arrangements in the superannuation area? In view of the Minister's recent meeting with the Australian Council of Social Service, as reported in yesterday's Press, can the Minister indicate whether the Government is giving serious consideration to proposals to tax the investment income of superannuation funds, to change the present tax deductibility of super- annuation contributions or to increase the existing tax on lump sum superannuation payments? Further, does the Minister agree with the views of the major superannuation funds and a number of employer organisations, including the Business Council, that it is crucial for sensible retirement planning to maintain existing tax concessions in the superannuation area? Senator WALSH —The only serious proposition for a new tax that I am aware of is the Opposition Leader's policy of bringing in a value added tax at a rate of 8 per cent. But I understand that that has now been vetoed by the National Party. It was a proposal to which I think Senator Messner also put his name at one stage. But the Liberal Party, consistent with its recent custom, has, of course, meekly, supinely and cravenly caved in to every bit of pressure that is put on it by the rednecks from the north. I have from time to time seen propositions raised in the Press. I am sorry that I cannot remember exactly when it was, but certainly some months ago I recall seeing propositions in the Press from, among others, Daryl Dixon, who is currently on leave from the Public Service, and also I think from Mr Disney of the Australian Council of Social Service, that there should be changes to the taxation of superannuation. I recall reading in the Senate only last week some sections from a paper circulated by the Australian Mutual Provident Society on exactly the same subject. I am sure that Senator Messner will remember that. The AMP Society said that the only way in which the present favourable tax treatment for superannuation funds can be justified, and the only way that any political realist would expect it to survive, is if it is accompanied by measures like an assets test to stop double dipping. The Opposition is committed to abolishing the assets test, so Mr Howard said as recently as yesterday. If that were to happen, under the rules laid down by the AMP, according to the logic of the AMP, the preferential tax treatment of superannuation funds would have to be curtailed or abolished. So if there is any threat coming to the superannuation funds in that way, it comes from the Opposition via its proposal to abolish the assets test rather than from anything else. As to anything at all that the Government might be considering, I repeat what I have said ad nauseam in the Senate: I will not confirm or deny any rumour that Senator Messner is trying to pump up and get running around the Press Gallery or any rumour that the Press Gallery pumps up and sets running itself. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In his usual blustering manner the Minister has not bothered to answer the main points of my question. I will just repeat the main point to which I am seeking an answer. Did the Minister in fact in his recent meeting with ACOSS learn of the plans to put up the tax on investment income and did he in fact indicate the Government's position at that stage to ACOSS? Senator WALSH —The Australian Council of Social Service has been campaigning on this issue, as I said earlier, for at least several months and possibly long before I was aware of it. As to what Mr Disney said to me in my office, I regard that as something between him and me. The PRESIDENT —During Question Time yesterday Senator Sheil addressed a question to me concerning the payment of Parliamentary Catering Service accounts. The matter of debts owing to the Parliamentary Catering Service, particularly the debts of 90 days and over, has been the subject for discussion in the Joint House Committee and is being actively pursued by Madam Speaker and me. On 30 March Madam Speaker and I wrote separately to our House of Representatives and Senate colleagues pointing out that the Parliamentary Catering Service operates with a low cash reserve and very little working capital and that the successful operation of the Service requires the prompt payment of debts to meet its payments to creditors for goods supplied. I inform the Senate that Madam Speaker and I believe that it is not appropriate to release details of individual accounts. However, we are committed to pursuing vigorously the matter of outstanding debts. We have sought advice on alternative means of recovering these debts. Senator RYAN —During Question Time on Monday Senator Harradine raised the matter of what level of resources has been used to date on the time use pilot survey. On Monday I also undertook to provide Senator Chaney with details of surveys commissioned by the Office of the Status of Women. In order to save the time of the Senate, I seek leave to incorporate the response in Hansard. Leave granted. The response read as follows- 1. In question time yesterday, Senator Harradine raised the matter of what level of resources has been used to date on the time use pilot survey. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics the cost to date is $3,500 and the overall cost of the project is approximately $30,000. The principal expenditure component is the cost of employing interviewing agents. The program will be met from within the Australian Bureau of Statistics existing resources. 2. Yesterday I also undertook to provide Senator Chaney with details of surveys commissioned by OSW. OSW has conducted two surveys since 1983: 1. What Women Think a survey of mothers' attitudes to the Family Allowance, the Dependent Spouse Rebate and family finances. The survey was undertaken in March 1985 by ANOP at a cost of $70,500. The report was published in June 1985. 2. Rural Women's Survey conducted jointly by OSW and the CWA 141,657 forms were distributed and 13,845 was returned for analysis. The Rural Development Centre of the University of New England is conducting the analysis the cost will be of the order of $40,000-around $25,000 for analysis and $15,000 for printing a report. Several surveys have also been conducted by groups who received grants under the National Consultation and Assistance Program. While those surveys did not directly involve OSW they are: $ Survey of farming families- Centre for Continuing Education, Wangaratta... 7,500 Women and the Church- Women and the Australian Church... 5,000 Women's Health Work and Families- Westmead Hospital, Department of Community Medicine... 9,000 Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —by leave- In an article ridiculously headed `Baume's endorsement is another Labor victory' on page 15 of yesterday's Australian newspaper, Mr Des Keegan wrote: Senator Jessop supports Labor's Moscow Card . . . Mr President, I am utterly opposed to Labor's so-called `Moscow card'. At no time have I ever told a reporter, a public or private assembly or a radio or television audience that I support the Australia Card. It is true that I have urged my party to treat the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2] with cynicism equal to that of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in bringing the Bill back to the Senate unamended. I have been very active in trying to persuade the people of Australia that the card is a dangerous instrument of policy, more akin, of course, to Moscow than any Australian city or town. I suggest that Mr Keegan should refrain from using such abusive and inaccurate information in future, otherwise it could lead him into litigation. I expect an appropriate public apology to be made. Senator COOK(Western Australia) —Under standing orders 408, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator COOK —During Question Time when Senator Walsh was answering a question, Senator Chaney rose to take a point of order. At the time of taking the point of order he interjected into his own remarks the comment that Senator Cook, like him, `was sick of' and went on to criticise what Senator Walsh was saying. Since that comment will now appear in Hansard, and since it is not true, I would like to refute the comment of Senator Chaney that I was sick of hearing anything that Senator Walsh was saying on the economy. It is true that in my view what Senator Walsh was saying is a cause of acute discomfort for Senator Chaney, but it is not at all a cause of discomfort for me. In fact, I agree with the remarks of Senator Walsh. What I am, however, annoyed about is not the remarks of Senator Walsh but the constant and, I believe, frivolous interjections of Senator Chaney in taking points of order, particularly when the names Stone and Howard occur in any remarks made by Senator Walsh. There are times-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. This is clearly not part of any personal explanation. I ask you to call Senator Cook to order. The PRESIDENT —Senator Cook, you are debating the issue and I would ask you to limit your remarks to the personal explanation. Senator COOK —Thank you, Mr President. The point is that Senator Chaney is inaccurate in saying that I was joining him in any sentiments about the remarks of Senator Walsh. There are times when I have agreed with Senator Chaney but this was not one of them. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-In the event of the Senate sitting this evening, I move: That the Joint Select Committee on Video Material have leave to meet during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 1 April 1987. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —by leave-During Question Time Senator Walsh, in answering a dorothy dix question from his own side with regard to a statement put out by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) yesterday on the commitments which the Opposition has given in relation to tax measures, mentioned a rather long list which is clearly erroneous. I just want to point out very quickly that the statement issued by the Leader yesterday read as follows: The truth is that the only quantifiable commitments of the Opposition on revenue or expenditure are as follows: scrapping the fringe benefits tax . . . scrapping the capital gains tax . . . scrapping Labor's lump sum superannuation tax . . . scrapping the assets test . . . That is all. Later on-and this part was not mentioned by the Minister at all-the statement says: I have repeatedly stated the principles of our taxation policy. When final details of that and our other policies are released, prior to the next election, the financing of our commitments will be explained. I want to point out that that statement adequately deals with the questions of income splitting and child care rebates which were raised by the Minister as being additional commitments on top of that. What we are doing, of course, is looking into the question of a total taxation policy for Australians, and that will be explained in detail at a later stage. Meanwhile, those other commitments remain as our only commitments. Finally, I want to say that the Minister is totally wrong, incorrect, dishonest and in every other way misrepresenting the position of the Liberal and National parties by saying that we intend to introduce a value added tax. We have absolutely no proposal to introduce a value added tax of any kind, whether it be 8 per cent or any other rate. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a very short statement relating to the answer given to a question today. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Tate —Is it a personal explanation? Senator VIGOR —It is an explanation relating to a statement by Senator Walsh. It is very short. Leave granted. Senator VIGOR —In the course of answering a question of mine today Senator Walsh made the statement that the ABC/SBS Amalgamation Bill 1986 was still before the Senate and had not been rejected by the Senate. I would like to bring to the notice of the Senate the Journals of the Senate of 5 December 1986 where the following amendment by Senator Lewis to the second reading motion appears: (a) this Bill be not read a second time; and (b) a merger of the ABC and the SBS not proceed without explicit legislation and authority; and (c) the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts report on the Government's reasons for proposing to amalgamate the ABC and SBS. That motion was in fact passed by the Senate and the Bill has in fact been discharged from the Notice Paper. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 1 April, from Senator Chaney: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- `That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to reverse the policies which have severely reduced family living standards.' Yours sincerely, (FRED CHANEY) Senator for the State of Western Australia Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) (3.13) I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to reverse the policies which have severely reduced family living standards. At a time when the Government is determined to concentrate on nothing more than the identity card, the farcical nature of which is being demonstrated in debate over current days in the Senate, I think that there are many more problems which are concerning the people of Australia, and none more than the increasing pressure which is being felt by the families of Australia. I am not vaguely surprised that the Government is trotting up the Special Minister of State, Senator Tate, to defend its record in this area. He has the distinction of being a bachelor, and I would say that only a bachelor would have the cheek to come into the Senate and suggest that families are not under immense pressure in Australia today. I just want to take some little time to say to the Senate that it is the view of the Opposition that the pressure which Australian families are feeling at the moment is very much the fault of this Government. At the moment we have the spectacle of the Government trying to blame everybody else for the difficulties that are being faced by its constituency. The Opposition is raising the plight of families again because we see families as being vital to the future of this country. We see the preservation of families as being a central duty of the Government, and we see this as a matter of central political interest. It is not, of course, a matter about which it is peculiar to political parties to express this sort of concern. The United Nations, in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, declared that: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State . . . motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. Those sorts of comments, which are echoed by many people in Australia, including the churches and many social welfare organisations, do reflect the view of this Opposition, and we believe that the Government is simply not living up to its responsibilities. The fact that families are central to the concerns of Australians-indeed, I have no doubt they are central to the concerns of Senator Tate, who has expressed at a personal level an interest in the welfare of our community-is demonstrated by the fact that 98 per cent of Australians have been shown as believing that a happy family life is the most important thing in their lives. Mr President, I would ask you to remember, when Labor was in opposition, the lectures that were read to the then Government by Senator Grimes and others, who suggested that one of the formulas for a happy family is a reasonable degree of financial security and reasonable protection from excessive financial pressure. It is in those circumstances that the economic plight in which families find themselves today assumes overwhelming importance. This debate is taking place in an economic context in which the Government stands up every day in the Senate and says that Australians will have diminished living standards. Their living standards have diminished; they will diminish further. That is borne out by every current economic commentary, and it is an open admission from the Ministers of this Government. The Government points, of course, to the loss of value of our exports, what they call the fall in the terms of trade, to blame for that. So it is that we get a situation where there is much wringing of hands and much blaming of everybody else. The fact of the matter is that in this worsening situation, which itself is the fault of the Government, we have the tragic circumstance that families are being asked to bear a more than proportionate share of the burden. They are paying a bigger share of taxation than they were paying when this Government came into power, and we have seen under this Government the loss of a whole series of rights and benefits which were available to assist people to meet their family responsibilities. We have seen under this Government, for example, no adjustment for inflation for family allowances, but rather the removal of family allowance from some categories of parents; in fact, those parents who have the care of student children in certain circumstances or who have an income above a certain level. We have seen the loss of tax deductions for education expenses. We have seen the loss of tax deductions for health insurance. We have seen a reduction in the right of parents to choose medical treatment; and, of course, we have seen the dreadful spectacle of 100,000 Australians waiting in queues for surgery. There are all these things which are Government caused and which impact on the economic and social welfare of families in our community. The first element of this debate which is brought forward by the Opposition is to say that this diminishing circumstance of families is first and foremost a responsibility of Government; that it is the Government itself which by its policies has produced this squeeze on the whole Australian community and on families in particular. In the course of this debate I will deal with the first Government alibi. Do honourable senators remember the alibi that it is just the fall in the value of our exports that lies at the heart of our difficulties? Looking at this peculiar animal that seems to have suddenly appeared on the political scene-this loss of our terms of trade, this diminution of the value of our exports-I think it would surprise most Australians to know that our terms of trade have been going against us since 1951. During the whole period of the Fraser Government, in every year but one, the terms of trade moved against Australia. Indeed, in one year, in 1977-78, the terms of trade went against Australia by 9.1 per cent-very similar to the figure for the movement against Australia in the terms of trade last year. I do not remember Labor speakers getting up-nor do I remember Government speakers doing so-and blaming the situation in Australia on our diminishing terms of trade. I seem to remember that the Labor Party claimed that any difficulties that we then faced were caused by government policy, and I do not remember us trying to use the terms of trade as an excuse; indeed, we did not. I will seek to incorporate in Hansard a table which shows the percentage change in the terms of trade in the period 1973-74 to 1985-86. That table shows that it has been a constant in Australian politics that the terms of trade have moved against us. There were two years-1978-79 and 1979-80-in which the terms of trade moved slightly in our favour, but in every other year of the Fraser Government they moved against us. In 1983-84, when this Government was in power, the terms of trade moved in our favour. So that alibi is nonsense. Of course, it is true that the terms of trade affect our economic management. Look at Japan, which has faced the most drastic destruction of its terms of trade, with the two oil shocks, and which now faces the shock of the appreciated yen, an exactly similar circumstance, and compare the way in which the Japanese are coping by managing their economy properly with the present moaning of this Government, which tries to blame everything on external circumstances. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard this table, the source of which is the Australian Bureau of Statistics, showing the percentage change in our terms of trade over the period I mentioned. Leave granted. The table read as follows- TERMS OF TRADE 1979-80=100 Year Index Percentage Change 73-74... 121.95 na 74-75... 114.26 -6.3 75-76... 109.20 -4.4 76-77... 105.45 -3.4 77-78... 95.87 -9.1 78-79... 96.60 +0.8 79-80... 100.00 +3.5 80-81... 99.45 -0.6 81-82... 97.52 -1.9 82-83... 95.60 -1.9 83-84... 99.10 +3.7 84-85... 96.60 -2.5 85-86... 87.14 -9.8 Sept Qtr 86-87... 83.16 Dec Qtr 86-87... 80.30 Source: ABS GDP Price Deflators Senator CHANEY —I thank the Senate. So much for the move against us in the terms of trade, which does pose a problem of economic management. The question is: What is the remedy for Australia? What action should Australia be taking to try to protect the Australian people and Australian families against the destruction of our standard of living? Senator Hill —Start by throwing this Government out. Senator CHANEY —I welcome Senator Hill's interjection. The first thing to do is to throw out the Hawke Government, because it has shown itself to be totally incapable of facing up to the fact that its high spending Budgets and its subservience to the trade union movement completely distinguish our economy from those which have been successfully managed during this period of difficulty. Indeed, those economies which have been properly managed, those with a flexible labour market and with a lack of reliance on government expenditure, are booming in the current climate and are not suffering the sort of agonies that are being suffered in Australia. It is this Government's actions, the bringing in of the three highest spending Budgets in Australia's history, which have produced the terrible circumstances which now afflict us and which are causing such pain to the men and women of Australia. The excessive expenditure by this Government and the resultant interest rate regime it has brought about mean that Australians are paying interest rates of 20 per cent or more on some transactions. The tax situation has moved steadily against individual taxpayers, and the Government is taking more and more of our national wealth in tax. Comparatively, our inflation rate is the worst in our history, and the state of our industrial relations is again worsening and undermining some of the Government's proudest so-called achievements, such as the steel plan. When we look at all those things, we can see that this Government has let the Australian people down in every respect. This Government insists on trying to blame the previous Government and the terms of trade. Is it not amazing? This Government has now brought down four Budgets and, all of a sudden, it is saying that everything that is wrong is the fault of the previous Government. I remind honourable senators, in particular the Minister at the table, that in 1984, after the Labor Government had brought down its second Budget, it made it clear that it had solved Australia's problems. I quote what the Government said in 1984 about the state of our economy. As early as January 1984 Mr Hawke said: . . . the basic promise I made in the election campaign of turning the Australian economy around. Now manifestly, we've achieved that. The economy had been turned around by January 1984. In March 1984 Mr Hawke said: What we have done is to create the best climate for business investment that they will have seen for many years . . . they have created for them the best environment they have ever had. That was Mr Hawke's description of the Australian economy a year after he had taken office. He was not complaining about the Fraser Government then because, of course, he had been piggy-backing on the Fraser Government wage pause. But by March 1984 Mr Hawke was claiming the best economic environment for investment that had ever been seen-the best climate for business. All of a sudden, we find that he can gracefully hurdle his successes of 1984 and blame Australia's current predicament on the actions of a previous government. That is manifestly absurd. Let us look yet again at what Mr Hawke was saying by the end of 1984 regarding a fall in interest rates: I do not want to be precise as to amounts. What I can be certain about is that there will be a continued downward movement in interest rates. In November 1984 he told a business audience: The outlook for interest rates is as bright as it has been for more than a decade . . . I think he must have been talking to people with savings, not people who had to borrow money. It is the savers who are getting interest on their money who have had the brightest prospects for decades; it has not been the men and women of Australia who are trying to buy a house or consumer goods, or run a farm or a small business. I see Senator Brownhill sitting in the chamber. He knows that many of his rural constituents are being forced off the land. The rural constituents of us all are being forced off the land by the interest rate regime which has been brought about as a conscious act of policy by this Government. I am sure that Opposition senators who will speak later in this debate will concentrate on the direct impact of these policies on Australian families and the perilous position in which Australian families find themselves today. I am anxious to lay the canard that this Government can in some mysterious way escape responsibility for the extraordinary hardship which is being inflicted on Australian families by the reductions in their after-tax incomes, by the high interest rates they are paying on their housing loans, and by the other disabilities which have been inflicted on them in the current economic decline. It is pointed out in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report which came out today that the changes which are required in Australia are precisely the changes which have been urged upon the Government by this Opposition over recent years. There is no excuse for the Government, and it must change its policies if the pressures on families are to be relieved. I turn to what the actual impact of this Government's mismanagement has been on the families of Australia. When one looks at the tax position, for example, one finds that even after the Government has delivered further tax cuts on 1 July Australian families will be paying a bigger proportion of their income in tax than they were when Labor came to office. In March 1983 a single income family in receipt of average weekly earnings was paying 17.5 per cent of their income in tax. What is the position after the great Keating tax cuts? I can tell the Senate that the position is that, after the great Keating tax cuts, they will be paying 20.5 per cent of their average weekly earnings in tax. We find that the weekly disposable income of an Australian family at that level has declined by $31 a week since the election of the Hawke Government in March 1983. Look at the things on which they have to spend their money. Look at the price of petrol. Petrol is a pretty important budget item for most Australian families. Mr Hawke was going to reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre. When he came to office petrol was 44c a litre. That was the average price for the first three months of 1983. The average price of petrol for the last three months of 1986 was 55c-an 11c a litre increase from a government that promised to reduce the price of petrol. We find that the cost of the car in which one puts the petrol has gone up. The price of a Laser has gone up by 53 per cent, a Holden Commodore by 42 per cent and a Falcon by 33 per cent. These basic accoutrements of suburban family life in Australia are being priced beyond the capacity of people to buy them. In regard to those Australians who use Bankcard-and that is a substantial proportion of Australian families-the rate of interest that they pay has risen from 18 per cent to 22 per cent. If they are home buyers-and a diminishing proportion of Australian families can afford to be home buyers-the percentage of their family income spent on home mortgage repayments increased from 21.6 per cent in March 1986 to 26.7 per cent in September 1986. In other words, the interest payments for an average Australian family have gone up by nearly 25 per cent. If one looks at the actual figures paid by people in each State, one sees increases of several hundred dollars per month in most States. These are the facts which are causing anger in electorates and in suburbs around Australia. Most importantly, these are the facts which are making the meeting of one's family responsibilities steadily more difficult in Australia today. Let us look at the family that wants to insure for private health cover. For a family on average weekly earnings, that cost $9.66 before Medicare; it has gone to $14.30 at the end of 1986, an increase of almost 50 per cent. Senator Brownhill —Socialist progress. Senator CHANEY —Social progress. Is it not the classic socialist approach to assisting the needy? This Government came in after grossly criticising the health care system, it took over the system, introduced its own system and the result is that 100,000 people are waiting in queues for operations. They cannot get into hospital to have an operation because this Government has so distorted the delivery of health care that the system cannot cope. I do not think people have got sicker, although I have to say that the Government makes me sick from time to time, and perhaps I am being too charitable to the Government. The reality is that, as in welfare housing, there are grossly extended queues since the Government came to power, more money, more socialism, more government intervention, longer queues-- Senator Hill —More bureaucracy. Senator CHANEY —More bureaucracy. I am getting a great deal of assistance from Senator Hill on this matter and from my colleague Senator Newman. Senator Newman —Would they go to an election with that record? Senator CHANEY —We can only hope that the Government will go to an election and display its record, because the people of Australia are fed up with the fact that there are those great queues, that there are those deficiencies, and that many families are cracking under the pressures that are being imposed upon them by this Government. I suppose that there are people who are not in families who would ask why the Opposition should put so much emphasis on the family as against those who for some period of their lives are living by themselves and not involved in a family. Senator Tate —Like Senator Tate. Senator CHANEY —Like Senator Tate. Why should we be more concerned about families than others? Let me refer to some of the research that this Government has done to explain why that additional concern is required. The Government social security review paper on family payments has calculated the effects on family income of the dependent spouse rebate and family allowance and has looked at the comparative costs of families with dependants and people without dependants. What is pointed out under what are called the equivalent scales is that a couple with no children is calculated to be 15 per cent better off than a couple on the same income with one child and 25 per cent better off than a couple on the same income with two children. The Opposition makes no apology for saying that it believes that it is essential that we have a tax system which contains a clear bias in favour of a family with dependants, because we believe that those people carry a very heavy additional burden and that that burden deserves some recognition. The reality is that in economic management this Government has failed the family. It has put enormous pressures on families because of increased taxes, increased interest rates and all the other curses that it has brought upon the Australian community, such as increased youth unemployment. Many things can be laid at the door of the Government, but the unforgivable thing is that in those areas which are simply and directly within the control of the Government, in the shaping of the tax system and our social welfare system, it has ensured that the burdens borne by families with dependants have got heavier rather than lighter. We have seen the family allowance and supporting spouse tax allowance lose value under this Government. At a time of generally increased taxation, the result of that means that people who are doing their duty, whether by their spouse or by their children, are continually being put down. In my view, this Government will be long remembered for its decimation of Australian families. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(3.33) —I have been listening to this debate with some fascination, and particularly to the cheap jibes and challenges which have been thrown across the chamber to go to an early election. I am now able to inform the Senate that we will not be going to an early election. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made an announcement only a few moments ago which confirms that this Government will continue to take the hard, responsible decisions which Australian families expect it to take in order to get us through these hard, difficult economic times. The Government is resolved to make the tough decisions which are necessary to ensure that Australian families-- Opposition senators interjecting- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! I suggest that honourable senators should allow Senator Tate to make his announcement in a little more silence. Senator TATE —I was making the very important point that Australian families can rest confident today that this Government will continue to make the hard, resolute decisions that are required in order to help Australia to get through the tough economic challenge which is facing this country and which was so lightly dismissed by Senator Chaney in his remarks. The dimensions of the challenge are particularly known to all Australians through the drastically lower prices for many of our exports, which has cut $6 billion off the income available to Australia and therefore some $1,500 per Australian family. This is something we must tackle responsibly with policies which will help us through this period and into a period of increased living standards. But there are unpalatable decisions to be taken. They will be taken in the 14 May economic statement. They will be tough, but they will be seen by Australian families to be fair and something which they can endure to achieve a greater standard of living as we come out of this economically difficult period. I repeat that the Prime Minister has made a statement in the last few moments, in the course of the last part of Senator Chaney's remarks, and therefore I was not able to indicate any earlier that there will be no early election. The Government will go to the end of the year or to early next year to put its policies into effect. As for the notice of motion, Senator Chaney dropped the platitude from the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights that the family is the fundamental group unit of society. It was a platitude from the lips of Senator Chaney because when we brought into this chamber late last year legislation which would have incorporated that very important statement into the legislative and statutory framework underpinning all the activity of this Australian Government, it was rejected by this chamber and by the Opposition parties in particular. We wished to put into statutory form the statement that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society in the State, but that is a mere platitude from the lips of those opposite. When we tried to give statutory and legislative form to it, it was rejected in a most hysterical campaign. Senator Teague —I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. It is impossible to refer to the Opposition putting this forward in any way as a cynical platitude. It is word for word in the policy of our Party. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! The honourable senator knows that there is no point of order. Senator TATE —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, for protecting me. Nevertheless, some time has been taken up, which no doubt is the object of the exercise. In relation to the living standards of Australian families, the best thing the Government can do for a family is to try to ensure that within the household where that family lives there is a wage earner, somebody taking home a packet of pay as a wage or salary earner. The living standards of families are almost totally determined by whether somebody in the household has a job within the paid work force. This Government's policy is to ensure that as many Australians as possible can enjoy that participation in the paid work force so as not to be in a dependent situation or in a situation of poverty into which the unemployed can often fall. If somebody asks whether we have been successful in creating employment within the Australian economy, I would point to the simple fact that when Labor came into office the dole queues had swollen by 254,000 in a single year, the unemployment rate had hit 10 per cent. But, over the 45 or 46 months that Labor has been in office, almost 750,000 new jobs have been created within the economy. I think those 750,000 Australians who hold those jobs and who are members of families have had from this Government the creation, in very difficult economic times, of the basic, fundamental structure for the living standards of their families, which otherwise would not be present if the former Government's policies had continued in their disastrous way. Employment is the best way to ensure that family living standards are not adversely affected. Senator Chaney just slid over the fact, and we cannot escape the fact, that the living standards of Australians have been affected by the fact that those who trade overseas are not paying as much as they used to for our exports-not in terms of mere millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars are they paying less, but billions of dollars less. That means that there is less money available to distribute within the Australian economy to Australian families. By careful negotiation with the trade union movement, and in conjunction with a Medicare and tax policy, we have tried to ensure that, nevertheless, those within the paid work force are not as drastically affected as they would otherwise be by the non-co-operative approach that would come from the Opposition benches. The latest round gives wage earners $10 a week in the first tier and, whilst it is modest, it is certainly far better than the wage freeze or wage pause referred to by Senator Chaney as the Opposition's only solution. If I were a wage earner in an Australian family or household, I would be very concerned about the idea that there would be no increase whatsoever in my wages, that a wage freeze would result from the policies of those on the Opposition benches. A wage freeze would be particularly cruel because such a policy, as put forward by the Opposition, would not be associated with other elements which come together to produce what we call the `social wage'. It is not only what one receives in the pay packet at the end of the week or month that is important, but also what happens in the tax system and the payments for health and medical care. These also have an impact. For example, let us look at Medicare. Through the payment of a levy related to their income, Australian families are able to get the basic medical and hospital care to which they are entitled. This is a policy of this Government which has been very influential in preserving the living standards of Australian families at a time when they are perhaps not receiving as much in their pay packets as they would receive in more prosperous times. I have here a paper which shows that, if Medicare were replaced with full private hospital and medical insurance, a family on average earnings would be at least $15 a week worse off after paying the premium for full cover to a private health insurer. I have mentioned the taxation system and I must say that it is a fact and it is known to Australian wage and salary earners that marginal tax rates have been too high. That is what has been crippling Australian families and households. This Government has taken resolute and practical measures, announced and implemented on the due dates. The next tax cut will come into effect on 1 July, when average workers will find themselves with more money in their pay packets each week as a result. This comprehensive policy, embracing tax and Medicare, which supplements the wage packet, is so important to Australian families and households. Despite all the bluster by Senator Messner, we know that the consumption tax is still a very attractive option to the Opposition and it has been spoken of in those terms by Mr Howard. An 8 per cent consumption tax on food, clothing and household goods would be an intolerable imposition on Australian families from which I do not believe they could ever recover. The question of accommodation, of course, looms large in relation to the living standards of Australian families, as does the question of interest rates. Those who are paying off mortgages and have loans from savings banks and other sources-particularly those who negotiated their savings bank loans after April last year-are having great difficulty at a time when their wage and salary package is not increasing. One must acknowledge, however, that this Government has done remarkably well in helping Australian families to achieve their housing objectives. Only a couple of days ago the Government announced that it would not agree with the savings banks, which wished to lift the ceiling of 13.5 per cent on loans negotiated before April last year. I am sure that that will be a great relief to many tens of thousands of Australian families. The first home owners scheme has been one of the greatest successes of this Government. The numbers of those who have become first home buyers have increased and this, incidentally, has greatly boosted the housing industry, with all the employment that flows from that. The major beneficiaries of that scheme, especially with the revised income limits announced a couple of days ago, will be low and moderate income families who are presently experiencing difficulty in getting savings together to enable them to afford their own homes. For the first time, more generous income limits will apply to families with dependent children. For example, a single applicant without dependent children can qualify for up to $4,000 if his or her taxable income does not exceed $11,500. If an applicant has two or more dependent children, that person will be eligible to receive a $6,000 grant if his or her taxable income is less than $26,000. In that way one can see that the first home owners scheme is particularly and properly biased towards families with dependent children. For those who must rely for their shelter on public housing stock, this Government has confirmed that it will continue to provide $700m for public housing under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. That is very good news for those families on the waiting lists for public housing throughout the States and Territories of the Commonwealth. We know, because it has been stated as combined Liberal-National Party policy, that the Opposition would abolish the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and would somehow expect the States, with all the competing pressures for their funds, to nevertheless find the money for housing commission homes and estates in areas throughout their jurisdiction. I am sure that all those families on the housing lists find it very unrealistic for the Opposition to come into this chamber and talk about the plight of families when many thousands of Australian families will suffer tremendous hardship because the Opposition wants to abolish the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and the $700m a year that flows to the housing commissions throughout the Commonwealth as a result of that arrangement. It will affect those families who cannot afford to participate in the normal market or through the first home owners scheme for the purchase of their own home. We are very proud of our commitment to families who need to rely on public housing and we have appropriated $700m again to demonstrate that commitment. If one simply wanted to talk about taxation matters, income, employment and housing, one would be talking about very tangible matters. I believe that families are concerned with much more than that. Most Australian families are very concerned about the education of their children. They want their kids to remain at school, to improve their skills and qualifications. This Government has done more than any other in the history of the Federation to ensure the participation of Australian children at school after their fourth year of high school. The participation rates have changed remarkably in the four years we have been in office. When we came to office only 36 per cent of school children stayed on to year 12. That was a disastrously low participation rate. It was disastrous in a national sense because skilled people were not coming into the work force; but even more than that it was disastrous-and recognised as such by parents-for the children concerned who did not have their talents developed in a way which would carry them through very difficult times over the 40 or 50 years of their adult life. Now, compared with that 36 per cent of children going on to year 12 four years ago, more than 46 per cent are moving through to year 12. Our aim is that by the end of this year 50 per cent of Australian children will continue on to and through year 12 to complete their education within the high school or secondary school system. Senator Lewis —You are raising their expectations. There are no jobs available. Senator TATE —Senator Lewis may not understand this, but for poor families there was also a disincentive to stay at school because the unemployment benefit was higher than the allowance expected if a child remained at school. We have moved to bring the unemployment benefit and the student allowances into some sort of parity-- Senator Powell —Yes, but only in stages. Senator TATE —No, not in one leap. We know that the Democrats' schemes are always completely and utterly unrealistic because of the funds that would be needed to implement them. We are moving in stages, but this is a very important move which will result in unemployment benefits and the assistance available to secondary students from very low income families being identical. Thus, there will not be an incentive, as there was, for children of such families to go on unemployment benefit rather than remain at school. We can take great pride in these very important participation rates. But more than that, I know that the families who have benefited from the capital and recurrent funding of private schools which has been undertaken by this Government are also very well aware that the co-operation and collaboration between this Government and them as families in supporting private schools throughout the Commonwealth has been something about which I think they had some misgivings at the beginning of our term of office. But I know, from attending the opening of many schools, particularly those in the Catholic systemic system in Tasmania, that families have regarded, and do regard, themselves as being well served by this Government in the capital put into their classrooms, libraries, laboratories and other facilities and the recurrent costs in wages and salaries for teachers and other staffs. That has enabled many parents and families to exercise the freedom which, as I say, is so often a platitude from the lips of the Opposition. It talks about freedom of choice in relation to the educational system that it wants to provide for the children, but unless it provides the funds, as we have done, particularly emphasising those schools which had only meagre financial resources available to them, then that particular choice is a very unreal and abstract one. We have given a very concrete and practical effect to that choice. As I say, I know, from the school openings that I have attended, that families do appreciate and understand that commitment by this Government. So that whole collaboration and co-operation between government and families is a feature of those programs in particular, but something which I think we have to continue to emphasise in other programs too. If it were only my assertion that the Government's policies are tough but are designed to help reduce the impact of our reduced terms of trade on Australian families, and if it were only my assertion that we are going to get through this tough economic period, perhaps it could be discounted. But the fact is that international authorities, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, in very recent days, have said that Australia is well placed to weather the storm-and that means that Australian families are well placed to weather the storm, because of the policies put in place by this Government, to which we will adhere and on which we will go to the people at the end of this year or early next year, because we are not going to renege on making the tough decisions needed to meet the economic challenge facing this country, as the Prime Minister said in his statement of a few moments ago. Of course, we know what this debate is about. It is an important topic, but it has been brought on really as part of the general frustration of the Government's effort to bring to a conclusion the debate on the Australia Card. The Opposition is determined to reject and frustrate our attempts to bring this to a vote because it does not want too early to be seen and exposed to Australian families as an opposition which does not want to deal with the tax cheats, with those who are perverting and destroying the social security and Medicare systems by the manipulation of false identities. Honest Australian families who pay their taxes, honest Australian families who are prepared to support a fair social security system, and honest Australian families who benefit when in real need from a fair social security system, are sick to death of those who manipulate the system by the use of false identities. Those Australian families understand that the Australia Card will be a great aid and weapon in the armoury of this Government to achieve that fairness in the taxation, social security and Medicare systems which is so important. Ordinary Australian families are having their standard of living destroyed while the Opposition refuses to make the Australia Card a reality within our arrangements. We will reject this motion and get on to the real debate in the interests of the living standards of Australian families. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Senator Puplick —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. During his address Senator Tate said that he had a piece of paper regarding medical costs and the replacement of the Medicare levy, from which he quoted, and I would ask him to table that document. Senator Tate —No, Mr Deputy President, I will not table it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It is not a point of order. Senator Tate will not table it. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.54) —I rise to speak on the urgency motion presented to the chamber by Senator Chaney. I begin by noting that Senator Tate, in his contribution, referred to the international covenant acknowledging the family as a fundamental unit of our society and to the Government's desire and attempts to enshrine that principle in Australian statutes. If Senator Tate was, as I suspect, referring to proposals for an Australian Bill of Rights, such as the Bill before us last year, I point out that that Bill, contrary to what Senator Tate said, was never rejected by the Senate and certainly not by the Australian Democrats, who supported then and who continue to do so, although I suspect the Government no longer does, a Bill of Rights for all Australians, including Australian families. What happened was what all too often happens, and we are seeing this in a number of policy areas which markedly affect Australian families. The Government caved in to pressure from the hard Right, coming from the Opposition benches, and failed even to bring that issue to a vote. Senator Chaney, in moving this motion and in speaking to it, has raised what I certainly agree is a major issue in society at the moment and a major matter before political parties and members of this chamber, no less. However, in my comments on this motion I would not want it thought for one moment that, although the Australian Democrats share the concern for what indeed is a severely reducing living standard for all Australians, and families in particular, we share the views expressed by Senator Chaney in this chamber and by other members and fellow travellers of his particular political persuasion outside this chamber about what should be done about that. Living standards are falling for Australian families and individuals in low income households. The Government does have a wages policy which has succeeded in reducing the real incomes of wage earners. It has embarked upon a series of expenditure cuts, which are not finished yet but which have increased the costs of education, health care, housing and so on for all Australians and particularly for middle and low income earners. Australian wage earners earn less and pay more because of an economic strategy which the Government is doggedly pursuing. As well, price rises for basic household necessities have increased as a result of government policy. For example, taxes on fruit juice and milk have increased, and manufacturers and retailers are able to raise prices at their whim. So I agree that family living standards in Australia are falling. We all know that the Government's economic policy of high interest rates and fiscal restraint has contributed to that situation. What I cannot understand is how the Opposition, which stands for more expenditure cuts, could possibly hope to improve the living standards of Australian families, except for the very wealthiest families who would get more tax relief to help them to pay for the privatised welfare, health and education services that the Opposition promotes. The cause of our present economic malaise is the high level of international debt accumulated by the private sector and by Liberal-National Party, Australian Labor Party, and National Party governments, both State and Federal. When the terms of trade moved against us, we could not export enough to pay for that debt. Both the Government and the Opposition believe that it is reasonable for those ordinary Australians who have not borrowed overseas to make the sacrifices that are needed to enable us to pay our own way again. The Government and the Opposition are united on that view, because they are both concerned to satisfy the international bankers, investors and speculators as a first priority, and not Australian families. These international forces believe that cutting government expenditure is a virtue in itself. They do not care about the consequences of expenditure cuts on Australian families or on the 2.5 million Australians now living in poverty. A recent analysis done by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research Pty Ltd has estimated a significant overall rise in poverty in Australia between 1981-82 and 1985-86, from 11.5 per cent to 12.4 per cent of all income units. That is not a good record. It is those people whose concerns are not being addressed. The concern should be to get the so-called fundamentals right, and those fundamentals are right only when Budgets are balanced. To achieve that, expenditure must be cut or taxes must be raised. Neither the Government nor the Opposition has shown any willingness to tax those who can afford to pay more. Hence we still have the availability of negative gearing for takeovers in large company situations. Of course, we no longer have negative gearing for family home owners. Both the Government and the Opposition are committed to cutting expenditure to please the world bankers and businessmen. In our culture banks represent wealth and economic wisdom, yet we should remember that those very wise people have lent billions of dollars to developing countries, particularly Latin American countries, when they were flush with funds and the banks are now confronted with the possibility that they will never be repaid. It is that wisdom which moves the Government and the Opposition in setting up their economic policies. I also wonder why the Opposition feigns concern about families and says nothing of individual low income earners and welfare recipients whose living standards have fallen. I wonder whether it is not that the Opposition is not prepared to dissemble about the fact that under its policies single unemployed young people and tertiary students will be the first group to have all government assistance taken away from them under any possible alternative government. I will quote to the Senate from today's Age the views of Mr Peter Boyle, Federal President of the Australian Small Business Association, who has the ear of the present Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard: The federal president of the Australian Small Business Association, Mr Peter Boyle, said yesterday that the unemployed should get the dole for no more than 10 weeks in a year and school leavers should not get it. Mr Boyle said that those leaving their jobs voluntarily should not get the dole. School leavers should remain `the family's responsibility', and get the dole only in special circumstances. In the case of unemployed people with families, what will they do after 10 weeks? Mr Boyle believes they can get jobs, but I heard Senator Lewis a moment ago challenge Senator Tate, stressing that he, Senator Lewis, does not believe there are any jobs about and that Senator Tate should provide some. Perhaps Senator Lewis should speak to Mr Boyle. It is Mr Boyle's belief that there are jobs and that 10 week's unemployment benefit should be enough. It is obviously the belief, too, of the New Right lunatics who appear to be rapidly taking over the Opposition. I suppose Mr Boyle and the Opposition really want to deregulate wages so that there is no minimum level and cut social security benefits so that it is impossible to provide food, shelter, clothing, education and health care if one is unemployed. They have a quaint idea of cutting benefits to zero in 10 weeks-at least Mr Boyle does-and I suppose they want to force the unemployed into abject poverty so that they will work for a meagre wage with perhaps some food and substandard shelter thrown in, with the alternative of being a beggar and living in the streets. That is an advocation of a return to a form of slavery. In that context the Joh version is that we will have to pay only a flat rate tax of 25 per cent. Let us look at the United States of America, which is the nirvana for some of these sorts of people, and at some of the results of President Reagan's New Right policies. Cutting taxes and social security and welfare services has meant that the situation there for many more people has become very grim. In an article from the National Times on Sunday of 22 March this year Anne Summers made some very pertinent points about this. Sometimes we hear from the gurus of the Right of all the jobs that have been created in the good old United States of America-11 million or so since 1980-but 44 per cent of those newly created jobs pay the minimum wage of $7,400 a year or less. The net increase has occurred in the services sector where the average pay hovers around $14,000 a year. Such salaries in the United States cannot cover market rents, let alone the other expenses of providing for a family, so it is not uncommon now to find people who have jobs but who have no houses. That is the result of this sort of policy of creating jobs by reinstituting slavery. Anne Summers said in her article that each night now 1,500 people sleep in New York City's rail and bus terminals. At Grand Central Station, commuters step over serried rows of sleeping bodies, and on a very cold night those people are hustled away so that in the morning the workers will not have to step over their bodies. What of the Hawke Government? The experience is that the Hawke Government implements tomorrow what the New Right espouses today. Having deregulated the financial system, which even Mr Howard was not allowed to do as Treasurer, the Hawke Government is now dependent upon what businessmen and bankers believe to be the appropriate remedies for our economic ills. It postponed the indexation of pensions and the poverty traps legislation in its last Budget. It taxed milk and fruit juices, increased the Medicare levy and introduced a tertiary fee. All of these amount to increasing costs to families at a time of falling real wages and reduced benefits for welfare recipients at a time of increasing costs. The mini-Budget promises more expenditure cuts which will either increase costs, such as higher tertiary fees or increasing patient contributions under Medicare, or reduce benefits, such as the family allowance. I will tell the Government now that the Australian Democrats will oppose any such measures which attack low income earners and families or pensioners, as we did in the Budget session last year. High interest rates are a deliberate government policy to lure foreign investment into Australia so, as our dollar falls, more Australian assets are sold to overseas investors at bargain basement prices. Australian families, small businesses and home buyers cope with these prevailing high interest rates. Nothing is done for rural producers who are working their fingers to the bone to stay solvent at a time of high interest rates, falling land values and falling prices for Australian commodities. This Government seems quite content for its international business friends to buy up the farms as Australian rural families become bankrupt. Neither the Government nor the various conservative pretenders can offer them assistance because they believe in deregulation. They believe the market should be left to destroy Australian farmers because to offer them assistance in the form of interest rate subsidies would not please the international bankers, and they demand complete deregulation and less expenditure, not assistance for those who need it. The Australian Democrats have an alternative to the Hawke-Howard axis. We believe that revenue can be raised from those who are currently benefiting from the economic problems that Australia is experiencing. We believe that up to $5 billion could be raised by implementing, for instance, the abolition of negative gearing on company takeovers, by imposing a 10 per cent duty on luxury imports, not an across the board sales tax on the necessities of life, by eliminating transfer pricing mechanisms that are available only to multinational companies and taxing the massive amounts of money leaving Australia to speculate against our weakened currency. This money could be used to increase assistance to struggling families and individuals, whether or not they are working. One way to do that would be to double the family allowance. We would increase the free income limit for the unemployment benefit to $80, which would enable people to have part time employment, do paid community work and start their own enterprises. The Government refuses to do this because it agrees with the view of the businessmen and the bankers that expenditure must be restrained. Yet the former Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, kindly costed the Democrats' proposal at a modest $60m. The Opposition believes that to incentivate we must stop spending. This proposal of ours-a $60m cost-would provide a lot of incentivation for those who are most in need. Austudy should be increased; interest rate subsidies should be provided; and we have had proposals that superannuation funds should be compelled to participate in this and that small savers should be able to put money into special lending schemes, which would be tax free, to go to housing to address that problem. It is a welcome announcement to the Australian Democrats that the Government intends to serve out its term of office to at least the end of this year because we have no doubt at all that the Australian people, particularly Australian families, will increasingly recognise that the choice is between tweedle-Lib and tweedle-Lab and look at the parties' records, the parties' performances, rather than at what the parties say they will do. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(4.09) —I am very happy to be able to participate in this extremely important and relevant debate on the urgency motion today-namely, the need for the Government to reverse the policies which have severely reduced family living standards. I regret to say that the present Government is guilty of neglecting the family unit, the cornerstone of society and the fundamental structure around which all societal activity occurs and flourishes. Sir Robert Menzies was a politician of great stature and his words have stood the test of time. I can remember him. Some of the younger senators may not. All I can say is that, when Sir Robert Menzies was Prime Minister of Australia, Australia's economy was in a tremendously good and stable condition, which it is not in now under this Labor Government. It is very worthwhile, I believe, to quote Sir Robert Menzies. He once said about the family: What is the value of this middle class? First, it has a stake in the country. It has a responsibility for homes-homes material, homes human and homes spiritual. I do not believe that the real life of this nation is to be found either in great luxury hotels and petty gossip of so-called fashionable suburbs, or in the officialdom of organised masses. It is to be found in the homes of people who are nameless and unadvertised, and who, whatever their individual religious conviction or dogma, see in their children their greatest contribution to the immortality of their race. The home is the foundation of sanity and sobriety; it is the indispensable condition of continuity; its health determines the health of society as a whole. So said Sir Robert Menzies. I believe it behoves us all to take a word of warning from those wise words. Real life exists out there in the suburbs, not in the trendy suburbs or the halls of great intellectualism. They have their value in society. There is no doubt about that. But reality for Mr and Mrs Australia begins at their front door. There is not an ounce of doubt in my mind that single income families with dependent children are under financial pressure today as they never have been before, thanks to the disregard of this present Government. They have been hit by high taxes. Family allowances, which were introduced by the Fraser Government in 1976 to replace child endowment, and tax rebates for children have been eroded ever since by inflation and the Hawke Labor Government. I have to admit that successive coalition governments have been guilty of failure to index family allowances, as well as this present Government. However, the Government has severely compounded the situation with various disastrous budgetary measures. Of course, the larger the family the greater the financial loss caused by the failure to index family allowances. From 1976 to 1985 the real value of family allowances declined by 29.2 per cent. This failure to index family allowances has denied Australian mothers a total of $10 billion since 1977-78 which they otherwise would have had available to rear their children. Senator Richardson —Who was in government in the first six years of that? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —The Labor Government has not done anything since it came to power to help the situation. The spouse rebate has also been greatly reduced by the Labor Government over the years, even though in his election speech of 1983 Mr Hawke promised a substantial increase in the spouse rebate. That is another of Mr Hawke's broken promises. I am glad to know that he has not broken his promise about continuing to govern until the normal election time. I am glad that he has announced today that we will not have an early election. So at least he kept that promise. Senator Collard —He wasn't game. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —That might be one reason. The dependent spouse rebate, which is the only method under the present system by which single income families can receive a fairer tax deal, rose by no less than 16 per cent in real terms during the last five years of the Fraser Government. Under the Hawke Government, the value of the rebate has fallen 23 per cent in real terms. That is a rather sad and sorry story. But it should not surprise us at all really because it is well known that some sections-powerful sections, at that-of the Labor Party want to abolish the dependent spouse rebate altogether. All honourable senators would be aware that the cost of raising children has risen rapidly over recent years. These days it is quite the norm for young couples who have just married to postpone by several years any thoughts of starting a family. It is simply a matter of finances. Interest rates at the ridiculous level they presently are virtually necessitate young couples who want to purchase a home having two incomes. The decision to have children very sadly has become a decision to reduce the family standard of living. Even with the so-called personal tax cuts that will come this year, a single income family with a dependent spouse and children will pay a much higher proportion of its income in tax than it did in March 1983 when the Hawke Government came to power. Senator Richardson —What would it pay with a 25 per cent flat tax? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Senator Richardson will have an opportunity to speak in this debate after me when he can say just what he wants. He should just let me say what I want to say. In March 1983, such a single income family paid 17.5 per cent of its total income in tax. In July this year, even allowing for the so-called Keating reforms, the proportion to be paid in tax will be 20.5 per cent, an increase in income tax of some 3 per cent. In other words, the family would need to receive a further tax cut of $15 a week over and above what the Government has promised in order to be brought back to the position that it enjoyed in March 1983. This comparison makes no allowance for the huge increases in interest rates, for any impacts of the fringe benefits tax, or for any impact of the other tax imposts of the Hawke Government that affect families. We heard earlier in this debate about the increases in the cost of flavoured milk. A tax was placed on flavoured milk and fruit juice. I have seen the tremendous increases in the cost of goods in the supermarkets when I go shopping. These things all come back on to families. They affect rural people. We know the tremendous increases in interest rates and the costs families have in trying to meet their repayments on rural farms. We have seen in the papers pictures of families being put off farms that have been repossessed. Rural families suffer. We know too that single income families, pensioner families and others also suffer. Responsible parenting has been made very difficult by the successive Budgets of this Labor Government, Budgets which supposedly, in the name of equal sharing of the burden, have unfairly hit those with unequal and greater responsibilities. Families with dependent children should not have to be further burdened by new or higher taxes on basic items such as petrol and health insurance. I listened to our Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) talk about how when Labor came into power fuel cost 44c a litre and now costs 55c a litre. Whether it costs 55c a litre depends on where one lives. If one lives way out in the outback of Queensland or up in Darwin one will pay a lot more than 55c a litre. That increase in the price of petrol came about even though the Prime Minister said that when he got into power there would be no increase in the price of fuel. That is an unfortunate promise and one that he has not been able to keep. Would not people think that a government which cared for the majority of Australians-that is, the families of Australia-would have acknowledged the adverse impact of increasing the Medicare levy and removing private hospital subsidies? Many Australian families put the health of their children first and joined private health insurance funds. These families should not have to contribute to the public health system through the Medicare levy. They want to be able to use a hospital of their choice, if it is necessary. The education system provides the same difficulty. The Hawke Government continues to discriminate against those families which choose to send their children to private or independent schools. What about the students who are having to pay a $250 tertiary entrance fee? The Government knows that that is an unnecessary burden too. The tax burden on ordinary Australian families continues to grow daily. Between 1976 and 1985 average weekly earnings rose by 135 per cent while the income tax payable on such earnings rose by 435 per cent. This proves that Australian families are indeed suffering from a very real increasing tax burden. A single income family pays more tax than a dual income family earning the same total income because the latter has the benefit of two tax free thresholds. This automatically penalises families in which one spouse works as the full time mother at home. When I first became a member of the Senate people asked me what it was like to be a working woman now. I looked at them with horror and said that I was a working woman before I became a member of parliament. I think that mothers who stay at home and look after their families as full time carers are really working women. There are no doubts about that. The Government should recognise this fact and do something about it. Every wage earner in Australia realises that whether or not he gets the promised tax cuts at the end of this year he will still be worse off. Higher taxes, inflation and interest rates, in particular, will make sure of that-tax cuts or not. The Australian Taxation Office is the big winner, not the average Australian family. If the Labor Government were really serious about trying to help the Australian family it would reduce the tax burden and interest rates. Under this Government the whole economic system of this country is geared towards breaking down the family rather than helping it to maintain its position as the strength of this country. At present a couple with two children can improve their financial position from a joint income of $181.20 to $320.15 a week by separating. When a family's position can be improved by parents separating it is indeed the bottom line. What an incredible situation that is. The Family Law Act needs an overhaul. The present Act makes it too easy for people to walk away from their community responsibility to raise their children in a two parent family. To give credit where it is due, I was very pleased to hear last week that measures were to be taken to ensure that maintenance payments were to be deducted from the responsible parent's pay packet. This is a start. I still believe that more funds should be made available for pre-marriage and marriage enrichment education. Only $100,000 was allocated in the last Budget towards pre-marriage education. It was certainly not enough. Present Federal funding amounts to about 2 1/2c per family for marriage guidance compared with about $470 per family when families break down. This Government has done absolutely nothing to help Mr and Mrs Australia and their children. We are seeing daily the decline of the single income family and the best way to help them is to reduce taxation and interest rates. Accordingly, I support the urgency motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition because it has been proved that there is certainly a need for the Government to reverse the policies which have severely reduced family living standards in Australia. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(4.24) —Today is 1 April and having read the wording of the motion, which is `the need for the Government to reverse the policies which have severely reduced family living standards', we have seen the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, playing the April fool. I can understand that there are difficulties. The Opposition has been going through some trying times of late. But I did not think things were so bad that Senator Peter Baume and Senator Chaney were not on speaking terms. On only 23 February, just five weeks ago, an identical motion was moved by Senator Peter Baume. It stated: The failure of the Labor Government to take the necessary action to stop the decline in living standards of Australian families. An identical motion was moved five weeks ago. One would have to give Senator Chaney one out of 10 for originality. If he did not remember Senator Baume moving this motion, I remind him of what happened during that debate. The Government exposed the shallowness of the Opposition's case and I suppose we will go through that exercise again today. This morning I picked up the front page of the Australian newspaper and in trying to find out what the coalition was doing on tax policies I saw that it was again having some difficulties. The amount of tax Australian families pay has a great deal to do with their living standards. Senator Bjelke-Petersen has just made a remarkable speech. She talked about the need to lower taxation for Australian families. I hope the honourable senator can listen, perceive and understand what I am about to say. Queensland Nationals are arguing for a 25 per cent flat tax. Mr Ian Cameron and Mr Sinclair of the National Party of Australia disagree about which policy has been agreed to. I am not sure which policy has been agreed to; I cannot follow it and I am sure nobody else can. However, I am sure that a 25 per cent tax as an average payment will come about in the 1986-87 financial year when a family's income reaches $24,488. The estimated number of taxpayers paying less than that amount now is three million males and 2 1/2 million females. Currently 5 1/2 million Australians are paying less than that amount. That is 81 per cent of taxpayers in Australia are now paying less than 25 per cent flat tax including 37 per cent who are pensioners. Yet Senator Bjelke-Petersen prescribes a 25 per cent flat tax to put up their taxation to an amount even higher than it is today. That is the only possible result of the honourable senator's policy. She will make Australian families pay more; she will make them pay through the nose, as usual, to support her white shoe mates who run around Surfers Paradise building apartment blocks. There is more to life than that. The honourable senator talked about reality. The reality is that 81 per cent of Australians, who pay less than 25 per cent as an average tax, will be penalised if the honourable senator ever gets into government. No wonder Joh Bjelke-Petersen's rating has dropped so much in the polls in the last three weeks; no wonder he walked out of the Lakeside International Hotel last Saturday or Sunday, tail between his legs, whipped yet again. As more and more people realise what he is doing he will be laughed off as the joke that he is. Let me get to this rather sick joke which has been put on us today-this motion. The economic difficulties that Australia is facing today are the product of decades of neglect in the Australian economy. The Australian Labor Party has been in government for less than a quarter of the last 40 years so it will not take too much of the blame. However, successive conservative governments have stifled the Australian economy and how did they do it? They brought in more and more protection; they had no concern for manufacturing industry; they let it run down and thought that things would always be okay off the sheep's back; they thought that we could keep digging up yet another quarry; we would always find another mineral and life would be rosy. So they deliberately kept the dollar high. Honourable senators will remember the lunacy of the resource boom that Malcolm Fraser talked up some years ago. The Fraser Government relied on overseas borrowings which developed into an art form. Senator Crowley —Senator Bjelke-Petersen has left the chamber. Senator RICHARDSON —She could not handle the argument about the flat tax. That is why Senator Bjelke-Petersen has left the chamber. She could not stand the heat in the kitchen, even though there are no scones in the oven. The wages boom of 1981-82 was the disaster caused by the deregulation experiment of the Leader of the Opposition, John Howard. Over decades our international competitiveness was eroded. Superimposed upon that, since we have had an export price collapse in our commodities, some $6 billion has been wiped off our national income. The result of that is that we cannot expect what went on in Australia in the 1950s and 1960s-ever increasing living standards-can go on and on. We started to live too well; the world passed a verdict on that and if Australia ever wants to have such living standards again it has to get its house in order. That means tough responsible decision making and that means a Labor Government led by the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke. The Opposition furiously peddles the illusion that somehow we will be able to go back to those days without any tough decisions being made, that we can keep things rosy and everything will be okay. Of course that is just not right. Let us look at the Opposition's record when it was in government. How did it help Australia's living standards? Let me compare our approach with that of the Liberals. I reckon that the fundamental requirement upon which any Australian family bases its living standard is a job. If the breadwinner or the two breadwinners-as is common today-do not have a job, the family has to rely on social security and its standard of living suffers. I do not think that the memory of Australian families is so short that they cannot remember what happened during the last terrible years of the Fraser-Howard Administration. During that last 12-month period in particular, a quarter of a million people-750 people every day for 12 months-were put out of work. Unemployment rose during the period of the Howard-Fraser regime to 720,000-an unemployment rate of nearly 11 per cent. Five hundred thousand people were banished to the unemployment scrap-heap in the last 18 months of John Howard's reign as Treasurer of this country. Does the Opposition think that consigning more than half a million Australians to the scrap-heap did not have an effect on the living standards of their families? Are they to be isolated from reasonable living standards? Just consider what the loss of employment did to the 500,000 Australians who were knocked out of a job and had to go on to the unemployment benefit. Contrary to what Senator Bjelke- Petersen said, all of those Australians would have preferred to have a job. They were all part of Australian families. They did not have earnings from a job on which to pay income tax and, most importantly, they did not earn the money which they needed to feed their families. That Liberal Party record borders on the criminal. The previous Government had no policy on wages and prices. Remember that lunatic experiment back in 1981-82 with the deregulation of the wages market. Remember how we were told how well it would go. We were told that that deregulation was going to fix the Australian economy, that unions and employees would get together, have a talk and sort things out across the table. We were assured that we would all be okay. We were told that there would be no need for the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to get involved. Of course, this resulted in an 11 per cent increase in wages in 1981 and a 14 per cent increase in 1982. This policy fuelled inflation to 11 per cent and it ruined the Australian economy-as it always will do. All it meant, of course, was that big unions won big increases, and that meant that the small businesses down the line were squeezed by the big boys and had to follow on. The previous Government had a shocking prescription for small business and even a worse one for families, who saw their living standards eroded by the high inflation regime it put in place. What has been the Opposition's position on wages since then? Has it changed its mind? Who knows? I do not know. The Australian people do not know. No one knows. The Opposition will not tell anybody. First off we had Opposition spokesmen telling us that there was going to be complete deregulation. Then they backed off that. There was going to be semi-deregulation with some minimum awards. Amongst the Opposition ranks there are others who speak of a wages freeze. But no one knows. I do not know and the people do not know where the Opposition stands. So no one in Australian families knows what the Opposition will do with living standards as far as wages are concerned. There is no confusion or contradiction on one point. There is only one consistent thing that we can say about the Opposition's wages policy in the last four years. Since we got into Government in 1983, the Opposition has opposed every wage increase that has been contemplated by the Arbitration Commission. The Opposition has been opposed on every single occasion to Australian families getting any increase in their wages. That is the Opposition's real prescription for Australian families. All it wants to do is protect its rich mates. It wants Australian families to be screwed once again. Not once has any Opposition spokesperson agreed that Australian families should be compensated with a wage increase to offset the effects of inflation-neither Mr Howard, nor Mr Brown, nor Mr Carlton. I do not think Mr Peacock has ever spoken on that subject. He does not speak on anything other than whether he wants to be leader. The Opposition screamed long and loud over the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Government proposals for wage settlement and the amount that Australian workers subsequently received. We would be the first to admit that Australian workers have not received the full wage increase in line with rises in the inflation rate over the last few years. They were compensated as best we thought the economy could afford. But the Opposition would not have compensated them at all. It would have made sure that their living standards were screwed down further. It is the job and the pay packet which primarily determine living standards, and that was the area of great failure for the Howard-Fraser regime and it is an even greater failure for the Peacock-Howard, Howard-Peacock and now Howard Opposition. The Opposition's leadership changes on a day to day basis these days. We do not know where they are and, of course, neither do they. But, as I said, wages and jobs must count when we are looking at living standards. Let us look at the Opposition's record on government income transfers to families. This is another important area. What was the legacy of the Fraser Government in this respect? As usual, low income families were the ones to suffer. Under the previous Liberal Government the number of children in low income families more than doubled, from under 9 per cent to nearly 20 per cent. One in every five children was from a pensioner or beneficiary family. At the same time, additional benefits and pensions were allowed to decline by 32 per cent in real terms. Senator Bjelke-Petersen referred to the family allowance. The one child family allowance decreased during the Howard reign as Treasurer by 24 per cent in real terms. That is what a conservative administration did for the living standards of Australian families. In a three-child family, the decrease in real terms was 20.1 per cent. As always, the low income families suffered the most and suffered first. I might say that in the case of the Fraser regime, they suffered first, second and third. The sole parent pensioner with two children and no private income suffered a real decrease of 3 1/2 per cent. Beneficiary couples with two children also suffered a decrease. It did not matter where one looked down the list of low income families, made up by various component members, it was in that area that the suffering was the greatest, as it always will be under conservative administrations. The pay as you earn families have had to carry an ever increasing burden when one looks at the level of living standards. I have heard Mr Costigan quoted in this chamber a number of times today. I remember when he said that the only industry that grew under Fraser was the tax avoidance industry. It grew at a rate comparable with the heady days of the Victorian gold rush. As the tax avoiders avoided tax, the ordinary Australian family had to pick up the ball. They had to pay everyone else's share and their living standards were eroded. What did the then Government do about providing these families with tax relief? We have heard a lot about tax today from a number of speakers, but in particular from Senator Bjelke-Petersen. What did they do when they were in government about tax relief? The answer to that question is an unqualified nothing. I can remember, as some Australians will, the infamous fistful of dollars campaign. Senator Bjelke-Petersen would remember the advertisements. The fistful of dollars was held up and we were told that this was going to be put back into the pockets of Australian families. Families are still waiting. They waited long and hard for the Fraser Government to do something and they got nothing. That is why they kicked the Liberals out. Alternatively, the present Government's record on tax relief is there to be seen. We abolished the 62 per cent, John Howard-created tax level; it has gone. From July it will be down to 49c. The Government has done its bit. All the Fraser Government did when it was in power was put taxes up and up, and with that the Australian families' living standards went down and down. The first thing to be done is to compare this Government's record with the then Fraser Government's record on employment growth. Under the Fraser-Howard Government we had massive unemployment. Under this Government we have seen 700,000 jobs created, not destroyed. This has meant that another 700,000 Australian families have been able to live decently. Let us stop these stupid motions that come before this Parliament. The reality is that no Australian family will ever be convinced of the bona fides of a conservative government as long as that government relies totally on defending the privileged position of the rich in terms of their tax, making sure that they do not pay their fair share. Ordinary Australians know that the Opposition always expects them to carry a greater burden. They also know that the Hawke Government will give them a fair go. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(4.38) —At the request of the Opposition, we are discussing today the `need for the Government to reverse its policies which have severely reduced family living standards'. Senator Richardson complained, of course, about the Opposition raising this topic for the second time in five weeks. There is a very good reason for the Opposition bringing this up for the second time in five weeks. It is that important as far as the Opposition is concerned. It indicates the measure of our concern for families and the situation in which they find themselves under a Labor government. Earlier in the debate Senator Tate spoke for the Government. He tried to hide behind the Australian Bill of Rights as an indication of the Australian Labor Party's concern and commitment for the family. He said that the Government was trying to legislate for the welfare of the family in the Bill of Rights. Thousands upon thousands of Australians knew what the Bill of Rights meant for the family-it did not protect it. They signed petitions and wrote letters. Finally, of course, even the Labor Government had the good sense to realise that this proposal was not popular and not wanted. It withdrew the legislation. The Bill of Rights did not protect the family. Now is not the time to re-run the Bill of Rights debate. Many Australians who became involved in the debate in the community and who attended meetings know what the Bill of Rights meant to the family. We also heard Senator Tate tell us that it was best for families to have a wage earner and not to be on social security. Nobody would argue with that as a proposition. But it is, of course, a sad thing to note that Labor's own estimates indicate that there will be 2,824,000 Australians on welfare in 1987-an increase of 430,600 or 18 per cent since the Labor Government took over this country. They are not figures that any member of the Government ought to be proud of. We do want wage earners, and we want wage earners who are able to support their families. We have heard that the Opposition has opposed wage increases. But we are talking about the real value of the household budget that a family has. Families are being faced with falling real wages. We want real living standards increased, not the meaningless wage increases that have been talked about this afternoon. Families, as I said, have suffered from falling real wages. They have suffered from an increase in taxation, which has affected small businessmen as well; rising prices; high interest rates; and continuing high unemployment, particularly for young people. They have been faced with increases in mortgage repayments and a rental crisis which has meant that many families have had difficulty obtaining accommodation in recent times. We have heard about the family allowances. Far fewer families are receiving the family allowance now than when Labor came to office. Firstly, the Government cut out the family allowance for students over the age of 18 years, and the means testing last year of the allowance for 16- and 17-year-olds has caused a dramatic drop in the number of families able to receive the family allowance. There are many families that need it and have had to rely upon it to cope with their financial budgeting in recent times. The taxation burden has fallen particularly heavily on families. Some of the wage increases that Senator Tate referred to earlier virtually have been wiped out for families that have found themselves in a different tax bracket. They have not been better off as a consequence. We all know that this year the Government, through new or increased taxes, is collecting $1.4 billion more than it did in the last year. The tax rate on average weekly earnings has risen from 23.9 per cent in March of 1983 and, even after the tax cuts which we have heard so much about, a family with a dependent spouse and two children will be $15 a week worse off. There has been no real relief whatever from anything in the area of taxation, and families out there know it. The cost of living has risen dramatically-18.8 per cent. I want to refer to some of the specific figures that have been the burden of families in these last few years. The food bill has gone from $80 to $105 on average. Home repayments is an area where there have been dramatic increases. They have been suffered by those who have been trying to rent homes, by those who have been paying off mortgages, and by those who have been attempting to purchase their own home. Based on a $40,000 loan, the average interest rate has risen from 12.5 per cent to 15.5 per cent. In some cases, people are paying even higher rates of interest for money they have borrowed. That has had a most dramatic impact on the family budget for those who are purchasing homes. Health insurance has gone up. The levy was increased in the last Budget from 1 per cent to 1 1/4 per cent. Those who have taken the precaution of retaining their private insurance-or who have attempted to retain their private insurance-have had their costs go up from what was a $9.10 payment prior to the Labor Government to what now amounts to $15.44 for those on average weekly earnings. That is, again, a dramatic increase. Many people have had to give up their private hospital insurance because they have not been able to afford it. We now find that there are many people waiting for surgery; about 100,000 people throughout Australia are waiting to get into the hospitals for what is rather quaintly referred to as elective surgery. All of those who are on the lists and waiting for surgery know what `elective surgery' really means. Elective surgery is not something one might have or might not. It is surgery which is needed but is perhaps not life threatening at the particular time. It does have a great impact, of course, when a breadwinner who has something like a hernia-which is regarded as elective surgery-is off work for perhaps six to eight weeks before he can get into hospital. The effect of that on a family is quite dramatic. Senator Tate —What about the effect of the doctors union in Canberra? Senator REID —Many people do not have the sort of insurance which enables them to cover that circumstance, and I have known of people in Canberra who have been delayed for surgery and unable to earn in the meantime and who have been absolutely frantic about how they will pay for their house and how they will feed their children. Senator Tate mentioned Canberra. Canberra has had a bad run under Medicare, and this has gone on right from the beginning. There has been trouble in the laundries when elective surgery was banned; there was the national doctors' strike earlier; there were problems with the nurses and the nurses' strike last year; we have a problem between doctors and the hospitals over the service to be provided by private doctors in the hospitals. Senator Tate —Do you support the doctors? Senator REID —No, we do not support them. No one has said that we do. Senator Crowley —We are glad to hear you deny it. It is the first one we have got. Senator REID —Well, it is not the first time it has been denied; it may be the first time that Senator Crowley has heard it. The effect, of course, is borne by those who are dependent on Medicare for their health services. The waiting lists have been quite dramatic and it is something that really ought not to be tolerated. It certainly is not what people believed they were being promised when they voted to support Medicare. Let us look at the situation as far as housing is concerned. Families on average weekly earnings have been virtually squeezed out of the market. They are forced now to spend about 37 per cent of their after tax income on housing. I certainly grew up accepting-and I thought everybody did-that about 25 per cent of after tax income was the amount that one would pay for housing for a family. That is no longer the case, and the effect of having to pay so much is causing many families to have to consider even giving up the homes that they have been attempting to purchase, especially those who have bought for the first time in the last few years. I spoke to a real estate agent in Canberra only a week or so ago who told me that the real estate company that she worked for had five houses on the market for auction during April and that they were all former family homes which had to be got rid of because the families could no longer maintain the costs that they were having to pay to retain them. That is a particularly serious problem. We will have five families looking for alternative accommodation; they probably will have to shift to another suburb and the children to another school. The disruption to their whole lifestyle is quite significant. The effect on the children is significant. Disruption to education ought not to be taken lightly. But there are people who can no longer pay what they are being asked to pay under mortgages which, when they took them on, seemed quite reasonable. People have embarked on purchasing homes with the low-start loans which also have gone up so significantly that they are in financial difficulties. I have spoken in this place on other occasions about the sort of letters I have had from constituents which have so graphically set out their financial situation, explaining the difficulties they have in trying to meet the repayments-trying to do what they believed was the right thing, to have the security of their own family home for their children and the security of living in a suburb where they could feel that they belonged and where their children could grow up. There are about 3,000 new houses on the market in Canberra at present. There is a crisis in the housing industry. There are people who would like to purchase these houses. There is money available, but these people can no longer afford the repayments, and the impact of this on the economy of Canberra will be quite significant. At the same time, of course, the public housing waiting list in this country has grown dramatically over the last four years. It is absolutely incredible that there are now about 160,000 people on the public housing waiting list-a dramatic increase. There are about 400,000 people living in caravan parks and about 100,000 people who are classed as being permanently homeless. So those who are dependent on the rental market also have extreme difficulty. There are figures available as to the increase in rents which has occurred in recent times. We hear quite pathetic stories of families not being able to get accommodation, and of families who split up and have to live in two different places because they are not able to maintain the sorts of repayments that they had been able to pay previously. The average monthly repayment of mortgages increased in the Australian Capital Territory by 12 per cent in the last 12 months-and that is the lowest increase in Australia-to an average of $718 per month. In Tasmania the rate of repayment per month is $468. That is the lowest repayment figure, but it represents an increase of 35 per cent over 12 months. In New South Wales there was a 21 per cent increase to $698. In Victoria there was a 24 per cent increase to $609. These are figures which families know about and which cannot be ignored. The inflation rate, of course, has had an impact on families, the things that they buy and the value of their money. Senator Tate earlier referred to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report which was published in this morning's paper. It was interesting that he should have referred to it. It seemed to be the only report on which he could draw to give a glowing report of the economy. We all know, of course, that the OECD report is based on information that is supplied by the Australian Treasury, so the same sorts of things can be said about that as can be said about other financial forecasts and other financial figures that we have been talking about today. Our economy is not likely to improve while our inflation rate stays at a level which is so different from those of our trading partners. What is Japan's inflation rate at present? It is almost non-existent. The rate in West Germany is 0.25 per cent; in the United States of America it is 2.5 per cent; and ours is over 6 per cent, perhaps even higher. There is a forecast of 8 per cent for this year. It is all very well to say, as the Government does, that the inflation rate is down from what it was, but it is the comparison that counts. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(4.53) —We are debating this afternoon this urgency motion from the Opposition: The need for the Government to reverse policies which have severely reduced family living standards. The debate was led off for the Opposition by Senator Chaney, who was heroic and broad in his opening remarks, asking us all to clutch our bosoms and feel better for having even mentioned the word `family', but never once did he attempt to define what he meant by `family' and never once did he define which policies he thought the Government ought reverse. It was a case of `whack-and-slather, cover-everything, here-we-go-again'. As Senator Richardson said in his address, curiously it is exactly the same as the motion which was moved by the Opposition a mere five weeks ago. As Senator Richardson said, it is as though it could not think of anything further to say. Certainly, having regard to the opening remarks by Senator Chaney today, it was fairly clear that he did not want to be specific. He gave the Government a bit of a serve in terms of general economic policies. Senator Tate —He gave me a serve. Senator CROWLEY —I will come to that, Senator. Every now and again he mentioned the word `family' as though the families were the ones about whom we should be principally concerned. I say first of all that the Opposition has failed to define what is meant by `family'. I think it is supposed to be that group of people who give one a warm inner glow. It is important, I think, to understand what exactly is meant by `family'. I will make some brief efforts to try to address that point, but lest Senator Tate should feel I have not defended him, certainly he was given some broad swipes, not only by Senator Chaney in anticipation, but also by other Opposition senators who seemed to suggest that he was not strong enough on the human rights Bill, hiding behind it, or was prepared to throw it out. It did not seem that he could win. The point was that the Opposition did not want to hear what Senator Tate had to say. The Labor Government is concerned, has been concerned, and ever will be concerned about all Australians, and that includes Australian families. I think we need to understand that `families' in this society can mean old people, can certainly mean single parent families and can mean childless families. There are many more examples of what is meant by `family'. What we have had from the Opposition is a series of myths and legends about the family. I say to the Opposition: `No, you cannot get away with saying that. You need to be specific. Which particular family are you talking about?' Senator Chaney said that families with no children were better off than families with children. So by his own definition, some families in our society are better off. Does he exclude them from his definition of a fall in family living standards? If so, could he please be more specific? What we seem to understand colloquially by `family' is those people who have the care of children. Again, I say that that is not an understanding of what is meant by `family'. Any serious examination of `family' needs to cover the whole range of people and groups of people who now call themselves families, and who are being treated in that way. In particular, I hope to come back later to the paper tabled in this place last week which addressed reforms to child support and which picked up the absolute need to acknowledge the change in the constitution of family in this society. Senator Tate, in leading the debate for the Government-Senator Richardson re-endorsed this-said that the most significant achievement of this Government in its first term, and its very clear priority when it came to government, was to create jobs, because unemployment is the greatest cause of poverty and of falling or failed living standards. Nearly three-quarters of a million jobs, as Senator Tate said, have been created since the Government came to office in 1983. How anyone cannot take account of that and still tackle an urgency motion in these terms is, I think, clear evidence of his or her insufficient analysis of the question and of the issue. The Opposition in its meanderings had a broad swipe at the union movement. In fact, Senator Chaney was remarkable in the way in which he dragged into the past to come up with terms with which to abuse the current Government. One thing that clearly must come up on his `go' button is `whack the unions'. The accord between the Government and the union movement in this country has been of considerable significance in the creation of those jobs and the steps that have been taken in terms of recovery, particularly the recovery that Senator Chaney was so pleased to cite for us, to the year 1984 and through that year. The accord, of course, not only introduced the terms of wage settlement, but also included, very importantly, a dimension called a social wage, of which the Opposition blissfully seemed to take no notice and which goes to provisions for superannuation, occupational health and safety, child care, health, and so on, all of which contribute to the health of the breadwinner who lives in a family. The union movement is acutely aware of what is meant by family living standards; and it is much more than just the wage that people take home. The other significant contribution that the union movement has made in the course of this Government's history has been industrial harmony. A deliberate and very coherent set of steps has been taken by the union movement to ensure that the steps needed for recovery in this country could proceed. The industrial record over the last four years has been absolutely extraordinary. It surprises me-I suppose that it still does surprise me a little-that the Opposition chokes on acknowledging that point, side- steps it and completely misses it. Another great area on which Senator Tate touched relating to the important matter of family living standards has been the Government's education policy. Anyone looking at the figures will appreciate that, for example, in the tertiary area 8,000 places were created in seven Fraser years and nearly 37,000 have been created in the four years of Labor government. Those figures speak for themselves. The Government knows that unless people are properly educated and have the opportunity to proceed with their studies, they will be less likely to be able to obtain employment, or satisfactory or more constructive employment. Apart from the waste, the human misery in society of those who may be unemployed or who may have to work in the very least productive of jobs, with no job satisfaction and little financial return, there is the enormous economic cost to be considered. This Government set as another priority in its education requirements an increase in the retention rates of children in secondary school and the provision of increased opportunities at tertiary level. The Government has done that and can stand on its proud record in both areas. I do not need to elaborate them. Time is short and Senator Ryan covered that ground with comprehensive ability in Question Time today, as she has on a number of occasions recently. Our education policies are very much part of the improvement of family living standards, the importance of which this Government has recognised. Senator Ryan also today mentioned the increase under Austudy-a financial contribution and dramatic increase to encourage and assist the children and the parents whose children want to continue and complete their secondary education to the end of year 12. I was interested that the Opposition argued this matter in terms of single income earners in the fairly traditional or model nuclear family of one man, his wife and 2.3 children, which I think is the current figure. That is not a very wide representative sample of families in this country. Certainly those people have to deal with the same sorts of issues that are being tackled by all sorts of people in our community. But at the same time they are benefiting from those education policies and from the health care policies introduced under this Government. My difficulty lies in the fact that the Opposition seems to focus on individuals and has no understanding of redistribution or community facilities that benefit all families. The Opposition seems to have no regard for dollars spent by governments for the benefit of all citizens. I find that a very curious notion. Opposition arguments on health care and Medicare clearly illustrate the difficulty on the part of Labor members in trying to argue with the furphies and the nonsense offered by the Opposition. The reason that this Government changed its health policy when it came into office and introduced Medicare was to cover two million Australians who previously had been uninsured and who had not enjoyed health care coverage. Senator Reid —That is not true. Senator CROWLEY —That was quite clearly so. That is what Medicare did and many of those two million people were members of families. Senator Reid says that it is not true, but it is true. That is precisely what the Government had in mind when it came into office. It had to do that, not to replace the previous system, but the previous seven systems under Fraser that were altered for economic reasons and not health care reasons. The important issue in this whole debate is that the Opposition has no understanding of redistribution, except that it redistributes away from the poor or the masses to the wealthy and to the few at the top. This Government has been concerned to redistribute so that all families, not those in the middle or at the top end, are advantaged. Everybody in this society appreciates that times are tough. That has been spelt out very well by previous speakers in this debate, and everybody appreciates that it is critical that that hardship be borne fairly by the community. But the Opposition understands not at all the importance in that redistribution of the introduction of Medicare that covers the two million people who previously were uninsured. Talk about waiting lists is the Opposition's usual furphy. While this is a grave and serious matter, it is not of immediate relevance to the argument. The same applies to this Government's education policies which are aimed at benefiting all families. Such policies may not be seen in the individual wage packet, but they will benefit all those families. Another area that has been of great interest to me is the dramatic increase in child care facilities. Never before have we seen anything like the number of places that have been funded, not as tax benefits to individual taxpayers, but through general revenue to create the places that no tax allowance would create. Those child care places will benefit every family that wants to take the opportunity to use them. This Government gives priority to those at the lowest income level, or on pensions or the unemployed. Those people have the advantage. Furthermore, where possible, priority is given to women who need to work and who need child care being given access to child care places. Only recently the Government has announced its occasional care policies so that child facilities are available for women at home. Senator Bjelke-Petersen claims that the Government does not acknowledge that factor. That is a disgraceful statement. We certainly do, we have often spoken on the matter, and indeed it was dealt with only the other day in the National Agenda for Women and in Senator Ryan's statement on the survey on women who work at home. We know of these things and strongly support them. Our occasional care policies will clearly help those women who are at home. The Opposition in its motion is seeking to have a whack at the Government on the economy in general, but the Opposition takes the view that any discussion of falling commodity prices is not relevant to policies about families. Opposition members cannot have it both ways. If they want to argue macroeconomics from their side, they will have to cop macroeconomic arguments from this side. Of course they affect the living standards of families and affect everybody's standards. This Government is the one that is tough enough to deal with the situation. Despite difficult times, the increases to which I have alluded will benefit all families. One wonders why the Opposition is so busy seeking to defeat the Australia Card legislation, which will recoup huge amounts of revenue dollars for the Government. It will allow further policies that will benefit families and every other citizen to be put into place. I strongly oppose this urgency motion. It is a clear indication of the insufficiency of the Opposition. Opposition members do not tell us their policies. They give us no evidence of what they would do. They simply wish to come into the chamber to carp, criticise and use up a couple of hours. I thank them for the opportunity to say what this Government has done. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.08) —I have only a short time in which to make my remarks because this matter will be put to a vote within five minutes or so. The motion we are debating today is similar to a motion that was before the Senate in February. I remind the Senate that a matter of public importance was raised by me in almost similar terms as far back as 12 November 1986. Indeed, over the last four or five years I have been raising this subject. It must be understood by the Government that the reason this matter is now being focused and arising time and time again is that a crisis is being faced by families. All the Government can do here is to argue and quibble about the definition of a family. It also says that times are tough and that the Government has to make tough decisions. Everybody knows what the definition of a family is. A family is defined, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as consisting of two or more persons who live in the same household and are related to each other by blood, marriage or adoption. All those families are in tough times, but the point that is being made is that those who have the care of dependent children and other dependants are being discriminated against by this Government. For Senator Tate, who opened the debate for the Government, to say to those families `We will have to make the tough decisions and you will respect us because of those tough decisions' is so much claptrap. Tough! It is tough all right. It is not tough on the Government but it is tough on those families with dependants. They are suffering very greatly as a result of policies which have been the fault of this Government and, to an extent that has been acknowledged, also as the fault of the previous Government. Certainly, it is very tough on mothers. As has been said in this debate, mothers have experienced a situation in which their entitlement-the family allowance-has been reduced by about 40 per cent. In other words, they can buy only 60 per cent of what they could buy with that money in 1976. Since then, $10 billion has been stolen by the Government from the purses of those mothers. That money was put there not by the Government but by the taxpayers, the individual husband or wife, as the case may be. It was put there because the child rebate was abolished. It is a disgraceful situation. I am not going to worry about it any more. Either the Government shapes up or it ships out. I have been very distressed about this matter for quite a long time. I have had friends and acquaintances who have almost cried on my shoulder because of the injustice that has been dealt out to families. Unless this Government shapes up and faces that issue it will be shipped out. There is no doubt about that. Unless it acknowledges that there is discrimination against the family with dependants, it will go. The workers are feeling this very much. I move around quite a bit and I know that this is becoming an industrial matter. It would not surprise me at all to hear that within a few weeks there is to be a massive campaign by the trade union movement to open the Government's eyes to what it is doing to the family. I am very glad that Senator Tate has come back into the chamber. He said earlier: `Let us set up an office for the status of the family'. What a lot of hooey! Another commission! It is about time the Government took tough steps, slashed a lot of these nonsense commissions and made sure that it addressed the problem directly by giving families a fair go. The Government is confusing the functions of the family with the institution of the family. The institution of the family requires practical recognition so that it can better and more freely perform its functions, rather than those functions being taken over by the state. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.15) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This paper was commissioned by the Government to give advice about the recurring and continuing problem of water management on the Ranger mine site, which is not part of Kakadu National Park but is surrounded by the park, and the release of water from that mine into a major creek flowing past the mine and ultimately to the sea through the national park. This question has been addressed in great detail over a long period. It was addressed by the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, which was one of the major environmental inquiries in Australia. Certainly that inquiry was needed before any decisions could be made about the establishment of that mine. Ever since 1981, when the mine came into production, there has been an accumulation of water on the mine site or the Ranger reserve zone, as it is called, and ultimately that water must be disposed of. In the wet seasons-fortunately some of these, including the last one, have been fairly dry-there would be a major problem of accumulation and disposal of water on the site. Some of the water is used in the operations of the mine. There is a storage pond for ordinary water that is accumulated and there is also a tailings pond for water that has gone through the mining processes. In fact, the tailings dump has to be used as a repository for some of the excess water and that, in itself, is creating an environmental danger in the long run. This is a technical report which has been presided over by the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region. He is the chairman of this working group, which includes officials of the mine and the Northern Territory Government. These people have given the Federal Government and the Northern Territory Government this report-both governments have had it since December. The report has made some very important findings on purely scientific grounds and I wish to quote them. The report says: Direct release to Magela Creek- that is the creek that I mentioned- can be an environmentally sound and responsible practice . . . Land irrigation is an environmentally acceptable method of water disposal . . . That is, pouring out water in the dry season in the same way as we water our lawns. It continues: The use of evaporation as a sole method of disposal is not consistent with the best practicable technology. It also says that treatment of water to be discharged into Magela Creek is not necessary. That is a very important finding. This water does not have to be treated before it is released in a wet season because in such a season there is a great flow of water down these creeks. This flow dilutes whatever contamination there might have been in the water from the mine. Finally the report finds: The addition of storage should only be considered if it could be done at a low cost and with little environmental impact . . . The group believes that the best practice on scientific grounds is to enable, at suitable seasonal times, the disposal of this water so that there is no problem of accumulation. Because the Government has been too weak and constantly caving in to the extreme environmental lobby on this issue, it has allowed this problem to develop. That is why it set up this technical working group. Now this group has itself given an expert report. The report further suggests that perhaps with the deepening of the storage of water at the mine it would be possible to release water only once in every 10 years. That is not good enough for the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), who commissioned the report. In effect, they have rejected the report. They have refused permission to release any water this year. Although that may not be necessary this year, it may be necessary next year. They have instructed the Supervising Scientist, the very man who has given them this advice, to develop acceptable options aimed at ensuring that the water management is fully consistent with the protection of the environment. Here we have these two non-scientific Ministers refusing to accept the scientific advice which they commissioned themselves and which is given by the Supervising Scientist, who has a large establishment as the watchdog for the Alligator Rivers region. They reject that report and they want-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.20) —The report `Application of Best Practicable Technology to Water Management at Ranger Uranium Mine' was produced by the technical working group set up to facilitate agreement between the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region, the Northern Territory Department of Mines, Ranger Uranium Mines and ERA-that is, Energy Resources of Australia-on the best water management system for the Ranger mine at Jabiru in the Northern Territory. It is a co-operative effort which involved the very considerable expertise of these organisations and authorities. They have come up with a number of conclusions and recommendations in relation to the best practicable technology in water management at Ranger. Unfortunately, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Mr Cohen, has seen fit to reject the options put up by the working group, for no discernible, scientifically valid reason. He has dismissed the findings and recommendations of the group out of nothing more than surely political opportunism, in a vain attempt to grab the greenie vote in an election year. Mr Cohen cannot pretend that the propositions put forward by the working group are inadequate or insufficient to protect the environmental integrity of the area. The group, for the purposes of this report, took the `best practicable technology' to be that technology relevant to the Ranger project which produces minimum environmental pollution and degradation having regard to a number of technical factors, including practices in uranium mining elsewhere in the world, cost, evidence of detriment or lack of it, project location, and the age and effectiveness of equipment and facilities at Ranger. The working group was asked to look at the best practicable management system under two circumstances: First, with no restriction on releasing water into Magela Creek; and secondly, with restrictions on releasing water into Magela Creek. The present water management system was designed to include the possibility of release of water into Magela Creek. The assessment of the working group in relation to management over the next five years, was that: Direct release into Magela Creek can be an environmentally sound and responsible practice; under the proposed regime no short or long term ecological effects will arise and there will be no harm to people, and that direct release of excess water accumulated within the existing restricted release zone, but excluding the tailings dam, be permitted. This release would be subject to the control of the Supervising Scientist and the Northern Territory Government. Mr Cohen is not satisfied with this recommendation. He has opted instead to disallow the release of any water this year, and has insisted that the Ranger Mine deepen its water retention pond by the end of the year, at a cost of some $1.5m which is a lot of money. Mr Cohen has clearly done this, not on sound technical or scientific advice-at least I cannot see it and I have certainly looked far and wide-but I would suggest on political advice, to the effect that he must play up to the conservationist movement to secure its votes in the coming election, whenever that may be-perhaps later in the year. Mr Cohen has not even attempted to hide or defend this blatant act of political opportunism. This is an appalling decision by the Minister and he should be condemned for his willingness to ignore sound, balanced and expert advice under pressure from the greenie lobby groups. It is not only I who feels strongly about this situation, because after all, the Government has set up these expert authorities to carry out these investigations and to make recommendations to it. As I say, the Government appears to have taken no advice from any other source. I ask that the following statement in the Northern Territory News of 31 March 1987 be incorporated in Hansard. I have referred it to the Minister. Leave granted. The article read as follows- MINE WATER RULE VEXES MR COULTER By ROSEMARY SULLIVAN Anyone with technical knowledge would jeer at the Federal Government's decision on Ranger Uranium Mine water management, the NT Mines and Energy Minister, Mr Barry Coulter, said today. Mr Coulter is angry about the option the Government has taken. He described it as a political decision ``designed to stroke the ruffled pelts of ALP support groups in the extremes of the environment movement''. The Federal Environmental Minister, Mr Barry Cohen, announced yesterday that Ranger must deepen its water retention pond, RP2, by the end of the year at an estimated cost of $1.5 million. The Federal Government also refused permission for the release of any water this year. Water management has been a long-standing problem at the Ranger mine. Mr Cohen said the Government considered a Technical Working Group's report on water management. Options ``But we were not satisfied any of the options canvassed were fully acceptable,'' he said. The Federal Government chose to have the pond deepened so the probability of water having to be released from the area was once in every 10 years. The options rejected by the Government were to make no additional storage area which would leave the probability of water release at twice in every five years, or to build an additional storage pond and have a probability of once in every 50 years. The Technical Working Group's preferred option was for the ``twice in five years'' release, Mr Cohen said the Government found water release almost every second year inappropriate. Senator KILGARIFF —Finally, I suggest that the Minister review his decision in the light of the expert evidence that has been given to him. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.24) —This report of a technical working group entitled `Application of Best Practicable Technology to Water Management at Ranger Uranium Mine' comes to the conclusion that the complementary use of land irrigation during the dry season and the direct release of water to Magela Creek during the wet season constitutes the best practicable technology as applied to water management at the Ranger uranium mine. The report also concludes that by deepening retention pond No. 2-or RP2 as it is called-and restricting the seepage of water into the mine pit, releases into Magela Creek would be necessary once every 10 years on average. It seems that the Government has accepted this scheme while asking that further work be done aimed at avoiding any releases in the future. In other words, it has two bob each way. The essential problem facing Ranger, the Northern Territory Government and the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region is that water accumulation had been badly underestimated in the initial design of the water management system. Rainfall in the area is higher, and evaporation rates lower, than had been assumed originally. The mine managers badly miscalculated. Actually, they stored water in the early years, and this created the problem. It really does not give us much confidence for the rest of the uranium mining operation. Consequently, some method has to be found to release contaminated water from the mine's restricted release zone into the surrounding environment, if the mine is to remain as economic as Ranger would like it to be; in other words, if it wants it to operate as cheaply as it would like. I agree with the Government's decision to require further work to be done on ways of avoiding direct releases into Magela Creek. I note from the report that it may be possible to implement a policy of `no release' if some excess water is stored in the pit, with some interference to mining resulting. While it is clear from the report that Ranger is opposed to this approach on economic grounds, the fact is that it must face the economic consequences of underestimating the water problem at the mine in the first place. I trust that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) will ensure that a `no release' policy based on the possibility of some interference to mining is fully evaluated for the future. I have major reservations about the findings on land irrigation, which is the recommended method for water disposal during the dry season. The contaminants are supposed to be trapped in the topsoil thereafter, but they could be leached out. I actually visited this area and watched the irrigation program, and frankly I have little faith in it. The report is very vague on the environmental consequences of land irrigation. It says that this method appears to be acceptable, `at least for a period of a few years'. The long term impact has yet to be assessed. It may be that in the long term, heavy metals and radionuclides in the irrigated topsoil will find their way into the Magela Creek ecosystem. Frankly, I think it is a dead certainty that they will. I ask the Minister to ensure that a rigorous study of the environmental impact of land irrigation be conducted and reported to Parliament before any approval to use this method is given. Overall, this report is based on the premise that preventing the release of contaminants from the restricted release zone is too expensive. However, the report does show that it is not impossible. In that case Ranger should be made to bear the costs of protecting the ecosystem from pollution from the mine. Mining uranium opens up a Pandora's box, and this is just one of the disadvantages of it. The troubles at Ranger should be a warning to us all. We are not dealing with just simple environmental pollution which could be cleared up by ceasing the pollution activity itself or by some major operation of, say, removing soil to somewhere else. We are dealing with a pollutant which is capable of polluting that area for thousands and thousands of years and of having a major impact on the ecosystem, on everything that lives in it and on the people who live around it. The basic message here is that uranium should be kept in the ground. Ranger should never have been allowed to begin operations in the first place. Once it encountered its first water problems, which it did many years ago, it should have been shut down. Now that it has shown that it cannot adequately manage its water, it should be shut down forthwith. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.29) —As most people would know, the Ranger uranium mine is located in the Kakadu National Park, adjacent to Magela Creek. This creek floods during the wet season over the flood plains extending to the coastal waters of the bay. If there were any contaminated water, it could be potentially disastrous for living things in the creek, on the flood plains or in the shallow coastal waters beyond them. This would have associated problems for the people who live nearby, particularly for the Aboriginal community which lives on some of the foods that are available in these creeks and from these flood plains, such as oysters and mussels, which accumulate heavy metals, including uranium. The Ranger mine has not been without its water management problems. Since 1985 there has been an authorised discharge of less contaminated water than the restricted release zone-RRZ-water stored in the retention ponds Nos. 1 and 2, mentioned in this report. This release occurred in the wet season when it could be washed away. During the 1985 wet season there was some evidence that the water release did affect the native mussels which were breeding downstream. In fact there was a breakdown in the breeding cycle of these mussels, although the cause may have been some other toxicity which has not yet been determined. Water has been released in smaller quantities in following years, but no opportunity has been found to check on the specific cause of the decrease in mussel fertility. To date no authorised or unauthorised releases have been made from the restricted release zone waters into Magela Creek. In order to avoid the overflow problems during the wet, Ranger has experimented with irrigating land above the retention dams with contaminated runoff water during the dry season. This has apparently proved satisfactory as a way of overcoming the problem to date as it gives a much larger area of evaporation. The problems which have been pointed out by Senator Sanders are still to catch up with us. The planned expansion of production at the mine this year, rising to a 50 per cent increase in production in five years, will change the requirement for water retention systems. It is imperative that adequate depth of the tailings and runoff dams be provided and that a very good water management program be adhered to so that no future problems arise, which can affect the environment for many, many years to come. The other major problem which this report does not address-although it makes passing reference to it-is that of the tailings dam. We have evidence in the report that all walled dams show some evidence of seepage. While water tested below the dams shows no evidence currently of contamination, absorption of metals on to the clay in the dam walls may mean that we have a long term problem which is developing without showing up in its early stages. It is essential that this difficult environmental problem be taken into account in the long term supervision and planning of water in the area. I trust that attention will be given to ensure the long term safety of the tailings dam and to avoid the environmental disaster that even slow release of this much more poisonous water would cause. I note that the Northern Land Council remains unconvinced that the region will not suffer in the long term from any runoff water release. I sympathise with its stand on this matter. The land in the Kakadu region belongs to the Aboriginal people who want a long term safe environment in which to raise their families and live a traditional lifestyle which involves effectively living off the land. While proposed releases may not pose any threat to people living a European lifestyle, I commend the Northern Land Council for its concern and urge that no effort be spared to protect the owners of the land from long term detrimental effects of uranium mining. I finish by commending the Government for its responsible attitude in choosing a water storage option which involves no runoff this year, but I feel that it needs to do more. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.33) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This title sounds very dry-it is the variation agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and Seanorth Pty Ltd. It is really a victory for dolphins. Senator Vigor —Long live the dolphins. Senator SANDERS —Long live the dolphins, says Senator Vigor, and I endorse that sentiment. This is an agreement with a fishing company which is operating on behalf of Thailand. It will stop the use of gillnets in the fisheries in the north and substitute stern trawling methods. This is a direct result of the campaign launched last year by Greenpeace to stop the use of the long gillnets in the northern Australian waters. Some 10,000 dolphins had been drowned in the previous three years in these gillnets which are up to 20 kilometres long and 15 metres deep. They are made of nylon which is a very tough substance. The dolphins could not detect it with their sonar and they were entangled in the nets and drowned-not a pleasant or pretty death. The campaign by Greenpeace was successful. The Government, to its eternal credit, decided not only to do something about the Taiwanese who were operating the gillnets at that time-they did reduce the size of the nets, which apparently has helped quite a bit in the preservation of the dolphins-but also to eliminate the use of gillnets entirely for the Thailand fisheries. The problem still exists, of course, with dolphins and gillnets. The Japanese are still using them in the Pacific Ocean. I would ask that the Australian Government put whatever pressure it can on the Japanese to forestall the further killing of dolphins because they are killing some 5,000 porpoises or dolphins every year in the high seas gillnet fishery and also they kill some 250,000 to 750,000 sea birds which are also caught in these nets. I wish the Japanese Government was as considerate of the well-being of dolphins and, indeed sea birds as was the Australian Government. The program of Greenpeace to bring the gillnetting of dolphins to the people's attention, and ultimately to get government action, shows what can happen when an informed body such as Greenpeace lobbies the Government with good information; the Government then responds and takes action which is in the best interests of not only the dolphins but also, I believe, the people. I commend the Government for the action which it has taken. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Bill presented by Senator Tate, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(5.38) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- On Tuesday, 31 March 1987 I presented the Government's reply to the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform relating to the operation during the 1984 general election of the 1983-84 amendments to Commonwealth electoral legislation. The report was presented on 22 December 1986. In the reply I acknowledged the very useful report of the Committee which was so ably chaired by Senator Robert Ray. The review undertaken by the Committee followed the substantial reform measures recommended by its predecessor, which were largely implemented by this Government in 1983-84. Honourable senators will recall that this Government, responding to the recommendations of the earlier Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, introduced the most substantial electoral reforms for many years. Those changes have generally worked well. Nevertheless the Committee's latest report has made further sound suggestions for improving our electoral system, and the report reflected a large measure of agreement among the representatives of the political parties on the committee. While outlining the Government's response to the report, I indicated to honourable senators the reasons for the non-acceptance of a small proportion of the recommendations. It is a measure of the Committee's work that the Government has seen fit to accept the great majority of the 156 recommendations in the report. The implementation of some of these recommendations will not require legislation. I also informed honourable senators that, due to the exigencies of the legislative program, legislation to give effect to the acceptable recommendations in the report will be introduced in two stages. The first stage comprises those recommendations for which legislation is essential for the effective conduct of the next general election. I also foreshadowed the Government's intention of implementing the Committee's recommendations for improving the redistribution process, as part of the first stage. This Bill is concerned with this first package, and I will draw honourable senators attention to the key elements which amend the Electoral Act. They are intended to simplify and to speed up processes which, because of their emphasis on protection of the individual rights of electors and the integrity of elections, naturally tend to complexity, legalism and slowness. In the redistribution field they are intended to amplify the extensive opportunities already provided to the public by this and previous governments to participate in the drawing of electoral boundaries. In certain instances they are intended to close minor gaps which have been identified in the 1983 changes to the Act, while continuing to pursue the widely accepted objectives of those changes. Australia makes a considerable effort to ensure that electors who happen to be out of the country at election time still have the opportunity to vote. The Bill ensures that overseas polling officials are subject to the same penalties for neglect of duty as officials in Australia. At the same time, it extends the period for the return of postal votes from 10 to 14 days and ensures a clean cut-off date for the return of postal votes held by polling officials at overseas posts. This will guarantee that the arrival of postal votes from overseas posts cannot unduly delay the commencement of the Senate scrutinies in the States. At present the Electoral Act does not bind the Crown in the right of the Commonwealth or the States. During the 1984 election distribution of material prepared by a Commonwealth department and advertisements by a State government pointed to deficiencies in the Act. Adoption of the proposed amendment will not prevent government advertising but will simply ensure that governments comply with the Act to the same extent as private citizens and corporations. In response to a number of recommendations of the Joint Select Committee in regard to the redistribution process, the Bill provides for more flexibility in the distribution timetabling. It provides for a redistribution in a State or the Australian Capital Territory to commence within 30 days-instead of immediately-after the end of the period of seven years from the last redistribution. This machinery proposal is designed to avoid locking the redistribution committee into the timetable for the previous redistribution in which New South Wales, the largest and most complex State, was distributed last because a State election was being held. The Bill also provides for a senior officer of the Australian Public Service in the relevant State to be appointed where a State Auditor-General or Deputy is not available to serve on a redistribution committee for a State. The amendments will resolve problems encountered in 1984 in finding suitable replacements for State Auditors-General when they were not available to serve on redistribution committees. Amendments are proposed to remove the requirement for redistribution committees, and for subsequent augmented electoral commissions, to endeavour to achieve absolute equality of enrolment at the 3 1/2-year mark after a redistribution. In practice this had been difficult to achieve and led to what some regarded as less than ideal electoral boundaries in a few areas. The amendment will permit a 2 per cent plus or minus margin in seeking to achieve future equalities. The Bill proposes a number of provisions to enhance public participation in the redistribution process. Redistribution committees will be able to make their broad proposals publicly known as soon as they have determined the general nature of the redistribution. This should put an end to speculation and to allegations of leaks of redistribution proposals and would give interested persons maximum time to consider possible objections. Redistribution committees will also be required to publish maps showing names and boundaries of each proposed division in two newspapers circulating throughout the relevant State and in regional newspapers in the areas affected by the redistribution. This replaces the present requirement to display maps in post offices which has had limited utility and provided far less coverage than newspapers will provide. The proposed boundary descriptions-available for perusal at Electoral Commission Offices-are to be in the form of maps or plans. These will be more informative than the survey descriptions provided under the existing requirement for `detailed descriptions'. The Bill extends from 14 to 28 days the period within which objections to the redistribution may be lodged. This will enable greater participation in the redistribution process by those affected, including local government councils which need time for their own democratic processes. At present only those who made suggestions in the first instance can make submissions. The amendment extends the right to make submissions to those who have commented on the suggestions made to redistribution committees. The provision for a second round of objections and public hearings, where an augmented electoral Commission is disposed to make significant changes to the redistribution-as proposed by the relevant redistribution committee-will avoid the situation that arose in 1984. After the public hearings, changes to the initial proposals-substantial in some instances as in New South Wales, less controversial elsewhere-were made by the augmented electoral commissions without the `participants' in the process having any further opportunity to comment. The provision in the Bill for extending the period for consideration of objections by the augmented electoral commission from six weeks to 60 days will provide for greater participation in the redistribution process. It will enable more public hearings to be held away from the State capital cities, as well as for adjournments of the public hearings to enable the parties to consider new matters when they arise during a hearing. The provisions for greater participation in the redistribution process may add five weeks to the redistribution timetable. The option to have a general election in the second year after a double dissolution election has been considered desirable in order to maintain simultaneous elections for the House and the Senate. The Bill will allow determinations of representation entitlements to be made in the tenth month rather than the twelfth month of the Parliament, and will thus provide sufficient time for the extended redistribution process so as not to impede the option of an election using the new boundaries at the end of the second year. The Bill proposes two amendments to ensure that as many eligible electors as possible may vote. The first one is to enable the divisional returning officers and the Australian electoral officer in each State to process claims for enrolment for any division in their respective States, in the period between the public announcement of the election or the issue of the writs and the close of rolls. At present claim cards may only be processed by the divisional returning officer for the division concerned, which can cause delays in the period immediately prior to the close of the roll. There is also an amendment to repeal the requirement that enrolled voters live within the division in which they vote, at some time during the three months prior to the poll. This requirement is unenforceable. With the simplification of procedures at the polling booth, the question of real place of living within three months of polling day is hardly ever likely to arise and if it does it will only disenfranchise the honest elector who admits to having moved from the division for which he is enrolled. The provisions of the Act relating to the registration of candidates are to be repealed. The requirement to register did not serve any useful purpose and in fact caused some confusion since it duplicated similar requirements in the nomination process. The nomination process is to be simplified. These measures include a provision that the nomination form for candidates endorsed by registered political parties may be signed by the registered officer of the party, rather than requiring the signatures of six nominators. Furthermore in the case of Senate candidates, there is provision for a single form for nominations, grouping and order of grouping. The Bill will also reduce the period for lodging group voting tickets from 48 to 24 hours. However, it also simplifies the mechanics of lodging such tickets. The Bill also extends the group voting ticket provisions to ungrouped incumbent senators. A key element in this Bill is the simplification of the scrutiny of votes in Senate elections. These measures include the distribution at a single count of all ballot papers received by a candidate at a particular transfer value, and the exclusion under certain circumstances of candidates in bulk. Without such amendments to the Electoral Act any substantial increase in the number of candidates for the Senate could unduly prolong the counting of votes, and could well mean that some candidates might be delayed in taking their places in the Senate. The Bill provides for a provisional scrutiny of preferences to be conducted as part of the fresh scrutiny of House of Representatives ballot papers in those divisions where a distribution of preferences will be required to determine the result. This will give an earlier indication as to the likely outcomes. Provision is made for the extension of times in the election timetable to provide greater flexibility to meet emergency situations, and to enable adjustments to be made on a divisional basis without affecting the rest of the State. Another amendment enables the Electoral Commission to extend by 48 hours the time in which Acts must be completed in the event of a failure by any person to perform a statutory duty or function. A comprehensive definition of what may constitute election advertising is to be introduced. The definition is designed to enable all participants in the election process to determine more readily than at present whether particular advertisements are subject to the reporting requirements of the Act. It is a fundamental right of the general public to know who is supporting political parties and candidates, and who might therefore be able to exercise influence. At present political parties and candidates who stood previously are required to disclose gifts received during the period between one election and the next, while `third parties' need only disclose gifts they make between the date of issue of writs and polling day. The Bill provides for removal of this anomaly by requiring that the disclosure period for `third parties' be also from one election to the next. The requirement that printers furnish returns of election printing is to be repealed. The returns served no useful purpose after the 1984 election in cross checking parties' and candidates' returns of electoral expenditure. It was simply not possible to identify and hence obtain returns from all persons meeting the description of `printer'. Provision has been made for the Electoral Commission to make amendments to claims and financial disclosure returns; this can be done at the request of the person furnishing the return. Where the Electoral Commission refuses such a request, it is obliged to give the person written notice of the reasons. The Bill also provides for a common release date for all public funding claims and financial disclosure returns, in order to avoid any particular claim or return receiving unwarranted publicity by its earlier or later release. The amendment provides that copies of claims and returns are not available for public inspection or purchase until 24 weeks after polling day. This is equivalent to four weeks after the deadline for lodgment of parties' returns. The Bill also contains a number of other machinery provisions in keeping with the objectives I have already specified. The amendments to the Electoral Act that I have proposed today are largely based on recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. I again congratulate that committee on its work. I draw it to the attention of this chamber that there was agreement in general terms, among all the parties' representatives on the Committee, regarding the amendments introduced by this Bill. I believe that these amendments, plus the implementation of the other acceptable recommendations that I foreshadowed yesterday-many of which will be made effective at a later stage-will further enhance the Commonwealth Electoral Act. That legislation has already established, at our federal level, one of the best electoral systems in the world but there is still room for further improvements. Today I have introduced several machinery amendments that are essential for the conduct of the next general election and for any subsequent redistributions. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —by leave-I move: That the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts have leave to meet during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 1 April 1987. The Senate has referred to the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts a reference relating to the proposed amalgamation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service. Before it was known that we would be sitting tonight, the Committee scheduled for this evening a public hearing commencing at 7.30 p.m. to which we invited three distinguished people, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), Mr Dix and Mr Justice Connor. The latter two have presented comprehensive reports on broadcasting to the Parliament. An inability to sit would further retard the Committee's consideration of the reference the Senate gave to it. I have consistently opposed the sitting of committees during the sittings of the Senate. I would like to mention that standing order 300 says: . . . no Select Committee may sit during the sittings of the Senate. Standing order 36aa, in part, says: A Standing Committee shall not meet while the Senate is actually sitting, unless by special order of the Senate. I move for the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts to sit this day with reluctance, especially due to my consistent objections in the past. It is only because of the special circumstances in this case that I have so moved. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(5.41) —At this stage I would like to remind the Senate that, on a number of occasions when the Joint Committee of Public Accounts sought leave to sit, it met with resistance from the Opposition and from people such as Senator Colston. I hope that there has been a change of mind on the part of those who have previously resisted Senate committees meeting on important occasions. If that change of mind had taken place, it would not have been necessary for the Public Accounts Committee to bring down a report on the matter to have it discussed; and I believe it might be discussed later. But it is impossible for the committees of this Senate to carry out their functions under the present circumstances. Today leave has been sought by members of two committees. One was Senator Colston, as Chairman of the Committee he has referred to. The other one, strangely enough, was another strong opponent of the sitting of the Public Accounts Committee during the sittings of the Senate, Senator Walters. She brought forward a motion today to allow her Committee to sit tonight. I merely ask the Senate to take up this matter seriously and either to change the sitting times or, when the times of sittings are changed, to have in mind what happens to the committees of the Senate whose work is as important as the work of the Committee of the Whole. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(5.43) —in reply-I must respond to some of the remarks. When I was moving this motion I outlined that I did so with extreme reluctance. I said that I had been consistent in the past in opposing the sittings of committees during the sittings of the Senate. I still do not think that that should occur. But before the Committee was aware that apparently the Senate would sit through to- night, we had made arrangements for the Minister for Communications, Mr Dix and Mr Connor to come before the Committee. It might be remembered that people on this side of the chamber did not want to have this reference before the Committee. It was a vote of the Senate which was carried by two that this reference be given to the Senate to inquire into the proposed merger of the ABC and SBS. Now that the Committee I chair has that proposal before it, we have a responsibility to present a report so that the chamber can then decide where it wants to go from there. Normally this Committee would not even consider making arrangements when the Senate was sitting. The arrangements were made before it was announced that the Senate was sitting. If the Senate wants to object to the motion and vote against it, I do not mind. It just means that the reference that was given to us will be delayed even more. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 19 March, on motion by Senator Robertson: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(5.45) —This matter has been the subject of discussion by the Standing Orders Committee. A report has been prepared but not presented to the Senate. It seems more appropriate to wait until that report is presented and then consider the reports together. I look forward to that proposal being accepted. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —by leave-I wish to refer to the proposition put by Senator Robertson. I agree with him that the matter should be adjourned until the Senate has before it a report from the Standing Orders Committee. It is a very important matter, and is somewhat related to the remarks made previously, that the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts should be debated as soon as possible. Honourable senators must appreciate that the Public Accounts Committee took a very considered step in bringing down a report on this matter. It was embarrassed by the need to do so. Nevertheless, it has done that. It needs to be fully considered. I hope that, when it comes down for debate, we will debate it separately from, although perhaps at the same time as, the other matters that the Standing Orders Committee has to report upon. The matter must be resolved. If the Public Accounts Committee is to do its work, the conflict between the Standing Orders and the Act under which the Public Accounts Committee operates must be resolved. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That General Business orders of the day relating to the consideration of committee reports, pursuant to sessional order, be not further proceeded with this day. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —I present the fifth report of 1987 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Air Navigation (Smoking) Amendment Bill 1987, the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2], and the Australian Institute of Health Bill 1987. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 5, dated 1 April 1987. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —by leave-I table the report of the Australian delegation to the seventy-fifth conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, held in Mexico in April 1986. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON —by leave-The seventy-fifth conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union was held in Mexico City over the period 7 to 12 April 1986. The Australian delegation comprised myself as leader, the Hon. Ian Wilson, MP, as deputy leader, Mr Bruce Cowan, MP, Mr Eric Fitzgibbon, MP, Mr David Jull, MP, and Mr Peter Milton, MP. This was my third occasion as leader of the Australian delegation to Inter-Parliamentary Union meetings and I should like to take this early opportunity in my remarks to commend the delegation for its work and for its positive contribution made to the conference. The Australian delegation submitted draft resolutions to two of the topics under consideration at the meetings and it is to the great credit of the delegation that many of the matters raised in the Australian draft resolutions were taken up by the final resolutions adopted at the end of the conference. As honourable senators will recall, some few short months before the conference took place last year, Mexico City was devastated by an earthquake of severe intensity which destroyed large parts of the city. As a result of that earthquake there was a high death toll and serious disruption to city services. It is appropriate that I should place on record the admiration of the Australian delegation for the efforts of the conference organisers and the attitude adopted by the Mexican people to ensure that the conference proceeded on schedule with no noticeable inconvenience to delegates. The topics discussed at the conference were in the main complex and highly contentious. The first dealt with the arms race, disarmament, international terrorism and hot beds of tension in the world and the efforts of the Contadora Group in seeking to arrive at a peaceful solution to conflicts in Central America. As I have mentioned in previous reports to the Parliament, I have grave reservations concerning the appropriateness of such topics being listed at an international forum such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The East and West delegates tend to adopt the politics of their respective blocs and governments, rather than speaking in their role as members of parliament to outline a parliamentary, rather than a government, view. Despite this, the Australian delegation made a significant contribution to this topic and many aspects of its draft resolution were incorporated in the final resolution. The second topic considered by the conference dealt with the economic advancement of developing countries through international trade, science and technology, the advancement of the welfare of mankind in general and, in particular, the health and well being of the elderly. In marked contrast to the first item, this topic did provide delegates with the opportunity to make a constructive and non-ideological contribution in all areas of importance to all members of parliament and to all nations. The Australian delegation again made a positive contribution to this topic with Mr Wilson, as deputy leader, being represented on the drafting committee, ensuring that most aspects of the Australian draft resolution were accepted. The third topic, the supplementary item, addressed the involved question of the Middle East tensions. This topic, as one might expect, was also highly controversial. The draft resolution prepared on this topic was condemnatory of Israel, leading to heated debate in its consideration, culminating in Israel's withdrawal from the proceedings of the committee which considered the draft. This was an unfortunate occurrence and an unfortunate topic. As Australian leader I have supported moves in the Twelve Plus Group to encourage the Inter-Parliamentary Union to adopt topics where the Inter-Parliamentary Union has the skills, knowledge and experience to make positive contributions to questions of social significance to the world and where the Inter-Parliamentary Union can become more effective. In conclusion, I again thank my parliamentary colleagues who accompanied me to the seventy-fifth Inter-Parliamentary Union conference. I have previously thanked in the Senate the efforts of the Australian Ambassador to Mexico, Mr John McCarthy, and his excellent staff. The delegation is indebted to the Ambassador and his Embassy for their exceptional assistance at the conference. All delegates would join with me when I say the support offered the delegation and the Secretary were far beyond what we might and could have reasonably expected. The professionalism of the Australian Embassy in Mexico is well known and highly regarded in that country and I am sure that this reputation enabled us to meet with many dignitaries of that country which we would not otherwise have been able to do. The report which I have just tabled provides an account of the deliberations of, and conclusions reached at, the seventy-fifth conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union held in Mexico City, with particular reference to the contributions made by members of the Australian delegation. It contains, as appendices, the principal resolutions agreed to by the conference and the speeches made by the Australian delegation. I commend the report to honourable senators. Debate resumed. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(5.56) —As I was saying before being rudely interrupted when the sitting of the Senate was suspended for lunch, if the tax file number were to form the basis of any security system its integrity would be too low, the system would be wide open and all the built-in abuses and rip-offs that have been so evident and so exposed during the last few years of investigations into the system would remain and continue unidentified. There would be no real security at all. I would like to quote from the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Trevor Boucher-presumably he is a man of some expertise in this area-who spoke out about the tax system in November last year. He stated: I believe that it is entirely proper for me to say that there is a fetter on tax administration these days unless one has an appropriate identifying system . . . I expect that by the time you take all the steps that need to be taken to get high integrity into, say, a tax file number then there's the same effects, the same costs, the same privacy questions that you'd get with the Australia Card. That is the crux of the problem. As I have said repeatedly, all we have seen are two reports from the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card and disagreement is only on the end result and how one gets there. There has never been disagreement on the need for some sort of system. The tax file number system that has been suggested would be impracticable, it has low integrity, especially if one tries to obtain identification through birth certificate only. Time and again today I have heard Mr Costigan quoted. Let it not be forgotten that he is not the only person to have conducted investigations. When the Stewart Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union conducted its inquiry, it stated: Without evidence . . . the certificate- that is, the birth certificate- establishes nothing about that person. That has been the problem all along. The idea that one can rely upon a tax file number system is just nonsense. Let us look at the Australia Card itself, the high integrity ID card proposed by the Government. It will include one's name, photograph, signature, a number and an expiry date. Honourable senators should remember that there is no requirement to carry it at all times, as is the case in so many countries and which causes such offence, and all non-voluntary uses will be prohibited. It has a number of uses and let me go through them so that we know what we are talking about. The card will have to be presented when opening and operating accounts with financial institutions, making investments, receiving income from cash management, property and unit trusts, receiving primary production income through produce agents, receiving rents through real estate agents, making foreign remittances, buying real estate, operating safe deposit boxes, buying shares and receiving dividends, dealing in futures contracts, receiving salaries or wages and receiving income subject to the prescribed payments system. Evasion of taxation by the use of false names, unless registered on the ID card, will be controlled. I wonder why any Australian citizen can have any objection to producing a card for any of those transactions. Of course, of recent times there have been some spectacular court cases about false bank accounts. Can the average Australian who goes into a bank to open an account-certainly as far as I am concerned and, judging from the polls, apparently as far as everybody is concerned-complain about producing a card as proof of identity? Why should we balk at all in trying to stop those people who are stacking away large amounts of cash, presumably for a rainy day or just to avoid taxation? In any event, apart from all of those matters, the revenue implications are enough to require the card. On 11 February 1986 the editorial of the Australian newspaper stated: The Australian Taxation Office has advised the Federal Government . . . Australia Card . . . would save $4 billion in lost revenue from tax evasion over the next 10 years. In the light of this enormous figure, little other argument is really needed to support the introduction of the card. Let me recall what the Joint Select Committee, on which all parties were represented, had to say at page 29 of its report. It stated: The Committee was unanimous in its view that tax evasion must be tackled as vigorously as possible. At page 27, referring to a Taxation Office submission, the report said: The Australian Taxation Office was of the view that no other single action could be taken that would produce revenue gains of the magnitude estimated as a result of the proposed Australia Card program . . . Overall the Committee accepts the estimates made by the ATO- that is, the Taxation Office- and notes that they may be a substantial underestimation of final benefits obtainable under the proposal. That last paragraph was written and agreed to by all eight members of that Committee-the lot of them. They all say that the annual benefits of about $700m are probably a substantial underestimation of the benefits we should see. If that is the case, no government-indeed, no party in the Parliament-can afford not to advocate going on with the card. If it is the only way we can stop the rorts, it is the only way we can move. As I mentioned earlier in the debate, that Select Committee is not the only committee to have examined the problem. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure produced a report with the quaint title `A taxing problem'. That report had this to say: This non-realisation of taxation revenues has arisen because of two fundamental problems within the information reporting system-lack of information, and inadequate matching capabilities. There is no other way to satisfy those two areas of difficulty than the ID proposal. Social security fraud is very much at the forefront of the ordinary person's thinking about the Australian Card. When one goes around Australia to functions and meetings of any kind, ordinary people mention not so much the taxation system end of the problem-they are more concerned about the social security fraud. I suppose all of us have been subjected to citizens racing up and telling us that they know of people getting five, six and seven dole cheques. The Department of Social Security said that it was not possible to estimate the level of that sort of fraud because of the number of false identities. No one can dispute that false identities exist in the system. The Standing Committee on Expenditure said: The Committee is concerned about the cases involving individuals with large numbers of false identities which come to light from time to time . . . During the inquiry the Committee became aware of a number of unsourced estimates of social security fraud ranging between $200-$500 million per annum. Is it any wonder, given the figures involved in social security fraud, given the figures involved in taxation fraud, that the Government would want to push on with the ID card? What we are talking about here is a billion dollars a year that can be spent far better on increasing the living standards of ordinary Australians. If the Opposition is serious, as it said it was in the debate earlier on the matter of urgency concerning family living standards, the very least it can do is support us on this question. Any remedy cannot tackle the problem of identification. The Australia Card is the only one that can satisfy all of these inadequacies. It will give the necessary information and, finally, it will enable matching capabilities. Let us look at the question of certificates of identity. We have made provision to help those people who face real problems of mobility or distance and who maybe live in quite remote areas. Certificates of identity are provided for under clause 36 of the Bill. These certificates will not be used to replace the Australia Card. But they do allow specially authorised people to act in place of others who are required to see and record the Australia Card and the Australia Card number. What we are trying to do is to make certain that no one is disadvantaged in the implementation of an Australia Card system. As Dr Blewett explained, people who purchase shares or real estate, or conduct business with marketing authorities or produce agents, for example, will be required to produce their Australia Card on a once only basis so that their number can be recorded for taxation purposes. The Government realises that it is just not always possible for people to do these things in person. As already happens when someone applies for a passport, we will identify certain people, prominent in the community, to sign what we are calling certificates of identity. No doubt all honourable senators have been approached from time to time to sign certificates in regard to passport photographs. This is nothing new. We have managed with that system for years and there is no reason why we could not manage with this one either. Those people will accept full responsibility for the person who would normally record the Australia Card number. We have built in checks and balances to protect the applicant and the person filling in the form so that we can trace the person who provides the certificate. I do not think the Government can be any fairer in the implementation of this legislation than that. Fines of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for two years, or both, indicate the seriousness with which the Government views this situation. At the end of the day, it means that people in the country, people in remote rural Australia or people who just lack sufficient mobility, even in the cities, to make the necessary arrangements, will not be inconvenienced by having to produce their Australia Card in person for a given situation. We have heard much in this debate, particularly from Senator Puplick, about privacy. Let us look at privacy safeguards. The minority report of the Joint Select Committee referred to the question of technology and stated: . . . 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. In fact, a private agency in Sydney has the details of up to five million Australians readily available on its computer listings. We have set up the most comprehensive and far-reaching protections for individual privacy ever enacted or, indeed, contemplated by this Government or any previous government. We could do no more-it is just not possible. The Data Protection Agency will be both independent and powerful. It is going to have real teeth. It was seen as an essential reform by all parties on the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. Plus, the privacy legislation that has been introduced in tandem with the Australia Card Bill to prevent and deter any unauthorised disclosure of information from the Australia Card Register proves the Government's intent. Looking at what the Press has had to say about all this, an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald of 17 February 1986 said: The case for the card is immeasurably strengthened if Dr Blewett can demonstrate that the Data Protection Agency will be vigilant and effective in protecting the information that is placed on the ID card . . . Most of this information . . . is on Commonwealth data banks already. The Electoral Commission, for example, has 10 million names and addresses. Let us look at what the Government has said the Data Protection Agency will do. It will review decisions by the Health Insurance Commission in its role as the Australia Card authority. It will issue guidelines to ensure that information is accurate and confidential. It will inquire into complaints. It will supervise the way in which the authority keeps the register created from births, deaths, and marriages registers. It will research and monitor developments in computer technology and its effects on privacy. It will undertake educational programs to promote the protection of individual privacy. It will perform functions to be conferred upon it by the Privacy Bill. Furthermore, there is a right of appeal to the DPA. There is a power for the DPA to order destruction of information. Any person will have the right once a year to receive free of charge his full entry on the Australia Card Register. For a small cost, at any time, a person can receive additional copies. A person can ask for information to be amended and, if refused, ask for a review by the DPA. Every access will be logged and a record of this will also be made available to the person concerned. So any citizen at any time can find out who is interested in him and why. There is no way that the system can be misused to provide information on individuals to any other individual or body. In fact, this privacy legislation is a landmark decision. It is the first comprehensive regulation in Australia for the handling of personal information to protect privacy. It will substantially implement important recommendations from the Australian Law Reform Commission. Also, and most importantly, the Bill will make it an offence, with severe penalties, to make an unauthorised demand that the card be produced or to make any unauthorised disclosure of information. In conclusion, it must be remembered that the Australia Card is part of the Hawke Government's taxation package. Apparently this afternoon the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) removed the threat of an early election hanging over our heads. That does not mean that the Government has in any way altered its views on just how much this legislation is worth and just what it means to the Government's taxation package. The editorial in the Australian of 12 November last year said: It is quite obvious that without the estimated $1 billion savings that will be made-in areas like social security fraud and taxation evasion-with the advent of the Australia Card, the Government will find it very difficult to introduce its promised tax cuts. Senator Chaney —When will you collect your money from the Australia Card? What nonsense! Senator RICHARDSON —What it all means at the end of the day is that if we do not get this Bill through it will be a big issue in an election, whenever it is held. Senator Chaney will have to face the 69 per cent of Australians who are reported in the Bulletin today to be supporting this card. While he may smile and shake his head, I doubt that the same smile will be on his face after the next election. There is no doubt that the Liberal Party's rejection of this measure will give enormous satisfaction to the tax dodgers and welfare cheats it has been supporting for years. It is also patently obvious that the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Australian Democrats cannot be trusted to act with the firmness and courage it takes to act against the frauds and the cheats in our tax system. The Australian community overwhelmingly supports the Australia Card proposal. It supports this Government's attempts to pass it, and I commend the legislation to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) adjourned. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —by leave-I move: That, unless otherwise ordered- (1) The hours of meeting for the remainder of this day be till 6.30 p.m. and then 8.00 p.m. till 10.30 p.m. (2) The hours of meeting for Thursday, 2 April 1987, be as follows: 10.00 a.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8.00 p.m.-10.30 p.m. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the Order of Business for Thursday, 2 April 1987, be as follows: (a) Petitions (b) Notices of Motion (c) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (d) Presentation of Papers (e) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper (f) At 2 p.m., Questions (g) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper. (4) The Senate meet on Friday, 3 April 1987 and the hours of meeting be as follows: 9.00 a.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8.00 p.m.-10.30 p.m. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the Order of Business for Friday, 3 April 1987, be as follows: (a) Petitions (b) Notices of Motion (c) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (d) Presentation of Papers (e) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper (f) At 2 p.m., Questions (g) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper. (6) That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing and Sessional Orders, the sitting of the Senate be suspended from 10.30 p.m. on Friday, 3 April 1987 to 9.00 a.m. on Saturday, 4 April 1987. I do not propose to speak at length to this motion because I know that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) wants to move an amendment to it. I do not want to protract the debate because any protracted debate would undermine our capacity to break for dinner between 6.30 and 8 o'clock, which is not only good for us but good for Hansard, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and everybody else who has to look after us in this place. The reason for moving the motion at this time is to enable us, if possible, to get a dinner break this evening and also to resolve at this stage, so that everyone knows what is happening, the proposed procedural arrangements for the remainder of the week, into Saturday if necessary. Let me just say, in support of the revised procedures and sitting days and hours set out in the motion, that if any government is to get through its program, particularly when some matters in issue are large and controversial, it is necessary from time to time to schedule additional sitting days and hours. That has been the practice of all governments from time immemorial. It is one that this Government has tried to avoid, but it has been made necessary in this instance by some protracted debate-understandable perhaps-on some major legislation, and the need to get that legislation out of the way one way or the other this week if we are not to have a complete disruption of the program for the remainder of the session. The program for the next two days has been constructed so as to enable in effect most of the ordinary business of the Senate to be conducted, including Question Time. General Business for tomorrow afternoon has been waived with the advice and consent of the Australian Democrats. It was their business that might otherwise reasonably have been expected to have been placed on the Notice Paper, and the Government appreciates that degree of co-operation. The program provides for an adjournment at 10.30 each night and we, of course, hope that it will be possible for common sense to prevail and for the program to be got through in such a way that it will be possible to adjourn considerably earlier than 10.30 and to get away from this place on Friday afternoon. If that does not prove possible, we will certainly be prepared to sit through into Saturday and beyond that if necessary. We will certainly also be prepared to contemplate-not tonight but tomorrow night-negating of the adjournment and a very late sitting if we are not making significant progress tomorrow. I do not think we could be fairer than that-to set out and explain why it is we are doing what we are doing. There is no mystery, there is no surprise, about the particular program that we are seeking to accomplish this week. The Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill is a hangover from last week. Ample notice was given that we wanted to get it finished by the end of last week; we did not. Ample notice was given that we wanted to get the Australia Card Bill out of the way this week in order to accommodate a series of further major Bills that will be coming forward later in the year. It is not an excessive program that we are proposing, and we certainly are allowing ample time for debate of the matters involved. The final matter I wish to mention is that it will, unfortunately but necessarily, involve some rescheduling of the Estimates committee hearings that were spelt out for Thursday and Friday. If, of course, some common sense prevails, it may be possible to complete our business by Thursday night and to proceed accordingly with the Estimates as scheduled on Friday. That very much depends on the good will of those opposite and, indeed, everywhere else in the chamber, to ensure that that happens. If it cannot, it will be necessary to reschedule those Estimates days, and some attempt has been made to identify dates that can at least accommodate the position of Ministers. It is to be hoped that as large a number as possible of committee members can also be accommodated by those revised dates. Certainly there is room for further discussion with the Opposition about the scheduling of those committees. If it is possible to reach, through the good offices of the chairmen and the Ministers involved, some better, more acceptable and less inconvenient agreement, we will, of course be prepared to go along with that. I think I have said enough to allow Senator Chaney to prepare his amendments. He indicated that he wanted some time to do so. I hope that it will be possible accordingly to have a quick debate on this matter and to have a full dinner break in the interests of not only ourselves but more particularly the staff of this place who I think deserve not to be inconvenienced by the difficulties that we get into at the political end of the process. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.18) —I propose to move a couple of amendments to the motion which has been moved by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans), although I think that is an expression that we should cease to use; it seems particularly inappropriate. However, the position is that the Opposition finds the appeal to common sense of the Manager of Government Business rather extraordinary. We have had for the whole of this week an elaborate amount of messing about by the Government as part of its possible early election strategy. It has faced up to reality now and the bad odour in which it is held in the electorate and it has indicated that it will not have an early election. That, in principle, is right, although from an electoral point of view from our side I think it is a pity. Government senators-Ha, ha! Senator CHANEY —I am glad honourable senators opposite came in on that. I wonder why it was that the State Secretary of the Australian Labor Party in Western Australia, Mr Behan, was pleading so piteously against having an election. It is obviously that none of the caterwauling senators opposite have been in Western Australia recently, because if they had they would know that they were about to roll out a whole lot of their colleagues in the House of Representatives, which would have been a very considerable contribution to good government in this country. The fact of the matter is that the whole of the program of the Senate has been messed about because the Government has been manoeuvring trying to keep its election options open. It is proposed that the Senate will sit in place of the Estimates committees and will sit if necessary, we are told, on Saturday. And why? To pass a Bill which will not come into effect for several years. We had the usual absurdities from Senator Richardson when he spoke in the debate on the Australia Card Bill just before Senator Gareth Evans intervened. Senator Richardson was talking in threatening terms about losing tax cuts. I ask Senator Richardson to go away and talk to somebody like Mr Ron Castan, QC, who I suppose he would accuse of being some sort of biased observer, and ask him when it is that the tax savings that the Government claims will start accruing will actually occur. He will be told that they are over two financial years away. The nonsense that has been trumpeted out in this debate has been part of an elaborate electoral charade. All senators are being severely inconvenienced to deal with a Bill which has no urgency, which will not come into operation for a considerable time, and which could be dealt with when we returned in the normal course. The program of Estimates committee hearings laid down for the Senate could have been dealt with in the normal course. But the Government, having locked itself into this situation of having the Bill dealt with this week, has now moved a motion which, in a number of respects, is objectionable. I would like to make those objections quite clear. For a start, the Opposition has always been prepared to sit on days on which the Government has sought to sit. We have found it unfortunate that the Government is so erratic in its programming-it has already added one complete week of sittings in May-but we accept that, if the Government finds that it needs additional periods of sittings to meet its program, of course we must sit. Indeed, we are prepared to sit on any working day during the year that meets the Government's legislative needs, but we are not prepared to enter into weekend sittings when they are not necessary, when the Bill is not urgent and when there is nothing hanging on the final passage or resolution of legislation. One of the amendments that I propose to move is that the Senate should adjourn on Friday at 3.45 p.m. in the normal course. At what stage we will be with respect to the legislation at that point, I do not know. We may well have completed it at that point although, if Senator Evans continues to bluster, I suppose the chances of our doing that are limited. That is one of the amendments which I will move. I suggest to honourable senators that no more should be required of senators than that they sit on five days a week, if that is the Government's requirement, but to suggest that they should sit on weekends as well is obviously absurd. Senator Gareth Evans —It is in your hands. Senator CHANEY —The attempted bullying by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, who says that it is in our hands, is quite pathetic. We are not interested in going down to this threat. In any event, the fact is that we will deal with this legislation in an orderly way. We will make our speeches, and when the debate is concluded the legislation will be dealt with and will be thrown out. That is its fate, and the Government knows that that is its fate. That is the farce of this insistance on a weekend sitting; that is the farce of a sitting on Friday; that is the farce of upsetting all the Estimates committee hearings. It is an absolute farce. Government senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections. I also suggest that Senator Chaney address the Chair. Senator CHANEY —Certainly, Mr President. The absolute farce of the procedure that is being followed is that we are dealing with a Bill which the Government knows will be defeated. It will make no difference to the Government whether the Bill is defeated today, tomorrow, Friday, or, indeed, in three weeks time. The first amendment, therefore, that I will move is in regard to that point. The second point is that the Government, in its eagerness to deal with this matter, has set down an order of business which deprives the Opposition of many of its normal entitlements on a business day. We find that, for example, on Thursday the order of business is for petitions, notices of motion, formal motions, presentation of papers and questions. There is no provision for matters to be brought forward by the Opposition under standing order 64. In the same way, on Friday, 3 April-- Senator Gareth Evans —When was the last time you used that effectively? Senator CHANEY —The fact is that the Government has not even been prepared to call for a division on the matters which we have brought forward under standing order 64. The motions which have been brought forward by the Opposition have related to the scandalous problems in the housing industry, the oppression of families by this Government, and all the rest of it. Those opposite have not been prepared to call for a division. They have sat there in their limp and wimpish way and simply allowed the motions to be passed. All I can say is that there are a whole lot of caterwauling senators over there who are not even prepared to vote against the proposition that their Government has betrayed Australian families. They are not prepared to cast their vote against the proposition that the Government has destroyed the ambitions of many home owners. It is an absolutely pathetic show, and they know it. I propose to move amendments which will include within the motion the normal entitlements of the Opposition to bring forward matters of public importance. I believe that, as far as the Australian people are concerned, there are many more important things than the identity card. The identity card, which has been recommended against by a committee of this Parliament and which many distinguished Australians have opposed, stands as nothing compared with the problems of high interest rates and the many other problems which are afflicting the Australian community. This Government is to be condemned for the way in which it is conducting the business of the Senate. So my second amendment relates to the addition to paragraph (3) (f) (1) of the words `Any matter pursuant to standing order 64', and, in paragraph (5) (f) (1), of the words `Any matter brought forward pursuant to standing order 64'. I will also move for the deletion of paragraph (6) as part of that same amendment, because that relates to the suspension of sittings from 10.30 p.m. on Friday, 3 April. I will move an amendment to paragraph (4) to the effect that the adjournment should take place at 3.45 p.m. I seek leave to move my amendments together. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —I move: (1) Paragraph (3), after subparagraph (f), add: `(fa) any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (fb) consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (fc) General Business'. (2) Paragraph (4), leave out the time specified, insert: `9 a.m. to 12.45 p.m., 2 p.m. to 3.45 p.m.' (3) Paragraph (5), after paragraph (f), add: (fa) any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (fb) consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order'. (4) Leave out paragraph (6). Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(6.27) —I oppose any change to the present hours of sitting. I think we have now reached the position where we can quickly determine the legislation on the identity card. The political manoeuvring is now over. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has announced that there will not be an early election. The purpose of the debate was in some way to frustrate the political manoeuvrings of the Prime Minister, who sought to have an election at a time which he considered to be to his advantage. But that is all in the past. There has been a clear statement that there will not be an election until the end of the year or perhaps early next year, at the normal time. Since there has been no amendment to the legislation which the Senate rejected some time ago, we should immediately move to a decision on that legislation. We should then proceed with the other Bill that is before the Senate and on which the Government places some importance. I do not know why the timing is so important. Nevertheless, if it wants it, let it have it. We can get our business finished this evening. We can return to the Estimates committees program tomorrow, and the committees of the Senate can meet on Friday. Several committees have arranged hearings for Friday. Under this arrangement-even under the proposed amended arrangement-those committees will not be able to meet. Senator Gareth Evans —We will support you, mate, but you have the numbers. Senator GEORGES —I am sorry. Common sense ought to have the numbers on this occasion, surely. Senator McIntosh —You move it and we will support you. Senator GEORGES —A motion is not needed. There really needs to be an understanding. If I can say so, understanding seems to have disappeared from either side of the Senate. The reason for that is that the control of the program of the Senate has been taken out of the hands of the Whips. I have said that time and again. It is left in the hands of the so-called Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). Senator Robert Ray —So-called. Senator GEORGES —The so-called Leader of the Opposition. If the Whips are allowed to run this place, they have closer contact with senators on either side and can come to an arrangement to put their best speakers forward, to limit the times of speakers, to limit the number of speakers and get the program. Every time somebody else interferes we seem to get into a personality clash; somebody has to justify his own personal position and the rest of us have to follow along. Here we are at this stage suggesting that we might even meet on Saturday. That is a ploy usually used at the end of the year when Christmas is coming along and we look like we are going to go forever and get to the stage of semi-blackmail. To get back to the point, I suggest to senators that, by some arrangement between the Whips, the legislation that we have before us should be dealt with swiftly, that we go on to the next Bill and endeavour to finish it, even if we have to negative the adjournment motion. Let us go back to our normal program. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.31) —The problem that Senator Georges outlined is obviously true. The various tactics that have gone on in regard to the Australia Card Bill [No. 2] really ought to cease now. Unfortunately, that will not be the case. Senator Georges —Why not? Senator MACKLIN —Do not ask me. The Opposition parties say that they wish to have an extensive debate. The Australian Democrats have said: `Fine, we will not support a gag or a guillotine so that those Opposition speakers who wish to speak have a chance to do so'. I suggest that it is not possible to say on the one hand that we wish everybody-nearly everybody-on the Opposition benches to speak and then to say that we do not want to provide time to enable them to do so. There is an inexorable logic that when we face the most extensive speaking list on any Bill that has been held in this Parliament-possibly any parliament-and certainly in this chamber we have to provide the time for it. I would like to raise another matter as Senator Georges dealt with the organisation of business. This chamber is already two weeks behind in the Government's legislative program. It is not possible to put this legislation off until after Easter because what would happen then is that everything else would be moved back and the Senate would be sitting into June or July. This matter has been discussed many times in the past and we know that there is not sufficient time for government legislation. This chamber does not sit long enough to get the Government's legislation under any government. We are debating twice the number of Bills in half the space of time that the House of Commons does in Britain or the House of Commons in Canada. We know that and yet we are trying to do the impossible yet again. It does not work and we get a shambles at the end of the period. I believe the Whips should set down a program in orderly fashion. Pushing everything towards the end of the session is not an orderly way in which to operate. We have to fill in extra spaces as we go along to provide that time towards the end of the year. Senator Chaney —Will you take only your share of the debate? Senator MACKLIN —We will take our share and state our position. We are not engaging in the type of exercise where people say they want to speak but they do not want time in which to speak. We need that time and the time is set down in the Government's motion. Unfortunately, this has to be done. We do not like it any more than any other senators like it. Everybody has his own programs set down. We would like to stay with the program. I believe that if Senator Georges's very sane suggestion were followed, the program could be kept. I hope that come 10.30 tonight we might have a vote on the Australia Card. I am intent on defeating it. I want to vote as soon as possible to defeat the Bill. I do not see why, if the numbers are there and the positions of the various political parties have been clearly stated, we cannot then have that vote. It may be that some people are moving around on that exercise. I hope that what I was told by a Liberal member is not true. I hope that we will have the vote as soon as we can. Let us have it tonight. Positions have been stated; we know what they are. I believe that the numbers are there to defeat the Bill. I would like to defeat it as soon as possible because I think that it is a reprehensible Bill. Why cannot we do it now rather than in two days time? Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(6.35) —Senator Georges made a very sensible contribution to the debate and we were delighted to hear him put forward his view. The Australian Democrats say that they want to throw out the Australia Card Bill as quickly as they possibly can. The Government says `Let us get on with the debate by having the Bill passed as quickly as we possibly can'. The truth of the matter is that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) says that he does not now want a double dissolution. Senator McIntosh —He didn't say that. Senator LEWIS —In effect, he did, because after 30 June he will be able to have a half-Senate election and he is talking about having an election later this year. I will put my money on it now that it will not be before 16 January 1988, when he becomes the longest serving Australian Labor Party Prime Minister in Australia. Honourable senators can put their money on an election being held after 16 January 1988. In those circumstances the Government should give serious consideration to withdrawing the Australia Card Bill and bringing down the amended Bill about which Dr Blewett has been talking for some time. That would be the correct procedure. We could then get on to the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill and get on to the Estimates Committee hearings. But this Government still wants this Bill rejected so that it can retain the double dissolution option. If the Government does not want the double dissolution option, why does it not pick up my suggestion that it should withdraw this Bill and let us get on with the rest of the program? That would leave us in a very simple position. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.38) —We have reached the situation, as Senator Georges said, that the Australia Card Bill is no longer considered urgent by the Government. We have also reached the situation, as Senator Lewis said, that Dr Blewett has said that it is imperfect. The Australian Bankers Association and all the bankers have said that the Bill needs amending to make it possible for banks to be included and to make it easy for people to use our banking system along with the Australia card. So what about bringing in a proper amended Bill? Senator Gareth Evans, who is so used to pushing things through in his arrogance, who believes that things sound like a good idea at the time, a failed Attorney-General who is now a failed Manager of Government Business in the Senate, thinks that he can do anything he likes in this place. He believes that the Senate and the Opposition have no say just because he has the numbers. Senator Evans has a great deal to learn around this place. Frankly, what we want on this side of the House is to see Senator Grimes reinstated as Manager of Government Business. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator WALTERS —I can see members on the Government benches clapping at that suggestion, a most unusual occurrence. The present Manager of Government Business has not got any common sense. Most people in this place know my views on Senator Grimes. I believe that Senator Evans is just that much worse. It is very obvious that the Government has had a look at the polls and it has made a very wise decision, from its point of view, not to go ahead with an election. It is very obvious that the people will throw the Government out as soon as it calls an election. Senator Gareth Evans —On a point of order, Mr President: I fear that it might be a little ungentlemanly of me to intervene after Senator Walters's remarks about me, but I do think that she is stretching the bounds of relevance at the moment. I ask you to rule accordingly. The PRESIDENT —I must admit that the debate so far has been rather wide ranging. However, I suggest that Senator Walters speak to the amendments before the Chair. Senator WALTERS —I am speaking to the need for an alteration of sitting hours. There may have been a need for such an alteration a few hours ago; but, following the decision of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that it is no longer necessary to have an early election, I wonder why there is any urgency in this matter. Why can we not debate the Australia Card in the normal way? Why can we not stick to the normal hours? The Prime Minister said publicly that the Australia Card was the trigger he needed for an election before May. I do not believe that this is a wide-ranging point-it is to do with the hours of sitting. The situation has now altered. The Prime Minister has backed down; he has said that there is now no call for an early election. As a result, an early election is off; so we can now go back to our normal sitting hours. The Estimates committees will be in a complete shambles if this motion is passed. If we cannot sit on Estimates committees tomorrow, as was originally intended, then the timetable for those committees will be all over the place. The Minister said that he would like the Senate to rise for a dinner break in order to help the staff. That is completely hypocritical because the Minister originally intended that we would not have any dinner break at all. How could he fit that in with the arrangements of the dining room staff? The dining room staff is accustomed to our coming in in dribs and drabs, so the statement that the Minister is supposedly considering the staff is quite ridiculous. We need to get back to our normal sitting hours and our normal processing of Government Business. I suggest that the Minister behave in a sensible manner and conduct the Government Business in the normal way. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(6.43) —The suggestion has been made in this debate-particularly by Senator Macklin-that some kind of obstruction by the Opposition has put the Government's program behind by two weeks. That sort of nonsense can clearly be demonstrated to be false. Any suggestion that the Opposition has obstructed things in any way can clearly be put to the test by looking at the Government Business on the Notice Paper. In today's Orders of the Day there is not one matter which was adjourned before 20 February, and in fact the great bulk of matters came up towards the end of March. There has been no effective delay or obstruction from the Opposition. There are 15 matters listed on the first two pages of the Notice Paper and these are dated 18, 19 and 20 March. Those are the sorts of dates we are looking at. It seems absurd that in those circumstances anyone should try to railroad the Senate into behaving in this panicked and nonsensical way to prevent, in effect, reasoned and rational discussion by senators who should not be overstressed or overtired. As it is, we generally arrive here at 8.30 in the morning to attend our committee meetings and most of us rarely leave before midnight. For this Government to try to impose unreasonable, absurd pressures on this chamber in this way is an indication of either incompetence or malice towards those of us who are determined to give proper attention to the matters that come before the Senate. Let me remind the Senate that this Government's brilliant organising of the program means that from the end of April we will be sitting for six of the last seven weeks of this period of sittings. I suggest that that kind of stress and effort, on the part of all senators, will not be conducive to good and rational discussion. We will see the same sort of mad response that we are seeing now from the Government. I remind honourable senators that we are now in another three-week sitting pattern. We end up in these three-week patterns when we work 16 or 17 hours a day. These patterns are not in the best interests of senators or the people whom they represent. I strongly support Senator Chaney's sensible amendments. I believe that rationality should be allowed to return to the operations of the Senate. I remind the Senate that there are some matters that have been massively delayed, but these are not included in urgent Government Business and they do not excite the Government to do anything about them. For example, we never got around to finishing the 1985 Budget debate. It is still on the Notice Paper. We were given one day on an earlier defence statement without being given any notice. There are occasions on which the Government denies us the opportunity to debate things properly, but no Government Business is being delayed, held up or obstructed in any improper way by this Opposition. I think it is absurd for anyone to suggest that that is the case. I strongly support Senator Chaney's amendments. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(6.47) —It is necessary for some things to be said in this debate. We are having this lengthy discussion on the Australia Card Bill 1986 (No. 2) because, as Senator Macklin said, the Australian Democrats hold their hand in protection over the official Opposition and give its members the freedom to debate by refusing this Government, in normal circumstances, any gag or guillotine which would require our numbers to execute it. In the past, over the years, we have said that we would maintain that protection and we have done so, except in cases where the Opposition had carried out unnecessary and blatant filibusters. I believe that in present circumstances the Opposition is in great danger of that. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said that he will not have an early election. I could understand the Opposition wanting to spin out the debate, to desperately keep it going because it was afraid of an election. Perhaps it is still afraid of an election; I do not know. Perhaps Opposition senators think that the Prime Minister is trying to lead them into a trap. The other alternative is that the Opposition does not have the numbers to do what it said it would do to this Bill. Is that what is wrong? It has to be one or the other. If it is neither of those things, the Opposition should take a rational view of this matter and let us have a vote on this Bill tonight. Let us have another five or six speakers and then let us have a vote tonight. Senator Michael Baume —You are threatening to gag the debate? Senator MASON —I have just told the Senate that we Australian Democrats hold our hand of protection over the Opposition, as Senator Baume well knows, but in the past we have gagged when it has been necessary, when there has been a blatant and unnecessary filibuster. I say no more than that. However, I am imploring Opposition senators at this stage to be rational and to let us get a vote on this Bill. No useful purpose will be served by saying the same things over and over again. Only one purpose will be served, and that is bad-the cost of maintaining the sittings of this House for another couple of days will be visited on the unfortunate people of this country. Opposition senators know as well as I do that it costs a lot of money to run this place. In my opinion, it is not good enough merely to say that because they want to talk out this Bill, when they know what the result will be, that expense should be incurred. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(6.50) —There are a few points I want to make. With respect to what Senator Mason has just said, I remind him of his comment that the freedom to speak is given by the Australian Democrats, holding this hand of protection over us so that we may exercise our right to speak. What he means is that this hand of protection is their decision not to support the gag at any particular time. It is my view that the freedom I have to speak is given to me by the fact of my election; it is not given to me by the Democrats or the Government. What the good senator should have said is that the Democrats do not choose to take away that right to speak by the so-called hand of protection slipping into bed with the Australian Labor Party to gag the debate. Senator Michael Baume —I would not touch them. Senator VANSTONE —The honourable senator may not. As to the motion, Senator Chaney's amendments allow the Government extra time for debate of its business so that the now so-called failed Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans) can desperately try to avoid a backlog further into the session. All that is asked in return is that we give only two extra days, that we do not come back on Saturday, and that we therefore leave at 3.45 p.m. on Friday, and that during those extra two days that we are prepared to give, we retain the normal rights of an opposition in regard to the conduct of those two days. That does not seem unreasonable. No one here is saying, `We want to go home' or `We do not want to give the extra time'. That is what Senator Macklin said we were saying. We are happy to give the extra time for debate, and happy to have it. All we are asking is for a sense of reason. We believe that by allowing Saturday we are giving too much extra time. It is therefore fair to leave at 3.45 p.m. on Friday. That would give the failed Manager of Government Business another couple of days to get the Government's business through. It will mean inconvenience because the Estimates committees will have to be rescheduled, but we are prepared to go along with that. It is unreasonable to ask for extra days, including Saturday, and at the same time to ask the Opposition to lose its normal rights. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(6.53) —In closing the debate, I simply commend the motion to the House. Question put. That the amendments (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M. Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G. Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Watson, J. O. W. Knowles, S. C. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. McKiernan, J. P. Black, J. R. Macklin, M. J. Bolkus, M. 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. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Sanders, N. K. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Vigor, D. B. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. West, S. M. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. McIntosh, G. D. Parer, W. R. Button, J. N. Carrick, Sir John Grimes, D. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Elstob, R. C. Alston, R. K. R. Jones, G. N. Collard, S. J. Tate, M. C. Question so resolved in the negative. Question put: That the motion (Senator Gareth Evans's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Aulich, T. McKiernan, J. P. Black, J. R. Macklin, M. J. Bolkus, 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. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Sanders, N. K. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Vigor, D. B. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. West, S. M. McIntosh, G. D. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M. Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G. Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Georges, G. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Knowles, S. C. Button, J. N. Parer, W. R. Jones, G. N. Carrick, Sir JohnGrimes, D. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Tate, M. C. Alston, R. K. R. Elstob, R. C. Collard, S. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 7.03 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —I call Senator Short. (Quorum formed) Senator Tate-On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: You had called Senator Short when Senator Walters walked into the chamber and called a quorum in a most mischievous manner. I would ask that the time of the Opposition speaker run from when you gave that speaker the call. I think the Opposition should suffer the diminution of speaking time for the invasion of the chamber by Senator Walters in order to cause disruption. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In response to Senator Tate's point of order, although Senator Short had been called he had not commenced his speech. I call Senator Short. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(8.03) —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I welcome your ruling. Earlier this afternoon the Government announced that it had abandoned its cynical and opportunistic flirting with an early double dissolution election, for which the Senate's rejection for the second time of this Australia Card Bill 1986 was, of course, to provide the trigger. It is therefore all the more remark- able and deplorable that the Government is now subjecting the Australian taxpayer to enormous further expense in order to rush this Bill to a vote in the Senate this week, and at great inconvenience to all senators, their constituents and to parliamentary staff. Senator Robertson —What are you talking about? We are sitting. It is our normal sitting time. Senator SHORT —They are not our normal sitting times. Why is this legislation being rushed? Why is the taxpayer yet again being slugged to pay for the disgraceful irresponsibilities of this Government? I will tell honourable senators why. It is because this Government is totally incap- able of managing its own affairs, just as it is incapable of managing the affairs of the nation. This Bill contains one of the most important and sinister proposals ever to be put before the Australian people. It is a scandal that it should be steam-rolled in the Senate, as it was in the House of Representatives last week, in this extravagant yet opportunistic way. Senator Robertson —What? With 37 speakers? For goodness sake! Senator SHORT —Go back to dinner, Senator Robertson. It also indicates just what disregard the Hawke Labor Government really has for the substance of the Australia Card Bill. The Government has claimed continually that the Bill is essential in order to curb social welfare cheats and tax fraud. The Bill will be defeated in the Senate later this week. If the Bill is so important why did the Government not accept any of the amendments put to it by the Opposition or which it thought of itself to make the proposal less unacceptable? It did not because it wanted the Bill to provide the double dissolution trigger. That is the only reason that it has introduced the previously rejected Bill without any amendment whatsoever and why it has treated the Bill in such a cavalier manner within the Parliament. It has now backed away from the election option. If the Bill is so important surely it should be mandatory for the Government to go to an election over it. The Government has now said it will not do so. Why? There is only one logical explanation, and that is that it does not believe that it could win an early election, and that assessment is correct. What cynical political opportunism! No wonder the people of Australia have lost all confidence and faith in this Government. At the very least, if the Government really wished to have the Senate pass or look seriously at an Australia Card Bill it would now be introducing amendments to remove the worst features of the proposal and be seen to be being serious about the exercise. In many ways I regret that we will not be fighting an early election with the Australia Card as one of the key issues because I would welcome going to the people of Australia and telling them why the Liberal and National parties have rejected this intrusive, socialist Government's plan to impose on every Australian a major and costly invasion of his or her privacy or his or her civil liberties. I would certainly have a wide range of support and company in doing so. I would have the support of a vast range of organisations and individuals across the spectrum of community involvement and interest and political thought in this country. Senator Aulich —Every tax dodger in the country would support you. Senator SHORT —That is interesting because I would have the support of, for example, several of the major trade unions in Australia. I would have the support of the Law Council of Australia, the Australian Catholic Welfare Commission, the Council of Small Business Associations of Australia-- Senator Aulich —Tax dodgers. Senator SHORT —Are they tax dodgers? Also the International Commission of Jurists, the councils for civil liberties in every State and Territory, the Australian Retired Persons Association, the Australian Computer Society, the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party and the ALP's national legal and administrative policy committee? Are they tax dodgers, too? I would have the support of the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Real Estate Institute of Australia, the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges, the Anglican Social Responsibilities Commission in Western Australia and many more organisations of responsible and concerned people. I would have the support of such eminent Australians as Frank Costigan, QC, a person who, probably more than any other Australian, has led the fight against organised crime, including tax fraud, in this country. I would have the support of His Grace the Rt Rev. Michael Challen, the Anglican Bishop of Perth; Mr Justice Michael Kirby, former Chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission; Law Professor Geoffrey Walker; leading business people such as Hugh Morgan; author Frank Moorhouse and countless thousands of other individuals. I would also have the support of the National Youth Council of Australia and the majority of the members of the Parliament's Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card which was established in November 1985 to examine the Government's proposals and which reported in May last year. As the honourable senator is well aware, the majority of the members of that Committee rejected the Government's proposals. The members of the Committee making up that majority included members from every political party in this Parliament-the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Australian Democrats and the Labor Party. Senator Aulich —One Labor Party person, and it was a political vote, and you know that. You were whipped into line. Senator SHORT —I take important parliamentary committee reports on their objective merits and this was one in relation to which all members of the political parties in Australia joined together in supporting a majority recommendation. (Quorum formed) The Opposition opposes this legislation for four main reasons. First, the card would not solve the problems of tax and welfare fraud, both of which generally involve people whose identity is not in question. Secondly, the card does not address serious administration failings and operational deficiencies in the Australian Taxation Office that have been revealed by the Commonwealth Auditor-General and remain a major cause of failure to collect revenue due to the Government. Thirdly, we oppose it because the costs of the ID card have been grossly understated and the benefits grossly exaggerated. Fourthly, the details of the proposal will constitute an unprecedented and unjustifiable intrusion into the individual privacy of all Australians and will greatly damage our civil liberties. I make the point at the outset that not one country in the world with a common law system like Australia's has a comprehensive ID card system such as that proposed by the Hawke Government. The Government first floated its ID card proposal at the National Taxation Summit in July 1985. It then promoted it as a major element of its tax reform package and there was little or no comment on the card's potential for attacking social security fraud. An amazing feature of the Government's handling of this ID card proposal since day one has been that the ministerial responsibility resides with the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), not with the Treasurer (Mr Keating), who has the responsibility for taxation, not with the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and not with the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) or the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate), who are responsible for fraud detection and prevention. That is an extraordinary situation when one observes what the Government claims are the reasons for this legislation. Under the Government's proposal every Australian will be forced to have an ID card. The card will look rather innocent and innocuous. It will simply contain a person's name, identity number, card expiry date, photograph and signature-not much different from a driving licence. But there the deception begins because the card would be required to be produced on a very wide range of occasions, including dealing with banks and financial institutions, land transactions, initiating investments and transactions with cash management trusts-a very common event nowadays-employment, admission to hospital, claims for Medicare benefits when required by the Taxation Office, primary producers transacting business with stock agents and marketing authorities, investing in shares in public companies and dealings with the Department of Social Security. Not only that, but the Government proposes massive fines for failure to produce the ID card on such occasions. Most of those fines are $20,000. For bodies corporate the fines are up to $100,000. To give just a couple of examples: A householder who gives casual employment to, say, a cleaning lady for a few days a week without sighting the lady's ID card and notifying the Taxation Office is guilty of an offence. Penalty: $20,000. A farmer who during the fruit picking season takes on a young itinerant looking for a few days work who does not have his ID card with him will have committed an offence. Penalty: $20,000. A small businessman giving employment to young people or pensioners without sighting the ID card is guilty, and without trial is liable to a fine of $20,000. So it goes on. As well, there are loopholes. For example, there is a loophole in clause 36 of the Bill which makes it possible to forward through the ordinary mail a so-called certificate of identity in place of the ID card. That is a sensible idea for all those engaged in transactions involving the requirement of identification when the two parties are separated by distance. But just think of the scope for theft, loss or forgery of these certificates in these circumstances. Yet the Government is trying to tell the Australian people that the whole system is virtually guaranteed against forgery or duplication. What absolute nonsense. Even the ID card will be forgeable. Experience around the world with identity cards, passports, drivers licences and similar identification documents has demonstrated beyond any doubt that no system is foolproof against forgery and fraud. A recent letter to the Melbourne Age summed the situation up very neatly. It was a letter from someone who had gone through the identity card requirements of Hitler's Germany and the processes in Holland during the war. Amongst other things, he said: The introduction of the Australia card will most probably give rise to a flourishing forgery industry. The Australia Card will only be effective after we have managed to remove all crooks from our society, but then we won't need the card any more. It is indeed possible that the introduction of the card will legitimate a false identity which will aid and abet the criminal element in our society and which may well encourage tax and welfare fraud. The Government's stated objective for the ID card, according to the Minister's second reading speech, is to fight tax avoidance and evasion and social welfare fraud. The Opposition, of course, fully supports those objectives. Our concern is that the ID card will not achieve these objectives. So far as tax evasion is concerned, evidence produced to the Parliamentary Select Committee indicates that it is very doubtful whether tax evasion would be seriously restrained through the use of an ID card. Mr Costigan, QC, the former royal commissioner who was famous for his investigations in the late 1970s and early 1980s into tax fraud in Australia, has said that the card would not have prevented the criminal tax fraud he found in his inquiries. It is universally accepted that the existence of the cash or underground economy poses the biggest single threat to our tax base and is the largest source of tax revenue leakage. An ID card will not solve the problems associated with the cash economy for the simple reason that cash economy transactions will not be identified by the card. Indeed, it is arguable that the existence of the ID card would actually increase the size of the cash economy by encouraging more people to engage in it. The Government has given the impression that the ID card will hit hard at social welfare fraud. But the facts indicate overwhelmingly that that is simply untrue. The primary way in which an ID card might be able to reduce social welfare fraud is in the area of false identities. But the Department of Social Security, in its evidence to the parliamentary Select Committee, said that false identities were not a major component of social welfare fraud. The Department said that less than one per cent of social welfare fraud, less than $1 in $100, results from the use of false identities. The major form of social welfare cheating comes from people falsifying their circumstances, not their identities. The ID card would have no direct effect on this form or other forms of welfare fraud. So the overwhelming weight of evidence is that the Government has grossly overstated the extent to which its ID card proposals will improve the exchequer by reducing tax revenue losses and fraudulent social welfare payments. In other words, the benefits side of the cost-benefit equation on a national interest basis is very thin indeed. What about the costs side of the equation? The Government has not come clean on the costs side. It has produced confusing, contradictory, and incomplete figures. The Government claims that the total cost of introducing and operating the card would be $759m over the first 10 years. Note the accuracy. How on earth could one come to a figure such as that? What we do know, however, is that as a minimum 2,150 additional public servants will be required to administer the scheme and more than 300 Medicare officers will either be appointed or relocated and upgraded. The Government has made no allowance for the cost to State and local governments of their compliance with the requirements of the ID card system. Nor do the costs include the costs of compliance by the business sector. On the basis of calculations by the Government's own Business Regulation Review Unit, the cost to the business sector could amount to $2,000m to $3,000m over the next 10 years, a staggering additional burden to impose on a business sector that is already reeling under a massive onslaught of government-imposed taxes and charges. It is beyond dispute that the financial costs of the ID card would be enormous but there are other, non-financial, costs that must also be considered and in the longer term they may well be of even greater significance. The non-financial cost of the greatest concern is the cost to the privacy of every Australian and the cost to our civil liberties. The ID card, because of its common number, inevitably would provide a centralised data base. It is just not possible to guarantee that access to that data base would be restricted to the degree the Government suggests. Unauthorised access would always be a major threat. Other dangers exist too with centralised data bases including the danger that the data may be incorrect. No system would be able to overcome those problems, problems which have been very well outlined by witnesses to the Parliamentary Committee including members of the Department of Social Security who are experts in computer matters. Senator Tate —So you have got to be able to correct it. Senator SHORT —They are not correctable; the honourable senator knows that as well as I do. The privacy problems are of enormous potential. We would need to be absolutely convinced of the overall advantage of the introduction of ID cards before subjecting every Australian to this threat to privacy. Rejection of the ID card proposal leads to the legitimate question: What would the Liberal and National parties do instead to reduce tax evasion and social welfare fraud? We would take several actions which would be much more effective, less costly and not have the dangers which are inherent in the Government's proposals. First, we would force the Australian Taxation Office to be much more efficient in its collection activities. The House of Representatives Expenditure Committee produced reports in 1986 of five inquiries by the Auditor-General into the operations of the Taxation Office and it found: . . . taxation revenue losses through non-detection of total taxpayers incomes could conceivably amount to several billion dollars each year . . . in large measure it can simply be attributed to Australian Tax Office's internal inadequacies. The Liberal and National parties would act immediately to rectify this disgraceful situation and improve the efficiency of the Tax Office. In government we would also attempt to do much more to stop the tax drain through the cash economy. It is certainly a very difficult task but one which is not being tackled at the moment and the ID card proposal does not address it at all. We would also strengthen the reporting requirements of banks with respect to interest income, an area generally agreed to be the major source of tax revenue loss. In the area of social welfare fraud, we would introduce a requirement whereby persons in receipt of the unemployment benefit would work for that benefit. We would also tighten the existing identity requirements for social welfare recipients. That is a very important problem. In 1981-82 the ratio of unemployment benefit recipients in the Australian Bureau of Statistics survey estimate of unemployed persons seeking full time employment was 94:100. It is now 116:100. In other words, what that means, according to ABS statistics, is that for every 100 persons seeking full time employment 116 persons are actually receiving unemployment benefit. What this debate on the Australia card really boils down to is this: Do we want to see the introduction in Australia, at great financial cost, of an identification card system which the overwhelming weight of evidence indicates will not achieve its laudable objectives of reducing tax and social welfare fraud? Do we want to introduce an identity card system which is an open invitation to some government at some future time to turn Australia into a virtual police state? That the Bill now before the Senate is merely the thin edge of the wedge is totally clear from a confidential document from the Health Insurance Commission which has responsibility for the Australia Card proposal. The document said that when the present proposed uses of the Australia Card have been introduced and accepted by the public, extra, more controversial, data and uses could be introduced. Let me quote just one paragraph from the Health Insurance Commission's report. Senator Tate —That is totally opposed to Government policy, and you know it. Senator SHORT —I stress that the Health Insurance Commission is the body which Senator Tate's Government has charged with administering and operating this scheme. Senator Tate —Yes, but what date was the document? Senator SHORT —It was a 1985 submission. Senator Tate —Before the Bill and before the Government announced its policy. Senator SHORT —But it does not alter this issue one iota. Let me quote just one paragraph from the Health Insurance Commission report which states: It will be important to minimise in advance public reaction to implementation of the system. One possibility would be to use a staged approach for implementation, whereby only less sensitive data is held in the system initially with the facility to input additional data at a later stage when public acceptance may be forthcoming more readily. Have honourable senators ever heard anything more sinister, more underhand, more Orwellian, or more like Goebbels's propaganda machine in nazi Germany? Senator Tate —That is why we rejected it. Senator SHORT —Senator Tate has not publicly rejected it. It defies belief that in a democracy any government, even this socialist Government, could contemplate such action. What further evidence could we possibly need to demonstrate that the Hawke Labor Government is determined to propel itself ruthlessly forward another huge step towards turning Australia into a big brother state where the daily lives of every Australian are constantly monitored, oversighted and controlled? Those are the reasons why the Liberal and National parties totally reject the Australia Card Bill. We are not prepared to see the introduction in Australia of an identification system which is positively unAustralian, contrary to our history, our traditions and all we stand for as a free, open and civilised society. The Opposition is not prepared to contemplate a system which is more enveloping and intrusive than any other identification system in any other common law nation. Senator Crowley —Rubbish. Senator SHORT —The honourable senator will have her opportunity to tell me where I am wrong. We are not prepared to see Australia take any step which could lead to the destruction of democracy and the potential establishment of a totalitarian state in our nation. The Australia Card Bill is a step in this direction. It must be rejected and it will be rejected. (Quorum formed) Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(8.31) —This evening we are debating yet again the Australia Card legislation following its defeat in December 1986. Every day that the Australia Card legislation is delayed, another $2 1/2m is lost to government revenue. That cost has been the result of combined actions by Australian Democrats, Liberal and National Party senators. In December, the Australia Card legislation was defeated by the votes of 32 senators-27 from the coalition parties and five from the Australian Democrats. They voted to defeat the Government's crackdown on tax evasion and welfare fraud. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been lost already as a result of this delay. So we have in this place 32 very expensive senators who are costing the revenue hundreds of millions of dollars-in fact, around $9m per senator who voted in that division last December. The Liberals in particular have somersaulted on this legislation. Previously they wanted a national identification system. Today we have the revelation that Mr Howard, as Treasurer in 1979, promoted investigations into identification systems. On 31 May 1979 Mr Howard, the present Leader of the Opposition, signed a document which promoted investigations into a national identity system. I am delighted to say that the documentation was made available to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation this week. The Corporation made it available to its audience this morning. In fact, Mr Howard was the Treasurer of this nation in 1979 when Public Service officers were sent abroad to examine identification systems. He was the Treasurer when a delegation was sent abroad to look into the development of a national identification system. Mr Howard, the then Treasurer of Australia and now the temporary Leader of the Opposition, is opposing for political reasons the introduction of a national identification system-the Australia Card legislation. In 1979 the coalition parties in government launched inquiries into such a system, but now, in opposition, they oppose this legislation. In May last year, 11 months ago, the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, under the chairmanship of Senator Aulich, reported on that very subject. On that occasion three Liberal and National Party members signed their names to a report which called for the introduction of a national identification system in Australia. They called for the introduction of a tax file number system. Those members were Mr Blunt from the National Party of Australia, Senator Puplick from the Liberal Party of Australia, and Mr Porter, the Opposition spokesman on health. All of them said yes to a system that involved tax file numbers. Of course, Senator Puplick's impassioned address earlier today shows his concern about his own position in the Liberal Party. As a result of signing that document last May, he is afraid that he is going to have the rug pulled from under his feet just like Senator Peter Baume did last week in this place on the question of equality of opportunity. So, while three members of the coalition signed their names to a document calling for the introduction of tax file numbers, they voted against an amendment moved in this place by the Australian Democrats on 10 December last year on exactly that same subject. They did a major U-turn in the space of seven months. The Government has reintroduced the Australia Card Bill into this place without amendment. Earlier this year we had Mr Porter and Senator Haines, the Leader of the Australian Democrats, saying in the media that they would vote against this legislation whatever the Government did with it. They said that they would vote against the legislation irrespective of how the Government amended it in an attempt to get it through this place. They went on the record with very categorical statements saying that they would vote against the legislation. They said: `If you amend it, we will still vote against it'. If we had brought it into this place in an amended form, they still would have thrown it out. That is the reality-that is what they threatened to do with the legislation. I heard this phoney argument retailed again by Senator Puplick during the debate today. Of course, he is trying to redeem himself over his massive U-turn in December when he voted against the Australian Democrats' amendment in support of a tax file number, having signed the document which called for the introduction of such a system. There have been more U-turns in the Liberals' attitude to the Australia Card than in Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's road to the Prime Minister's Lodge in Canberra. The Australia Card has the potential to save $880m annually. This amount is currently lost to the Budget in welfare fraud and tax evasion. At a time of budgetary restraint-and we are in that situation now-it is very difficult to find savings which amount to $880m a year and which would, over a decade, accumulate to $4,700m. Yet the Opposition parties and the Australian Democrats are prepared to forgo this revenue by voting against this legislation. In doing so, they show that they do not want to develop more fairness in Australia; they do not want to see a fairer tax and welfare system in Australia. They want a return to the golden age of taxation when income tax was voluntary for the wealthy. The Liberals and the Nationals repeatedly go around this country and claim that the Budget deficit must be reduced. That is what they tell the Australian people. Yet, in this very place, they are prepared to oppose legislation which would allow the deficit to be cut by $880m annually. That is a reality. (Quorum formed) The Australian Democrats have been indicating in this place for the last year or so that they want to see increased social welfare spending in the community. But on a particular occasion in December they were prepared to reject the legislation which could raise the revenue for increased social welfare funding. The Liberal and Democrat opposition to the Australia Card has a common thread. That common thread is base political opportunism. The Liberals and Democrats are putting their own political priorities ahead of the interests of the Australian community. The Australia Card is an integral part of the Hawke Government's tax reform package and, as I have said before, it is the most far-reaching reform of the Australian tax system in the post-war period. The aims of the tax reform package are to restore a fairness to taxation, to restore social justice in Australia and to reduce the burden of tax on ordinary pay as you earn taxpayers. It is a long overdue package, one that the Liberals and the National Party could never have delivered. The tax reform package has reduced marginal income tax rates for ordinary pay as you earn taxpayers. It has achieved reform by introducing base-broadening measures designed to stamp out the tax avoidance practices which flourished when Mr Howard was Treasurer. The fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax, the abolition of negative gearing, the end to the free lunch-the darling of the Liberal Party-have closed loopholes and eliminated the tax rorts. We are making privilege pay in Australia. We have enabled revenue to be redistributed in the form of tax cuts. The first round occurred in December last year. The second round will occur from next July. The Australia Card is aimed at tax evasion and welfare fraud. The use of false identities is a major contributor to tax evasion in Australia. False identities and the mis-statement of financial circumstances are also a major factor behind welfare fraud. The Australia Card will provide a unique identifier of the highest integrity to each individual coupled with a photographic card of the highest security. It is designed to combat tax evasion and welfare fraud by enabling the Australian Taxation Office to draw together financial information about individuals to ensure their proper taxation assessment occurs. I simply instance the case of a number of members of this community who are believed to be drawing two incomes in different names and therefore obtaining two tax free thresholds. The tax free threshold is $5,100, so if two thresholds can be obtained that results in an enormous saving in taxation. According to Treasury figures, a stunning 8 per cent of all group certificates issued in Australia are never claimed by the individuals involved. That gives some indication of the extent of tax evasion occurring in the community. The Australia Card will contain a person's name, signature, a special identification number, the period of the card's validity and a photograph. In fact, having a photograph will make it something like the Victorian driver's licence, which has had a photograph on it for some time, or something like New South Wales drivers' licences will be in the future when the proposed photographic drivers' licences are introduced there. I must stress that it will not be compulsory to carry the card, nor will it be used as a means of general identification or as an internal passport, as claimed by some members of the Opposition. The relevant information in respect of the Australia Card will be contained on the Australia Card Register. That will be a centralised register which will contain only personal identifying data such as name, residential and postal address, date of birth, sex, digitised photo- graph and signature, and verifying information used in establishing a person's identity. Contrary to the claims of the Australia Card's opponents, the register will not be a comprehensive centralised data base. It will not contain information about a person's marital status, family composition, religion, employment or political affiliation. Information contained on the register will be confined to basic identification data already existing-I reiterate: Data already existing-for the legitimate business of government departments. Much of this existing data probably contains duplications and inaccuracies which will be resolved by the introduction of the Australia Card. Access to the information available on the Australia Card Register will be strictly limited. Only officials from the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Social Security and Medicare will have access to the register for tax linkage purposes and for establishing identification for welfare payment purposes. So only three government agencies-I repeat: Three government agencies-will have access to the information on the Australia Card Register. Access to information on the register will need to be specifically authorised and the authorisation will have to be approved by the Data Protection Agency. That will be a new watchdog body specifically established to protect the rights and the 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 it will be possible to achieve substantial revenue gains and a reduction in tax evasion from the introduction of the system. It will also be possible to achieve greater fairness, and I suppose that is the name of this particular proposal if one were to use one word to summarise it-fairness between the members of the community in contributing towards the cost of providing government services and the distribution of government welfare assistance. The Australia Card will provide a convenient means of identification with a high level of integrity without adversely affecting honest individuals-the great majority of the Australian population. The specific uses of the Australia Card are set out in this legislation. It will be mandatory for opening an account with a bank or a building society, the purchase of stocks and shares and the receipt of interest on invested funds. It will be mandatory also for employment purposes-an employer must sight the card-for obtaining Commonwealth benefits, allowances and pensions; for employment registration with the Commonwealth Employment Service; and for obtaining an Australian passport. The Australia Card will be mandatory for those purposes only. It will not be compulsory for other purposes. In fact, it will be an offence for the card to be requested by private sector bodies, State governments and law enforcement agencies. State police will not be able to ask to sight a person's Australia Card. The Government has stated categorically that it will not extend the uses or provisions of the Australia Card by stealth. Any amendments to Australia Card uses would have to be made by legislation passed in both Houses of Parliament. A nonsensical claim was made by that intellectual pygmy, the shadow spokesman on health matters, Mr Porter, some fortnight ago. (Quorum formed) Before I was so rudely interrupted by Senator Messner I was referring to his South Australian colleague the shadow Minister for Health, Mr Porter, who, I think it was on 15 March last, claimed that the Government was trying to get its foot in the door on this matter and that as soon as the Australia Card was put into effect the Government would rapidly expand the number of uses to which it would be put. I immediately investigated this matter and found that Mr Porter-and it did not surprise me-was quoting from a document which was two years old. He is two years behind the times. He was quoting from a 1985 document which was written, I understand, in the Health Insurance Commission before the Government ever made a decision about the Australia Card and which was suggesting the number of uses to which the card could be put. That document was simply an initial feasibility study document and it was rejected in the process of making a decision on the matter. So there is yet another shadow spokesman, the shadow spokesman on health, who is two years behind the times-although he is a bit ahead of Mr Howard, who, of course, in 1979 was certainly setting in train in the Treasury investigations into the setting up of an identification system. Identification cards have been used overseas-with or without a photograph-for a number of years in a range of democratic countries. Senator Kilgariff —Give us another joke! Senator MAGUIRE —Senator Kilgariff, of course, is one of the great cards in this place. Cards, with or without photographs, operate in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain and West Germany. The list goes on. They are the countries in Europe that operate some form of identification system. Of course, we can add Canada and the United States of America. I now find that Mrs Thatcher is even considering the introduction of identity cards in the United Kingdom. Mr Howard and his acolytes, generally speaking, are slavish followers of Mrs Thatcher. (Quorum formed) Senator Kilgariff —On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: The sand had run out by 30 seconds and the House is out of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —At the time the Clerk informed me that the doors should be locked, Senator Colston was coming into the chamber. I call Senator Maguire. Senator MAGUIRE —I could quote in this debate statements by three Opposition spokespersons in 1985 in support of an identification system. Mr Ray Braithwaite, the then shadow Minister for Social Security, Mr Ralph Hunt, the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, and Mr Charles Blunt, the present shadow Minister for Social Security, all issued statements in 1985 supporting the introduction of a national identification card. On 13 November 1986, despite what the Liberals have been saying in this place about the Australia Card, despite what the National Party has been saying about the introduction of the Australia Card, the Advertiser in Adelaide reported Mr Trevor Griffin, the Liberal shadow Attorney-General in South Australia-and a very close colleague of Senator Messner-as saying that identification cards with a photograph should be introduced as a means of preventing under age drinking in Australia. One of Senator Messner's very close comrades said that an ID card should be introduced as a means of preventing under age drinking in Australia. These sorts of statements show that the Opposition is prepared to sacrifice any sort of principle for short term political advantage. In South Australia the Liberals want identification cards to hit under age drinking, but when it comes to hitting tax cheats in Canberra, they will not have a bar of it. Once again the Australian Democrats will vote against legislation aimed at stamping out tax evasion. In 1983 the Democrats blocked the retrospective elements of the Hawke Government's bottom of the harbour tax legislation. This action cost the Government $570m in lost revenue. On that occasion Senator Haines and Senator Macklin, who are still members of the Senate, were the culprits. But that figure of $570m is very small indeed compared with the loss of $880m a year as a result of the blocking of the Australia Card legislation in the Senate last December. The Australian Democrats told the Australian people that they should be elected to the Parliament to keep the bastards honest, but when it comes to cracking down on tax cheats they will not keep the bastards honest. There are no practical alternatives which offer the same level of integrity or cost efficiency in cracking down on tax cheating as does the Australia Card. Tax evasion still imposes severe constraints on government spending programs. We cannot tolerate a situation where the Government is losing billions of dollars a year through tax evasion. Unfortunately, tax evasion has become entrenched in the psyche of significant sections of the community. It is clear that tax evaders will not be deterred by exhortation alone. Practical measures, such as the Australia Card, are essential if all Australians are to pay their fair share of tax. The Australia Card is long overdue. It is a vital weapon against tax cheating and welfare fraud. It will make the taxation system fairer for ordinary Australians. Mr Howard and the Liberals will not introduce a fairer taxation system. They want a return to the golden age of conservatism when income tax was voluntary for the privileged in the community. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(9.01) —On 10 December last year when the Australia Card legislation was before the Senate, I voiced my concern about this Bill. I said that I considered it to be one of the most damaging and intrusive pieces of legislation to come up in this country. I am still of that opinion, and I intend to vote against the legislation once again. It is just the same legislation that is before us this evening as was put up on the previous occasion. I do not feel it necessary to reiterate tonight all that I said on the previous occasion. However, I believe that it is an unAustralian proposition which is unacceptable to a great number of people and I do not believe that the majority of Australians really support this Bill. Why does the Government want to bring in a Bill like this? The Government says that a lot of money is lost through tax cheating and social security fraud. I do not believe that this Australia Card identity system is an effective way to beat the tax and social security cheats. Senator Bolkus —You are not worried about tax cheats. What about Queensland? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I have no desire to protect tax cheats, illegal immigrants, the cash economy or social welfare fraud. I believe that all Australians have a responsibility to pay their taxes, as I do, and as I am sure Senator Bolkus, who keeps on interrupting, does, because we have to. People want to be honest with the social welfare system. If they are not, I believe that they should be justly punished. I am as opposed as anybody else to those who defraud this country of billions of dollars each year, but it is the way in which the Government has sought to deal with these people that upsets me. The purported aim of the Australia Card Bill is to create a national system of identification to facilitate the administration and operation of Commonwealth laws relating to taxation, social security, medical and hospital benefits and immigration. But it will do far more than that. I believe that the Australia Card is a very sinister intrusion into the privacy and freedom of all Australians, and these we very much treasure. It is Big Brother alive and well in 1987. Senator Robert Ray —Your bodyguard has turned up. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I am very pleased to see Senator Boswell come into the chamber. I believe that he will not interfere or interject in the same way as Labor Party members have been interjecting on me. I think that they are all very annoyed because quorums have been called, so they decided that they would stay and give me a hard time. But that is all right. At least I enjoy having somebody take an interest in what I am saying. That is very important indeed. Many prominent Australians have raised serious concern about the invasion of privacy involved in a national ID card. Justice Michael Kirby and Mr Frank Costigan are two people I can name in that regard. I point out that the ID card is an extravagant, expensive and bureaucratic waste of taxpayers' money. On the Government's figures alone it is estimated that it will cost $1 billion to set up. Those are the Government's figures. I draw attention to the fact also that when the new Parliament House cost was estimated it was nothing like the $1 billion that it will cost now. It has blown out of all proportion and it certainly leaves me wondering by how much the cost of the Australia Card could blow out. Another point that is not mentioned very often is the cost to private industry. The Australian Labor Party does not care about private industry at all, so it would not worry if it was a great cost to private industry. There is no doubt that it will cost private industry an enormous sum of money. An additional $2 billion has even been suggested. What about the 2,000 or more public servants who will be required for the administration of the card, as well as the cost to State and local governments? I do not think that the Labor Party has taken that into consideration at all. Senator Boswell —They don't understand business. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I agree with Senator Boswell, who is an expert on small business. The Labor Party does not know too much about business at all, it knows only about trade unions. According to the Labor Party, the Australia Card supposedly, firstly, will reduce tax avoidance; secondly, reduce social welfare fraud; thirdly, expose organised crime; and fourthly, reduce illegal immigration. It is extremely doubtful that the Australia Card will do any such thing. The Australian Taxation Office cannot even give accurate estimates of the amount of revenue that might be saved by an ID card, but no ID card system can stamp out the major unchecked area of evasion, namely, the cash economy. Senator Robert Ray —Howard in 1979 supported it. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —If all Senator Ray can complain about is what John Howard did in 1979, that is a pretty poor response, as far as I am concerned. The Department of Social Security has confirmed that an ID card will do little to solve social security fraud, because most fraud takes the form of overpayment of benefits, not false identity. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has said that the ID card is not likely to do much at all to prevent illegal immigration. What we desperately need to combat social security fraud is better management of the Department of Social Security. If it followed its own identification procedures to the letter, fraud would be greatly restricted. I read a little piece in the paper about that today. While there is a case for requiring welfare recipients to be identified, I cannot see why people who have never drawn welfare in their lives should have to have an ID card. People like that should not be lumped in with those people who cheat the welfare system. That is very wrong. Indeed, public discussion of the measure has been quite inadequate. How many people know that the Australia Card Bill runs to 130 closely printed pages? Senator Robert Ray —I do. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —If Senator Ray wants to make a speech, let him get up afterwards and say something. He can talk about my speech then. How many people realise that this measure will authorise and require the most extraordinary invasions of privacy of every Australian; however innocent he or she may be of any welfare or tax cheating? The penalties for failure to comply will be harsh-$20,000 if the ID card is not produced when opening a deposit account with any financial institution. I believe that people who are on social security should have to report before they can collect their social security payments. This should also apply to people who are on the dole. I really believe that all those who are getting the dole should have to report before they can collect the money. Cheques should not be sent off to them while they are having a lovely time lying on beaches somewhere up in north Queensland. I have always believed that people should work before they can get the dole. Senator Robert Ray —What did Joh do to get the 400 grand off Bond? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —That has nothing to do with this ID card. The National Party of Australia supports genuine efforts to crack down further on tax avoidance, social welfare fraud, organised crime and illegal immigration, but it believes that there are more effective, less costly and less intrusive ways of achieving those ends. In order to get a card in the first place one will have to have a photograph taken. I accept the fact that up in Queensland one now has to have a photograph taken in order to get a drivers licence, but this card will have every little bit of information about a person on it and I do not believe that that is necessary. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) said on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio that everyone will have a card, regardless of age. Senator Macklin —Georges has got a card and I have got one too. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Yes, I received one too this afternoon, Senator Macklin, but I do not intend to carry it around all the same. I wonder whether it would perhaps be better to put a brand on one's head or wrist or something like that if the Government is so concerned about having all the information on the identity card. Despite what the Government has said, the possibilities of duplication of the ID card are enormous. It has been suggested that there are already tens of thousands of duplicate Medicare cards in circulation. The fact that the ID card will have to be updated every few years could mean that there will be duplication of cards in abundance within a number of years. It would be very naive for us to believe that there will be no forgeries of the ID card. Of course there will be. Almost all businesses and industries will have to change their systems and this will especially hit the small business sector. I know that Senator Boswell will be very upset about that. The banks will need to change their customer account systems to allow information to be supplied to the Australian Taxation Office in the form required. Senator Maguire said that it would not be compulsory to carry the card. Perhaps it will not be compulsory but, as I understand it, under Labor's proposals one will have to present the card if one wants to deposit or withdraw money from a bank, be admitted as an in-patient to a hospital, get a job, claim Medicare benefits or sell primary produce through a marketing authority. What will happen to someone who sells cattle through television sales? How will the Government manage to cope with that? These are all such silly ideas. One will need to produce the card to buy or sell real estate or if one deals in any financial transaction such as buying or selling of shares. In other words, unless one wants to be inconvenienced one will have to carry the ID card at all times. I do not believe that that is right. The business community has already pointed out that the legislation in its present form is unworkable. I have received many letters from the business community about this and I have no doubt that Government senators have also received them. I would not be surprised if Dr Blewett himself received such letters. That is probably why he decided that he would make amendments to the Bill. However, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Labor Caucus said: `Do not do that. Take it back to the Senate just as it is so that it will be grounds for a double dissolution. If it does not pass it we can have it as a double dissolution Bill'. For some reason the Prime Minister has now decided in his wisdom-what wisdom he has-that he will not have a double dissolution election. That is very nice of him. It will give us a lot of time to get organised. The Prime Minister did not take any notice of Dr Blewett's amendments. The legislation was reintroduced in its original form. It is not going to be used now as a trigger for a double dissolution but in any case I have no intention of changing my mind and voting for this legislation to introduce an Australia Card. I want to put that on record. I thank honourable senators opposite for helping to make my speech much more interesting than it would have been if they had not been in the chamber listening to me. I intend to vote against the Australia Card Bill as I did on the previous occasion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator West I remind honourable senators that this will be Senator West's first speech in this place and I ask that the usual courtesies be extended. Senator WEST(New South Wales)(9.17) —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. Before I commence my speech on the Australia Card Bill I would like to take the opportunity to thank those who supported my entry into this place, especially my parents and my husband. I also wish to pay tribute to my predecessor, the Hon. Douglas McClelland, who I know will do a sterling job representing Australia at the Aus- tralian High Commission in London. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all honourable senators when I wish him the best of times there. The Australia Card is an issue in which I have had an interest and an involvement from day one. Prior to my entry into this place I worked for the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) in the other place. It is well known in many places and by many people that David Simmons is the father of the Australia Card. I discussed the proposition of a national identification card with him prior to his taking it to the Australian Labor Party Caucus in April of 1985 as a notice of motion and I was delighted to see the subsequent acceptance of it by the Caucus. We remember the delight we experienced when it was actually incorporated as a part of the tax package later that year. But more importantly, I remember the reception it received from members of parliament of the conservative parties. There was a lot of favourable comment and support and I remember the public statements of support from Opposition members of parliament and candidates. In fact, I have a selection of quotes from Opposition members of this chamber and the other place and if I have time towards the end of my speech I might remind people of what was said then. One Opposition member in another place even advocated the use of fingerprints to obtain an accurate national identification system. Something has happened since then because we have seen in the conservative parties a change in attitude. They are no longer gung ho about the issue. They are opposed to its introduction. The matter was referred to the Joint Committee on an Australia Card chaired by Senator Terry Aulich. The report of that Committee was not unanimous but even the report signed by Opposition members of the Committee referred to essential reforms. These essential reforms included the computerisation of all birth, death and marriage certificates and the accessing of those records by certain Federal Government departments. Such provisions are included in the current Bill. In rejecting the Bill before the Senate, honourable senators opposite who agreed on the need for computerisation of birth, death and marriage certificates will reject this important step. In fact, Mr Blunt and Mr Porter in the other place both called for the use of birth and marriage certificates now as methods of identification and for centralising and computerisation of birth, death and marriage records. In 30 out of the last 36 years the Opposition parties have had the opportunity to come forward with the reputable method which they now oppose and criticise. The report also calls for the Commonwealth to establish an independent statutory body, known as the Data Protection Agency, to control the collection and use of personal data. The Data Protection Agency is incorporated in this Bill, yet still the Opposition is opposing the introduction of the Bill. The agency will be a watchdog to protect against infringements of personal privacy. It will play a pivotal role in the Government's commitment to providing citizens with a right to information and a mechanism to ensure accountability of all officials. The creation of the agency is a manifestation of the Government's firm determination that citizens in Australia maintain their civil liberties at a time when computer technology may be seen as putting their individual privacy under unprecedented threat. The Data Protection Agency will have a number of very important functions, including the reviewing of decisions made by the Health Insurance Commission on Australia Card matters; the investigation of complaints about any infringements of privacy arising from the Australia Card program; and the issuing of guidelines controlling the use of cards, the accuracy of data and the confidentiality of information. I would suggest that the Australia Card will be the only system which will have in-built confidentiality and privacy safeguards. We all have a number of credit cards on us. I challenge honourable senators to tell me how much access they have to the information that is stored on their files relating to those cards. I challenge honourable senators to tell me to whom or to what organisation that information may be given or sold. We are all aware of credit agencies and of the apparent cross-flow of information between these bodies. I find it offensive to receive unsolicited letters or visits from people or organisations seeking to sell me things. Probably the most interesting campaign that I experienced was the American Express campaign when it was targeting professional females to become carriers of American Express cards. I do not know where it got my name from and I do not know any more about it. All I know is that on several occasions a letter addressed to me arrived in the mail-the first time I sent it back with a cursory note-and American Express invited me to join that organisation. It then invited me to provide it with all this information: My name, age, sex, marital status, occupation, who my employer was, what my salary was, where I lived, where I lived five years ago or some such information, and almost where I planned to live in five years time, whether I drove a car and what my commitments were. All of this sort of information was requested of me. I might add that I did not take up this offer. Interestingly, and something that causes me to wonder, is that if I had filled in that form, what rights would I have had to check that that information was correctly recorded. We all know that when we receive Bankcards or Visa cards directly from our banks-it has happened to me, as I have received cards in the mail and I have used them-we have been given a credit limit. The banks have also been able to write to me some time later and say: `Your credit limit has been raised'. I can understand that I probably have a good credit rating with the banks, but it still does not sit very freely or happily with me. It is an invasion of my privacy. I know that I do not have the right to inspect my full file on this. I would also ask honourable senators opposite to tell me what access they have to check the information that is kept on computer files by private organisations with which they may or may not have an agreement. I did not have an agreement with American Express but it was certainly chasing me up. People appear happy to have a wallet full of credit cards and to enter into various arrangements and yet have no access to the information that is stored, to check its accuracy or to look at who else has access to that particular file. Yet those opposite come in here and complain about the invasion of privacy which they claim will occur under the Australia Card. Here we have a simple identification card of high integrity which has the protection of the Data Protection Agency. This means that the carrier is entitled to know and see what is held on his or her file and to know who has accessed that file. Every time the file is accessed it must be recorded. The Data Protection Agency also gives us the right to correct incorrect information. The report also called for the Department of Social Security to conduct a progressive review of proof of identity for all existing pension recipients and all current unemployment beneficiaries whose claims were determined before the introduction of the new procedures. In their speeches in the other place Mr Blunt and Mr Porter called for similar action. The same thing has been called for here. It has failed to be acknowledged that the Department of Social Security has tightened up quite considerably the proof required to establish identity. There are reviews under way to check the long term unemployed. The work test is being applied and has been tightened up. Surely honourable senators know from the constituents coming across their doors that low income people are sometimes experiencing difficulties now in providing the information necessary to prove their identity. Surely they know that three pieces of identifying material are required to be produced. The poor people feel that their civil liberties are already reduced. As Senator Aulich said, civil rights and liberties are the property of the middle class. There is a widely held perception in the community that it is all too easy to defraud the social security system and that far too many people do just that, either by way of false identity or by not declaring income received. In short, the community no longer has confidence that its tax dollar is doing what it should for those in need or even going to those in need. This is not a new concern. It has been spoken about for quite some time. When we introduce a method to overcome the problem we find that we are being opposed. By association, even honest and needy welfare recipients are often unfairly classified as cheats. Using the card will reduce social security cheating. It will greatly increase community respect for all genuinely needy pensioners and beneficiaries. It will increase public confidence in the value of the Government's welfare programs. It will make the community more accepting of the need to pay taxes to support the genuinely needy. It will allow the billions of dollars clawed back from the welfare cheats and, I might say, from the tax avoiders and evaders, to be redistributed to the genuinely needy, raising their standard of living. More jobs will also be created for the unemployed by forcing many illegal immigrants out of employment. Establishing identity conclusively is a problem for many pensioners and beneficiaries. Having established their identity once to obtain a card, such persons will find it much easier to establish or re-establish their identity with the Department of Social Security on an ongoing basis. The Opposition talked freely about using people's birth and marriage certificates as proof of identity. That would mean that honest people would be forced to disclose things they may not feel are the business of clerks or the Government, things such as children born out of wedlock and parents who have never married. As someone who is very involved in family research, I know how sensitive people can be to these matters. Yet those opposite do not seem to care very much about the feelings of people. The methods they propose will cause a great deal of unnecessary hurt and embarrassment to people every time they have to produce these documents to prove their identity. In the majority report there is talk of extending the use of tax files numbers to cover all financial transactions proposed in the Government's submission for the use of the Australia Card number by the Australian Taxation Office as well as for social security purposes. The report also calls for increased integrity in the Medicare system and, obviously, the continuation of an independent register for Medicare. There is no talk of cost. What appears to be wanted is a duplication of the system. I put it to honourable senators that that would not involve a small cost. Probably the only point of divergence between the report and this Bill is to call for the tax file number integrity to be upgraded to that of the proposed Australia Card number-in other words, the tax file number versus the Australia Card number. The majority recommendation in chapter 4.12 (d) (iii) states that all other taxpayers and persons who do not currently possess a tax file number verify their identification to the same level of integrity as proposed under the Australia Card. This, to me, indicates a couple of things. Obviously the integrity of the Australia Card is not in question. It is a system of high integrity. They also appear to believe that the Australia Card system and the integrity involved therein are something that should be emulated by the tax file number. Another point, however, is that that statement appears to have greater faith in the human nature of tax avoiders and evaders than has previously been established. I want to know how we are to identify those taxpayers or persons who do not have a tax file number. Are we to go out into the community and say: `Hands up those who don't have a tax file number or who aren't paying tax'? For the last 86 years such people have not paid tax to the Federal Government and I do not see that they will change because we think they should. Several million unclaimed group certificates are sitting in Taxation Office offices around Australia-obviously unclaimed by people who are not able to be identified by their taxation returns. People are moonlighting and working under assumed names. I suggest that they will never be found by the Taxation Office to be given a tax file number. They do not want to be found, to start with. If we were to plan to catch them we would need an absolute army of people to police this. No member of the Opposition has ever said how this would be policed or at what cost. For an Opposition that is claiming to be about cutting government spending and cutting the size of the public sector I want to know how it would get greater integrity into the tax file number and also police and chase up those without numbers and chase up the avoiders and the evaders. Under its policy of cutting government spending and the number of public sector employees, is this something else that will be privatised? The Taxation Office also readily admits that the tax file number was never intended as a unique identification number. There are numerous false identities in the system, and the lack of documentation, secure or otherwise, effectively removes from users the ability to ensure that the number presented is the rightful number of the bearer. In Mr Porter's contribution in the other place he said: We will require all interest-paying institutions to record the name, address and date of birth of account holders so the information can be matched with tax returns. There is no mention of how it is expected that institutions will verify that the names, addresses and dates of birth are accurate. I also say that a number of people-it is commonly said that it is women who do not like their ages being made public-are not too fussed about their dates of birth being public property. One presumes that if one of the pieces of information does not match the account will not be matched to the tax file. The paper work of cross-referencing all this is mind-boggling, especially when one realises that it could all be matched together very simply by the use of the Australia Card. May I ask members of the Parliament here, in relation to this Bill, how many addresses they operate out of and maybe how many names they operate under. I operate out of my residential address and, as I have just been married and moved address, two addresses are still kicking around on pieces of paper. I operate out of an electorate office with a street number. I operate a post office box for work. I also have a Parliament House address and phone numbers. The work of having to collate all of those different variables is monumental, and it would be far more expensive than the use of the Australia Card. The Australia Card will ensure that people who hold those accounts are who they say they are and that there is a common link between the individual and his sources of income. The Opposition shadow Minister also mentioned, as did honourable senators opposite, that the Opposition would impose strict identification procedures on recipients of social security payments, requiring the use of prime documents such as birth, marriage and citizenship certificates. They failed to say when they intend to do anything about improving the integrity of those documents. They have had 30 years out of the past 36 years to do something about it. Very interestingly, today's Bulletin published a poll. The good old `Bullie' has been around for many years. I think that the statistics that it came up with are well worth considering. They show that, in November of last year, 66 per cent of people polled supported the introduction of an ID card. In March of this year, 69 per cent of people surveyed supported an ID card. Fifty-seven per cent of Liberal Party voters were in favour of an ID card and 82 per cent of Australian Labor Party voters. That shows good sense on the part of ALP members. An interesting little number did not give a voting preference. However, 70 per cent of swinging voters favour the introduction of an ID card. Those figures are very significant. It indicates to me that the average person is sick and tired of social security overpayments and tax avoidance and evasion. This Government is offering a solution to help overcome the problems. That solution is one of high integrity and it has safeguards for privacy. The Opposition is offering a weak alternative which will not be as cost effective, and which offers no protection of privacy. In fact, it will cause hurt, anguish, worry and embarrassment to many honest people, especially the aged and poor in our community. Senator Bjelke-Petersen said that the card was intrusive. I wish to quote from a media release of 13 January 1985 by the Hon. Neville Harper, the then Minister for Justice and Attorney-General in Queensland. The Press release stated: The first 146 Queenslanders eligible to obtain an electoral identification card should receive letters inviting them to apply for the card later this week. Eighteen year old Queenslanders who decide to apply for the identity card will have a photograph taken at either the Chief Electoral Office in Brisbane or at selected Court Houses throughout the State . . . The Government hoped that by providing the Electoral identity card to eighteen year olds, the incidence of under-age drinking would be substantially reduced, as publicans and operations of other licensed premises such as restaurants and discos would be able to obtain conclusive proof of age from people they suspected might not be of legal drinking age. The cards will contain a photograph of the holder together with their date of birth and signature. Mr Harper urged young people who turned eighteen to apply for enrolment on the State Electoral roll and for their identity card as soon as possible after their eighteenth birthday and not to wait until just before an election. We also heard how Queensland has introduced, or is about to introduce, photographic licences. I fully commend those steps; I do not oppose them at all. However, I want to know what privacy, what rights, people whose photographs are taken and upon whom, obviously, there is a file will have to check that the information is, firstly, correct and, secondly, who else has access to it and what it actually says. I could not stress that important point too often. We also heard that the card will cost private industry $2 billion a year, I think. Those figures are totally inaccurate. They are based on a false premise. They were based on some very early estimations as to what the cost might be to the public sector when about 16 or 18 departments were likely to be involved. We know that only three departments will be involved and that, therefore, the cost will be much lower. Therefore, the figure of $2 billion is obviously just plucked out of the air. There have also been comments flying around that 2,000 extra public servants will have to be employed. Some extra public servants will be employed on a contract basis to start the ball rolling. What we do not hear from the Opposition is how many extra public servants will be required to implement all its calls for greater safeguards, increased policing and all these types of things. We hear nothing about that. Those questions have to be answered by the Opposition. We also keep hearing that there will not be many great savings in social security. That is, of course, completely inaccurate. The Government has not stated that there will be no savings. Department officials have said that it is difficult to quantify the extent of welfare fraud and therefore the level of savings. However, a number of specific large false identity cases provide a pointer to the extent of the problem. As the Joint Select Committee said: While the Committee accepts the Department's difficulty in establishing the amount of social security fraud due to false identities, it believes there is still significant fraud within this area. The Committee is concerned about the cases involving individuals with large numbers of false identities which come to light from time to time. I might add that this is part of the Committee's report which was signed by everybody. The Committee went on to say: During the inquiry the Committee became aware of a number of unsourced estimates of social security fraud ranging between $200-$500 million per annum. These figures gain further support from a recent internal paper prepared by the Department. These figures exist and those opposite are ignoring them. That is something we cannot do. Senator Bjelke-Petersen spoke also of favouring work for the dole-for unemployment benefit-and also having to report to the Department of Social Security to receive payments. I suggest to the honourable senator that this poses problems for people who live in rural areas where there are no Commonwealth Employment Service or Social Security offices-small isolated rural areas where there is not a great deal of employment and where employment is casual. The honourable senator is expecting those people to report to the Department to collect money. It has been said also by an Opposition member in another place that he thinks it is a good idea for people just to sweep the streets three times a day and it would not matter if the same section of the street was swept. Those things are very degrading and humiliating to people. If they are genuinely unemployed-and with the Australia Card we will reduce fraudulent social security payments-that is adding humiliation and degradation to a situation in which they are already experiencing difficulties. I would like to conclude by mentioning some interesting things that have happened in relation to groups opposed to the introduction of an Australia Card. When I was working for the honourable member for Calare a number of groups opposed to the introduction of the card wrote letters to the office. All these groups received a reply but it was very interesting to receive the letters back from the post office marked `No such number', `caravan park' or `not known at this address'. They raised some rather interesting questions in the backs of our minds about why these people were opposed to the introduction of a national identification system. In finishing, I will quote comments that many people make to me when they learn that I support the introduction of an Australia Card. The most frequent comment is: `I have nothing to hide. I am proud of my identity, of my name. I am proud of being an Australian and anyone in opposition to an identity card has something to hide.' Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(9.44) —I congratulate Senator West on her maiden speech. I observe that the Senate treated her as a political maiden in her speech. Despite the controversial nature of the debate, she was treated in an appropriate way. She did challenge the Opposition on certain aspects of the Australia Card, and perhaps later on in my speech I will respond to some of those challenges. When the Australia Card Bill was first debated last year I was, unfortunately, not able to participate in the debate as I was in South America at an Inter-Parliamentary Union conference representing the Australian Parliament. When the Australia Card was first suggested I was not entirely opposed to the idea, as a majority of the coalition shadow ministry was. Senator Aulich —At least you gave it a hearing before they garrotted you. Senator JESSOP —I certainly want to apprehend tax cheats and dole bludgers as much as anyone else in this Senate. When the Australia Card was initially proposed I thought it would help to do just that. However, the cynicism of Ministers, members and senators of the Government has reached a peak in their bringing this deficient Bill back to the chamber. I am not surprised that many in the community support the idea of an identification card, because the Government has concentrated on the card itself rather than on the information system lurking behind the card, as Senator Georges would appreciate. Leaving that aside, Senator Richardson cited the Morgan poll published today in the latest Bulletin, which shows that support for the card has risen by 3 per cent since the last poll, in November 1986. I believe the poll was a disgrace to Mr Morgan, who can only share with the Hawke Government the blame for obscuring the nature of the proposed surveillance system. The Bulletin said: A cross-section of 897 people aged 14 and over was interviewed on March 21 and 22 for the poll. Respondents were first told the government is considering providing everyone with an Australia Card, which will look like a credit card or a Medicare card and will contain only essential information such as name, identification number and, for people over 18, a colour photograph. They were then asked, `Do you favour or oppose the introduction of these identification cards?' Those surveyed were then asked, `It's been said the card is an invasion of privacy. Do you agree or disagree with that?' Not only is Mr Morgan guilty of misrepresenting the nature of this system for which the card is but a front but also he has demonstrated just how unprofessional he is-a fact which I trust businessmen thinking of doing business with him will bear in mind. The result of the poll not only reflects a lack of professionalism on the part of Mr Morgan but at the same time denotes one of the difficulties being experienced by a number of organisations that are endeavouring to demonstrate the dangers of the card to the public. Many people are ignorant of the true nature of the individual identification system called the Australia Card because Dr Blewett has misrepresented the nature of the system. There is no doubt that once people understand that there is an ominous shadow lurking behind this benign sounding card, they will change their minds about its desirability. Since the early days when the card was first suggested I have investigated the whole concept of this system much more carefully. I am now totally opposed to it for the following reasons: Firstly, the Australia Card will set up a centralised data system or register on virtually every Australian citizen under the pretext of preventing a small minority of people from abusing the tax and social security systems. I believe that there are more direct and less expensive ways of targeting these cheats without having to invade the privacy of every Australian. Secondly, the Government says that the Australia Card is not an internal passport and that people can be required to produce the card only by certain authorities. However, the Government knows full well that once the card becomes operative its use will spread into all facets of Australian life just as it has done in Sweden. Senator West, for example, should profit by the Swedish experience. In that connection, the privacy committee of her State of New South Wales recorded the following quotation from a Swedish journalist: In Sweden the social code numbers float around everywhere. They are used in libraries and book clubs, by credit card companies and insurance companies, they turn up on all sorts of private and public identity cards, public transport cards included. Your football club your chess club and the political party you belong to, all take up your social card number, every Swedish citizen is caught in a cobweb of computerised information, just waiting for the spider. I think Senator Georges would like that quote. In 1976, in response to public concern about privacy and data protection, the Swedish Government seriously considered abandoning its national ID numbering system but predictably the high cost of eliminating it from the entrenched position that it held in Swedish society ensured that the system would survive. Early last year 15,000 Swedes discovered that they were un- knowing guinea pigs in a `cradle to grave' survey. The project continued under three successive governments over a period of 20 years. The numbers of most Swedes are recorded on over 100-believe it or not-databanks in the public and private sectors. Recorded medical, educational, welfare, police, employment and other records were assessed without consent in a massive secret, sociological study called Project Metropolitan. Unbelievably, Swedish government authorities had waived privacy restrictions to allow that study. Records were finally de-identified after a split decision of the Data Inspection Board. The sociologist said that it was far too costly to get consent and that the subjects of most interest to them might refuse. In Sweden privacy is shrinking and data protection specialists are increasingly worried about the computerised future, according to a Mr Jan Freese, who is the retiring Chairman of the Swedish Data Inspection Board. He said: The side effects of information technology were little thought of by its pioneers. The Swedish public sector, according to Freese, has become `a dangerous benevolent bureaucracy'. Another authority referred to Sweden as a nation of contented slaves. The Data Inspection Board, to which I think Senator West referred although she did not call it a board, upon which the Hawke Government's Data Protection Agency is modelled, has unanimously found that privacy protection in Sweden has become more limited. Mr Freese added that hucksters in the public sector information temples, as he put it, have taken it upon themselves to sell more and more information about Swedish citizens. For example, change of address information is sold by the Swedish Post Office to direct mail organisations. Senator West said she has three or four addresses. Government senators who believe that a data protection agency will prevent this erosion of citizens' privacy should heed this final quotation of Mr Freese: It may be looked upon as a timidity for me to leave after a dozen years as head of the Data Inspection Board. I knew what I was going when I reached my decision. To jump off the merry-go-round when you can no longer control the speed, can also be looked upon as responsibility-responsibility not to take further responsibility. A Swedish-Australian from Cooma contacted my office last week to beg me to vote against this Bill. He had sent his daughter to Sweden for one year's schooling and he claimed that while she was in Sweden she had to produce her card before she could even hire a horse to have a ride. As for the claim for detecting crime in Sweden, it must be said that the Swedish card certainly has not helped its police force to solve the cowardly murder of the Prime Minister of Sweden. An administration which introduces such a system into a liberal democracy, in the face of experiences in Sweden and other European countries with card systems, simply cannot be trusted with the confidentiality of a mass of personal information about the citizens of this country. The implementation of this legislation would mean that certain bureaucrats could invade the very soul of any citizen in Australia without any recourse to the courts to prove that such an invasion of privacy would be in the public interest. If this Bill is ever enacted, the Australia public will learn that the precious freedoms that have been won through the centuries and handed down by our forebears for our safe-keeping will be lost forever. I mentioned the Privacy Committee of New South Wales. It was established by the New South Wales Government in 1975. Its purpose was to oversee the whole range of both public and private sector issues impinging upon the privacy of citizens. It is arguably the most expert body in the world today on the subject of privacy. When the identity card was first mooted at the National Taxation Summit, that particular Privacy Committee, which really had some expertise on the subject, said that the Government should examine very carefully the implications of it. The Committee said that it stood very solidly by its prediction that within a relatively short time the card will be an internal passport. The community should realise that tax evasion and social security fraud can be prevented by other means which the Opposition has outlined in the brochure `Oppose Canberra's un-Australian Card' which was issued by the shadow Minister for Health, Mr James Porter. We believe in the Opposition that tax evasion is better handled by improving the efficiency of the Australian Taxation Office. The Government has announced, I understand not long ago, a program costing about $700m to do just that. Unfortunately, during 1988-89 only $148m will be spent. The total sum will not be committed until the mid-1990s. The Opposition, of course, would suggest that that process should be speeded up significantly. The Opposition's plan would save the community something like $2.4 billion and raise an additional $329m in the first 10 years. The cynicism behind the Hawke Government is best demonstrated by its ignoring the advice from the Australian Bankers Association. That advice suggested that without substantive amendments, the banks would not be able to incorporate the use of the card into their banking systems. The legislation-the Australia Card Bill 1986 as it has been presented for second time to this Parliament-raises problems for a wide range of banking transactions. As Mr Allen Cullen, the Director of the Bankers Association stated, the bank systems, which range from sophisticated technology to primitive manual operations, could not deal with the legislative requirement that the card be produced for all transactions. Earlier this year the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, said that he intended to introduce amendments to the Bill to satisfy the bankers' complaints and the complaints of those who were concerned about civil liberties and so on. The Minister, of course, was ignored entirely by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who cunningly brought the Bill back to the Senate without giving effect to the Minister's suggested amendments, well knowing that the Bill was deficient because of the inadequacy of its original form. This is not only a cynical act; it is an act of contempt towards the Senate, the Parliament and the people of Australia as a whole. Of course, the Prime Minister has treated the Senate with contempt before. But I think this act of bringing the legislation back in a cynical way surpasses all previous attempts to demonstrate contempt for the Senate. I think this demonstrably illustrates the Prime Minister's arrogance and ignorance. Senator Tate announced today that the Prime Minister has decided not to hold an early election. I hope that the people of Australia now believe this to be true. They have heard the Prime Minister say on more than one occasion that he intends going the full parliamentary term. The Bill has been presented in this manner deliberately because when defeated in the Senate it would have provided the Prime Minister with a trigger for a double dissolution. He would then be able to blame the Opposition for the ensuing early election and this would get him off the hook as far as breaking his promise was concerned. It would have enabled him to make the Australia Card an issue at the election and divert attention from the high interest rates, the escalating national debt, the increasing number of homeless people in Australia, an ever increasing number of bankruptcies and the many other indications of the financial and administrative ineptitude of the Government. Regrettably, many people in the community believed that if this Bill had been defeated in the Senate this week it would have been finished and the Australian people would have been saved from this draconian measure forever more. That may well be the case now but this was not the case while there was any chance of a double dissolution. It was because of the risk involved in respect of a double dissolution that I asked my colleagues, and Senator Townley did the same, to look carefully at the tactics that the coalition would employ in regard to this Bill. The facts are that if the Prime Minister had used the double dissolution trigger as a result of passage of the Australia Card Bill being refused and the Labor Party had won that subsequent early election, the Bill could have been brought back to the Parliament and passed either in its present form, if the Government had control of the Senate, or in an amended form if the Government did not control the Senate. However, if the Labor Party did not have the numbers in the Senate it could have then put the Bill to a joint sitting of the Parliament, which is provided for on double dissolution issues, and, when carried, the Government would have had three years in which to act. It could have brought in the card almost immediately and put into operation the computerised information system implied by it, regardless of its inefficiency and regardless of its unpalatable nature. That is why I agree with Mr Colquhoun, who wrote an article in the Advertiser last week. I quote from the article: For a Government to use a major change in our society to exploit an electoral opportunity is a spectacular example of what gives politics a bad name in this country. I agree with that entirely. As this Parliament will now run its normal term, the Prime Minister having now confirmed his often repeated undertaking, there is no doubt that the coalition will win the next election, and win it handsomely. I am aware that Mr Hawke has a great personal desire to become the longest serving Labor Prime Minister. He has to wait until 17 August this year before, in terms of time, he equals his superior, the late Mr Ben Chifley. I heard one of my colleagues say that he had to wait until January, but I have checked that date and it is 17 August this year. I also understand that the Prime Minister was pressured by people from the left wing not to introduce this measure. I know that Senator Bolkus and Senator Georges, who is now an Independent, would have objected to its introduction. I understand that the Prime Minister was seriously contemplating calling a double dissolution but that he and his minders became confused, as I am, about the chances of Labor winning in May this year. Reflecting on the method of polling used by Mr Morgan over this card, I can now understand why the polls are so unreliable. I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement because it will mean the death of this monstrous piece of legislation. Mr Hawke will now break the late Mr Ben Chifley's record term as a Labor Prime Minister, but I fear that no one will ever equate the two. I emphasise to all Australians that the only way to ensure that this surveillance system, deceptively known as the Australia Card, is never implemented is to vote for the coalition at the next Federal election. I hope that my colleagues and particularly all those people who have written to me about the card in the last few weeks will strenuously continue their efforts to persuade the people of Australia that we do not need a surveillance card, even if it is green and gold and otherwise camouflaged as something akin to a credit card or the Medicare card. Senator Cook —You are not reading this, are you? Senator JESSOP —No, I never read speeches. I keep all the information in my mind. In conclusion, I hope the Government has learned its lesson. It has certainly looked at the polls indicating that 78 per cent of the people of Australia want it to run its full term. That may have had some influence in its decision. Senator Cook —Sixty-nine per cent want the Australia Card. Senator JESSOP —That may be so, but I believe that by the end of this year, as a result of the efforts of members of this side of the House, who will demonstrate time and again the underlying sinister purpose of this Government in relegating the people of Australia to having to wear dog registration cards, as my colleague Senator Durack very effectively put it the other night, the polls will be reversed in that respect. Nevertheless, the people of Australia already recognise that the only way for Australia to recover from the economic chaos which is evident under the administration of the Hawke Government will be to elect the coalition at the next Federal election. We will demonstrate, as we have in the past, economic expertise and knowledge that will restore Australia's economy to its proper position in the world and, I believe, restore to the people of Australia the confidence that they should be able to expect from a responsible Government. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(10.10) —I am pleased to rise to support the Australia Card Bill 1986 (No. 2). In some ways this second opportunity to debate the legislation gives a great opportunity to address again the points raised by the Opposition-largely utter nonsense and misrepresentation that it has put before us-both in this series of speeches and in its first time around. To Senator Jessop I must say that it is a brave man who takes on critiquing such research polls as the Morgan gallup poll. While we may not sometimes like what it finds out for us, I have not yet understood the Morgan poll to be an insufficient poll or improper in the way it conducts itself. In fact, I thought it was supposed to be one of the more professional polls in this country and I am sure that the Morgan gallup people will be delighted to read what Senator Jessop had to say about them. (Quorum formed) My first remarks were directed to the comments of Senator Jessop in criticising the Morgan poll. I was just suggesting that the Morgan poll people will be edified no end to read Hansard tomorrow and discover the rude remarks Senator Jessop made about them and their professional competence. But I will leave them to defend themselves. However, I think the more important point is what that poll found out. That seems to be the offensive item that Senator Jessop most particularly objected to. The figures were read to the Senate by Senator West in her speech and I will say them again. Senator Cook —An excellent speech. Senator CROWLEY —Indeed, it was an excellent speech. The figures state that, whereas previously 66 per cent of Australians supported the Australia Card, that figure is now 69 per cent. That seems to be the issue that Senator Jessop was most offended by. Sixty-nine per cent of Australians on a random survey Morgan poll said yes, that they supported the introduction of an identity card, the Australia Card. Nothing that the Opposition has said, either this time around or last time, is new. There is nothing startling, nothing convincing and nothing to cause us to agree with it. The arguments continue to be based on lies, misrepresentation and scaremongering. That is because they are deeply divided on the issue and in many cases they are divided within themselves. Early support from Opposition members-and I will quote some shortly-is now turned to justifying the opposite view. They have done a complete somersault. Who most has done that complete somersault if not John Howard, the current Leader of the Opposition? I have here a copy of a transcript of AM which was cited earlier by Senator Maguire. A clear understanding of John Howard's setting up an investigation into an ID card system on 31 May 1979 was read on AM this morning by one Michael Dodd. He said in his remarks that the documentation shows that the Fraser Cabinet embarked on its investigation of an ID card system on 31 May 1979. It cites a number and it says further that Mr Howard wrote that an interdepartmental committee under the auspices of the Public Service Board had been established to report on an identity card system and the Committee at one stage went overseas to collect the information. The interview then progressed and Mr Howard was asked whether that was true. He replied: `Yes, it was true that that investigation had been started.' Mr Howard was asked whether he still had that view. `Well, no, I don't have that view now' he said. I think he said that there are three fundamental reasons why Opposition members do not support the ID card. The first is the enormous invasion of privacy; the second is that the savings and advantages of it are not great; and the third and most important is its cost. He said: `I mean that 2,000 extra public servants and the $2 billion of extra cost on small business.' Those are the words used by Mr Howard on AM this morning. All three of those comments are inaccurate. They are not true of the facts emerging from the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card or any other evidence that has been gleaned in this argument. Senator West in her speech spelt out very comprehensively the way the Data Protection Agency will address the questions of privacy. I will come back to those points again. I again refer to what Mr Howard gave as his reasons for objecting. The first is the invasion of privacy; the second is that savings and advantages are not great-that gives me to understand that if they were great they could cancel out his fears about the invasion of privacy-and the third is the costs. The costs he cites are not accurate figures; they are misrepresentations. In summary, the same three misrepresentations of fact which have been put here have been put by any number of honourable senators on the opposite side. There are variations on the invasion of privacy that go from the sublime to the utterly ridiculous. We have even had the fingerprints, the tattoos on the forehead; the dog tags around necks and so on. I do not find those arguments convincing at all; I find them dismissive because of their farcical silliness. The points about privacy were spelt out very comprehensively by Senator West in her speech. The Data Protection Agency would be established precisely to deal with those matters of the gravest concern about privacy. I hope later to get to some remarks by Mr Jacobi in the other place. He refers to how the Data Protection Agency may offer us more protection against the invasion of privacy than we have ever had before, along with the privacy legislation. I would argue that the technology may now be used to advantage our privacy protection. One of the problems, and I think a very reasonable problem or fear, is the increased amount of information that is collected on citizens and held in data banks around this country. It is a matter of great concern. Not one of us would disagree with that. We now can see a way of using that technology to contribute to privacy protection. The very technology that has been a fear can be put to our service. That can be done in the way spelt out by Senator West and other honourable senators from the Government side. Anybody who accesses the information on the Data Protection Agency will be required to put in a lodgment and that lodgment will have to be recorded. The reason for accessing the information by those very few people who are allowed to do so will be coped with very easily, precisely because of the technological competence of the new computers. Whereas requiring a person in times past to record that by hand, file bits of paper and so on, would have been a very demanding and arduous task, the very nature of modern technology can mean that that process is not only feasible but practicable and it will be a case of technology being used to serve the requirements of privacy and protection of citizens. In terms of other nonsenses uttered in this place about privacy, Senator Jessop yet again talked about a huge bureaucratic dossier on people, with more and more information being added to that dossier. He stated at length the experiences of Sweden. It is as though he does not hear what Minister Blewett has said in the other place and in any number of public statements and Press releases. It is precisely because of the Government's commitment to the importance of privacy and protection of that information that the Government has been absolutely clear in its restriction to taxation, social security and Medicare. Those are the only agencies that will have access to the information. There is also a very clear delineation of what information that Data Protection Agency will be able to collect. It is precisely because of the Government's commitment to and concern about privacy and protection of the civil liberties of individuals that that very thoughtful addition to the legislation has been included. Mr Howard cited figures-for example, that there will be 2,000 extra public servants. In fact, I believe that the figure often cited is 2,100 public servants. Minister Blewett has made it quite clear that such a number would be needed in the early stages of the Australia Card to process the high integrity identification of every citizen. By and large, that was to be done at an interview where access to the births, deaths and marriages evidence would be available through the Health Insurance Commission offices. The very significant claim of the Government about the high security and high integrity of this identification depends on the amount of effort, time and thoroughness that is put into the initial establishment of the identification. That is why that increased number of bureaucrats, public servants, would be needed only in the initial stages. Subsequently, those people would not be needed to maintain or establish that system. (Quorum formed) Who better to call a quorum than Senator Walters, whose family history well connects her to invasions of civil liberties. I was saying that in 1979 Mr Howard, as the then Treasurer, was busy following up his own committee of inquiry into the ID card. In fact, at that stage he was investigating it very thoroughly. As I say, he now claims three reasons for changing his mind. One is the invasion of privacy, but I think that honourable senators on this side and my own contribution have dealt with that. Secondly, he talks about the savings and advantages of it not being very great. I will come back to that. Thirdly, he talks about the cost. He talks about the 2,000 extra public servants and the $2 billion additional cost on small business. That $2 billion figure is, by all estimates from the Government side, incorrect. Further, it is estimated to be incorrect by the business sector, which appreciates that a multiplier effect of times two of the cost to business of any legislation introduced by government is fair enough when all the Government has to do is introduce legislation, and most of that with the existing Public Service arrangement, the legislation draftspeople and so on and the implementation being taken up by business. In this case the situation is completely reversed. The large cost, the large burden of the change consequent on this legislation will be the Government's cost; the effect on business will be very much smaller. The Government does not shy away from the fact that there will be a cost to business. In fact, it has been at pains to try to determine what those costs will be and by any estimate its costing is conservative. Its costing of savings is conservative and its costing of expenditure is generous so as to make sure that the outcome, when this legislation is in place, will be of more advantage than is estimated to this point. I return to the savings and advantages. The figures of estimated cost of introduction are approximately $760m over 10 years for a return of $4,700m savings in 10 years. That equation brings the balance down quite favourably on the side of return-the advantages. I do not know why the Opposition and Mr Howard so conveniently reject what they judge to be a good idea. If they had come into this place and argued about the details of the legislation, opposed particular parts of its implementation, I would have had less trouble with them; but what they have done is the complete somersault. From being entirely for the idea, now they are against the idea-not the details of the implementation, but the whole idea. Opposition members are also in chaos about what kind of opposition they really want to mount. Some of them oppose the ID card by settling for support for the tax file number. Senator West in her speech dealt with the hypocrisy of that. If people want a tax file number essentially what they are saying is that they want an identification system. They are just talking about a slightly different one. That is the sort of nonsense the Australian Democrats have argued all along. The thing that can be said on behalf of the Democrats is that at least they have been consistent in their wrongness. The Opposition has turned about-tail on that one too. Neither the Opposition nor the Democrats addressed the difficulty of the tax file number, and that is, as Senator West has said, that not everybody has a tax file number. What will Opposition senators do about those who do not have a tax file number? What system do they propose to provide a tax file number to the many citizens who do not enjoy one at the moment? What mechanisms would they put in place to establish that tax file number for citizens? Where would that be done? Would people just be sent a letter, or would they have to front for an interview? Would they go to the tax offices around Australia? Where would they go? The Government has been very comprehensive and thoughtful in addressing the difficulties of how the Australia Card could be implemented. It has picked up on all the processes required to put this in place. It is quite clear why it wants an Australia Card system. I turn now to the more particular points the Government has mentioned from the start and insisted on more and more, particularly in the face of the about-turn and the nonsense from the Opposition. Tempting as it is to run through the Opposition's somersault quotes, as some of my colleagues have, I will set that aside in case I have more time at the end of my speech. I would like to move now to the particular point that seems to miss the Opposition; that is, why we should have the ID card. Why should we not do that those opposite keep suggesting ought to be done-make improvements in the Australian Taxation Office and improvements in the social security system. The point is that both systems, even if operating optimally-I do not think anyone denies that there is room for improvement but even if that improvement were implemented-still would not address the particular difficulties that the Australia Card will address and solve. Let us take the question of social security fraud. The Opposition the last time around spent a lot of time bashing us with how the Department in its evidence before the Joint Select Committee said that identification was not responsible for much of the fraud. That was only to quote selectively from what the Department said and also not to understand the intent of that comment. Debate interrupted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., pursuant to order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.30) —Tonight I wish briefly to draw the Senate's attention to what I believe to be the disgraceful misuse of government resources by the Labor candidate for the Federal seat of Gilmore. I refer the Senate to articles appearing in the Young Times on 13 January 1987 and in the South West News on 5 December 1986 in which Mr John Wright, the Labor candidate, offers pensioners kits advising them of his attitude to pensioners in that electorate. He says: Any person seeking a pension kit can obtain one by phoning John Wright on 062-75 2221 during working hours. A call to that number is to a desk in the Australian Taxation Office, that is, the Commonwealth Taxation Office in Canberra. That is an absolute disgrace. What is more of a disgrace is that Mr Wright has arranged with his working colleagues to take orders on his behalf for the documents from people who ring in for them, and this is being done during Public Service working hours. Senator Kilgariff —What is his position? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —He is an officer in the tax department. He is often away from his phone because he appears to be able to flex off, I think is the expression, to visit this electorate that he is trying to win. It takes a bit of effort for him because he lives in Queanbeyan or Canberra, but the electorate is in the Goulburn area. He does not live in his electorate and no doubt that puts immense pressure on him to try to get into the area he is trying to win, but he does so at the expense of the Australian taxpayer. I hope that the Minister in the chamber, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), will do something about this. I intend to table the newspaper clippings from which I quoted. I find it intolerable that this number is available during working hours. That is only part of it. I now quote from a letter sent by the same Mr Wright to his supporters which has come my way and which I believe raises other matters of some concern. I do not want to go into the arrangements Mr Wright made with Senator Richardson's office about sending out his material with Senator Richardson's mail, allegedly at Senator Richardson's expense. I presume that it is at the expense of the Commonwealth. They can sort that out among themselves. I want to deal at some length with a notice that I have in my possession to all Federal Australian Labor Party candidates in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory from the Australian Labor Party South East Region Strategy Committee-SERSC-Candidates' School. It is signed by Mr Ian Henderson, the Convenor of the Candidates' School Co-ordinating Committee, and is dated 17 December 1986. By the way, the contact point for reply and other information is Ian Henderson, ALP National Secretariat, PO Box E1, Queen Victoria Terrace, Australian Capital Territory, 2600, telephone 062-73 3133. I have no reason to believe that that is anything else but genuine. In the notice, after inviting members and their campaign assistants to a candidates' school in Canberra on Saturday 30 May 1987, we find that the program of the school would include media training for candidates, campaigning and fund raising and political strategy. The last para- graph of the letter says: The School is being planned and co-ordinated through SERSC with the support of N.S.W. Branch and the National Secretariat of the Party, This is the bit that concerns me. It says: and with the assistance of media advisers to the Federal Government. We are all well aware of the extraordinary collection of media advisers being paid at public expense who now surround this Government. The Senate is entitled to require from this Government an assurance that the media advisers to the Federal Government, who will be assisting ALP candidates, are not doing so while on the Government payroll and, if they are the same media advisers who are on the Government payroll, the Senate deserves an assurance that part of their duties is not a requirement that in their so-called spare time they attend to give this kind of advice to Labor candidates. The clear suggestion from this is that a Labor candidate can come along to this seminar and be advised by the same people who have been advising this Government at public expense. I believe that this is an absolute disgrace. I now seek leave to table this letter from Mr John Wright and also the newspaper clippings. Leave granted. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the Senate. I now want briefly to refer to a matter I mentioned the other night, which involves Mr Colin Hollis, the honourable member for Throsby, who made some ludicrous, nonsensical, totally inaccurate and false accusations about my alleged use of a Commonwealth car. I demonstrated to the Senate the other night that it was totally wrong in fact, that I was listed as being here in a division at the time that I was alleged to have kept a Commonwealth car waiting outside a dentist, at the expense of the Government and the taxpayers. I have already demonstrated that there was no cost to the taxpayer; that this was absolute nonsense. Mr Hollis could well be described as `having made a mistake'. That is the kindly approach in the first instance, because he was apparently not aware of the facts. He is now aware of the facts and has persisted with this nonsense. He put out a Press release tonight which repeats basically the attack against me, except that he diminished the time from one hour and a half to just over one hour that the car was waiting while I was attending a dental appointment. He said that the information he got came not from the transport office or anyone in the Commonwealth car service, but `from a member of the public who saw the car arrive-not at 10.15 but earlier'. That is totally untrue. The Press release continues: who passed the car several times while it was waiting, and then waited to see who came out. It was a member of the public who happens to be a constituent. that is, a constituent of Mr Hollis's- she had work in Canberra and passed the information on to him. That is a total and deliberate fabrication. It could not possibly have happened, for a very simple reason. The car did not wait outside the dentist's surgery, because it could not. This particular dentist is in a mall upstairs in a set of offices, in a building where there are a lot of offices. There would be no knowledge on the part of any casual observer that a car that stopped in a street near a mall to let me out necessarily was related to a dentist who is 130 yards up the mall, upstairs in a set of offices. This is an absolute and total fabrication. Not only did the car not wait outside the dentist's surgery, but it did not even wait at the end of the mall. In fact it went to another street, an area of parking for Commonwealth cars in Civic, about 500 yards away from the dentist's surgery. I arranged to meet the car there 30 or 40 minutes later. There is no possibility of anyone pretending that it was possible to have seen me get out of the car and go to the dentist and then come out of the dentist and get into the car. No-one could claim to have waited outside because the car did not wait outside. We have already established that all the rest of Mr Hollis's facts are an invention. We are now having more invention. Now that Mr Hollis knows the truth and persists with this nonsense I have, outside this place, said of Mr Hollis that his determination to continue spreading these kinds of lies about me shows him to be a liar and a cheat. I have said so without parliamentary privilege and I have invited him to sue. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Whatever you say outside may be all right, but you are not allowed to use those remarks inside the chamber, Senator. You should withdraw them. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I withdraw the statements. However, I repeat that I have made them outside the chamber and I have invited Mr Hollis to sue. If Mr Hollis has any decency or integrity whatsoever, he will either apologise or repeat his totally false and fabricated assertions outside the privilege of parliament. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.41 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Defence Act-Determinations 1987- No. 19-Disturbance Allowance. No. 20-Amendments and others. No. 21-Expense of Office Allowance. No. 22-Temporary Accommodation Allowance. GOVERNOR GENERAL'S PROCLAMATIONS-COMMENCEMENT OF ACTS AND SECTIONS OF ACTS: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Acts and sections of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Australian Stock Exchange and National Guarantee Fund Act 1987-Parts II, III, IV, V and VI-1 April 1987 (Gazette No. S 57, 31 March 1987) Health Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 1986-Sub-sections 4 (2) and 17 (2) and sections 20, 22 and 29-1 April 1987 (Gazette No. S 57, 31 March 1987) Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987-Provisions other than sections 1, 2, 23, 24, 25 and 26 and Division 2 of Part III-31 March 1987 (Gazette No. S 57, 31 March 1987). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1400) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 25 September 1986: (1) How many medical practitioners in Australia were charged with overservicing Medicare in the financial years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. (2) What were the results of such charges through the courts or through internal investigations conducted by the Federal Government. Senator Tate —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The provision of excessive services is not an offence, but services which are not reasonably necessary for the adequate medical care of the patient do not attract Medicare benefits. A practitioner who may have rendered excessive services is not `charged' in the legal sense of the term. However, he may be referred to a Medical Services Committee of Inquiry, which reports to me on the question of whether excessive services have been provided. I may then make a determination in accordance with the report and recommendation of the Committee of Inquiry. I may determine that the referred practitioner be counselled; that he be reprimanded; and/or that he be required to repay moneys in respect of Medicare benefits paid for services deemed to be excessive. If no excessive services are found, no determination is issued. (2) The figures given below show the number of referrals to Medical Services Committees of Inquiry in each of the financial years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, and the result of each referral. The number of referrals does not include cases brought forward from the previous financial year. 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 $ $ $ Number of referrals... 23 18 8 Number of determinations (total)... 10 10 2 counselling... 6 8 1 reprimand... 5 4 1 moneys to be repaid... 10 10 1 Cases still before Committee... 3 2 5 Cases from which no determination resulted... 10 6 1 Cases for which appeals are pending... 4 6 1 Moneys determined to be repayable... 59,268.60 83 603.07 7,072.55 (Question No. 1463) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 October 1986: Has the Government fulfilled its obligations under the ABCI intergovernmental agreement to provide the support staff for the ABCI as requisitioned by that organisation to enable them to perform the functions assigned to them under the terms of the agreement. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Government continues to meet its obligations under the ABCI Agreement. Under the terms of the Agreement the Commonwealth is required to meet the salaries of the Director and Deputy Director. In addition, it is required to second police officers from the AFP and, as appropriate, officers from Commonwealth Departments. Permanent administrative staff are also provided by the Commonwealth and there is provision for members to be co-opted from agencies of the Commonwealth. There have been some discussions at officials level regarding apparent anomalies in the Agreement. For example, the Agreement is silent on the provision of other civilian staff (intelligence collators or information control staff) and ADP resources. The ABCI estimates have been subject to the same scrutiny as the estimates of all other agencies and the ABCI has not always received everything they have asked for. (Question No. 1464) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 October 1986: (1) What requests have been made by the Police Ministers' Council for adequate support staff for the ABCI. (1) If such requests have been made- (a) when were they made; and (b) what numbers were requested. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) On 25 November 1983 the Australian Police Ministers' Council (APMC) requested the Commonwealth to provide the necessary financial support for the continued development of the ABCI involving staffing proposals for five positions. On 22 January 1986 the Chairman, APMC, wrote to my predecessor concerning resources for the drug database project. A total of ten positions was involved. (Question No. 1465) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 October 1986: Was there any allocation of staff made to ABCI at the request of the Department of Special Minister of State that was subsequently overturned by the Department of Finance. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Staff allocation in the Public Service is based on approved Average Operative Staffing Levels so it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which the answer would be ``yes'' to this type of question. (Question No. 1466) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 October 1986: What action has the Government taken to overcome the claim by the Police Ministers' Council that ``the lack of support staff is having an adverse effect upon the efficiency and development of [ABCI]''. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The words quoted in the question are taken from a document titled the ``Annual Report on the activities of National Common Police Services 1984-85''. The document is based on a report to the Australian Police Ministers' Council by the Management Committee of the ABCI. See answer to Question upon Notice No. 1463. In addition, the Australian Police Ministers' Council has under consideration a number of development options which include the question of staffing. (Question No. 1467) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 October 1986: Has the Government been acquainted with the request for staffing for ABCI on the basis that the full establishment and operation of the drug data base, as approved in May 1985, was being delayed through lack of support staff; if so, when will the positions be filled. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Government is aware of the request for resources additional to the $1.5m already provided. Further action must await the outcome of consideration of development options by the Australian Police Ministers' Council. (Question No. 1468) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 October 1986: Has the Government been made aware of funding for ABCI which caused curtailment of important travel, regarded as necessary by the ABCI, both interstate and overseas. Is there now sufficient funding to ensure that necessary expenditure levels be maintained. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: In 1985-86 the ABCI expressed dissatisfaction about the level of funding initially allocated for travel; subsequently funds were reallocated from within the ABCI Administrative vote which overall was not fully spent. The 1986-87 allocation for travel is the level sought by the ABCI during the draft estimates process. (Question No. 1469) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 October 1986: When will the full development of the ABCI drug data base be completed. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Finalisation of a strategy including a target completion date for the law enforcement component of the Australian Drug Data Base must await the outcome of consideration of options by the Australian Police Ministers' Council. (Question No. 1470) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 October 1986: Has there been any amendment to the ABCI intergovernment agreement that has discharged the obligation of the Federal Government to provide the support for the ABCI. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: There has been no amendment to the ABCI intergovernmental agreement concerning the provision of staff. (See answer to Question upon Notice No. 1463 regarding Federal Government obligations). (Question No. 1471) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 October 1986: What has been: (a) the total budget; and (b) the Federal contributions, to the ABCI for the years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (a) & (b) The ABCI's budget is funded entirely by the Commonwealth. Details are set out below. The Commonwealth also meets a number of other ABCI costs, including accommodation costs and the salary and associated costs of Commonwealth officers seconded to the Bureau. Similarly, the States and Northern Territory meet the salary and associated costs of their officers seconded to the ABCI. Details of this expenditure are also given below. 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 $ $ $ $ ABCI Budget ... 1,224,734 1,379,036 2,588,429 2,204,100 Other Commonwealth Contributions ... 255,533 280,522 345,271 306,200 (est) (est) Total Commonwealth Contributions ... 1,480,267 1,659,558 2,933,700 2,510,300 State/Territory Contributions ... 398,359 556,774 *650,000 (est) #670,000 (est) Notes: * This is an estimate only of the salary costs of State and Territory officers seconded to the ABCI. Notes: # This is the 1985-86 estimate adjusted for the 2.8% National Wage Case decision which took effect in the second half of 1986. (Question No. 1498) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) In the 1981 ABCI Establishment Agreement, which parties agreed to meet the cost of- (a) the seconded State and Territory police officers; (b) the normal establishment and operational costs; and (c) the permanent administrative support staff. (2) Has there been any change to the funding arrangements of the ABCI since the signing of the 1981 agreement. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) The Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory Governments; (b) the Commonwealth; and (c) the Commonwealth. All Government appropriations are subject to annual budgetary processes. (2) No. (Question No. 1499) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: Has the Government attempted to renegotiate the ABCI Agreement so that the States would have to pay two-thirds of the cost of the permanent administrative staff; if so, why, and what was the reaction of the States to the suggestion from the Federal Government. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Australian Police Ministers' Council agreed in December 1986 to an examination of cost-sharing options as part of its further consideration of the Australian Drug Data Base project. These options would not encompass permanent administrative staff. (Question No. 1500) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) Have some States raised the question of withdrawal from the ABCI Agreement because of the Federal Government's failure to meet its obligations. (2) Would the withdrawal of one or more of the States from the ABCI lead to it being disbanded or at least substantially downgraded. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I am unaware of any parties to the Agreement raising this question. (Question No. 1501) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) Has the Minister or the Department of the Special Minister of State ever proposed that the funding and/or administration of the ABCI be placed under the control of a Federal statutory authority. (2) If the funding of the ABCI were placed under the control of a statutory authority, would the `administration and operation of the ABCI in the performance of its function' remain `independent of any one participating government or agency'. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Federal Government has not put forward any proposal. Informal discussion at officer level was undertaken of the possibility of all national common police services constituting a statutory authority. The matter did not proceed further. (Question No. 1502) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: Did the workload of the ABCI increase two-fold between the time of its establishment and November 1983; if so, was there an increase in support staff commensurate with this increased workload. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Under the Intergovernmental Agreement on the ABCI, the management of the ABCI is the responsibility of the Director and the Management Committee to which he reports. The Management Committee in turn reports to the Australian Police Ministers' Council (APMC). In view of these arrangements it would be inappropriate for the Special Minister of State to be answering questions on the day to day operations of the ABCI. (Question No. 1503) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: What has been the proportional or percentage increase in the workload of the ABCI since November 1983 and has this increased workload been matched by appropriate increases in support staff. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: See answer to Senate Question No. 1502. (Question No. 1504) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: What is the latest official estimate of the annual value of heroin trafficking in Australia. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: There is no authoritative means by which an official estimate can be made of the value of heroin trafficking in Australia. In 1985-86, 52,335 grams of heroin were seized by the Australian Customs Service or the Australian Federal Police (AFP). I refer the honourable senator to the publication ``Illicit Drugs in Australia-Situation Report 1986'', edited by the AFP, which contains details of price ranges/availability of illicit drugs. (Question No. 1505) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: Did the Prime Minister state, in his policy speech prior to the 1984 election, ``And in prosecuting this national campaign [against organised crime and drug trafficking] no resources will be spared to remove this evil [drugs] from our society.''; if so, in what way did he mean. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Yes. At the Special Premiers' Conference on Drugs the Commonwealth Government committed itself to a long term program of assistance directed to both demand and supply drug reduction strategies. Financial support included: some $20m p.a. indexed for an initial three year period for the education, treatment, rehabilitation and research aspects of the national campaign; additional resources of the order of $1.5m over financial years 1985-86 and 1986-87 to enhance the capacity of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence to provide drugs intelligence to all participating law enforcement agencies; some $5.5m over financial years 1985-86 and 1986-87 to strengthen the capacity of the Australian Customs Service to interdict drugs entering Australia; and the provision of additional resources of some $17m over three years for additional manpower and computer capacity for the Australian Federal Police (AFP). My predecessor has also directed the AFP to give highest priority to the investigation of drug trafficking. (Question No. 1506) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: Did the then Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) tell the Senate in February 1984 that proposals to upgrade the ABCI would be part of the 1984-85 Budget; if so, what upgrading was achieved in the financial year 1984-85. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Senate was told of the Government's plans that ``the implementation of these proposals [to upgrade] is intended to be undertaken in the context of the 1984-85 Budget''. After normal budgetary processes had been completed some $1.4 million was allocated to the ABCI in 1984-85 and announced in August 1984. At that time it was noted that the ABCI allocation may become the subject of additional estimates later on in the 1984-85 financial year, when the degree of interaction between the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence and the newly established National Crime Authority became clearer. In April 1985 an additional $1.5m for the ABCI was announced and provided over the financial years 1985-86 and 1986-87. The total Commonwealth allocation over these two financial years is some $5.2m. (Question No. 1507) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) Was the Forward Estimate for the ABCI as requested in accordance with the Establishment Agreement of 1981 for the financial year 1984-85 cut by $400,000 to $1.4m. (2) What were the reasons for this reduction. (3) What were the specific effects of this decision on the operation of the ABCI generally, and the upgrading program. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Forward estimates for the 1984-85 Commonwealth contribution to the ABCI were processed in the same manner as previous years and in line with all other 1984-85 forward estimates of Commonwealth expenditure. I would like to take this opportunity to note that the forward estimates process is intended to give a preliminary indication of forthcoming Government expenditure which is subject (in this area as in all areas of estimated Government expenditure) to continual review and refinement up to the announcement of the Budget each year. While the estimates were reduced by $395,000 on the basis that the degree of interaction between the ABCI and the National Crime Authority was under consideration, the Commonwealth contribution to the ABCI actually increased by over $150,000 in 1984-85. Significant additional funds were included as part of the National Drug Strategy during the 1985-86 and 1986-87 as part of a co-ordinated approach to the drug problem. (Question No. 1508) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) Did the Director of the ABCI protest to the Special Minister of State about the reduction in funding for the 1984-85 financial year; if so, what was the Special Minister of State's response. (2) Was a further approach made by the Director of the ABCI for a special advance to be included in the 1984-85 Supplementary Estimates to enable ABCI obligations to be met. (3) Was there a series of approximately 50 meetings preceding the final decision. (4) Was this approach successful, and was a supplementary estimate forwarded by the ABCI. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Director wrote to the then Special Minister of State on 25 September 1984 about the developing role and workload of the ABCI and requested further consideration of the Bureau's resource needs. A review of the resource needs of the ABCI was conducted and senior officers of the Department of the Special Minister of State and the Department of Finance met with the Management Committee of the ACBI on 10 October 1984 to discuss the issues. It was agreed that a submission would be put to the Department of Finance early in December. The proposal was not received from the ABCI until 22 January 1985. It was for resources significantly exceeding those identified earlier and presupposed a significant upgrading. A submission was submitted by my Department for an additional 5 positions and $0.4m in the 1894-85 Additional Estimates but was unsuccessful. (3) I am advised that there was a long series of meetings but it is difficult to put a precise figure on the total number. (4) See (1) and (2) above. (Question No. 1509) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: Was the number of administrative support staff allocated to the ABCI reduced in July 1984; if so what was-(a) the previous staff level; (b) the size of the reduction; and (c) the reason for the reduction. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: There was no reduction in the average operative staffing allocation made to the ABCI in 1984-85 from the staff usage in 1983-84. (Question No. 1510) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) Did the Forward Estimates for the 1985-86 Budget include a ministerial demand for a cut of $83 000 in allocation to the ABCI. (2) In March 1985, a month after these cuts were foreshadowed, was the ABCI asked to re-submit its funding requests for 1985-86. (3) Did the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promise an additional $1.5m to the ABCI as part of the Drug Summit in May 1985, to be spread over 1985-86-1986-87. (4) Did the ABCI order computer hardware and allocate salaries for 10 extra staff on the basis of this announcement. (5) Was the ABCI subsequently refused authority to proceed with recruitment moves for the allocated positions because of staff ceilings. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) As part of the normal budgeting cycle the ABCI along with other elements of my portfolio was asked to identify possible savings. The ABCI responded with savings of $73,902. (2) and (3) In March 1985 the ABCI was asked to put forward proposals for consideration as part of the Government's initiatives in connection with the National Drug Offensive. As a result the ABCI was allocated $1.5m spread over 1985-86-1986-87. (4) The ABCI incurred expenditure of $1.0m in 1985-86 for the purchase of computer equipment as a result of the increased allocation. (5) The approved Average Operative Staffing Level for the ABCI was not varied as a result of the Drug Summit announcement. Indeed, by early January 1986, it had come to the notice of my predecessor that computer equipment proposals alone would exceed the Drug Summit $1.5m. The ABCI along with all agencies funded from the Commonwealth budget is required to comply with Average Operative Staffing Levels assigned as part of the budget process. The Australian Police Ministers' Council has under consideration a number of development options which include the question of staffing. (Question No. 1511) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: Has any of the additional $1.5m Drug Offensive funding promised to the ABCI been expended; if so, in what areas. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Yes, I am advised that the Department of the Special Minister of State has allocated $1.5m for computer plant and equipment as follows: $1.0m spent in 1985-86; and $0.5m allocated in 1986-87. The Department agreed to expenditure of $1m in 1985-86 to purchase Rank Zerox equipment only after the ABCI Director gave a written assurance that the equipment would be sufficient to ``allow the law enforcement aspects of the ADDB [Australian Drug Data Base] to be implemented when the staffing situation has been satisfactorily resolved and further consultancy has been completed''. However, subsequent ABCI proposals sought funds for equipment well beyond that level. (Question No. 1512) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: During the 1985-86 Budget preparations, did the Special Minister of State, any member of his staff, or any departmental staff advise that `the ADDB funding through the 1985-86 Budget could not be countenanced.' Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: As indicated in the answer to Question on Notice No. 1511, additional resources of the order of $1.5m have been provided by the Commonwealth. This funding commitment was announced by the Government as part of the Drug Summit initiatives which were authorised by Cabinet before the 1985-86 Budget was finalised. Specific Cabinet authorisation is necessary for the inclusion of funds for such initiatives in Departmental budget estimates. (Question No. 1513) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) Did the Department of the Special Minister of State seek an assurance on 31 July 1985 from the Chairman of the ABCI Management Committee that the Australian Drug Data Base (ADDB) would be operational by 30 June 1986. (2) Were there any provisos on that undertaking. (3) Was it achieved; if not, why not. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (2) and (3) I am advised that the then Special Minister of State had discussions on 31 July 1985 with the Chairman, ABCI Management Committee, at which the target date for implementation of the law enforcement component of the ADDB was considered. The ABCI subsequently engaged Doll Martin to prepare a proposal for the development and implementation of the ADDB project. The consultant's report was not received until after June 1986. The Australian Police Ministers' Council currently has under consideration implementation options including the question of target dates. (Question No. 1514) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: Did the Government on 9 January 1986 advise the ABCI and/or the APMC of the decision not to provide additional staff; if so, on what grounds was this decision based. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The ABCI was allocated its Average Operative Staffing Level in the 1985-86 Budget. In August 1985 the Director, ABCI, estimated that the proposed purchase of Rank Zerox equipment would result in substantial efficiency gains, including increases in staff productivity. By 9 January 1986 it had come to notice that, despite contrary assurances given by the Director, ABCI, computer equipment proposals alone would exceed the allocated Drug Summit $1.5m. The Secretary of my Department then advised the Chairman of the Management Committee on 9 January 1986 that ``I have been investigating various possibilities of bringing additional resources to bear on the design and development of the law enforcement component of the Drug Data Base. An analysis of the ABCI salaries vote for 1985-86 has revealed a strong probability of a substantial underspend for the year. The underspend will occur due to delays experienced in recruitment of ADP staff. I would recommend that these funds be used to employ consultants/contract programmers to work on development/design activities''. During 1985-86 consultants were commissioned to examine and report on, amongst other matters, the resource requirements of the ABCI. These reports were considered by the Australian Police Ministers' Council on 5 December 1986 and a Ministerial Sub-Committee (Commonwealth, NSW, Victoria and Tasmania) has been directed to further consider and report back to Council in the near future. (Question No. 1515) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) What is the estimated backlog of unprocessed material at the ABCI in time and/or quantity. (2) What methods are in hand to eliminate the backlog and to make the information of full practical use. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senators' question is as follows: Under the Intergovernmental Agreement on the ABCI, the management of the ABCI is the responsibility of the Director and the Management Committee to which he reports. The Management Committee determines the workload. The Management Committee in turn reports to the Chairman of the Australian Police Ministers' Council (APMC). In view of these arrangements it would be inappropriate for the Special Minister of State as the Commonwealth representatives on the APMC to be answering questions on the day to day operations of the ABCI. (Question No. 1516) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) Has the Australian Police Ministers' Council written to the Government stating that the operation of the Australian Drug Data Base (ADDB) was crucial in order to meet undertakings made by both the Prime Minister and the Special Minister of State since 1984. (2) Is the Australian Drug Data Base fully functional. (3) Is its effectiveness being jeopardised by the Commonwealth's lack of funding support. (4) Does the ABCI have sufficient staff to operate at the required levels. (5) What requests for essential staff and equipment are outstanding or under discussion as at 7 November 1986. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The then Chairman of the Australian Police Ministers' Council wrote along the lines suggested. He went on to welcome the provision by the Commonwealth of $1.5 million towards the cost of the further development of ABCI. (2) No. (3), (4) and (5) The Australian Police Minister's Council has under consideration a number of development options which include the question of staffing. (Question No. 1517) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) Has the NSW Police Commissioner, John Avery, in his capacity as Chairman of the ABCI Management Committee, written to the Federal Government stating that ``the Committee holds the ongoing viability of the Bureau and the Australian Drug Data Base in jeopardy''. (2) Does this indicate a genuine fear for the future of the organisation. (3) Was the point raised because of an inability on the part of the Management Committee to make progress in achieving increased resources. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The NSW Police Commissioner, Mr Avery, wrote to the Secretary of my Department on 23 July 1986 expressing concern about staffing for the ABCI. (2) and (3) I do not propose to enter into conjecture. (Question No. 1518) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) Is it true that the Victorian Government has allocated an additional 26 police officers to work full-time on ABCI targets, over and above the agreed levels. (2) Is the work of these police being undermined by the shortage of permanent administrative support staff at the ABCI to process the information. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: It would be inappropriate for me as a Commonwealth Minister to answer for the Victorian Government. However it must be noted that ABCI targets are selected by the Management Committee which consists of all Australian Police Commissioners and presumably are targets also of the police forces themselves. (Question No. 1519) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) Did the Federal Government provide Thailand narcotics authorities with a $9m computerised data-base if so, did the Federal Government pay for 6 computer experts and 2 crime analysts to visit Bangkok as part of providing this computer system. (2) Is the system in operation and does the Australian Government have an ongoing financial commitment to the program. (3) Does the ABCI receive any drug related information of relevance to Australia from that source. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The project referred to was initiated by the previous Government in December 1982 through a Memorandum of Understanding between Australia and Thailand. Australia is providing computing equipment, software and services, six ADP specialists and one crime intelligence analyst while Thailand is providing 37 support personnel and accommodation for equipment and staff. The estimated cost of the project to the end of June 1987 is some $8.6m. (2) The Australian project team is assisting with the progressive installations and operation of the system. A joint Australian/Thai review of progress with the project has recently been completed and discussion on future project funding past June 1987 will be made against the background of this review and as part of the normal 1987-88 budgetary process. (3) I do not propose to comment upon or speculate about the sources of the ABCI's information. (Question No. 1520) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: Does the Special Minister of State believe that meeting the new Drug Summit commitment was a substitute for the commitment under the Establishment Agreement; if so, did the other parties to the Establishment Agreement accept that point. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Commonwealth continues to meet its commitments under both the ABCI Agreement and the Drug Summit initiatives. (Question No. 1521) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) When was the Doll Martin Inquiry established. (2) What were the 2 separate issues covered. (3) What is the expected cost. (4) When will it be completed. (5) When will its report be made public. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Doll Martin was engaged as a consultant to prepare a technical report on a possible Drug Data Base and intelligence processing system. Phase 1 of the consultancy commenced in May 1984 and reported in June 1984. Phase 2 commenced in March 1986 and reported in August 1986. (2) Phase 1 was a feasibility study and Phase 2 involved the analysis, design and specification of proposed systems. (3) Phase 1 cost was approximately $22,373. Phase 2 cost was approximately $153,449. (4) Phase 3 involves implementation and is subject to the outcome of further consideration by the Australian Police Ministers' Council (APMC). (5) This is a matter for the APMC. (Question No. 1546) Senator Boswell asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 25 November 1986: Could the Minister for Health advise whether the pharmacist who holds a repeat prescription at a pharmacy on the request of a patient is acting properly and within the relevant law despite instructions from visiting Commonwealth Health Department officers who advised that in spite of the law, Commonwealth Health Department policy is that repeat prescriptions are not to be kept at pharmacies. Senator Tate —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Where a pharmaceutical benefit prescription orders repeat supplies, under regulation 26 of the National Health (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Regulations a pharmacist is required to issue a repeat authorisation and the duplicate of the prescription to the person to whom the pharmaceutical benefit is supplied at the time the supply is made. The regulation therefore places a mandatory obligation on the pharmacist to return any repeats of prescriptions to the patient at the time the benefit is supplied. If a pharmacist fails to do this there is a clear breach of the regulation. The spirit and intention of this regulation is to ensure portability of the repeat authorisation and a freedom of choice to the patient to have a prescription dispensed wherever he or she wishes. In addition, in some cases the retention of the repeats of prescriptions could lead to fraudulent claims being made against the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. However, patients, sometimes specifically ask the pharmacist to hold the authorisation and duplicate prescription on their behalf for future dispensing, particularly where the patient is elderly, infirm, or inclined to forgetfulness and possibly has no domestic support on which to rely. In these circumstances, the pharmacist would be acting as the agent of the patient. However, in such situations the pharmacist would have to ensure that the duplicate prescriptions and repeat authorisations were issued to the patient, and the patient formally arranged with the pharmacist that he or she would retain these documents acting as the agent of the patient. (Question No. 1644) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 24 February 1987: (1) Are there problems relating to plumbing, run-off from landscaping and faulty hot water services being experienced at `Woolmers Court'. (2) Are the plumbing faults similar to those experienced at the aged units in Belconnen. (3) Have final certificates been issued for `Woolmers Court'. (4) They were issued when serious plumbing faults existed. (5) What action is now being taken to rectify the problems at `Woolmers Court'. (6) What action will be taken in future to ensure that work is completed and comply with requirements. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I am advised by the National Capital Development Commission that (1) Yes. Problems relating to plumbing and hot water services have been rectified at Woolmers Court. The question of run-off from landscaping is being investigated and if warranted remedial work will be undertaken. (2) The NCDC is not aware of similar plumbing faults at aged persons units in Belconnen. (3) No. Public housing is built in accordance with the A.C.T. Building Manual. All inspections and certifications are carried out by the NCDC's Agent Architect in accordance with the Commission's standard building contracts. `Practical Completion' is achieved when the units are suitable for occupancy and certified accordingly by the Architect. The Housing Branch of the Department of Territories accepts handover of the units after an inspection by their officers and then the units are allocated to tenants. The `Final Certificate' is not issued until the expiration of the 13 week defects liability period. During this period the Contractor is responsible for the rectification of all building defects. (4) and (5) The plumbing problems encountered at Woolmers Court were not of a major nature and have been rectified. The landscape run-off problem is being investigated. (6) The NCDC will continue to ensure that any construction defects will be rectified by the Contractor before the issue of the `Final Certificate'.