Thursday, 2 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: 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 job 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. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 153 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Australians are offended by taxation evasion and welfare fraud which has the effect of increasing the taxation burden of honest Australians. 2. The community has shown its overwhelming support for the Government's decision to proceed with a national identification system known as the Australia Card. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable Senate will: continue the fight against taxation evasion and welfare fraud and restore fairness and equity to the tax and welfare systems by supporting the Australia Card Bill. by Senator West (from 386 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 80 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. (2) That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in 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 ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 73 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned requests that: The Parliament express its concern at the disastrous effect abnormally high interest rates are having on farmers, small business people and families. Your petitioners pray that your House strive to eliminate this unjustified burden that is sending many hard working Australians to the wall. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 77 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 is 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 11 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. (2) That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in 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 ever pray. by Senator Haines (from 9 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 66 citizens). Petitions received. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Alston for the period from 28 April 1987 to 7 May 1987, inclusive, on account of absence overseas on Parliamentary business. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) regrets the dismissal of the Sydney City Council after a period of rumour-mongering about its future; (b) notes that the people in Warringah Shire, New South Wales have only now had local decision-making restored to them after a Council sacking on spurious grounds; (c) laments the intention of the NSW Unsworth Government to place the Sydney City Council sacking beyond the purview of the courts; (d) urges the Unsworth and all other State governments not to interfere politically in the operations of individual councils on the grounds of apparent political convenience; and (e) endorses the principle that local government should be recognised and afforded proper protection in the Australian and various State constitutions. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State) —I seek leave to make a statement on the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, to incorporate the statement in Hansard and to move a motion relating to the statement. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Two years ago I warned the House that AIDS `is potentially one of the most serious and expensive public health problems to face Australia since Federation'. Events in the two years since have merely confirmed that warning. Around the world as of 13 February there have been over 40,600 reported cases of full AIDS. I am also incorporating in Hansard a table showing an international analysis of AIDS cases. Globally some five million people are estimated to be infected with the AIDS virus. In the United States there has now been a total of 32,825 cases, with 19,021 deaths. In the United States experts predict that by 1991, only four years hence, there will be a cumulative total of 290,000 cases of AIDS, with approximately 179,000 people dead from the disease. While in much of North America and Europe cases remain concentrated among high risk groups-homosexuals, intravenous drug users, and haemophiliacs-hetero-sexual spread seems a major mode of transmission in Africa. Moreover the number of cases of heterosexual transmission is rising in the United States-from one per cent four years ago to four per cent today. The figure is distinctly higher in New York, where the disease is widespread among IV drug users. This confirms the fear that use of contaminated needles by IV drug users would provide a major pathway by which the disease would spread to the heterosexual community. In Australia, as of last week, there had been a total of 442 cases of full AIDS, of whom 238 had died. On the best scientific advice available to me in May 1985 a total of 600 cases were predicted by the end of 1986. While this figure has not yet been reached, and there are some encouraging statistics on the decline of venereal diseases in homosexual men in this country, there is no room for complacency. Indeed since the previous statistics on AIDS cases were released in February, there has been an increase of more than one additional case in Australia each day. Moreover, it is estimated that up to 50,000 Australians, most of them walking around in apparently good health, are in fact carriers of one of the most lethal viruses ever known. Because of the long incubation period this will mean a high level of deaths from AIDS into the 1990s. Not only is the disease spreading at an alarming rate, but the prognosis for those diagnosed as antibody positive has grown bleaker. A few years ago it was believed that only 5 to 10 per cent of those diagnosed as antibody positive would go on to develop full AIDS. Last Christmas the World Health Organisation revised this upwards, suggesting a rate of about 25 per cent. A recent American study has put the rate at 36 per cent. Some reports from Europe have put the rate as high as 70 per cent. This constant revision upwards of the rate of conversion from seropositivity to full AIDS strongly suggests our present division of cases into those with antibody positivity-no symptoms-and those with AIDS-symptoms-may be overly artificial. We may well need to adopt the conservative assumption that almost all of those infected by the virus will eventually show clinical symptoms of the disease. I would remind the House that it is only six short years since the disease was first described in the United States. In that short period it has brought grief and tragedy to many thousands, and struck fear into many millions of people around the world. This is a disease which can reveal itself within six months, or lie dormant in the body for anywhere from six months to at least six years, and maybe more. Unlike measles, or smallpox or cholera, or mumps, there is no way of telling outwardly whether you or anyone else has AIDS. Unlike these traditional diseases AIDS is not contagious. It is communicable, through the transmission of body fluids, particularly blood and semen from one person to another. And the person communicating the infection may well show no sign of the disease. Not that the efforts of medical science have been in vain. More has been learnt about the virus in a brief half-dozen years than about practically any virus known to man. We know AIDS is caused by a special virus which attacks and disables the body's immune system, rendering it prey to particular opportunistic infections. We know many of the mechanisms whereby the virus disables the immune system. We know that, fortunately, the virus is fragile and outside the body does not survive well. We know it cannot be transmitted through any casual contact, even quite close contact such as social kissing. We know that blood, semen and vaginal secretions are the main agents of transmission. That being so, it is now clear that there are four main ways to get AIDS-through sexual intercourse; through intravenous drug users sharing needles; through transmission from seropositive mothers to babies; and through contaminated blood and blood products. Significant advances are being made in treating the disease. There has been considerable progress in the treating of opportunistic infections resulting from AIDS. Many scientists are optimistic that new drugs, like azidothymidine, which are now in various stages of trial and development would offer some hope that those already infected by the disease might improve and extend their lives. As yet, however, hopes for a cure or for a vaccine are remote. In the past 31/2 years a major co-operative effort has been mounted by all Australian governments against AIDS. In that time despite economic stringency some $50m has been spent by Australian governments on the provision of services, the protection of the blood banks, the provision of information, education and counselling support, particularly for high risk groups, and for AIDS research. Much of the expenditure has been cost-shared with the States, although it was the Commonwealth that took the original initiatives. Inevitably, as with all cost-sharing arrangements there have been some differences over priorities and emphases between the Commonwealth and the States. States understandably have a tendency to give priority to services, the Commonwealth to preventive education as the only effective weapon to contain the disease in the absence of a vaccine or a cure. The scientific community while emphasising the role of prevention is often torn in its advice between prevention and the immediate provision of treatment and research facilities. I will be taking proposals to the Health Ministers Conference this year to address these issues. At the Commonwealth level, the integrity of the blood bank was a first consideration. Donor declarations were introduced to exclude high risk donors as soon as the danger of this transmission route was recognised. The National AIDS Reference Laboratory, which is based at Fairfield Hospital in Melbourne and is funded by the Federal Government, co-ordinated the evaluation of AIDS antibody screening kits. By May 1985, the Government had arranged purchase and distribution of testing kits to all Red Cross blood transfusion centres and to authorised State and Territory laboratories. This made Australia the first nation in the world to put in place comprehensive blood screening tests. This has virtually eliminated the risk of infection through blood transfusion. So successful have these actions been, and so high the compliance of the at-risk groups, that no blood or blood products used since May 1985 has been associated with the AIDS virus. Unhappily, because of the long incubation period, I expect that there will continue to be a small number of transfusion related cases, dating back to transfusions received prior to the introduction of universal screening. In addition the Commonwealth Serum Laboratory became one of the first agencies in the world to apply heat treatment to factor VIII to eliminate AIDS contamination. The availability of a testing kit for antibodies to AIDS, while an enormous advance, has generated controversy all round the world. The Government favours encouraging high risk groups to seek testing, provided such encouragement is done in a rational low key way, preferably in one-to-one consultations. It is also essential that strict confidentiality is maintained to prevent discrimination in employment, housing and the like and provided there is adequate pre- and post-test counsel-ling, because of the repercussions for individuals of a positive result. Public pressures for such testing, often accompanied by threats, lead too often to polarisation and may indeed inhibit the participation of high risk groups in such testing. It has been a basic tenet of Commonwealth policy, based on the best available evidence from overseas, that a spirit of co-operation between the Government and the high risk groups is the best way of achieving public health objectives. Most of the States have accepted such a philosophy. The testing results would indicate considerable success for such an approach. For example, it is anticipated that 356,000 tests will be administered outside blood banks this year. In addition, funds have been provided to the National Reference Laboratory at the Fairfield Hospital which has now been recognised as the World Health Organisation collaborating centre for this region; to the CSIRO, on the recommendation of the AIDS task force to develop the manufacturing of a possibly useful drug, dideoxycytidine; and to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories for preliminary development of an Australian test kit. The drug AZT which is no cure for AIDS but does appear to have the capacity to prolong life in certain cases is now undergoing clinical trials in Australia with some 40 patients at the expense of the manufacturer. An offer has now been made by the manufacturer to supply sufficient quantities of AZT to Australia to treat another 200 patients at the cost of $10,000 per patient per year. I have no doubt that AZT will be the first of many such drugs available to treat those with the virus, and it is my concern that governments act responsibly and equitably in relation to this and succeeding generations of drugs. Accordingly, I will suggest an approach to this issue at the Australian Health Ministers Conference this month. In the States, which have the prime responsibility for providing health services, funding has enabled the establishment and development of a wide range of programs including educational strategies, laboratory diagnostic services, out-patient services, blood bank screening, counselling, and nursing. Health, welfare, and education personnel have received special training on the provision of information, counselling, and care services in relation to AIDS, while educational material including videos, booklets, and leaf-lets, along with special tutoring, has been provided for an array of people and organisations which could come into contact with AIDS. This includes doctors, nurses, dentists, health care workers, pharmacists, teachers, drug and alcohol workers, and union members. AIDS information lines have been established, and programs have either begun or are being organised for specific groups within the community such as homosexuals and bi-sexuals, youth, Aborigines, members of the ethnic communities, prostitutes, intravenous drug users, and people in isolated areas. AIDS is as serious a health threat to the Aboriginal community as it is to the Australian community at large. I am pleased to note that officers of my own Department, State and Territory health authorities and Aboriginal medical services, working in close consultation with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, have produced a range of educational, and medical services designed to establish effective preventive programs on the ground in local Aboriginal communities. There has been international appreciation, and admiration for the leadership and common sense Australia has shown in its response to AIDS. Because of the work already undertaken, Dr Jonathon Mann, the World Health Organisation controller of AIDS, has asked Australia to share its expertise in our own geographic region. Accordingly in July this year, Australia will be hosting a conference of member nations of the World Health Organisation in our region. Twenty-three countries will be invited including China, Japan, New Zealand and other Pacific and Asian nations, and the aim will be to share knowledge we have gained and produce a common plan of action to combat the spread of AIDS in the region. From the outset of this scourge the philosophy of this Government has been that recently enunciated by the American Surgeon-General. C. Everett Koop: `We are fighting a disease, not people . . . We must prevent the spread of AIDS while at the same time preserving our humanity and intimacy'. High risk groups were our first and immediate concern. Efforts to reach those initially thought as most at risk have yielded results. A good example is female prostitutes. So far, there do not appear to have been any known cases of full AIDS among prostitutes in Australia. The low incidence of anti-body positivity in this group may be partly attributable to an AIDS education program run by the prostitutes collective. Over the last two years the Federal and New South Wales governments have jointly funded an education program which is aimed to reach prostitutes both in brothels and on the streets. The Commonwealth and all States except Queensland are cost-sharing grants to state voluntary AIDS organisations for preventive education and support programs. The AIDS organisations' chief task is to reach specific at-risk groups, particularly homosexual men, and to implement programs aimed at modifying behaviours and practices which transmit the disease. The Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations which co-ordinates the activities of the State and Territories AIDS organisations, also receives funds for special national preventive education projects. The Haemophilia Foundation of Australia receives funding for support and counselling of haemophiliacs and their families. This group has encountered special problems because of their dependence on blood products used to alleviate their condition. However, we cannot simply direct our efforts towards a limited number of groups tagged at risk. Experts from around the world are increasingly concluding that today `at risk' is a much wider concept, and that heterosexual AIDS is developing at an increasing rate. It is not what you are, or what group you belong to that matters-it is what you do. You do not need to be a homosexual, haemophiliac, or a drug user to get AIDS. You do not even need to be a heterosexual with many partners. All you need to do is have unprotected intercourse with one person who has the virus. As yet there have been very few cases of heterosexual transmissions in Australia. While anal intercourse may be the surest means of transmitting the disease, there is no doubt that it can be transmitted by vaginal intercourse, and possibly also by oral sex. Moreover given the incidence of needle sharing by intravenous drug users in Australian society, this provides a further path for spread into the heterosexual population. Some recent magazine articles question whether, in the absence of significant numbers of heterosexually acquired AIDS cases-where there has been no conco-mitant sharing of needles-there is any real need for a general education program, and argue that we should concentrate simply on programs directed at the high risk groups. It is true that there are very few cases of heterosexually acquired AIDS in Australia. But that should be a challenge not an inhibition. I am not aware of any public health official or medical scientist who takes in any way seriously the proposition that the virus will not spread among the heterosexual population. On the public health side it would be bordering on the irresponsible to ignore objective facts and not undertake a full and frank public education program. Actions have already been taken to alert the wider community to the hazards of AIDS, for example the NACAIDS insert in the Readers Digest, which has estimated to have had 1.7 million readers and 700,000 reprints have been distributed. AIDS material for students in the recently published `Your Body-Just the Facts' has also been highly praised. From 5 April there will be a more broadly-based public education campaign to encourage awareness of AIDS and the steps that can be taken to contain its spread. Planning for this campaign has been under way for the past five months. In preparation for the campaign a comprehensive program of research has been conducted to assess the knowledge level and risk patterns of the Australian population. In all States and Territories, in rural and urban environments, 1,703 Australians were surveyed, and in addition smaller surveys were conducted among adolescents, IV drug users, homosexual and bisexual men. Overwhelmingly, most Australians thought that AIDS was someone else's problem, that it did not affect them or their friends. First, the knowledge level. The survey asked respondents simple questions-on methods of catching the virus, the spread of the virus outside high risk groups and methods of risk reduction. Only 17 per cent of those surveyed were able to answer all questions correctly. Of the 16 to 60 age group, 91 per cent considered AIDS was transmitted by homosexual activity and 42 per cent correctly identified IV drug use as a high risk activity. There was a general tendency to see AIDS as a threat simply to homosexuals and drug users. Moreover, 36 per cent of those surveyed were misinformed in thinking that AIDS could be transmitted by casual contact including handshaking, hugging and sha-ring food. In each of the knowledge questions, there was, worryingly, a large number of `don't knows'. Second, an examination of risk patterns. `Risk beha-viour' was defined in the survey as any one of the following behaviours: had anal sex; has used a prostitute; has used IV drugs; and had multiple sex partners, and have not, on each occasion, used a condom. Of men and women aged 16 to 24 years, 36 per cent were found to have engaged in high risk behaviour, and for those aged 25 to 34 years, the figure was 33 per cent. Of the total population, 21 per cent were involved in high risk behaviour, and nearly half of that 21 per cent were either in married or in de facto relationships. These findings underlie our public education campaign. It is clear that the level of knowledge in this nation about the AIDS virus and its implications is still low, and a national campaign needs to urgently redress this situation. The public awareness component of the campaign, which you will see on Sunday and thereafter, will not please all Australians-that is not its purpose. The purpose of the campaign is to alert Australians to the risk posed by the virus to each of them. The market research material runs to nine volumes. I have identified just a few highlights for honourable senators. The national information campaign is based on market research identifying the level of Australian knowledge and risk practices, and on evidence available to us from around the world on the increasing level of heterosexual spread. The campaign is designed to reach every member of the Australian community, and to alert us all to the relevance of AIDS to ourselves, our families and our friends. The Government has allocated $2m to this media phase of the campaign so that messages will reach people through television, radio, newspapers and magazines. In addition, we will distribute a pamphlet which answers in more detail many of the most common messages asked about AIDS. The pamphlet will be widely available through pharmacies, doctors' surgeries, Medicare offices and other Federal Government agencies. In addition, the national campaign against drug abuse has produced a pamphlet specifically for young people which will be distributed to all education departments this week. A further pamphlet, in 16 community languages, will be distributed through relevant community organisations and government agencies. As well, State governments, community organisations and AIDS councils have produced written and audiovisual material which will supplement and assist the national campaign. The 60-second television commercial is designed to alert all Australians, and to encourage them to seek the information which will be available in national newspapers and the pamphlets. The radio advertisements are primarily directed towards adolescents, and the magazine advertisements are framed to reach a specific readership. There is no doubt, and indeed it is my expectation, that the campaign will increase the demand for know-ledge about AIDS. Accordingly, I have set aside over $500,000 for expected increases in requests for counsel-ling and testing. The Commonwealth has set up phone information lines in States and Territories, and has negotiated with the States to upgrade and train counsellors, and extend their testing facilities. Doctors and pharmacists have received a letter providing information about AIDS and the campaign from the president of their respective professional associations, jointly signed by Miss Ita Buttrose. In addition there have been special briefings of religious leaders, editors of newspapers, appropriate people in the electronic media, the ACTU and leaders of federal political parties on the necessity for the campaign. The first duty of the Commonwealth Health Minister is to alert the people of Australia to the disease that is among us. There is no cure and no vaccine. The best, though not a perfect preventive measure after abstinence or a single safe sex partner, is the use of a condom. We have an inescapable duty to provide this advice. The prime purpose of the campaign has been to promote safe sex among those who are sexually active-not to promote condoms for their own sake. There is absolutely no point in telling people about possible defences against the virus when they still believe that the virus only attacks homosexuals and IV drug users. Rather the aim is to increase the understanding of all Australians of the hazards of AIDS. The Government will also make every effort to ensure that whatever new information comes to hand on medi-cal or scientific advances is disseminated as quickly and as widely as possible. The hope of a vaccine or a cure is uppermost in everyone's minds. In the meantime, as the American Surgeon-General summed it up `information is the only vaccine we have'. That is why the Government asks every Australian to take the greatest heed of the messages of the national education campaign. In what you do, you are not only taking responsibility for your own life and health; but are involving yourself in the life and health of the entire community. All Australians have the responsibility to improve their knowledge about AIDS. Community leaders, members of Parliament, the medical profession, the clergy and the media have a particular responsibility to seek and dispense information which will contain the disease. Finally, AIDS is not just a health problem. Its impact ranges far beyond the confines of health. The facts are that up to $50,000 per patient from diagnosis to death means approximately a further $150m to hospital costs for 1990. It will impose other costs on our social security, community services, and housing portfolios sprea-ding the economic effects wider. There are further social costs in that AIDS kills mainly young people at the outset of their productive lives and this further extends the economic costs. Relations with other countries will be affected by reaction to AIDS as will tourist, immigration and aid programs. It will have profound effects on social values, lifestyles and societal cohesion. It is a challenge not just for health portfolios, not just for governments, but for the whole Australian community. I wish to publicly express my support and appreciation for the work of Miss Ita Buttrose, the Chairwoman of the National Advisory Committee on AIDS. She has had the responsibility for advising the Government on the national AIDS program, itself an enormous and very demanding task. In addition, Miss Buttrose and her committees have provided advice on the complex and sensitive social, legal and service aspects of AIDS. Professor David Penington has advised me that he has been appointed Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, and therefore will relinquish the chairmanship of the AIDS task force. I congratulate him on his appointment and thank him for his dedication and advice on AIDS over the years. I take this opportunity to thank all those on the task force and NACAIDS, and indeed all those Australians who have joined in the fight against AIDS and in the support of those afflicted with the disease. Their dedication reminds us that the victims of AIDS are our fellow men and women, our fellow Australians, whatever their sexual preference. It is the duty of go-vernments and the community to make all efforts to eradicate this disease, and as a community to succour and support its victims. ACQUIRED IMMUNODEFICIENCY SYNDROME (AIDS) Global data Table 1. AIDS cases reported to WHO, by country, as of 11 February 1987 Country/Area Date of report Number of cases Anguilla... 30.06.86 . . Antigua and Barbuda... 31.12.85 . . Argentina... 31.01.87 69 Australia... 22.01.87 382 Austria... 31.12.86 54 Bahamas... 30.06.86 68 Bangladesh... 31.12.86 . . Barbados... 30.06.86 4 Belgium... 31.12.86 207 Belize... 31.12.85 . . Benin... 13.11.86 2 Bermuda... 30.06.86 42 Bhutan... 31.12.86 . . Bolivia... 30.06.86 1 Botswana... 26.09.86 6 British Virgin Islands... 31.12.85 . . Brazil... 31.12.86 1 012 Bulgaria... 30.06.86 . . Burkina Faso... 13.11.86 . . Burma... 31.12.86 . . Cameroon... 13.11.86 21 Canada... 31.01.87 809 Cayman Islands... 30.06.86 . . Central African Republic... 13.11.86 202 Chad... 13.11.86 1 Chile... 30.06.86 12 China... 03.11.86 1 China (Province of Taiwan)... 26.01.86 1 Colombia... 31.12.85 5 Comoros... 13.11.86 . . Congo... 13.11.86 250 Costa Rica... 30.06.86 12 Cote d'Ivoire... 13.11.86 118 Cuba... 30.06.86 1 Cyprus... 08.10.86 1 Czechoslovakia... 31.12.86 6 Denmark... 01.01.87 131 Dominica... 31.12.85 . . Dominican Republic... 08.12.86 127 Eastern Mediterranean Region... 31.10.86 16 Ecuador... 30.06.86 7 El Salvador... 30.06.86 2 Ethiopia... 13.11.86 . . Finland... 30.09.86 14 France... 31.12.86 1 253 French Guiana... 31.12.85 31 Gabon... 13.11.86 . . Gambia... 13.11.86 . . Germany, Federal Republic of... 31.01.87 875 German Democratic Republic... 31.12.86 1 Ghana... 13.11.86 73 Greece... 31.12.86 35 Grenada... 31.12.85 2 Guadeloupe... 31.12.85 16 Guatemala... 30.09.86 10 Guinea... 13.11.86 . . Guinea Bissau... 13.11.86 . . Guyana... 31.12.85 . . Haiti... 30.11.86 785 Honduras... 30.06.86 6 Hong Kong... 03.11.86 3 Hungary... 31.12.86 1 Iceland... 31.12.86 4 India... 31.12.86 5 Indonesia... 31.12.86 . . Ireland... 31.12.86 14 Israel... 31.12.86 34 Italy... 31.12.86 460 Jamaica... 30.06.86 5 Japan... 19.12.86 25 Kenya... 13.11.86 109 Lesotho... 13.11.86 1 Liberia... 13.11.86 . . Luxembourg... 31.12.86 6 Madagascar... 13.11.86 . . Malawi... 13.11.86 13 Maldives... 31.12.86 . . Malta... 31.12.86 5 Martinique... 31.12.85 6 Mauritania... 13.11.86 . . Mauritius... 13.11.86 . . Mexico... 08.12.86 249 Montserrat... 31.12.85 . . Mozambique... 31.12.86 1 Nepal... 31.12.86 . . Netherlands... 31.12.86 218 New Zealand... 03.11.86 22 Nicaragua... 31.12.85 . . Nigeria... 13.11.86 . . Norway... 31.12.86 35 Panama... 30.06.86 9 Paraguay... 31.12.85 . . Peru... 30.06.86 9 Poland... 31.12.86 1 Portugal... 31.12.86 46 Republic of Korea... 05.06.86 . . Romania... 31.12.86 2 Saint Christopher and Nevis... 31.12.85 1 Saint Lucia... 30.06.86 10 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines... 30.06.86 3 Senegal... 13.11.86 . . Seychelles... 13.11.86 . . Singapore... 04.10.86 1 South Africa... 24.10.86 41 Spain... 19.11.86 242 Sri Lanka... 31.12.86 1 Suriname... 30.06.86 2 Swaziland... 13.11.86 . . Sweden... 24.01.87 93 Switzerland... 31.12.86 192 Thailand... 31.12.86 6 Togo... 13.11.86 . . Trinidad and Tobago... 30.06.86 108 Tunisia... 14.05.86 2 Turkey... 25.04.86 2 Turks and Caicos Islands... 30.06.86 . . Uganda... 13.11.86 766 USSR... 31.12.86 1 United Kingdom... 31.12.86 638 United States of America... 19.01.87 29 536 United Republic of Tanzania... 13.11.86 699 Uruguay... 30.06.86 7 Vanuatu... 30.09.86 . . Venezuela... 08.12.86 69 Yugoslavia... 31.12.86 8 Zambia... 13.11.86 250 Zimbabwe... 13.11.86 6 Total... 40 638 SPECIAL AIDS RESEARCH FUND GRANTS TO JUNE 1987 $ Special NH & MR Virology Unit-Fairfield Hospital Melbourne... 900 000 Special NH & MR Epidemiology & Clinical Research Unit, Sydney... 450 000 Individual Researchers Dr P. Gatenby, RPAH, Sydney `HTLV III and HBV probing in AIDS and related conditions'... 56 803 Dr P. Gatenby, RPAH, Sydney `Immunological and psychosocial aspects of AIDS in patients with haemophilia'... 10 000 Prof. J. Dwyer, Prince of Wales Hospital `Experimental approaches to the management of AIDS'... 15 000 Prof. R. Connell, Department of Sociology, Macquarie University `Social aspects of response to AIDS-Study A'... 44 083 Sydney AIDS Study Group, A/Prof R. Penny, St Vincent's Hospital, University of NSW `Endothelium in Kaposi's Sarcoma'... 20 000 Dr D. Wakefield, St. Vincents's Hospital and Prime of Wales Hospital, `Ocular manifestations of AIDS'... 10 000 Dr M. Barnett, Department of Pathology and Immunology, Monash University `Prognostic indicators for the development of AIDS or related indicators in haemophiliacs' Dr B. E. Kemp, Repatriation General Hospital, University of Melbourne `Development of specific antisera to synthetic HTLV III peptides'... 41 282 Dr M. S. Sandrin/N. J. Deacon, Department of Pathology, University of Melbourne `Characterisation of the TA antigen as the HTLV III receptor'... 44 154 Dr J. P. Coghlan, Howard Florey Institute, University of Melbourne `Location of Aids virus expression using hybridisation histochemistry'... 69 197 Dr I. Goller, Victorian Health Department `Prospective study of psychosocial factors influencing HTLV III/LAV infection in Vic. homo/bisexual men'... 10 000 Dr I. Denham, Melbourne Communicable Diseases Centre `Risk factors and transmission of HTLV III virus in intravenous drug users'... 1 627 `Risk factors and transmission of HTLV III virus in prostitutes'... 1 627 Dr I. Frazer, Princess Alexander Hospital, Qld. `HTLV III virus and papilloma virus as cofactors in rectal carcinoma in situ'... 23 000 Dr M. Ross. SA Health Commission `Assessment of AIDS risk and the cognitive informational and behavioural components of AIDS'... 81 934 A/Prof. R. L Dawkins, Royal Perth Hospital, University of W.A. `Comprehensive care and investigation of AIDS in W.A.'... 28 000 Dr D. Cooper `Sydney AIDS Study Group Prospective Study'... 60 000 Synthesis of dideoxycytidine... 75 000 1 991 707 APPROVED NH AND MRC SUPPORTED AIDS RESEARCH GRANTS $ Prof. A. W. Linnane and Dr. P. J. Hertzog. Characterization of acid-labile leukocyte interferon in Aids duration from 1985 to 1987- $ 1985... 67,971 1986... 75,761 1987... 81,216 224,948 Dr G. R. Shellam Interactions between CMV and cells of the immune system duration from 1985 to 1987- $ 1985... 49,219 1986... 54,549 1987... 58,476 162,244 Dr D. A. Cooper, Dr J. Gold and Prof J. Penny Immunoepidemiological analysis of host factors in the development of AIDS duration from 1985 to 1986- $ 1985... 75,911 1986... 84,769 160,680 Prof R. L. Dawkins, Dr J. A. Armstrong and Dr. L. S. Manning Identification of retrovirus by electron microscopy & DNA probing in AIDS & RA duration from 1986 to 1988- $ 1986... 64,053 1987... 68,949 133,002 A/Prof. Y. E. Cossart HTLV-III particle associated reverse transcriptase as test for AIDS infectivity duration from 1986 to 1987- $ 1986... 44,985 1987... 33,302 78,287 Dr I. H. Frazer, Dr G. Medley and Dr J. Kulski HTLV-III and papilloma virus as co-factors in anorectal epithelia dysplasia duration from 1987 to 1988- $ 1987... 31,278 31,278 Dr R. F. Martin Interaction between homologous DNAs as a basis for selective gene interactivation duration from 1987 to 1989- $ 1987... 30,184 30,184 Total 820,623 COST SHARED FUNDING-AIDS PROGRAM PAYMENT TO STATES Actual Expenditure 1985-86 Estimated Expenditure 1986-87 $ $ New South Wales... 2,396,511 2,503,822 Victoria... 1,493,270 1,587,494 Queensland... 496,667 487,962 South Australia... 420,842 444,890 Western Australia... 563,530 615,896 Tasmania... 86,230 98,763 Northern Territory... 129,168 141,773 5,586,218 5,880,600 ACT... 336,668 202,100 5,922,886 6,082,700 National Payments AIDS Research... 751,802 1,540,000 Commonwealth Serum Laboratory... 300,000 - National Reference Laboratory... 364,400 428,662 Haemophilia Fund. of Australia... 33,210 55,000 Australian Fed. of AIDS Orgs.... 43,650 126,700 National Exec. Red Cross Haemotology Conference... 10,000 - National Education Centre Committees/ Consultancies... 67,633 656,300 Commonwealth Advertising... . . 1,910,161 Literature/ Resource Production... 165,234 187,000 Community Projects/Additional Counselling & Testing... 177,320 917,077 1,913,249 5,820,900 7,836,135 11,903,600 Senator TATE —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.04) —The Opposition heard only this morning that the Government intended to breach its own rules laid down last night. Senator Gareth Evans —Oh, come on! We talked to your Leader yesterday. Senator DURACK —Yesterday we passed a Government motion excluding from the consideration of the Senate any business other than Government Business. This morning we are confronted with a most important statement which the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is putting down in the other place and which Senator Tate has presented here on his behalf. This is a good example of how the ordinary business of the Senate should not be changed. I repeat, the first person to change the new rules laid down last night by the Government is the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans). Clearly, the right course has been taken. This is a most important statement from the Government. It is appropriate that it should be tabled in the Senate and that there be some consideration of it. The Manager of Government Business in the Senate should settle down and allow these proceedings to go on in some sort of order instead of trying to stir up further problems. The Opposition, which has not had much opportunity to consider its response to this matter, can say that on the whole we are impressed by the approach that is set down by the Minister for Health in this statement. There is no doubt whatever that AIDS-acquired immune deficiency syndrome-is a world-wide problem. As the Minister points out in his statement, already over 40,000 cases of full AIDS have been reported around the world. With the information that can be obtained in many parts of the world, no doubt that figure is very conservative indeed. One of the most alarming statistics that is revealed by this statement is the potential growth of the disease. With 40,000 cases of AIDS throughout the world with billions of people in it one may say: What is the reason for the alarm? The reason is that there is no cure, no vaccine, and there is this rapidly accelerating problem. It is that rapid acceleration of the problem which is of so much concern. As the Minister points out, in the United States of America, although there has now been a total of 32,800 cases with 19,000 deaths, it is forecast that in four years there will be a cumulative total of 290,000 cases with approximately 179,000 people dead from the disease. The first thing to note about this problem is that it is world-wide and clearly, of course, it is an Australian problem as well. So often Australians believe that they can be immune to the problems that exist around the rest of the world. That is clearly not the case. Already the statistics in Australia indicate that the problem is well and truly with us. As the Minister has pointed out, as of last week there has been a total of 442 cases of full AIDS in Australia, of which 238 have died. Again it is the problem of acceleration that is most serious because, although those are the statistics at February 1987, at the end of 1984 there had been only 49 cases, of which 37 died. By February 1986 the number of deaths had doubled to 72, and one year later the figure is now 238. There is this enormous potential growth of the disease and a world-wide and Australia-wide problem. It is undoubtedly the greatest public health hazard that we will face in the future as far as the present knowledge of it and our present ability to deal with it are concerned. The other point of great concern which was emphasised by the Minister is that not only is the disease spreading at an alarming rate but also the prognosis for those diagnosed as antibody positive has grown bleaker. A few years ago it was believed that only 5 to 10 per cent of those diagnosed as antibody positive would go on to develop full AIDS. However, by last Christmas the World Health Organisation had revised this upwards, suggesting a rate of about 25 per cent. The Minister also reminds us that it is only six short years since the disease was first described in the United States. Yet now, six years later, it is widely recognised as a world-wide accelerating public health problem of the first magnitude. It is in the light of that situation that we, as well as the Government and all those in the public area connected with this problem are concerned. It is a problem for the Federal and State parliaments and is of wide concern not only to the health industry but to the whole community. The Opposition strongly supports the need for an information and education campaign targeted especially to the sexually active members of the community. However, we emphasise that any program must be undertaken after full consultation with, and hopefully the co-operation of, community leaders. It goes without saying that our major concern is that any such program should not be seen as an attack on the family or an attempt to undermine family values. The Opposition understands and supports the need for the campaign that the Government has outlined in the statement and which the Minister described very fully. I understand that the campaign will commence on Sunday when it is launched by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and that it will immediately be followed by 60-second television advertisements which, of course, will be a matter of great concern and, no doubt, controversy. The Government apparently is already seeking to minimise that controversy by having consultations particularly with religious leaders in Australia. That certainly is a very wise course. I hope that the Government will take heed of the advice it receives from the religious leaders. At this stage, as the campaign has not been finalised, although apparently advertisements have been finalised, we can only hope that the Government will listen, if modifications are suggested by religious leaders and other people in the community, with great interest from a moral and scientific point of view. We hope that the Government will take note so that there will be the maximum opportunity to have full public support for the education campaign. There is a need for the new education campaign, despite efforts over the past 3 1/2 years by governments throughout Australia and despite the $50m that has been spent by the Government. The survey the Government has made, as set out in this statement, is worrying because it does not appear that that campaign has been very effective in explaining the nature and depth of the problem to the community at large. The most successful effort concerned the threat from blood donations which was tackled quickly. I do not say that that problem has been solved but apparently it has been minimised. That is very important because there was a threat to each and every Australian of an obvious kind about which the individual could not do anything. Other sections of the community have it in their hands at least to a large extent to determine whether they will maintain, modify or change their behaviour as a means of meeting the threat of this disease. People who used blood banks were the most tragically threatened group in the community and, as I said, it seems as though the most clearly successful part of the Government's campaign has met that problem. Hopefully, it is entirely solved, although one could not expect it to be 100 per cent successful. The other areas of the community that have been successfully targeted, so to speak, in the campaign are the homosexual community and intravenous drug users-to the extent that the widespread view in the community now appears to be that only these groups are at risk. It is clear from all the medical evidence at this stage that that is not the case, that the risks are much wider. Although there may so far be very few cases of AIDS in the heterosexual community, that possibility has arisen and is starting to increase in a way which means wider education is required. As the Minister said, overwhelmingly most Australians thought that AIDS was someone else's problem, that it did not affect them or their friends. The Government survey showed that only 17 per cent of those surveyed were able to answer all questions correctly. At the other extreme, 36 per cent of those surveyed were so misinformed that they thought that AIDS could be transmitted by casual social contact such as even hand shaking. We know about the worries that have been expressed by numbers of people in relation to misunderstanding the way in which AIDS can be caught. Some were afraid that, if they were served in a restaurant by some body who may have the disease or simply carrying the antibodies, they would be at risk. So we have the two extremes. On the one hand, we still have this overwhelming complacency by most Australians, as revealed, and, on the other hand, we have this excessive and equally quite unreasonable concern amongst as high as 36 per cent of Australians. The survey also examined the number of people at risk from risk behaviours, that is, the high risk behaviour which could result in the disease being acquired. The survey showed that 21 per cent of the total population was involved in such high risk behaviour. So it is clearly a major problem. In our view, the Government is taking the right step in conducting this national campaign. Initially the Government allocated $2m for the media phase of it, which will include not just television, but pamphlets in 16 different languages directed at the migrant community. As the Minister points out, AIDS is not simply a health or medical problem. It already has had an effect, and will probably have an even greater effect, on our social and moral values, on our lifestyles and even on societal cohesion-a phrase used by the Minister-which, although not a very elegant phrase, at least makes the point. The Minister said that AIDS was a challenge not just for health portfolios or governments, but for the whole community. I have already indicated that I agree with that, and so does the Opposition. I conclude by saying that there is no doubt that AIDS is one of the most significant public health problems ever to face this country. There is an urgent need for the Australian community to be advised fully about the nature of the problem and the action which should be taken to avoid contracting the disease. It is not a disease which is limited to the gay community or drug users. It is spreading into the heterosexual community and action must be taken to contain it. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation. I am used to being abused by the Opposition when I, as Manager of Government Business in the Senate, do not give the Opposition either the opportunity or sufficient time for some debate. But I am a little bemused when I find myself being attacked, as I was at the outset of Senator Durack's speech, for actually making time available for a debate. I simply want, for the record, to say that Senator Chaney, the Leader of the Opposition, was told by me yesterday afternoon that Dr Blewett was proposing to make this statement in the House of Representatives today, the timing being compelled by the opening of the advertising campaign over the weekend. We discussed whether it would be possible to have a debate or whether that should be postponed somehow in the Senate. I indicated after that discussion that time would be made available for, hopefully, a short debate, but nonetheless one which would proceed in the ordinary way today. I really do find it quite intolerable to be abused, as I was by Senator Durack, for what was a perfectly amicable arrangement reached on the basis of proper communication between the parties concerned. If the Opposition cannot get its internal act together, I think it is a little unfair to blame the Government for that state of affairs. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.22) —I welcome the statement on the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, AIDS, that was tabled by the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate). I accept the fact that this statement has been made now because of the launching at the weekend of the national public awareness campaign on AIDS-a campaign which the Australian Democrats strongly support and warmly welcome. The date of the launching has been known for some time and I regret that the Minister's statement has come before us on a day when the public is not listening to the debate in the Senate. I think it is important that this issue be canvassed as widely as possible. As the health spokesperson for the Australian Democrats and as a member of the parliamentary liaison group on AIDS, I also regret the fact that there has been no opportunity to view the campaign about which the Minister speaks in some detail in his statement. According to the Minister's statement, there have been fairly wide briefings in the community of religious leaders, journalists and, as the statement says, `party leaders', although my own Party leader and I will be briefed this evening. I therefore took considerable interest in an article published earlier this month in the Times on Sunday by Kate Legge, who made the point that the campaign to which the Minister's statement refers is a political compromise, that it is proceeding with caution and that there is nervousness among Government Ministers who fear that the issue could be politicised in an election year. That article was published on 15 March. On 23 March the Press talked about statements that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had made the previous weekend, stressing that the campaign would be very tough, hard hitting and frank. If the journalist concerned had had prior briefing on the campaign, her response would seem at odds with the Prime Minister's statement. I certainly hope that when we see this campaign it will be hard hitting and will penetrate the consciousness of people in the community because, as the Minister said in his statement-I believe that statement contains a great many comments on AIDS which we should all be taking to heart-as Senator Durack has said and as I am sure other people will say, this is a major problem in our community. Unless the public education program to be launched at the weekend is as hard hitting as the Prime Minister said it would be and as I believe it should be, we will not be much further advanced. It is perhaps the major public health issue confronting us in the 1980s and into the 1990s. The spread of information is crucial. Especially crucial is education in regard to the fact that this is an issue which the heterosexual community must take to heart; that it is not just a problem for the male homosexual community, the drug community or any other small section of the community. There really is no room for us to be coy or hesitant, because of the potential enormity of the situation. I just draw the attention of the Senate to an article in the Adelaide Advertiser on 24 March which points out that already in New York the biggest single killer among women aged from 25 to 29 is AIDS. So it is not an issue only for the male homosexual community, and this is something which we all need to bear in mind. As I said, I hope that the Prime Minister's commitment is met in this public education program, because already we have a number of other lifestyle related diseases in the community which are causing too many Australians to die. The range of cancers, in particular lung cancer, cardio-vascular disease, motor vehicle accidents, drug abuse, and especially alcohol abuse, are all lifestyle related problems which are causing inordinate numbers of Australians to die. We have not shown ourselves as a community very capable of lifestyle changes and adaptations in those areas. All I can say is that, certainly in the case of AIDS, we need to demonstrate more commitment and more progress if we are not to suffer from yet another major killer across the board. There is, of course, a great inadequacy in our knowledge. This is being addressed and we are improving. Just a few years ago we thought that this disease had an incubation period of a few years before the symptoms would show. Now our knowledge tells us that the incubation period can be as long as 15 years. We used to think that only a small percentage of the people who had positive antibodies would develop full AIDS. We are now seeing that this is not the case and that in fact it looks as though the majority of people who have positive antibodies are developing full AIDS. So the input of the Government towards increasing our knowledge through the scientific community is critical in this area as well. I address a couple of the specifics in the Minister's report. It is useful that the Minister has pointed out that a very short while ago we knew very little, we did not even really know about the disease. I commend the Government for its support of groups in the community, in particular its support for the first groups who began work on this issue both in terms of public awareness and in building up support systems for high risk groups. The Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations has been supported by the Government, and I think that has been a very useful contribution to limiting the impact of AIDS in the community. Perhaps our largest challenge is to approach this issue with compassion. We must not take a hard line attitude and imagine that the disease may not or cannot affect us as individuals in the community. I point out to the Senate that a recent situation in my State of Victoria caused me to look closely at the issues of compassion surrounding AIDS sufferers. A homosexual couple were affected in that the well partner was not able to receive the carer's pension to look after the dying partner. The last three months of the dying partner's life was spent in appeal, in an attempt to get what I think is a community support which should be available to any carer of a terminally ill person, particularly in the case of AIDS. The Minister has made the point that if AIDS does spread throughout the community, as it well might-as the mother of two teenage daughters and two small sons I, for one, do not want to see that happen-it will impose an enormous cost on the community, apart from anything else. It did seem to me that in this case-and, as I say, in the cases of terminally ill people suffering from any disease-society has a responsibility and, indeed, it makes some economic sense that people should be cared for at home for as long as possible. I congratulate the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for its recent consideration of broadcasting some of the very specific and proven effective advertising from Europe. I encourage the ABC in that course. Of course, as I say, I have not seen the advertisements which the Australian program will present. I hope that they are as hard hitting and as effective. I would like particularly to take this opportunity to refer-the Minister has briefly referred to it-to the need for an education program among children and in schools. Some material is to be provided. I think one of the most important things that we can and must do is to do everything we can to have education programs in schools. It is quite obvious and recognised that one of the problems is that the community does not have accurate information. In fact, the survey results which the Minister's statement refers to demonstrate a great deal of ignorance and misinformation. For instance, 36 per cent of the people surveyed by the National Advisory Committee on AIDS believed that AIDS could be transmitted by casual contact, including hand shaking, hugging and sharing food. This, of course, is inaccurate. There was also a very large number of `don't knows'. So people did not perhaps have inaccurate information; they had no information at all. It is necessary to be specific. It is necessary that an information program be as broadly based as possible. In order that the next generation of Australians will not be markedly at risk, we must do everything we can to encourage programs in schools. In this morning's Australian newspaper the Chairman of the AIDS Task Force, who is about to retire, had published what I consider to be a most significant letter on this issue. It was headed: `Face up to the facts on AIDS'. I certainly endorse Professor Penington's exhortation. The key point that he makes in his letter is this: We have absolutely clear evidence of transmission of the infection through normal heterosexual intercourse in Australia. That is something that everybody must know. He also states: People can only protect themselves from infection if they know the facts. Again, that is a very important message. His letter continues: In due course, slow but steady spread will occur in the heterosexual community, as has already been seen in the United States and is widespread in Africa. Professor Penington says: If people face up to the facts-and this includes children in schools . . . That is a very important message from Professor Penington which I want to underline. As I said, I have not seen the public information program as yet. I welcome the Minister's statement and commend to the Australian public the information which it contains. I hope that the advertising campaign will be strong and effective, and I also exhort members of the community to take to heart the warnings which will be there and to use the information which will be made available through the program. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.36) —This is a most important matter of public concern and therefore a great question of public policy. At last, this matter is about to be debated in the Parliament. However, what is said in this debate will be too late for government or anybody else to consider when it comes to the education campaign and the dissemination of information on the subject. It is shameful that the Government, and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in particular, has left until now the question of public debate in this chamber about this question. It is a major matter of public importance. The Parliament itself should have been brought into the confidence of the Government and of the Minister. One has to ask: Why has there not been appropriate and proper consultation with the Parliament, and indeed with the parliamentary liaison group on acquired immune deficiency syndrome, so that it could have had an effective input into the advertising campaign? This is a very serious matter. There have been a total of 442 cases of full AIDS in Australia, of whom 238 have died. The Minister's statement is very helpful in that it points out the definite further risk to the community of the spread of the disease. The statement says: . . . it is estimated that up to 50,000 Australians, most of them walking around in apparently good health, are in fact carriers of one of the more lethal viruses ever known. Because of the long incubation period this will mean a high level of deaths from AIDS into the 1990s. The significant point is that previously it was thought that the prognosis of those diagnosed as antibody positive could well be that only 5 to 10 per cent would go on to develop full AIDS. But recent considerations by scientists and those in the profession of medicine who are in this field indicate that that has been revised upwards. The World Health Organisation revised it upwards in December last year and suggested a rate of about 25 per cent, a recent American study, as the Minister said, has put the rate at 36 per cent, and some reports from Europe indicate that the prognosis for those diagnosed as antibody positive is that as many as 70 per cent will develop full AIDS. When one could have, as the Minister says, up to 50,000 Australians walking around as carriers of the disease, one realises that this is a very serious question indeed and a very serious public policy issue. Consultations have not taken place. Let us face it: The discussions were not consultations. This document says that there were discussions or whatever with church leaders and various other people, but those were not consultations. Those people were told what the Government was going to do about AIDS education. The parliamentary liaison group on AIDS was also told. At the last meeting of that group I asked about this. In fact, as far back as 19 February I asked whether the parliamentary group would be able to see the educational material and have an effective input. The Minister's response at the time was: `I will see about that'. I still have not seen the material and I do not know what is in it. Yet I am being asked to respond to this document which puts $2m into that area. I believe that the public is entitled to know the truth about this deadly situation. The spread of AIDS poses grave problems, not only for individuals-that is bad enough and we should have compassion for those people-but also for Australian society as a whole. AIDS is not confined to high risk groups, such as homosexuals and intravenous drug users, but is spreading through those in the heterosexual community who engage in risk behaviour. Leaving aside the IV drug users and the problems of transmission of AIDS through contaminated blood-and I acknowledge the points that have been made by the Minister about contaminated blood in this country-the major cause of the spread of AIDS, acknowledged by all the experts, is promiscuous behaviour. The deadly fact of life in modern times is that we cannot have a promiscuous society without AIDS. Faced with the deadly threat of AIDS, Australians are entitled to be told the facts of life in any AIDS education program, rather than be misled by the promoters of condoms and the promiscuous lifestyle because that lifestyle is the major cause of the spread of AIDS in Australia and throughout the world. Where in this document do we see this message put across? What is the message that comes across from this document? Yes, it pays lip service to the need to have one monogamous, faithful sexual partner. The Minister acknowledged this in a letter to me. On page 18 the document says: My first duty, as Commonwealth Health Minister, is to alert the people of Australia to the disease that is among us. There is no cure and no vaccine. The best, though not a perfect preventive measure after abstinence or a single safe sex partner, is the use of a condom. We have an inescapable duty to provide this advice. That is the message that is going to the people-that which is called safe sex. Let me give honourable senators some of the statistics that the Minister has not included in this statement but which were available from the very same survey from which the Minister quoted in this document. The survey was done by the advertising agents who are going to be involved in that campaign. In this survey on condom usage, those who had used condoms before were asked if their use made sex `about the same, better, a little worse or a lot worse'. In the little worse/lot worse category, 69 per cent of males and 53 per cent of females said that it was a little worse or a lot worse. Let me go to the other question, which is very significant. When asked whether the condom had ever broken-this is in the same survey that was quoted by the Minister but he did not include this-27 per cent of males and 23 per cent of females answered yes. If the message gets across and the condom is used, on the advice of the Minister for Health, and the user still gets AIDS, I wonder whether he will have a ground for suing the Minister for false information. That is the sort of thing about which I think the truth ought to be told, so that people can decide the issue in accordance with consideration of the major cause of the spread of AIDS in society today. The people are not being told the truth by the Minister on this particular question. Senator Gareth Evans —Do you think homosexuals should use the rhythm method? Senator HARRADINE —That is an interesting comment by Senator Evans. The nature of homosexual sexual activity would raise further degrees of question as to the efficacy of condoms. I also point out in passing that there is sexual activity which could spread AIDS and for which the condom is totally irrelevant, unless it is worn around the head. The real concern about all of this, as a result of what this Minister for Health is saying, is what is the message that is going to be given, particularly to our young people in schools? What is the message that is going to be given to them? Are they going to be given the message that it is important to ensure that they have a monogamous relationship, or that they should wear a condom? It is very interesting that I hear groans to my left. It would be much better to have a humorous advertising program than to have the sort of turgid stuff that we have seen heretofore. Senator Zakharov —Just wait. It is just the beginning. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Zakharov says: `Just wait'. Has she seen the material that will be contained in it? Senator Zakharov —No, I will answer you later, but I know something about education. Senator HARRADINE —I think I know a fair bit about education, too. I have been involved with it for quite a long time, one way or another. Bearing in mind that there is a problem of the transmission of the disease through promiscuity and that that is the major cause of the transmission of the disease at this time-- Senator Tate —You know the answer to your own question. Senator HARRADINE —How do you mean that I know the answer to my own question? Senator Tate —I heard you in my room. You posed a question to which you know the answer. Senator HARRADINE —What question was that, Senator Tate? Senator Tate —Whether the Minister for Health is sending a message to young people. The PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections and, Senator Harradine, I would suggest that you address your remarks through the Chair and ignore the interjections. Senator Tate —The message is not-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator HARRADINE —The message in the Minister's speech is on page 17. Senator Grimes —It says-- Senator HARRADINE —Yes, and I have read it out. Senator Grimes —It says: After abstinence and after a monogamous relationship. What do you want? Senator HARRADINE —I will read it out. It states: My first duty, as Commonwealth Health Minister, is to alert the people of Australia to the disease that is among us. There is no cure and no vaccine. The best, though not a perfect preventative measure after abstinence or a single safe sex partner, is the use of a condom. That is what it says there, but the message that is getting across in the various subsidiary documentation which is not contained here-I do not know what is contained in the advertising campaign-but which is being developed by those with Government funds is the condom message. Senator Grimes —Not so. Senator HARRADINE —It is very interesting to see that the Government is suggesting that that is not the message. Why did it not quote figures from the survey as to the situation relating to condoms? People are entitled to know the truth on these matters. Rather than going along that track, it ought to be acknowledged by all concerned, and particularly by the Government, that the message that is sent to the youth across the airwaves should be that this problem, AIDS, is being spread through promiscuity. I will come to another point directly, so I ask Senator Tate to wait please until I have finished it. Let me give an example of what I would do it I were in charge of this program and the message that I would give, particularly to the young people, on the question of abstinence. Bear in mind that it is sometimes up to five years, as I understand it, before the question of whether a person has AIDS is in the melting pot. The possibility is that we could have advertisements showing, for example, a scene where the male is proposing marriage to his girlfriend, with a background of romantic music and moonlight on the lake, and she could respond by saying: `Where have you been all my life or at least for the last five years?' That sort of message would get across to young people more so than the type of message that seems to be coming across here. The difficulty is that I have not seen the advertising program and I do not know how many others in this chamber have seen it. I am glad to see that Senator Tate is back. If the desire is to ensure abstinence and a single safe sex partner, is the Government to spend $2m telling people that? Senator Tate —We are telling them everything. Senator HARRADINE —Is that the message that the Government wants to get across? Senator Tate —No, I am not saying that. I am saying that will be two-thirds of the elements. We are saying abstinence, safe sex partner or condom. Senator HARRADINE —Really? So the Government is party to legislation which legitimises and legalises a multi-million dollar business which is selling the other message. Senator Tate —Selling the other message? Don't twist what I have said. Senator HARRADINE —No. I am not twisting what the Minister has said. He is party to legislation, namely the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance, which allows material that promotes promiscuity to come from the Australian Capital Territory and be spread throughout the country. What a hypocritical attitude there is on the part of the Government when it says, on the one hand, that it will spend $2m of taxpayers' money giving a message to desist from promiscuity but, on the other, it enables this multi-million dollar business to promote X-rated video materials that are-- Senator Gareth Evans —On a point of order, I know this is a debate which encourages the parade of obsessions. With respect, I think Senator Harradine is touching upon the relevance rule here in a way that is simply going beyond the bounds of this debate. The PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Harradine to stick to the debate. However, I have been listening carefully to him, and I feel that-- Senator Harradine —On the point of order: This is absolutely relevant to the matter in issue. The PRESIDENT —I am allowing you to continue, Senator Harradine. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you, Mr President. This is absolutely necessary in this situation. I challenge the Government-I challenge the Minister for Health here and now-to telephone Ita Buttrose, the chairwoman of the group that will launch the program on Sunday, and ask her what is her view about the stupidity of the Government allowing X-rated materials which promote the sexual activities which are the major cause of the spread of AIDS in Australia. I challenge the Government, and if it has any guts let it ring Ita Buttrose to see whether she agrees that X-rated materials should be allowed to be promoted throughout this country. That is a challenge that the Government has to take up. If it does not take it up it is not fair dinkum about the problem. I come to the matter of the campaign in the school. It is absolutely vital that the message that abstinence before marriage and fidelity in marriage be got over to the schools, bearing in mind the major cause of the spread of AIDS. I do not think it is good enough, for example, for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or anybody else when faced with legitimate criticisms of the possible content of campaigns, to say: `Well, that is too bad. You can wear it'. It is also important to note that there is need for compassion and support-compassion for those who are victims of the disease. Concerning that issue, it is important to note what has been said by a representative of the New South Wales Health Department, Tony Adams. This is of great concern. Tony Adams is reported in the Daily Telegraph of 26 March 1987 to have said: All pregnant women may be asked to undergo voluntary AIDS tests if the epidemic continues to spread. I consider that to be a very serious matter. The article continued: Dr Adams said Australian Health Authorities and AIDS experts felt it was now more important for women in high-risk AIDS groups, such as intravenous drug users or those who had come into contact with bisexual males, to have voluntary tests if they became pregnant. The purpose of those tests would be to decide whether to have abortions, as I understand the situation. That would be a very grave problem. What sort of compassionate society are we if we are to destroy unborn babies with AIDS? They would be twice the victim and it would be a very cruel society were we to adopt suggestions that pregnant women with AIDS have their unborn babies aborted. The public is entitled to the facts of life. This is a serious question. It is a matter of major public importance. I am sorry that this matter has not been up for debate before in this chamber. It should have been. We are on the eve of a massive education campaign. I feel that that campaign would have been far better had it received the effective input of members of parliament and major groups within society. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator TATE —During an exchange with Senator Harradine-and just to ensure that this is in the Hansard-the honourable senator did not respond to my claim that a remark he made was the most offensive that he had made about my stance on certain matters. In answer to his misrepresentation of the campaign outlined in the statement of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) I had said that the program had three elements, abstinence, safe sex with a single partner and then the use of a condom in the absence of either of the first two. Somehow, the honourable senator derived from that that I was a supporter of, advocate of and was not worried by the distribution of pornographic films. I find that leap impossible to derive from my previous statement. It does not bear any relation to the truth of my stance in relation to the distribution of pornographic films. I found it very offensive that he should make that assertion, as it is a complete non sequitur from my remarks about the three elements of the campaign. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I have been misrepresented by the previous speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator HARRADINE —Those people who read the Hansard tomorrow will see that what Senator Tate has said is not correct. I read the document of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and his statement prior to dealing with what I believed would be the message that would come through. I was talking about the message that may come through. It was entirely inaccurate for Senator Tate to suggest what he did. What I said about Senator Tate and all members of the Government is that as members of the Government they are party to enabling a multi-million dollar business promoting the kind of sexual activity that causes the acquired immune deficiency syndrome. That is what I said and I stick with it. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(11.06) —I had not intended to speak this morning on this matter because I think that the statement of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) stands on its own. It is excellent, factual and says all that probably needs to be said in a statement of that length. But I cannot let much of what has been said, particularly by Senator Harradine, go unchallenged. I would like to refer first to something that Senator Powell said because I too was disturbed by some media reports that I read at the weekend. I know that they could be based perhaps on speculation-but I do not think so, in the case of the journalist whose article I read-but more probably on secondhand information. They are certainly not based on direct information because I know the media has not, as parliamentarians of all parties have not, had access to that material, and for good reason. The members of the parliamentary liaison group of which Senator Harradine is a member-maybe he has not been to all the meetings; I have not checked on that-accepted, I believe, the situation about this. There has been enough adverse reaction without information on the advertisements being released prior to the advertising. If somebody had had the opportunity to leak the details of the advertising the situation might have been a lot worse. People might like to look at a letter from a Father Harman in yesterday's Age, a letter which obviously was based on speculation and was not at all helpful to the campaign. I would like to come now to some of the statements and points raised by Senator Harradine. I am sure Senator Harradine is well aware, if he has attended all meetings of the parliamentary group, of the reasons why this matter has been debated to any extent in Parliament or even why there have not been a large number of questions in Parliament. The all-party parliamentary group has had discussion at some length and accept the view that much of the public debate that has taken place, particularly the media debate prior to and since the formation of the group, has been harmful rather than helpful. It has been sensationalised. It has not all been factual. It has raised people's anxieties unnecessarily. That is borne out by the results of the survey. The views of the parliamentary group about publicity, about what we should be stressing and so on, have been continuously sought since it was set up and before the campaign was finalised. Senator Harradine says that groups in the community have not been told what the education campaign would do. I remind the honourable senator that this is just part of the education campaign. I am a member of a subcommittee of the National Advisory Council on AIDS which has had a number of meetings under the chairmanship of Dr Adams of whom Senator Harradine appears to approve. Senator Harradine —I did not approve of him. Senator ZAKHAROV —Oh, he is another devil, is he? That group is considering the deeper question of education. Starting on Sunday, we will be looking at a media education campaign; and, of course, that is only part of it. The group of which I am a member has been concerned with education for young people in school and out of school-in other words, those who have left school. Some suggestions have been put forward, but, as that committee has not yet reported, I cannot go into details. Some suggestions are for the lighter touch, as was mentioned. The message to young people in extremely important. Before people become at risk they need to know what the facts are. I stress `need to know what are the facts'. We do not need to moralise at them, because that does not get anywhere. As part of that consultation members of that group have certainly consulted widely with church groups. In fact somebody representing those interests is on that committee. Their views have been sought, as have the views of many other concerned groups in the community, about what is the best way of going about this more in-depth education campaign. Incidentally, the $2m is not just for advertising; it includes such things as enabling remote counselling services to operate 24-hours a day for the period of the campaign so that people can ring and find out what is going on and can have their anxieties allayed. That is a great deal of what the campaign must be about. Many people believe through sheer ignorance that they might be at risk because they believe, as the survey showed, that they can get AIDS by going to the dentist or shaking hands with a homosexual, which of course is not so. Senator Harradine said that the public are entitled to know the truth, thereby implying that they have not been given the truth or are not about to be given the truth. I believe that the Government has done a magnificent job in this respect. I had the opportunity last year to hear at a conference in Sydney an international specialist from the World Health Organisation who was highly congratulatory of the Australian Government for what it is doing in this area and who said that he would use it as a model for other countries. I understand that shortly an international conference will be held in Australia resulting from that visit and the views the specialist formed. Senator Harradine quoted some answers from the survey. Incidentally, I understand that that survey is of a very high calibre-I speak as a former market researcher-in terms of the way it was conducted, its confidentiality, the way it was set up, and so on. The honourable senator quoted some figures about people's beliefs about condoms as if the matter had been hidden. There is no reason for it to be hidden because it is demonstrating exactly what the Minister and the Government have been saying. If 27 per cent of males, and I forget the proportion of females, say that they have had an experience of a condom breaking, and we do not know the proportion of experiences, that probably demonstrates ignorance. I have been involved in human relations education in schools and have found among school children and adults-we dealt with parents as well-a great ignorance about this and many other areas of contraception and sexuality. If a condom breaks it is usually because it has been put on the wrong way. People do not understand that. Yet conservative groups in the community have attacked Victorian teachers because they have told students how to use a condom-`If you are going to use a condom, you should use it in the right way'. Surely that is important for anything we use in relation to AIDS or anything else. I turn to the message to young people in schools. I do not know Senator Harradine's views about sex education, but I know the views of many people in the community. Unfortunately, some governments in Australia are against any effective sex education in schools. Effective sex education in schools is about relationships and the sorts of concerns Senator Harradine raised are just the sorts of concerns that are raised as important in the classroom by teachers and students. As I have said, I am speaking from long and wide experience. It has been recognised in discussions that AIDS education cannot be a one-off situation, with somebody coming into a school and saying: `Do this and don't do that'. It must be in the context of relationships in general, for example, about how to say no and how to use contraceptives if one has decided not to say no, and so on. I was interested in Senator Harradine's idea about a commercial in which a young man is asked what he has been doing in the last five years; I think those were the words used. I cannot imagine a young man in such a situation saying that he had been sleeping around. This is something that concerns me about the message of safe sex with a single sex partner. I do not know how people know whether their single sex partners are, as they think, sex partners of only themselves or have been in the past. Women's groups have been very concerned since AIDS came to public notice as to how married women, the sorts of women about whom Senator Harradine spoke, can know about their husband's previous sexual history for five years or longer-we do not know whether five years is the safe time because we have not had long enough to tell-or his present sexual partners, apart from herself, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual. Senator Lewis —On the other hand, husbands may not know about their wives. Senator ZAKHAROV —Exactly. The honourable senator has pre-empted me. I was just going to say that husbands also may not know what other partners their wives may now have or have had in the past. So I do not think this is a complete answer to the question. Promiscuity will not go away by exhorting people not to be promiscuous. If the young woman in Senator Harradine's advertisement suspects the young man has been sleeping around, will she say: `That is the end of it for me. I am not going to marry you, no matter how much I might love you'? Or will she tell him to use a condom? I refer briefly-although it is irrelevant to this debate, Senator Harradine has raised this matter and it has been allowed by the Chair-to his statement that X-rated video material promotes promiscuity. I maintain that depiction is not promotion. I have watched many murder films in my life, but I do not think they promote murder. That is just one example. I do not want to follow that argument because I do not think it is relevant. If the Health Minister were inclined to ring Ita Buttrose, no matter what her answer, to my knowledge she is not an expert on the effects of viewing X-rated videos, so I think that is a non-sequitur also. Finally on what Senator Harradine said, I question whether it is compassionate to knowingly allow babies to be born if one knows they are infected with AIDS. That is, to my mind a strange view of compassion. I stress the importance of this educational campaign and of the educational campaigns that will follow, particularly in schools and with young people who are no longer in school. I urge all honourable senators to give the widest possible circulation to the Minister's excellent statement. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.20) —I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this ministerial statement which deals with a matter of great concern to the Australian community and certainly to members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. I think it is a pity that this debate had been brought on at a time when we have other matters to deal with this week. As a result, the opportunity for honourable senators to express a view may be restricted. This debate provides an opportunity for us to hear a number of diverse comments from people who have different attitudes on this subject and what ought to be done to deal with it. I, for one, respect Senator Harradine's right to put a view that he believes is important. No doubt, he represents a view in the community. That view may not be a majority view but, nevertheless, it is a view which ought to be expressed. I am pleased to note in a sense that the incidence of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome in Australia did not reach the total of 600 that was anticipated by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) last year. But it is very significant that there have been 442 cases of AIDS, from which 238 people have died. I regard that as being a very serious matter indeed. People have suggested that this disease will assume the proportions of the black death that occurred centuries ago. I think that is a distinct possibility. The statement made by the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) points out that it is estimated that up to 50,000 Australians, most of whom are walking around apparently in good health, are in fact carriers of one of the most lethal viruses ever known. Because of the long incubation period, there will be a high level of deaths into the 1990s. I understand the incubation period can extend to eight years before it becomes manifest. Senator Puplick —Fifteen. Senator JESSOP —Senator Puplick tells me it is 15 years. Professor Penington indicated to me that it could extend to eight years. Obviously more research has been done since then and I find the figure of 15 years even more alarming. So it is necessary for us to come to grips with the problem. Of course, there are high risk groups in the community. One group is made up of people who use unhygienic hypodermic needles for intravenous drug injection. The other group of people in the community who are particularly vulnerable are those who promote or practice anal sex whether they be members of the heterosexual or homosexual community. I think safe sex education as far as the use of condoms is concerned has not worked so far. I understand that a number of people in the homosexual and heterosexual communities have disregarded the advice concerning this wise practice. The following comment is made on page 18 of the statement: The prime purpose of the campaign has been to promote safe sex among those who are sexually active-not to promote condoms for their own sake. There is absolutely no point in telling people about possible defences against the virus when they still believe that the virus attacks only homosexuals and intravenous drug users. Rather, the aim should be to increase the understanding of all Australians of the hazards of AIDS. I heard on a radio news program this morning that President Reagan is advocating abstinence. I have strong doubts as to whether that is going to be a successful campaign. Nevertheless, he holds a view which probably would be shared by Senator Harradine. Senator Harradine —I thought that was what the Government said it was going to do in response to what I said. Senator JESSOP —President Reagan holds that view and no doubt he will mount a campaign-- Senator Harradine —Are you under the impression, as I was, that the message is a condom? Senator JESSOP —The statement says that the main purpose of the campaign is not to promote condoms for their own sake. I do not know how one interprets that but I think it is subject to more than one interpretation. I believe that it is an ambiguous statement. But that is something for everybody to work out in his own mind. I was encouraged by what President Reagan said about the need to step up urgently research with respect to the production of an adequate vaccine to deal with this problem. The Australian Government and other governments throughout the Western world in particular ought to be encouraged as well and contribute a significant amount in respect of research funds in order to maximise the rapidity with which such a vaccine can be produced. I for one have been a bit disappointed at the usage of the word `gay' in our community. I have had to rule out the use of that expression in my language because it is misinterpreted. If I say to Senator Sheil `We'll have a gay time tonight at the party', that is subject to certain misinterpretation which I am sure would be offensive to Senator Sheil and me. Senator Harradine —Go to the Gaiety Theatre? Senator JESSOP —That is another example. Perhaps we could use the world `sad'. Although a number of people in the community have homosexual tendencies because of the hormonal distribution throughout their metabolism-I think that is sad but, nevertheless, it is a fact of life-some in this group are sad because they have acquired this particular sexual preference. So I think that expression is more appropriate. There are a significant number of homosexuals in the community. A survey conducted many years ago throughout the United Kingdom found that something like 20 per cent of the male population and 15 per cent of the female element were homosexual. This is a significant problem. The answers are not particularly evident to anybody at the moment. I think education programs are most important. I believe that it is vitally important that Australia and other countries-Britain, West Germany and so on-assist President Reagan's drive to produce an adequate vaccine. We need to provide some assurances and arrest this particular problem as soon as possible. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(11.29) —It is unfortunate for me that the debate has gone on so long. I thought I was going to get an opportunity to congratulate the President on his election. A lot of time has passed since he was elected but every time I have got up to speak he has not been in the chair. So I will do so in absentia. I notice that Senator Grimes has been walking desolatorily about the chamber. I would like to say farewell to him today. We were both elected on the same day in 1974. I do not think we have agreed on anything since, but I wish him well in the future. Also, while I am on this sort of subject, I would like to commend Senator West on the maiden speech which she made yesterday. It will be interesting to see how she develops here and to find out exactly what she means by a `non-controversial subject'. When I was a young chap studying medicine there was a saying that if one spent an evening with Bacchus and a night with Venus, one would spend a lifetime on mercury-mercury, of course, being the treatment for syphilis in those days. Venereal diseases have been a perennial problem throughout history and the penalty has always been rather harsh and sharp. I remember when I was reading the history of the spread of syphilis in Europe there was a saying that civilisation and syphilisation went together. I am inclined to agree with Senator Harradine that the problem, then as now, has been promiscuity. AIDS, of course, started as an epidemic and it has now transformed itself into a pandemic. The fact that President Reagan made his first statement on the matter today which, I understand, he did under some pressure from the American community-he was tending to ignore it-lends some weight to the importance of the problem we have before us, particularly as AIDS is a fatal disease from the word go. President Reagan has concentrated on the education program, the suggestion of abstinence and the safety factors. I must say that I am rather pleased that the Australian Government recognised the importance of the program early, when it raised its head, and I commend the work that has been done, particularly with regard to the blood transfusion services in Australia. We do not want to become complacent but we can sit back with a certain amount of satisfaction knowing that safety in that area is not far away. In the other areas, of course, the campaign is about to start today. That is the reason why this statement has been brought down. I happen to be on the parliamentary liaison committee. The Government's AIDS attack has been on three fronts: The parliamentary liaison committee, the National Advisory Committee on AIDS and the scientific committee under Professor Penington, whose work, I commend, too. He was very thorough in his handling of the matter. He has now been transferred to the Melbourne University as Vice-Chancellor and there will be a new appointment soon. Through the drug offensive the Government has put forward $100m in order to counteract drugs in Australia and about $3m of that is being pumped into the AIDS campaign. This will be getting off the ground shortly. I understand there is a preview of it in the building today. I know the Government has made cost sharing grants to the anti-AIDS campaigns in the various States, all except Queensland. Queensland has the attitude that it will not do anything to give any kind of approval or recognition to the homosexual community. I know that there are controversial areas at the moment, such as the AIDS testing of all immigrants or visitors to Australia and the AIDS testing of all prisoners in gaols because of the prospect of homosexual type rape in gaols. The question that would arise there is just when one would test them, because if a young chap is arrested and taken away to the watch house to spend a night there it would be an awful sentence to be given a dose of AIDS while spending that night in the watch house. Nevertheless, the question of whether to test all prisoners is a problem. I am concerned to some extent about the degree of penetration this advertising will have in the community. I know there will be a lot of parents who do not want their five-year-old daughter coming home and saying: `Mummy, what's a condom?'. A lot of people who deserve to have a period of innocence in their lives will be exposed to all this kind of publicity, because the campaign will be on television, radio and the newspapers; and there is also the production of this pamphlet. Nevertheless, we are faced with it. I think that as long as we concentrate on the at risk groups we will not get the message far enough afield, as has been shown by the surveys that have been taken. Honourable senators may have seen the Four Corners program which showed the depth to which the public ignorance extends at the moment. But we do have to get the information out because AIDS is a fatal illness. I am concerned particularly at the `revenge' spread of AIDS at the moment, whereby people who discover they are afflicted with it and feel that they have contracted it unwittingly and unjustifiably decide to spread it as widely as they can as a form of revenge. That really is disquieting to me. I welcome the ministerial statement on AIDS and wish the program well. I hope that Australia can somehow or other extract itself from the pandemic that exists in the world today. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.35) —The ministerial statement on AIDS presented today tells us that some 442 Australians have been diagnosed as having so-called AIDS and that some 238 of those AIDS patients have died. I have said in the Senate in the past that a couple of those people were personally known to me. I have had the experience on a number of occasions of going to St Vincent's Hospital to see a friend dying of AIDS who, indeed, eventually did die of AIDS. Like any terminal disease, it is a sad, terrible thing not just for the person who is dying but for those who have any degree of affection for that person-those who are friends, those who are carers, those who are family and those who are relatives. Every day in Australia somebody now either dies of AIDS or receives the news from the doctor which that person regards as, to all intents and purposes, a potential death sentence. Such people are told that they are antibody positive, and we know that the percentage of those who are diagnosed as antibody positive and then go on to develop full-blown AIDS appears to increase every time we read new scientific details. There is an article in the 5 March issue of the New Scientist entitled: `AIDS and the experts', which simply serves to draw our attention to the fact that in the early days we were told quite different things about AIDS from what we are now being told as a result of the increasing research. For instance, in March 1985, the New Scientist carried articles saying that only 10 per cent of those were likely to get AIDS. The article goes on to say that: More recently estimates as high as 100 per cent have been proposed and supported by many virologists. Despite the fact that among the high risk groups in the community there is indeed a greater awareness of the problems and difficulties associated with unsafe sexual practice, anybody who comes to Sydney should avail himself of the opportunity to undertake a most sobering experience; that is, to go up to St Vincent's Hospital on a Friday or Saturday night. There, within the shadows of the wards of the hospital in which a large number of people are dying, they will see a part of the city of Sydney known as the Wall. They will see the young male prostitutes along the Wall offering their services primarily to support their drug habits. I have had the opportunity to spend a couple of evenings with the mobile clinic bus which the Albion Street clinic operates there. Young men and women are encouraged to come to that facility to have blood taken, which is subsequently tested and they are given the results. People come there to receive free condoms, which have been supplied by the New South Wales health authorities, and to receive information in pamphlets about AIDS-about its spread, about its deadliness-and about the use of dirty needles in support of the habit which, by and large, has driven them to the wall. Let me tell you, Mr Deputy President, of probably the most frightening single experience that I have ever had, when talking to one of the young men there. He was 15 or 16 years of age and working as a male prostitute. He was an intravenous drug user. He had a younger brother aged 14 who was also an IV drug user. The elder brother was working under those circumstances in order to raise the money to keep his brother's habit going long enough for his brother to reach the age of 15, when he would be able to get him into a New South Wales methadone program which is not available to those under the age of 15-that is, if the elder brother lives so long. Until one starts to look at the human dimension of this issue, one fails to appreciate that this is not just a public health problem, although it is primarily a public health problem; it is a problem about which individuals and individual members of parliament need to be concerned. Unless we display the degree of compassion which is necessary to address this subject and if we address it in an entirely clinical, in an entirely moralistic, or in an entirely public health dimension, we will miss an important part of what the debate should be about. I have some concerns about the efficacy of public education campaigns per se-no matter what message it is that they are trying to get across. We have been running public health campaigns against smoking for 15 or 20 years and have hardly seen any evidence of the effectiveness of those campaigns in preventing, particularly, young girls from starting to smoke. Senator Peter Baume —They have never been funded as well as this campaign. Senator PUPLICK —Senator Peter Baume is entirely correct. They have never been as well funded as this campaign. The reasons relate entirely to the attempts to protect the financial position of the tobacco industry in Australia. If one wants to deal with the question of subsidisation, it probably constitutes the greatest subsidisation of an attack upon public health that has ever occurred in this country. What I want to do, however, is to indicate one or two things which I think we now need to look beyond. As I said, I believe the public education campaign needs to be as broadly based as possible. I had the opportunity only a few months ago to spend some time with the Department of Health and Social Security in the United Kingdom. I looked at its anti-AIDS campaign and the advertisements which it has been placing in the newspapers and which can now be seen in the underground railway stations and on billboards throughout London and the United Kingdom. The central message of them, which is an interesting and important one, is the slogan: `Don't die of ignorance'. I think it is very important to realise that it is a question of understanding what is the cause of the spread of the AIDS disease. To that extent may I say that Senator Harradine is perfectly correct that the primary cause of the spread of the disease is promiscuous sexual behaviour. The fundamental question to be addressed is: Can public education campaigns prevent people from being promiscuous? To a certain, although I suspect only limited, extent they can, but they can only do that by frightening people. They can only do that by making it clear, as one of the British advertisements states: `Your next sexual partner could be that very special person. The one that gives you AIDS'. One of the other British advertisements states: `You know what's in his mind. But how can you tell what's in his blood?'. One can only address the issue of promiscuity by frightening people. If, however, one believes that those campaigns will not be effective in preventing promiscuous behaviour, one has to deal with the question of those who will not abstain from such sexual behaviour and one has to focus on the campaign for the use of condoms which, as has been indicated, is the third element of the Government's campaign. I want to mention, therefore, the other matters which I think we will need to address as time goes on. The first and most important of them is: Will we find the money to provide the hospice and domiciliary care which will be necessary to allow people who are dying of AIDS to die with some human dignity? Will we be prepared to look at the very substantial sums of money which will be necessary to fund hostel, hospice and domestic accommodation for people who need to be looked after once they are suffering the end stage of the AIDS disease? That will be enormously expensive and will need to be addressed and the money found. Secondly, will we look at the social security system? Will we say, quite clearly, that a person who cares for an AIDS patient is entitled to the support of a carer's benefit, regardless of the nature of his or her relationship with that affected individual, and not make the judgment that the carer's pension will be paid to the AIDS carer if that happens to be the patient's mother, brother, sister or wife, but it will be denied if the person happens to be his or her gay lover? It would be an outrage of the most monumental kind to make that sort of judgment when the only threshold test legitimately to be applied is whether the person is in a genuine caring relationship with the person who is suffering. An article by Stephen Kirby in the latest issue of the gay newspaper Outrage makes this point very clearly. He stated: The Carer's Pension issue represents a rare case where it is possible to make a decision that will at once benefit people in need, help them conduct their lives with dignity and save the government money. I believe that it will be possible for that to be done. The next point is: How will we avoid making any contribution to some sort of political, social or legal backlash against gay men and women in the community as a result of trying to indicate to them that there is some degree of enormous social disapproval based upon the issue of their sexuality? Professor Penington is reported to have said, in a Westpac symposium address, that Australia could `no longer afford the luxury of permitting the defence of homosexual rights or the ``moral right wing'' to frustrate more stringent controls to help stop the spread of the AIDS virus'. I say with respect to my friend Senator Sheil that I have also read the reports about `revenge' spreading of the disease. I have not seen one single piece of evidence. Recent articles in journals such as Time magazine have referred to the enormous tragedy of the upsurge of bashings of gay men in London. In Sydney there has been an increased degree of violence against gay men in Oxford Street and elsewhere. People have been murdered and recently a young gay man doing no-one any harm was viciously kicked to death in Oxford Street. He died simply because a gang of disgusting yobboes said `He's a poofter; therefore there's nothing really wrong with beating him up'-or, in this instance, kicking him to death. We cannot afford to allow the balance to get out of kilter between protecting people's rights to be homosexual, overtly so if they choose, and their responsibilities to behave in a way that does not constitute a physical threat to other people in society. We have been through this in New South Wales with the appalling attempts of the New South Wales Labor Government to compel the disclosure of names of people by the health authorities in a way the net effect of which was to prevent people going for testing to find out whether they were antibody positive. Again that is a matter of balance. I agree with Senator Sheil and Senator Harradine about the increasing availability of testing facilities, particularly for pregnant women and for those who might be innocently at risk of at some stage needing blood transfusions, or whatever it happens to be. We cannot then also turn a blind eye to what has happened in the private blood bank arrangements in New South Wales. We cannot turn a blind eye to the way in which people are attempting to make enormous amounts of money out of the current AIDS crisis. There is in the 20 March issue of the journal Science an article headed `Imminent marketing of AZT raises problems'. We know that AZT, the new drug azidothymidine which Burroughs Wellcome has developed and is marketing and which has now been approved for use in the United Kingdom, France and Norway, will provide some real problems for the public health authorities as to its cost and the way in which clinical trials have been done. We have been through this with the use of isoprinosine and it will be a question of what the Government and the community are prepared to do to provide the necessary funds for both adequate research and development. There are some encouraging signs about the potential slowdown in the rate of AIDS although I read them sceptically. In `Research News' in the journal Science of 20 March a couple of authors published a paper entitled `Mathematical model predicts AIDS spread', which perhaps put into some perspective the fact that the nature of the pandemic may not get to the stage predicted. The report says: Among their conclusions are that it is by no means clear that the AIDS epidemic will be the Black Death of our age. AIDS may die out naturally. It may or it may not. Who is in a position to tell? I do not think any of us know at this stage. We must battle on as best we can in the circumstances. The Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, is to be congratulated on having faced up to what politically is an extremely sensitive and delicate-almost a no-win situation. Senator Durack made it clear that the Opposition has given its total, full and complete support to Dr Blewett in this campaign. Senator Grimes, who is in the chamber at the moment, was actively and very positively involved when he was Minister for Community Services in attempting to grapple with the hospitalisation, hospice and medical services costs involved. On this side of the political spectrum, the shadow Minister for Health, Mr Porter, Senator Peter Baume, when he was a shadow Minister, and the other members, such as Senator Sheil and myself, who are members of the Parliamentary Liaison Committee on AIDS have attempted to play our part in bringing forward some advice and assistance for the Government in developing its campaign. I believe that we have been treated well by the Minister in involvement in discussions, the provision of information and the input to the national campaign on AIDS. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome has a psychological dimension in the mind of Australians that needs to be addressed. Adam Carr, the President of the Victorian AIDS Council, in a recent article entitled `AIDS in the mind of Australians' makes that quite clear. Although there has to be a judgmental section of this campaign-on the question of promiscuity per se-there also needs to be an element in the campaign which focuses clearly upon its public health dimension for gay people and others alike. I regret that not all my Queensland parliamentary colleagues are here in the chamber today because one of the things I would say to them is this. If there is anything that they can usefully achieve, it would be to turn around the mind of the Queensland Government about its non-participation and non-co-operation in some of the campaigns which are under way. It is not a matter of the Queensland Government saying that it will not participate because it will not do anything to give approval to homosexuality. It is a matter of whether the Queensland Government is prepared to allow people to die quite unnecessarily by the Government not participating in those campaigns. I believe that most people who have been associated with this campaign have attempted to do everything possible to ameliorate the terrible effects of AIDS. The Archbishop of Canterbury in the United Kingdom has lent his considerable prestige and weight to the campaign in that country. I was in the United Kingdom at the time when he gave an address to health workers in the British hospital system, imploring them to regard this as a public health matter and to respond as true Christians. I pay tribute to the South Australian Government for having taken some independent activity of its own to launch an education campaign. I conclude with one brief comment about education. In the 22 January issue of the journal Nature there are some criticisms made of the American approach by a representative of the Education Secretary, William Bennett, who criticised the United States Public Health Service for having what he called a `morally empty' approach to educational programs on AIDS. I agree with that. There is a considerable moral dimension to this and I hope that in the campaign the moral issue-the moral issue of promiscuity not the moral issue of homosexuality-is properly addressed. We shall have to look at the expenditure of large sums of money especially for local research. We shall have to be courageous enough to agree to a needle exchange program nationally. When one sees the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, two of the most conservative medical groups in the country, clearly indicating that they will support a Government-backed campaign for the greater availability of clean needles and syringes, as do the professional pharmacy bodies, I find that a very encouraging and positive response on their part. We shall have to deal with the question of hospice accommodation and with the question of the carer's pension. We shall have to deal with the genuine protection of the civil liberties of gay men and women throughout Australia who behave responsibly. We shall have to deal with the political pressures on government to use the legal system in a way that will have the effect of reducing people's willingness to be tested and to co-operate with the public health authorities. We shall have to deal with education systems. We shall have to realise that it is no longer possible to argue that sex education will be a matter entirely divorced from the formal education system and from the school system and from public debate. We shall have to make sure that all the governments of Australia, all the political forces, are for once prepared to make something of a national effort, stressing abstinence, monogamous relationships and the use of condoms, when those first two options are no longer being taken by people in the way in which they should. So far I think it has set an excellent example. The Minister's statement was excellent; Senator Durack's response was excellent. Some of us have been through the process of watching friends die of AIDS-this statement comes too late for them. We must make sure that it does not come too late for any other Australian. Question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —For the information of honourable senators I table the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House relating to the parliamentary zone development plan and proposed works in the parliamentary zone. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education) —I lay on the table explanatory notes from the Department of the Parliamentary Library. Senator SHEIL(Queensland) —On behalf of Senator Archer, I present the twenty-first report of the Joint Committee on Publications. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator SHEIL(Queensland) —On behalf of Senator Reid and the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present the report on proposals for variations of the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs, eighty-ninth series, together with the minutes of proceedings. I seek leave to make a statement relating to the report. Leave granted. Senator SHEIL —The report I have just tabled deals with the eighty-ninth series of variations to the city plan. This special series of variations contains only one item-namely, the deletion from the plan of Ainslie Avenue between City Walk and Bunda Street and minor additions to and deletions from the plan of Bunda Street, Ainslie Avenue, Akuna Street, Ballumbir Street and Petrie Street. This is a four or five page statement, so I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The purpose of the variation is to provide further development by the Canberra Building Society of sections 38 and 53 and part section 56 for offices, retailing and carparking. The variation proposes the degazettal of Ainslie Avenue between City Walk and Bunda Street to permit the development of an atrium to cover the space between the city's two major shopping malls, Monaro Mall and the retail complex proposed for section 38. The atrium will integrate these two malls into one large centre which will provide improved retail facilities for both local and regional shoppers as well as providing a focus for community entertainment and tourist activities. The National Capital Development Commission and the developers argued strongly that this development was of critical importance to the future growth of Civic as the dominant retail centre. The proposed development scheme is based around three levels of retailing comprising two full scale department stores, a full scale supermarket, discount department store and specialty shops and incorporates an office tower, overhead pedestrian walkways and carparking areas. The total scheme involves a floor space of nearly 67 000 square metres of leasable floor area. The development of section 38 is part of a general proposal for retail development in Civic Centre which has been under consideration since the late 1950's and early 1960's and is considered essential in terms of providing a compact intensive and lively shopping environment in a dominant city centre. The development conditions included the objectives that the development must ensure the early restoration of Civic as the premier retail centre in the region and that it must offer a variety of retail tenancies, including a major department store. This development will consolidate the commercial development in Civic, complement existing retail functions and add to activities outside normal shopping hours. The Committee's investigations of this development promoted great interest and debate from residents of Canberra and business groups. Concern was voiced about the rate of development of Civic and anticipated employment levels and the impact this was having not only on Civic itself but the whole of the metropolitan area. The Committee is concerned about the rate of development which has occurred in Civic in recent years and the number of building approvals which have been granted, and recommends that an undertaking be made between the NCDC and the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services, that no more government offices will be located in Civic Centre until the NCDC has concluded a thorough review of the Civic Centre policy plan and associated developments. The Committee also examined the impact of releasing such a large amount of retail space in Civic simultaneously and considers that there will be an initial period of oversupply with resulting problems in trading conditions for some retailers. This will be compounded by the completion of the Tuggeranong Town Centre and expansion of the Belconnen Mall and there will have to be a readjustment in trading patterns throughout the ACT. However, the question of supply of retail space should be determined by market forces. It is inevitable that some adjustments will have to be made and it is probable that there will be a reassessment of some present high rental charges in the market. The Committee does not think it has a role in providing assessments of the economic viability of such ventures, as these are a matter for private sector investment. Another consideration raised concerning this development was the impact it will have on the visual axis from Mount Ainslie to City Hill which forms part of Walter Burley Griffin's plan to provide a series of avenues radiating from Mount Ainslie to Black Mountain. The arguments advanced are set out in the Committee's report and it was concluded that an appreciation of the axis could be enhanced with the construction of a glass atrium providing sight lines in both direction as part of the development. Some of the major discussions during the Committee's hearings centred around traffic movements and parking issues. The Committee examined these areas in detail and concluded that in the interest of pedestrian safety there was merit in closing Ainslie Avenue. However, the Committee does not consider that sufficient consideration has been given to existing traffic movements in Civic in relation to where traffic originates from or its final destination. The proposed Monash Drive and other proposed access roads for Gungahlin would reduce traffic pressure in Civic but the Committee is concerned that the routing of traffic from Monash Drive down Ainslie Avenue would add to congestion in other roads when Ainslie Avenue is closed off. It is also recognised that this will increase pressures in streets in adjoining suburbs such as Reid and Braddon. The NCDC has provided the Committee with further information relating to the effect of increased traffic movements on lead pollution levels and this is contained in an appendix to the report. The Committee is greatly concerned by the lack of proper provision of carparking in Civic Centre and preliminary plans for satisfying the need for carparking in and around Civic which have been long overdue have now been provided to the Committee in this report. However, in an attempt to alleviate pressures on commuters, the Committee recommends that a trust fund account be set up and administered by the Department of Territories by the end of 1987 to enable revenue generated from parking fees to be redirected to the policing of parking restrictions, provision of further parking facilities and expansion of the ACTION bus fleet. It is the Committee's hope that these problems are of a short term nature and therefore it also recommends that regulations governing the trust fund should provide for its termination three years from commencement unless there are specific reasons for its continuation beyond this period. In conclusion I would like to stress that this development is a very significant proposal which constitutes the largest single private sector investment in Canberra's history. This development is important for the future of Civic Centre, the Australian Capital Territory and the south-east region of New South Wales. It is important for Canberra's continued development to broaden its economic base and this project will provide employment opportunities, increased tourism potential for Civic and Canberra and greater opportunities for recreational and cultural pursuits in Civic Centre. The major shortcoming which has been highlighted during this inquiry is the question of an overall policy plan for Civic Centre. As a consequence of its appearance before the Committee, the NCDC has agreed to undertake a Civic Plan review, to revise land use and transport policies which are no longer relevant and give a more accurate indication of the development of Civic and Canberra during the 1990's. The Committee therefore recommends that the NCDC make public by June 1987 a revised policy plan for Civic Centre outlining the likely consequences of the present level of development on future planning intentions and setting out in full the implications of this development on traffic flows and parking. Included in this revised plan must be an environmental assessment of the total impact of all development in Civic. Finally, I would like to point out that during the Committee's extensive investigations of this proposal and in evidence taken from 29 witnesses over two days of hearings no-one was opposed in principle to the development of section 38 and associated carparks. Although concern was expressed about the timing of the development, its size and perceived lack of environmental assessment, I think that the Committee in its investigations is now satisfied that with the undertakings it has obtained from the NCDC most of these objections have been satisfied. The Committee therefore approves the Variation. Debate resumed from 1 April, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(12.05) — When the debate was interrupted last night I was supporting the reintroduction of the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2] by the Government. Last night I was addressing the particular issue that the Opposition has failed to get across. The reason for this Bill is that an Australia Card is necessary to ensure that taxation and social security requirements can be wedded together. The Opposition claims that it would be better if we improved the taxation system and pursued social security fraud as two separate issues. Opposition senators fail to understand how often those two areas are critically intertwined. In some earlier speeches Opposition senators made the point that the Department of Social Security had said that identification did not account for much of the fraud within that Department. However, they selectively quoted from the Department's submission and they failed to understand the Department's difficulty when it addresses the question of fraud. All of us in this place know of some stunning examples of people who have created false identities and ripped off social security to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Fortunately, some of those examples have come to light and the people who have so fraudulently cheated Australians of legitimate claims on either the tax dollars or the social security dollars have been put in their right place-that is, in gaol, where they will not be able to perpetrate such rip-offs against honest Australians any more. In dealing with the question of identity, the Department of Social Security admits that it is very difficult to establish whether the identity claimed by a person is fraudulent. That is one part of the problem. Another part of the problem is that quite often people who may be genuinely identified may not genuinely submit all the evidence of their income. The Australia Card will make it possible to identify all income earned by citizens in their claims for social security. Thus, the Department of Social Security will be properly aware of all the income a person is receiving and therefore it can adjust the social security requirements according to that full information. The importance of being able to have evidence from both the Department of Social Security and the Australian Taxation Office is critical. That was a point made by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in introducing this legislation and it is a point that has been ignored by the Opposition. However, as I was saying last night, it is interesting to note that when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) first agreed to inquire into an identity card way back in 1979 it was a matter of concern to the then Government. It continues to be a matter of concern for this Government. It is important to understand properly the question of identity and the difficulty that that creates for the Department of Social Security. Another point that I made on this issue in my speech last December and which I wish to make again is the benefit of a secure and basic identification system for many thousands of people who come to the Department of Social Security. At the moment the requirements for identification are stringent and complex because we have no adequate, clear and reliable identification system. A number of pensioner groups who have come to the Parliament in this session, particularly those who have reported difficulties about receiving insufficient income through pensions and so on, have raised queries about the difficulties of identification through the social security system. Some of them are afraid of the ID card until it is explained to them exactly what a proper identification system will mean. It will mean that there will be no difficulty in the Department appreciating that they are who they say they are. They will be relieved of enormous burdens which they currently face in trying to establish their identity beyond dispute in order to satisfy the Department. It has been a real benefit to reassure many of those pensioners that the Australia Card will be a considerable plus for them. Their identity will be established clearly and they will not have to constantly and chronically address the problem of identification. I do not criticise the Department for being stringent about identification requirements. It is under considerable pressure to ensure that it is not fraudulently or inaccurately overpaying people and it is bound, in the proper conduct of its business, to ensure as far as possible that people are who they say they are and are entitled to the payments that they claim. The Australia Card will certainly go a long way to combating the problems that the Department of Social Security faces and it will also be of great benefit to those people who currently must deal with the difficulties of identifying themselves beyond doubt for the Department. Another point that has been raised by the Opposition is the question of amendments to the Bill. Opposition senators have asked why, when amendments were proposed, the Government did not introduce a Bill that contained those amendments. There are a couple of points to make about that. The first is that the Minister had a clear understanding that the Opposition did not care anyhow; that whether the Bill was amended or not, it would turf it out. The Opposition said that the Government need not bother putting in amendments because these would make no difference. Both the official Opposition and the Australian Democrats said that they would oppose the Bill regardless of the form in which it was introduced. But, more importantly, the Minister has made quite clear that those amendments go particularly to the later or operational stages of the legislation. He has made it absolutely clear that those machinery considerations will be part of his ongoing consultations with business and banks-particularly the banks which raised some points and discussed them with the Minister. That discussion will continue. Those amendments will be put into place, as necessary, as part of the ongoing establishment of the Australia Card operation. I can quite understand the Opposition saying that it did not matter a damn, that it was not going to accept this legislation in any form whatsoever. That has been its peculiar and bizarre position on this legislation from the beginning, but I think it is a fair amount of cant and hypocrisy then to say: `Why did you not amend it?'. The Opposition made it absolutely clear that it did not matter whether we did or did not, that it was going to dismiss it. I think for the record, that point should be clearly understood. I would like to finish by recalling what Dr Blewett said in the other place in reintroducing this legislation. He said: This Government believes that the people of this country have a fundamental right to expect that their elected representatives protect them from those who are operating dishonestly within the tax and welfare systems. They have a right to expect that the Government ensures as best it can that all contribute their fair share of tax. They have a right to expect that welfare benefits are paid only to those who are truly entitled to those benefits. They have a right to expect that immigrants to this country who are operating within our system are here legally. Finally, and very importantly, they have a right to expect that, in going about achieving these fundamental goals, governments do everything within their power to safeguard the rights to privacy and civil liberties of the individual. It is because the Government is convinced, as is the majority of the population, that the Australia Card program will significantly achieve and enhance all of these rights that I am today reintro- ducing the Australia Card Bill 1986. I still find it interesting to recall the Opposition's objections to this legislation. The Opposition is, by any number of its statements over times past, convinced of the value of it. The Opposition is very clear and loud in insisting that there should be a cut down on welfare fraud and on the payment of unemployment benefits to those who are not entitled to them. It wants to see improved operations within the Australian Taxation Office. It says it is opposed to tax evasion and avoidance, although its record on this is far from perfect. In spite of that, it gets up and opposes this legislation, and that is a particular and peculiar somersault. It is not opposing the legislation on details, it is opposing it on its substance, and I think that stands in clear contradiction to its earlier statements. In particular it stands in contradiction to the claims of those on the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card who settled in the end for the tax file number. But the tax file number differs not much at all from the Australia Card in that if it is to be effective it would have to have high integrity, and it would be aiming to do exactly the sorts of things that the Australia Card will do. The Opposition, having said that it will support the legislation, now says that it does not support it any more. Its opposition to this legislation can leave us only with the understanding that it is not serious about cracking down on tax evasion; that it is not serious about closing out social security fraud and that it is here only for political posturing and grandstanding. It is not interested in those claims that it had earlier. It has reversed its position on the legislation. The Government is absolutely clear that it wants to support honest taxpayers and that it wants to provide proper payment of social security to those who are properly entitled to it. That is why the Government is quite sure and sincere, in reintroducing this legislation, that it will achieve all of those things it sets out to do, as I have just read into this place. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(12.14) —As the Australia Card legislation once again rears its ugly head, I am forced once more to voice my objections on behalf of the Unite Australia Party to this classic piece of Government overkill. I believe the Australia Card is a piece of nonsense. It is not just simply another piece of plastic that Australian citizens have to carry around with them. It represents an insidious violation of the right of privacy to individuals in this country. I believe it also represents a typical bureaucratic overload on what already is a very inefficient system. Senator Crowley made the point that neither the Australian Democrats nor the Opposition would support a modified approach to the Australia Card. I do not believe that is the case. It is certainly not my position. I and the Unite Australia Party are prepared to support the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card that a verifiable tax number would cover 90 per cent of social security fraud and other fraud in our community. So it is a problem that the Government has reintroduced this legislation in its exact original form, purely for political reasons, to get a trigger for a double dissolution. I believe the Government has not sought to create an alternative and more efficient system of attacking social welfare fraud, which undoubtedly is rife in our community. If the Government had done that I believe it would have been possible to get agreement from the various sections represented in the Senate. But political expediency seems to have been the order of the day, and that is a great pity. The essential problem with the legislation, as I see it, is that it is very complex and it is simply another example of bureaucratic overload, and a very expensive approach at that. If there were real commitment on the part of the Government to cut out waste and duplication, I believe it could do all kinds of innovative things that would achieve that. To illustrate what I mean, let me pose this scenario: At the present time at least two-thirds of the Department of Social Security is involved in checking on individual eligibility for social security benefits. The facts of the matter are that another Government department already has all this information in its files. I refer to the Australian Taxation Office. All that would be necessary would be for the Taxation Office to make available to the Social Security Department the information that it seeks when it is trying to establish eligibility. If there were co-operation between those two departments at least two-thirds of the staff of the Social Security Department could be redeployed on much more creative tasks than duplicating or attempting to duplicate information, often at great difficulty, that is already available in the Tax Office. These new approaches need to be looked at. The Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card said that a verifiable tax file number was all that was necessary to attack social security fraud. I am sure this is the case. It is certainly the point of view that I support. I do not believe the Government has really done what it could to meet the legitimate objections of the groups represented in the community at this time. Here we are faced with a simple regurgitation of a debate that we have had before. The Senate is being placed in the position of giving the Government a trigger for a double dissolution. The real issue at stake, of the cracking down on social security fraud, has not been addressed. The Australian Labor Party is clearly obsessed with the need for everybody in its ranks to be card carrying members. I do not see why every person in this society of ours should have to be a card carrying member. Up to the present time this has been a free society, and as far as the people I represent are concerned, it has to remain a free society and that freedom has to be guarded at all costs. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(12.19) —I am opposed to the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2], as is the Opposition, and I will be voting against it. I am opposed to it for three reasons: Firstly, it will not work, it cannot work and it will have the contrary effect to what is intended; secondly, it is a gross invasion of privacy; and, thirdly, there is a huge cost to the taxpayer, particularly to the business community. At a time when we are trying to make Australia more competitive the very last thing we should do is load up the business community with an on-cost of about $2 billion a year. Everyone in the Liberal Party of Australia is opposed to tax cheats, social security cheats, organised crime and illegal migrants. If we listen to members of the Australian Labor Party we hear that they share our view on that. It is regrettable that they do not do anything about controlling tax evasion as the Liberal Party did when it was in Government. Whatever are their objectives here, they will never achieve them with an Australia Card. If we look at taxation for a start, the smart people-I say that in a sarcastic way-will still use the many loop- holes in taxation law to avoid paying their due taxes. The dishonest people, whether we have an Australia Card or not, will still use false names or will not file their returns. There will not be any increase in the amount of taxation paid when an Australia Card comes in. If we are concerned about paying tax the first moral obligation on this Government is to make its Treasurer (Mr Keating) file his tax returns and pay his tax. Every one of the other 16 million Australians does not have any option in paying tax, but Mr Keating, of course, does because he is in charge of the treasury chests. Senator Kilgariff —Did he get fined? Senator MacGIBBON —No, nothing at all happened to him. He just lives on in his arrogant way claiming false travel allowances. One of the ways of addressing this is to correct the legislation. The Liberal Party has made it very clear that it will support any reasonable and effective changes to the taxation legislation or the social security legislation. The real problem is cleaning up the departments. The Australian Taxation Office does not apply the laws that at present are on the statute book and the administration of the Taxation Office is abysmal. For someone who is very concerned about restricting outgoings in this country Senator Walsh should be the first person in there banging some heads together and reading the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure report called `A Taxing Problem' which was presented to the Parliament. In that report the Committee showed that over $2 billion a year was being lost through maladministration in the Australian Taxation Office. The same thing applies to the Department of Social Security. Let us improve the administration of the Department. Let us have welfare schemes that are not as open to exploitation as they are at present. The cash economy will go on growing, whether or not we have an Australia Card. A card will have no effect on the hip pocket transactions that go on. An Australia Card will help entrench organised crime and make it that much more secure. In all these cases let us fix up the departments. The Public Service in Australia has run down quite dramatically in the last four years because the Labor Party sees it as a political extension of its activities-putting in its friends as heads of departments. It has politicised the Public Service to such a degree that there is now a rundown in its competence. It is very dishonest of this Government to present the Australia Card debate in this way. It has sold the argument on simple emotional grounds. Stop the cheats, it says. Everyone agrees with that. They say that it is just a little, old identification card and that no one minds carrying a passport. That is true; no one minds having to identify oneself. Then it comes on with this business that it will save the Australian taxpayer billions of dollars, and again that is not true. None of those things is true. There is a further dimension to the dishonesty of this Government in the present circumstances. After the Bill was defeated in the Senate at the end of last year the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, and various responsible Ministers admitted that there were many defects in the Bill and gave undertakings to correct them when the Bill was to be presented the next time. The Bill that is before the Senate today is exactly the same as the one that was presented in December, and that just illustrates that this Bill was presented purely for the cynical exercise of providing a trigger if the Government wished to exercise that prerogative to shore up its political fortunes at the time. Nothing demonstrates the cynicism of this Government more than the fact that the Bill was presented with all its defects for a second time. The Bill will not work, and I will tell honourable senators why. There is no security, and I do not want to use the jargon of the Labor Party in talking about the integrity of the card. It is not a high integrity card. It has very little security value because of two facts. Firstly, people can make false statements as to their entitlement to it. Secondly, cards can be forged. The entitlement to a card turns on a birth certificate. The circumstances which pertain to the issuance of birth certificates in Australia are relatively lax. What is worse, they vary from State to State. In some States people can get them through the mail; they just write for one. The honest people in Australia, and that is the overwhelming majority of the community, would not know how to go about getting a false birth certificate, but it is very easy for the dishonest. Apart from getting birth certificates on false grounds, the other thing is that they are a relatively simple document to forge. In one case that came before the courts in the last month or two some social security cheat was caught with 16 different birth certificates. If he could get 16 birth certificates, it means he could get 16 Australia cards. We have two problems here: People can get cards on false grounds and they can also get multiple cards. Under this Government we have the delightful gilbertian situation of the Health Insurance Commission admitting to the fact that it has issued Medicare cards to 103 per cent of the Australian population. When I was in Toowoomba two weekends ago for a function I was talking to one of the medical practitioners there who told me that one of his colleagues knows of a person in Toowoomba who has 53 Medicare cards. The system is simply not tight enough to control that sort of thing. The lay public has been led to believe that a picture on a card is a guarantee of its validity. If someone's photograph is on a card and that person wears that card around his or her neck all it means is that the photograph on the card is of the face of the person who is wearing the card. It does not prove that the person is Bill Smith, Tom Jones, Harriet Jones or anyone else. It is not proof of identity. It is simply proof of the fact that the person who is pictured there is the one who is wearing the card, but that is too technical an argument for the Labor Party to follow. Many research exercises have been done on security grounds where people have walked through the most secure military installation and establishments wearing a picture of their dog or their girlfriend, and no one has ever challenged them. The major objection that we have to this is the huge invasion of personal privacy which is involved. At present in the Australian society a huge amount of information is known about people's personal affairs. The one saving grace at present is that it is dispersed through many units and organisations in the community. With the Australia Card it will all be aggregated in one vast central government file. The Public Service will not admit to it, but it wants to know everything about everyone in this country. It wants it in one file. What it wants is simply none of its business at all in a civilised society. Once it gets that information security is impossible to guarantee. The Minister says he has no concern about the matter of security of someone's private interests. I quote him: Let me say as a socialist that it is the interest of the community that should come before the individual right . . . We should'nt 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. When we get this centralised file on people's personal affairs everyone in the Public Service will have access to it. I listened to a previous speaker, and I was staggered by her naivete and ignorance when she talked about permission being required to get access to those files. It simply cannot happen. Junior clerks in the Public Service will have access to everyone's personal, medical and financial details and will be able to sell the information illegally and distribute this throughout the community. As I said when I spoke on this Bill last year, the fact that the private details of a citizen of Australia go into a file-a file that he cannot correct-means that the possibility of redemption, which is one of the fundamental points of our society, the ability to turn over a new leaf and change one's life if one has erred in any way at all, will be lost forever. Our third objection to this Australia Card turns on the question of cost. I have studied very carefully the figures that have come from Dr Blewett. They are as rubbery as any set of figures I have seen and they change every time he looks at them-and they change upwards. We are looking at huge costs. There are no savings at all to Social Security by bringing in this card, for the reasons that I have listed before, but there is a very big on-cost because we will have 2,000 public servants administering this business at a cost of billions of dollars. On top of the cost of those public servants we will have a huge amount of paper work dumped on private business. It is estimated conservatively that it will be at least $2 billion a year. Given the huge debt position of Australia because of the economic incompetence of this government-the biggest taxing, biggest spending and biggest borrowing government; a government that has given us an overseas debt of $100,000m that we have to work to pay off-the very last thing we need is an impost of $2 billion dumped on private industry, the only people who can amortise that bill. We oppose this Bill. It is a cynical, cheap political exercise to re-present it in an unamended form. The Bill will not work. It cannot work. It will help the criminal groups in the community because one of the very dangerous things that it will do is give the imprimatur of identity to a false identity in the community. We do not establish who people are in the community through one piece of paper. We get as many supporting pieces of evidence as we can: Who their parents were; where they live; where they went to school; who their friends were, and all the rest. If we eliminate all those supporting tests that are normally applied to a person in the community at the present time and focus them down to one point, the existence of a plastic card, once that plastic card has been falsified the persistence of that false identity is that much easier. In that sense, the dishonest are advantaged enormously by this legislation. We do not support it. It will not work. It cannot work. It is a gross invasion of privacy. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-It has been brought to my attention that my very good friend and colleague Senator Grimes will today resign as a member of the Senate. For a long period of time, when we have had divisions in this place which sometimes the Government would lose, there would be great outcries and calls from the Opposition of `resign, resign!' I do not for a moment want it to be thought that Senator Grimes is the first to take heed of that outcry. Everyone here knows why Don Grimes has decided to resign from the Senate and from politics: A year or so ago he had a very serious operation and the strains and tensions of this place, which certainly bring out the worst in all of us from time to time, have in his case made, in his view, that resignation necessary. In the brief remarks I wish to make I think I can fairly say that I speak for all my colleagues on the Government benches. I hope I speak for the whole Senate in what I have to say. First, I wish to make some fairly personal observations in the sense that Senator Grimes and I have had a very close collaboration and a close career path in politics. We entered the Senate together in 1974. At that stage the Whitlam Government was in office, and in those 18 months we found the political process very unusual. After that, in 1975 when we went into opposition, it was an opposition which confronted a government with an enormous majority, as a result of both the 1975 election and the 1977 election. It was apparent to people such as Don and me-I will be frank about this-that we had to get about the task of rebuilding the Australian Labor Party as a viable political force in this country and that we had to make a number of changes to both the structure and the basis on which the Labor Party operated. In 1977, I think it was, a committee of review into Labor Party organisation, structure and a whole range of attitudes was appointed. I became chairman of that committee. The whole Labor Party responded to the changes which were suggested by that committee after its lengthy inquiry. Throughout that period Don Grimes was a great contributor to that process. It is a very important part of his career which might normally be overlooked in any history of Australian politics. Similarly, in terms of the Senate, when I became Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Don became Deputy Leader and we worked very closely together in those positions, and have done so again since the Labor Government was elected in 1983. It is not often that one speaks in this vein in the Senate except when somebody has died and we have a condolence motion. I do not want to say all those things which are often said in the context of condolence motions when one refers to the number of committees people have been on, the number of trips they have had overseas and all those sorts of things. But Don was a very distinguished and sensible Minister for Social Security and Minister for Community Services. I say no more about those sorts of issues. I must say on a personal level that in politics there are high fliers, those who step instantly into the limelight, whether by virtue or inclination, and those who play a very important role in politics without constantly rabbiting away on the front door of Parliament House every morning about the latest issue. Don is in that second category. His contribution to Australian politics-and I am sure that he would agree with this-has not been one of constantly asserting his position in the limelight of politics but one of steady work and great contribution in that way. He has a great virtue which many of us in politics lack; that is, a calm and dispassionate approach to day to day issues and the capacity to step back and look with a degree of calmness and detachment at political issues. Opposition senators-Ha, ha! Senator BUTTON —What is funny about that? Senator Haines —Unlike his successor. Senator BUTTON —I do not think that that is true either. But I am not doing Senator Gareth Evans today! When I do, I will say a lot about his contribution to Australian politics, which has been enormous and will continue to be enormous. Different people have different qualities-and some, if I might say so, have none at all. Neither Senator Grimes nor Senator Evans falls into that category. Those qualities have been of immense value not only to the political party which Senator Grimes has represented and worked for so much in the past few years but also to the Senate. I can now reveal a secret which I could not have revealed a year or two ago. Sometimes when I got into trouble at Question Time honourable senators may have noticed that Don Grimes took an endless time to answer very mundane questions about social security issues. He has never revealed it to me but I know that what he was doing was helping me out of a difficulty by giving me time to find the answer to the next question which I anticipated would be asked. That is a great quality whether it be in a cricket team, a football team, a political party, or government. I do not want to prolong proceedings. I will very much miss Don as a friend. The Senate and the Government will lose the qualities which he gave to Australian politics. On behalf of the Government I take this opportunity to wish him every success in his future career. I make just one point about that. In politics there are always allegations about jobs for the boys. Senator Lewis, who is not in the chamber at the moment, is always offering me a posting to the Australian Embassy in Washington if only I would leave this place. That is very kind of him and I appreciate his offer but I do not intend to ever have occasion to call on his largesse. I believe not one criticism was made publicly of the appointment of Don Grimes as Ambassador to the Hague and I think that is a great tribute to him and to the good sense and decency which from time to time emerges in the Opposition. I congratulate him on his appointment. I end on one note of disappointment about Don. For the past fortnight or three weeks since he gave up his position in the Ministry, I have been trying to get him to ask me the following dorothy dix question in the Senate: `Senator Button, aren't you a good bloke?'. He has persistently declined to ask it and he has done that out of respect for the Senate because he would know very well that I would take an hour to answer that question. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I support the well meaning but rather confused remarks of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). I could go along with what he said for most of the way but he described Senator Grimes as calm and dispassionate and I realised that he was talking not about Dr Grimes but about Dr Jekyll. As is always the case with one's political opponents, there have been times when I have seen enormous virtue in Senator Grimes and other times when I have seen enormous vice. Although this is not a condolence motion I think it is a time to draw a decent veil over those occasions when I have seen vice. However, I am tempted to say that in the years that Senator Grimes shadowed me when I had the social security portfolio there were times when I thought he was a pain in the neck. I recall being particularly upset when he became Minister for Social Security and adopted what seemed to me to be a suspiciously similar approach to a problem as I had adopted and he had roundly criticised. I bailed up a member of his staff-it will not be difficult for him to know which one I had bailed up-and asked her: `Why is it that you were so critical of me when I did that and now you are doing it yourself?' She said: `We know a lot more about it now'. I want to recall the very early period that Senator Grimes and I shared in the Senate, when we first become senators in 1974, and that is our period on the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which we shared with the now Leader of the Government in the Senate. Both Senator Button and Senator Grimes got into a bit of trouble with their then leader over some of their fearless committee activities. It was thought for a while that they had blighted very promising political careers. I can only say that I am sorry that that thought proved to be inaccurate. The sorts of personal relationships in the Senate probably deteriorated sharply post-1975 and personal dealings between us were strained for some time afterwards. I think it is only now that we are really getting over the very strong differences of opinion that arose between us at that time over the role of this place. In a sense it will be good when we put those memories behind us because, although we believe we were correct, there are strong feelings on the other side that we were not. I think that was a significant factor in the change which occurred in the Senate in the 1970s. There are a couple of other things that I want to say about Senator Grimes. There was a period when his health led me to believe that we would be having a condolence motion for him. I can remember saying to my own troops: `For heaven's sake, don't get into an argument with Grimes'. I must say that it is a matter of great pleasure to me and, indeed, other members of, the Opposition that Senator Grimes leaves this place in good health for a new career in which he will be able to work, one can be sure, to the advantage of our country. On behalf of the Opposition I wish him well in his new appointment. The Leader of the Government in the Senate made the point that there has been no criticism of the appointment and that is true, just as there has been no criticism of the appointment of the former distinguished President of this place, who has gone to the United Kingdom. I believe that the lack of criticism is because it is the reflective view of the Opposition that there is a place for ex-politicians to serve Australia in that way. Certainly we have appointed distinguished persons from our side of politics to diplomatic positions. I would make the point, because it was made to me by somebody who received a diplomatic appointment, that there was a marked difference, in fact, between the reception afforded his appointment and the reception afforded, from our side of politics, the two recent appointments from the Senate. I make that statement not in any rancorous way, but because I believe that there are substantial areas of Australian politics which, to advantage, can properly be taken away from partisan conflict; that, where there is a genuine belief that an appointment is a good one and in the national interest, that fact should be acknowledged by the Opposition. We have not made any criticism of Senator Grimes's appointment because we have thought it to be an appropriate one. On a personal basis, I would also wish to extend my best wishes to Senator Grimes and I suspect that all of us will feel a twinge of envy as he leaves this place with a very jaunty step. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-On behalf of my colleagues in this place I rise to support the remarks of Senator Button and Senator Chaney. From Senator Button's remarks, I understand that things are a little firmer at this valedictory than they were when we talked about ex-Senator McClelland last year; that the appointment has been announced. I certainly wish Senator Grimes well in his new job. The Senate is a pretty tough place at times and the Manager of Government Business has, I suppose, a pretty tough job, but Senator Grimes was able to mix it with the best of us. He did not always win and had, I suppose, to learn some lessons as he performed his apprenticeship. Last night, when things were a little bit out of hand, I heard behind me Senator Walters say: `Bring back Senator Grimes'. I suppose that would have to be the ultimate accolade! Nonetheless, it is a rather tough job and Senator Grimes performed it well and to the best of his ability, not always with the co-operation of the Opposition. Was it not ever thus? I suppose that things will not change in the future. Mention has been made of the honourable senator's operation of some months ago. It is a measure of his dedication that he chose to come back to the Senate, and do so as a Minister. I think I heard somebody say that if he had an operation like that one would not see his heels for dust-far from coming back to the stresses and strains that this place puts upon people. But the honourable senator did and carried on with his job to the best of his ability, for the benefit of his Party and the Government. So I would like to join those who have spoken in wishing Senator Grimes all the best in his new job. I agree that there has been no criticism of the appointment; that people serve in this place a pretty hard apprenticeship which equips them all the better for some of these jobs to which we appoint them when they leave. Some of us, undoubtedly, will look forward to seeing Senator Grimes in his new post in the Hague. I cannot speak on behalf of everybody here, but I am sure that when Senator Bjelke-Petersen and I call he will not have to lock up his grog cupboard. We will be satisfied with a cup of tea. Senator Lewis —And a scone! Senator COLLARD —We may have to bring the pumpkin. On behalf of my colleagues, I say to Senator Grimes that it has been great serving with him here, and we wish him all the best in his new position, in which we know he will do great credit to both himself and his country. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-I would just like on behalf of my colleagues to add my remarks to those of Senator Button, Senator Chaney and Senator Collard. When one of my staff reminded me this morning that Don was going to be making his farewell address to this place, she said: `Isn't it nice that for once we can get up and say nice things about somebody who is leaving here and really mean them'. I guess that is because Don Grimes is what most people would call `a Nice Man'-with a capital `N' and a capital `M'. I cannot think of too many in this chamber who have dealt with him and not liked him as a person, however much one might have disagreed with some of his policies or with his ideology. For a socialist, he is quite a nice man. Interestingly, though, I think it says something more about him that, as Minister for Social Security and later Minister for Community Services, he was also considered a nice man by the people who were going to be affected by the policies that he put into place. As the person who, on behalf of my party, was responsible for those portfolios, I have been on platforms and at meetings from time to time with Don and have seen in just what high regard he is held by people involved with those departments. I know, of course, that his staff adored him-and I do not think that is putting too high a word on it-again because he is basically a nice person. He has also been, as has been touched on already today, an excellent Manager of Government Business in this place. In that position I think it would have to be said that Don turned being laid-back into an art form. He took the very realistic view that if the numbers were against him there was not much point in doing anything other than give in gracefully. That is probably a lesson that could well be learned by anybody taking over the position from him. He will be missed, not just as Manager of Government Business in this place, but as a most entertaining answerer of questions during Question Time and an entertaining interjector. He could always be counted on to defuse any excesses of rancour, such as occur from time to time, in this place, with perhaps a story about his chooks or an appropriate put down of whoever happened to be interjecting, especially if that person was on the back benches opposite to him. The Tasmanian not-very-civil war between Senator Grimes and Senator Walters provided, I think, some of the more classic exchanges that have been heard in this place. That is something that we are all-especially, I would have thought, Senator Walters-going to miss. One of the reasons there has not been any criticism of Don Grimes's appointment to the Hague is that, as Senator Collard has said, he will make an excellent ambassador because of his experience, because he is a diplomat, because he is a nice man. On behalf of the Party, I wish him well. I would like to remove myself from Senator Collard's comments about locking up the grog cabinet and assure Senator Grimes that he is going to have a steady stream of visitors from now until the end of his term. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave-Mr President, as the inheritor of Senator Grimes's mantle as Deputy Leader and Manager of Government Business in this place, I think it appropriate, not least in light of what has been said already in this debate, to say a word or two about the legacy that he has left me. As the Opposition and the Australian Democrats keep reminding me, he is a hard act to follow. With his particular brand of avuncular charm, Don has undoubtedly won the confidence, trust and affection of those with whom he has been dealing on both sides of the chamber-even those whom he has been simultaneously, and very successfully in the case of Senator Walters, needling. I put it all down to his professional training and experience, and the bedside manner that comes with it. The difficulty with lawyers, by contrast, is that if we develop a bedside manner with our clients we find ourselves either struck off or in gaol! I simply want to say that if the relaxed and laid-back Grimes-like personality that is obviously inside me struggling to get out ever does emerge into the public light I will put it all down to Don's example and influence. I want to conclude by thanking Don for all the support and help that he has given me personally on those many occasions when times have been tough for me in the conduct of my portfolio or whatever else in politics. I want to thank him also for the very good company that he has been for me and for so many others of us during our time together in this place. Finally, I simply want to wish him every success in what I have no doubt will be an extremely distinguished third career. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-Mr President, during the winter months in Sydney we play a game called rugby league. Perhaps the smallest band of people in existence in Australia are the supporters of North Sydney Rugby League Club. It is probably true that Senator Grimes, who played for North Sydney at one stage, could be included in that band. But if one moves up the road a bit from North Sydney Rugby League headquarters one comes to an institution called the `country club', otherwise known as the Royal North Shore Hospital of Sydney. Senator Grimes may not recall that in his maiden speech in this place he looked across the chamber at me-I either just preceded him or was about to follow him in giving my own maiden speech-and made the point: `You may have taught me medicine, but you did not teach me politics; I kept reading after I finished Adam Smith'. I am glad that he said that. There are those on my own side who say that I should go back and read Adam Smith. An interesting thing about that country club, the Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney, is that it is not unconnected with Australian politics. A fellow named Peter Wilenski trained at the Royal North Shore Hospital. Look what happened to him! A fellow named Doug Everingham was a clinical assistant at the Royal North Shore Hospital. Look what happened to him! A fellow named Moses Henry Cass was a student and resident at the hospital. A fellow named Richard Emanuel Klugman was a resident at the hospital. Don Grimes was at the same hospital and, of course, so was I. I am known as the blue sheep of the medical graduates of Royal North Shore! The rest have all gone solidly for the Labor side of politics, Don Grimes no less than the others. If in fact I was a teaching registrar when he was a student that was probably to my benefit. I would like to recall the time that we spent together on the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare during some great days in 1977. On one very interesting occasion the Committee split over the question of the decriminalisation of marijhuana. On one side of the argument we had voting one Labor senator, one Liberal senator, Senator Walters, and one National Party senator. On the other side were former senator Bill Brown, Don Grimes and I. Because I had the casting vote our view, of course, prevailed. Senator Walters —And I objected. Senator PETER BAUME —And Senator Walters quite properly objected for, I might tell honourable senators, about 23 hours! In my dealings with Senator Grimes while he was Minister and I was shadow Minister he showed me great courtesy, gave me enormous assistance, provided briefings both formal and on a daily basis as well as Press cuts and was in every way an ideal person with whom to relate. Also, he was, of course, one of the less tense and agitated members of this chamber. I conclude by expressing the hope that in due course, and in good order, the nominee of the Australian Labor Party to replace him will come to this chamber as intended under the provisions of the Constitution. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education) —by leave-Mr President, I would like to add a few words to what has been said. It is very fashionable in some circles, not least within the Australian Labor Party, to criticise aspects of the Hawke Labor Government's performance on the grounds that it is not a traditional Labor Government, that it has not really done the sorts of things that people expect democratic socialist governments like ours to do. Of course, in we reject those criticisms but there is no better example of how we have as a government devoted ourselves to the traditional concerns of democratic socialists than what Don has done in the areas for which he has had ministerial responsibility. What has Don done? He has instituted enormously effective new programs for the poor, the homeless, the disabled, the disadvantaged and all of those extra 40,000 children who will be in his child care program. He has done all of those things without great fuss, without pomposity or high-flown rhetoric; he has just done them. Achieving all of those programs in co-operation with the States has been-I think any Federal Minister must say-absolutely fantastic. A lot of people are going to be a lot better off because of what Don has done. He is a democratic socialist both in his personal values and in his ministerial work. He is kind, decent and humane. In the 11 years that we have been comrades I have been the beneficiary of all of those qualities. I was first elected to the Senate, in the less than halcyon days of December 1975, somewhat earlier than I had expected to be because events had not gone the way in which we thought they would. I was very green, very unprepared for what I had taken on, when Don spotted me at the first faction meeting we both attended. He could see straightaway that here was someone who needed a little bit of brotherly advice and guidance and he has given that to me ever since. So I have a lot to say thanks to Don for on a personal level. But I have also done him a good turn! Everyone in the Senate actually knows about it, I believe. When Don was a little less wasp-waisted than he is now, he was one day standing up at Question Time and was cruelly attacked by honourable senators opposite on account of that very fact. I sprang to his defence, as a good sister should, and remarked that I considered him to be quite spunky-a remark which was not meant to be heard by the Press gallery. But, as often happens with the wonders of modern technology and microphones, it was indeed heard. Don achieved national prominence as `the spunky senator', a fact about which he claimed to be immensely embarrassed but was, I think, quite pleased. Don has indeed been a very spunky Minister when it comes to doing the things that we expect democratic socialists to do. I am really sorry that he is going. Perhaps if we keep on saying nice things about him he will change his mind at the last minute. Having had a bit of experience in diplomatic circles I know that he is going to be a fantastic success as an Australian ambassador and that Helen Knight, as his partner in this exercise, will also contribute a great deal. I hope to be one of the many who will be popping into the Hague. It is, after all, so convenient. It is on the way to everywhere. Don, thanks for reminding us so often of what democratic socialism is all about. I wish you all the best for your future. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-I would not like the opportunity to pass without making some acknowledgment of Senator Don Grimes's contribution to the State of Tasmania, which he represents in this place. Although I have frequently been the recipient of his very cryptic remarks, I must say that as a neighbour along the corridor on the second floor at 46 St John Street, Launceston, I have found him and his staff very good neighbours indeed. They have certainly looked after the interests of their constituents well and, in doing so, have helped advance the interests of the State of Tasmania. It is fitting that such a large number of his staff, both from Canberra and Launceston, should be present in the galleries today. On my own behalf and on behalf of my wife Jocelyne, I take this opportunity of wishing him good health and success in his new career. Senator WALSH(Tasmania-Minister for Finance) —by leave-I am one of a number of people who were elected on the same day as Senator Don Grimes. Most I think are still here. On my count only two honourable senators on this side and three on the other have been here longer. It has often been said, accurately I believe, that many people have stayed here too long. I do not think that Don Grimes is one of those people. Towards the end of last year, for a variety of reasons, when rumours were circulating, I leaned on Don to stay in the Senate. I then became aware of, if not all, certainly more of the relevant factors involved and accepted that, all things considered, Don had probably done the best thing. I want only to endorse the remarks that my colleagues have made, to thank Don for 13 years of friendship and companionship-boisterous at times; not in recent years but certainly in the 1970s and even early 1980s-and wish him well in his next appointment and wherever else he may go. Finally, may I just say that as somebody who is concerned about, and I suppose has more than a normal degree of responsibility in regard to, the current account deficit I am a bit alarmed by the number of people who have signified their intention to flit past the Hague regularly over the next year or so! Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-Mr President, the Party leaders have expressed their viewpoints. Unfortunately, in this chamber nobody-and that includes me very often-can speak on my behalf adequately, but I would like to associate myself with the remarks of those who have wished Senator Don Grimes the best for the future. I do not agree with those who say that one of the reasons for there being no criticism about his appointment to the Hague is that when people are told about it they either say `Oh, the poor chap' or `Where is that?'. As he would know, perhaps 80 per cent of people in Australia could not say where the Hague was, but I am sure that when he goes there they will be able to do so. It is a very important diplomatic posting; more important than most people believe. I think that Don's experience here and his experience of life generally have equipped him for his task and I wish him well in his new role. I also hope, and expect, that he will do a very good job for Australia in fulfilling it. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-Mr President, if I may presume to speak on behalf of the back bench of the Australian Labor Party in this place, and as a fellow Tasmanian, I want to express my regret at Senator Don Grimes's departure. When he came to this Parliament I was already a veteran of 18 months in this place. Eighteen months with the Whitlam Government was quite a long time, I assure everyone, as a learning experience. Certainly during the events of that time, and since I was returned in 1981, Don Grimes has been a very important part of my membership of this Parliament. Because of my position as the Chair of the Caucus Welfare Committee, especially, and because of the ministries that he has held, we have needed a close relationship. That relationship has been very valuable and I think that most of us have appreciated his advice and influence. That is not to say that we have not had plenty of disagreements upon issues in the welfare area and others, but I certainly have appreciated his help and advice over the years. Perhaps I could also presume to speak on behalf of others who are unable to speak in this place. I refer to his staff, past and present, in Launceston and Canberra, who have been of benefit to him over the years and who too will miss him more than perhaps he realises, despite some of the frustrations that may have been involved in working for him-as I think all of our staff can be frustrated with us. I would like to say on their behalf that they, as I think everyone around this place knows-and perhaps I should add the Parliament House staff generally-will miss him. I think that in many ways he will miss the Senate desperately. I know that he believes his decision is correct but I think he will miss the excitement that can occur in this place from time to time. We will certainly miss him. Already the place is not the same. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —by leave-One of the interesting things about people when they are elected to parliament is that most of the population seems to assume that they cease to be human beings. When one comes to this place, as I did six years ago, it is not very long before one sorts out those who have retained their humanity and those who have in fact turned into the archetypal politician. On I think the second day that I was around this place, Senator Don Grimes came up to me and said hello. He was the first shadow Minister to do so. He is that type of person. Obviously he had seen me wandering around trying to find my way back to my room on one occasion. After that he was always ready to say hello, to be human, to have a joke, to sit down in the members' dining room and have lunch. He did that with not only myself but also many other people, and it became fairly obvious-having heard that he was going to retire and discussed it-that almost everybody had had the same experience. I think that is why he will be missed. Viewed from this angle, I think that the actual seat that is preserved for those in charge of Government Business will be a lot better off because of the absence of a characteristic stance of the honourable senator during Question Time-putting his foot up on the seat and grinding it in as he moved through his answers. That stance was particularly his own, especially when as shadow Minister he made those speeches which one could probably have collected into a book, on the Greek conspiracy case. I am not sure how many speeches on that subject I sat through. At the time I thought that one had to sit in here and listen to everything! Certainly his speeches went on for hours and hours and week after week. Probably a transcript of them would be somewhat longer than that of the court case which subsequently followed. I will miss him-I hope that I can be counted amongst his friends-and I am sure that many who are not members of his political party feel the same way. That sort of thing does not happen here all that often. It might be, as Senator Chaney has said, a result of events which happened in the not too distant past, but his departure is a pity in many ways. I hope that he will enjoy his new post. I, for one, have been a very strong supporter of the view that people who achieve ministerial rank or other such positions in this place are eminently equipped to represent Australia overseas. I have always found it very odd that that should be decried in the media. I believe that a person who has achieved such rank in serving the population, who has achieved such support from his or her own colleagues as to be made a Minister of state, can do far more for this country in an overseas posting than could most people who have had a normal Public Service career. That might be an unpopular view but from talking to various people in the Parliament and from the visits that I have made overseas I have become convinced that the ability of Ministers, of no matter what government, to fill that type of position and work well at it for the benefit of this country will eventually be appreciated by the population in general. Just as our former President is no doubt by now on speaking terms with the Monarch, I am quite sure that in a few months Senator Grimes will enjoy an enormously wide circle of friends in the Hague. For that reason I think that he will be able to serve his country as well there as he has served it here. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State) —by leave-I wish to support the sentiments that have already been expressed by so many around the chamber concerning my colleague from Tasmania, Senator Don Grimes. I think that when the time comes to write the history of the Hawke Government Don Grimes, as Senator Ryan has already remarked, will have to be awarded the title of the quiet revolutionary. In his own manner he has enabled us, as Australians, to say that we live in a civilised, caring society. If society is to call itself civilised it always requires somebody in a government to really fight with all the political skills available-such a person need not be boisterous and upfront-for the benefit of those who are disadvantaged and require support from the rest of society, so that they may enjoy a reasonable standard of living, reasonable prospects, even sheer basic care. In that regard, I think that Don Grimes has achieved in his four years as a Minister in the Hawke Government that quiet revolution which enables us all, as Australians, to be that much more proud of the nation to which we belong. In Tasmania his loss will be felt, certainly as keenly as, if not more keenly than, here. Senator Watson and Senator Coates have already alluded to that fact. With regard to the Tasmanian political scene, his voice in the Cabinet was I am sure very useful in helping Tasmania in the many crises and traumas of the last four or five years, but it was within the Tasmanian Labor Party itself that I think Don's greatest skills were called upon. I have no doubt that during the course of discharging the responsibilities that the National Executive of the Party thrust upon him, he experienced isolation and a good deal of pain and hurt from those who formerly were his colleagues and supporters in the Tasmanian branch. For Don to take on that role and endure the pain and humiliation that was heaped upon him during the year or so of intervention is a tribute to his sense of the well-being of the Party at the national level, which was always a mark of his contribution to the National Executive. I know that he felt pain in those years, a sense of alienation from those who were his colleagues. It is part of the strength of the man that he endured all that. The presence a little earlier in the gallery of a person from another place, Warwick Smith, the honourable member for Bass, is I think also a tribute to the non-partisan affection with which people, particularly around Launceston, always regarded Don. It derived in part from his time in medical practice but as he moved into politics and a wider group became acquainted with him, so that circle of affection on the part of those who really felt that he was a nice man grew. I am sure that many in the Tamar Valley will be very disappointed at the loss of Don Grimes to a post in the Hague. For a mainlander to achieve that degree of affection from Tasmanians is an achievement in itself, but Don certainly achieved it. I first met Don in the mid-1970s and was fortunate enough upon first running for the Senate in the campaign of late 1977 to have Don leading the ticket on which I was subsequently elected. I used to traipse around the north and north-west of the State, in particular, in his train and learnt a tremendous amount even in that period of campaigning. I think that I am right in recalling that it was during the 1977 campaign, at a function in Burnie, that we both for the first time met Helen Knight, who is also in the gallery. It was Don's good fortune to take the opportunity, if you like, and so commenced what has been a very happy period in his life. I have many memories of that 1977 campaign, but for Don that is no doubt the one-apart from his election to this place, of course-that continues to give him the greatest, and may I say well-deserved, pleasure. I will greatly miss his very gentle guidance and professionalism, which he always put at my disposal. I join those around the chamber who have expressed every best wish for his work at the Hague. The Hague, even though it might not be known to many Australians, is a very fitting place for Don to be. It is at the hub of Europe. He has always taken a great interest in European culture and politics, particularly on the democratic socialist side, and I am sure that the understanding of Europe which he brings to the post will serve Australia well. I wish Don personally all the best in his new post. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria) —by leave-Mr President, I take this opportunity to express my good wishes to Senator Don Grimes in his future career. I do so as someone who had a close association with him during the five years when he was a most assiduous shadow Minister of me, as Minister for Social Security. During those years I admired enormously the work that he did as shadow Minister. I respected his ability and capacity, with very few staff resources, but notably with Netta Burns, to establish an alternative set of books as far as the Department of Social Security was concerned. His work during those years was most effective. During the whole of that time we shared many platforms, we were at conferences together and I was very well aware of the respect in which he was held in the welfare community, the migrant community, in all of those places where we had to undertake duties together. So during that time I developed enormous respect for his capacity, his sincerity and his ability to put a point of view that, at that time, was somewhat different from what may have been his total experience when he did become Minister for Social Security. During the late 1970s and up to 1980, there was a thought in the Australian community that the giving of ever more money meant greater welfare and happiness generally; that more and more money and more and more programs were always the answer. I think that by the time Don did become the Minister for Social Security it was recognised, not only in his own Government but also in the wider community, that that may not always be possible. So I think that he had a duty as Minister, given the present economic circumstances, to show the community at large that alternatives had to be found to some of the programs, that restraints had to be exercised and, indeed, that some of the things that he had proselytised while shadow Minister were no longer possible of fulfilment. It was with interest that I watched his years as Minister. I admired the fact that he was able to get rid of half of the Department. I was never able to do that! In so doing he showed very good sense. Perhaps I could just say that, having been such an effective shadow Minister, perhaps it was rough justice that he did have to become the Minister for Social Security and take on that enormous Department and run it effectively. I join all of Don's colleagues in wishing both him and Helen every success and happiness in his new career. It is rare to have an opportunity to say things about another senator in an atmosphere such as this, when obviously one has left at a time of one's own choosing, with the good will and respect of all of one's colleagues. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —by leave-I wish to make a few comments, essentially on my own behalf, regarding the retirement of Senator Grimes. I do not know the essential point of commonality between myself and the honourable senator. Perhaps it is our medical training. I say to Senator Peter Baume that I am delighted that the score at the Royal North Shore Hospital turned out the way it did. Good judgment was practised there. I have always felt a certain sisterly, if not brotherly, appreciation of Senator Grimes because of the medical training that we both had. But there are other things that I have shared with Don, in particular our membership of Labor Party committees and our interest in matters of social security and allied health areas both in the work of the Party generally and at conferences. So there has been a lot of ground for a common friendship between us to develop. The other thing that I would like to say about Don Grimes is that I think he is a true feminist. Senator Ryan —Born again! Senator CROWLEY —He might have even been created that way but, as a natural development of his democratic socialism, Don Grimes is one of the very strong feminists I know. In particular, I thank him for the sanity of his comments about such things as how best to tackle the matter of confrontation with the women who camped opposite Parliament House. That is but one small example that I might cite. A lot of us realised that the complexity of that issue was not to be dealt with by merely polarising views. Don was one of those men who, I felt, could certainly understand the difficulties that I had in sorting out some of the views then expressed. I have always taken considerable comfort and support from Don's approach to feminism. When I made my maiden speech in this place I resisted the temptation, and some urging, to sing part of my contribution; but perhaps that was another thing that Don Grimes did notice, and I do thank him for the many good evenings that I have spent singing in his company. I hope that he takes his singing talent to the Hague. That is also another dimension of Don. I must see Senator Chaney later and ask for his list of Don's vices; they are not well known to me. It has been said here that people hope to rearrange Senator Gareth Evans nearer to heart's desire. On behalf of all who have an interest in community services, health and social welfare, I promise to do my bit to rearrange Senator Tate nearer to heart's desire and to what Senator Grimes has made us accustomed in dealing with all such issues. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) -by leave-I would like to be associated with the comments that have already been made. It must be very gratifying to Don to hear people right round the chamber make such comments about him. It is very pleasing that we are able to say nice things about colleagues while they are still with us. I will be very brief but would make the point that a special relationship is built up between a manager and a Whip. We have had six years to build up such a relationship. Let me say that it is one that I have appreciated. While I am inclined to the view that Senator Georges has put regarding the position of Manager of Government Business, I am certainly firmly of the opinion that the position should not be held by a person who is a senior Cabinet Minister or Deputy Leader, and feel that Don's brush with the `Black and Decker' last year was brought on by a combination of the positions that he held. It is most unfortunate that anyone should be asked to bear that sort of strain. That aside, if we are to have a manager, let me say that Don has been ideal in the position. If we are to believe the Opposition, which it is becoming increasingly more difficult to do lately, it agrees with that proposition. I suppose that it is difficult to compliment one incumbent without appearing to invite comparison with others, although some honourable senators are not quite so considerate about it as I am. I have no desire to do that. However, I would mention two features for which I think Don will be remembered. First, the so-called `laid back' style is not really that at all. It is really an appreciation of others, a sensitivity for their feelings and a desire to meet their requests whenever he can. In fact, the only criticism I would make of Don was his inability to say no to Ministers in the other place when they wanted to get Bills up here and we had a lot of work to do. The second thing for which he will be remembered was his willingness to help colleagues, particularly junior colleagues, and come to their aid in the chamber with that wonderful wit, which has already been referred to, and ability to defuse a situation and get a friend out of trouble. I wish him well in his new positions, because they are plural. He has a number of jobs to go to before he gets to the Hague, and I trust that both he and Helen will enjoy their posting when they do arrive. At the risk of upsetting my deputy, I will adapt a few lines from Burns which will be known to many here. I say to Don: Tho' you to ither lands must hie Pursuin fortune's sliddery ba' Wi melting heart and brimfu' eye We'll mind you still, tho' far awa. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania) —by leave-For the first time in about 12 years I am quite nervous, actually. Despite what Senator Janine Haines has said, I am not going to make an address, honourable senators will all be very grateful to know. It is with considerable regret that I leave my association with the Senate now-not only with the chamber and honourable senators but also with the staff here, the staff of the Parliament, the people who have driven me around, the people who have helped feed me and pour me drinks, the people who have assisted me in the Library and, in particular, the people from Hansard who convert my Joh-like sentences into readable English. To the people who have been working on my staff, both here and in Launceston, under considerable difficulties-many more than are suggested by Senator John Coates's kind words,- I am extremely grateful. I am most grateful also to Helen, my spouse, who, like all parliamentary spouses, has to put up with more than a human being should have to put up with. I regret the decision that I have to go but do not regret making it-if that Irishism is understood by everybody. A decision had to be made and I think it important that everyone should make such a decision at the right time. Briefly, during my period in the Parliament we have been wrestling with the role of the Senate. We have been at that task since, I believe, the 1960s and the 1950s, when the Senate took a much more prominent role than it had in the past. We have been trying to resolve the conflict between wanting to be a House of review and having the powers and practices of a lower House. I think everyone here knows that in my view we cannot resolve those differences. But at times we have broken away from the practice of being, in fact, a House with the powers to bring down governments. And, as Senator Peter Baume has said, on committees we have often worked together in a bipartisan way. I can remember not only being with Senator Baume and Senator Brown in advocating the decriminalisation of marihuana but also that we advocated it on television, and for that were neither struck down from above nor by the electorate, which demonstrates that the electorate is much more tolerant than we give it credit for. Also I was once on a committee where the majority view was held by Senator Chaney, Senator Missen, Senator Grimes and Senator Button, and the minority view was held by Senator Wright and Senator Everett. It produced a considerable difficulty at the time, when all of these young whippersnappers were telling Merv and Reg the right thing to do. On such occasions we have acted in a bipartisan way. On big issues-abortion, capital punishment, divorce-where there has been a bipartisan view, we have had excellent debates and have heard excellent speeches. There have been some excellent individual speeches-Senator Sir John Carrick on capital punishment; Senator George Georges on being in Bogga Road Gaol-but unfortunately because we are a party House, because we have the capacity to act as a lower House in that we have Ministers here and so on, such occasions are only too rare. In practice, what we have to do is get on with the business of government, get on with legislation. With, as I have said before, more senators speaking more often and at greater length, there just are not a sufficient number of hours available to act in the way that I think we should act. I hope that people in the future will continue to consider how to turn this place into a proper House of review; how to have more big debates on the more sensitive issues; how to get away from the bipartisan wrangling that we spend most of our time on in this place. In speeches made outside of this chamber I have frequently made reference to what I considered was the necessity for us as politicians, and the community as a whole, to develop a more loving and caring society. One does not often say things like that in this place because the level of cynicism is such that one is likely to be howled down. It is considered fairly old-fashioned to talk about a loving and caring society. In fact, it is fashionable to suggest that we no longer have that sort of society; that it is impossible to develop and improve society in that direction. I believe very firmly that that is not true. In times of national tragedy we see how members of society are willing to work together to use their skills, their capacities, to help one another, to help individuals who are in difficulty. If I can give an example which now occurs every day, in Sydney and in Melbourne particularly: We have groups which, working under extreme difficulties, are showing a loving and caring attitude to those unfortunate people who are dying of AIDS-the people that we talked about this morning. Not only members of the gay community but also relatives and friends-heterosexual friends-are working day and night, caring for people under very difficult circumstances. In so doing they are saving the taxpayers' money. They are also giving us years of breathing space, as policy-makers, in which to develop a sensible public policy for looking after those people. It is one that we will have to develop and, as Senator Puplick pointed out this morning, it is going to cost money and considerable public effort. We have around us examples like that all of the time, examples of what society can be like. One of the roles of this Parliament, this Government and of us in Parliament and in government must be, I believe, to develop the capacity in society. Too often in times of economic difficulty, I believe, we adopt a bunker mentality. We go back into the trenches. We say that we have to shut everything down; we have to close up shop. We forget that at the other end of these economic difficulties things will be better and that we ought to prepare society for those better times. We should not just forget everything else in times of economic difficulty. Don Dunstan always used to quote the case of Israel: In the 1967 war, when the country looked like going under, the Israeli Government went ahead and bought new instruments for the Tel Aviv Symphony Orchestra because things were going to happen after that war was over. There is a danger, on both sides of this place, in present circumstances, of wanting to shut down the shop and forget everything. If I may give what may be considered a minor example, then shut up and sit down, Senator Michael Baume and his colleagues on the other side-I will not be party political about this; I will give someone on our side a mention too-set up a Waste Watch Committee. I thought: `That is a good idea. I wish to heaven Walshie and I had thought of that when we were in Opposition; we would have had great fun sitting here, listing all that wasteful government expenditure'. I have been a bit disappointed in the Waste Watch Committee because, after looking at our Budget of some $72 billion, the worst example of waste it could come up with was the granting of $11,000 to some group or individual on the north coast of New South Wales. If someone had given me a bottle of wine, a pencil and a piece of paper, I could have given the Senate about 45 better examples of good or bad government expenditure. I know that that item of expenditure was chosen because it went to women; it was given by the Office of the Status of Women and the lady who received the money had a funny-sounding name. It costs more than $11,000, for heaven's sake, to run this place for one day. The reaction of the Government-my colleague, Senator Peter Walsh, I believe agrees with Senator Michael Baume in this area-has been to set up a committee of senior Ministers to look at every grant that is to be given out in future. That, I believe, is mad, as I believe it is mad to go round suggesting that we should not be spending money on things like that, on research into what has happened in our history, or innovative things such as building surfboards for women, if one likes. There are many things in this society, in times of difficulty, that I would rather cut down expenditure on than innovative things such as that. The Committee's assertion resulted in the Press of this country spending an inordinate amount of time and money sending planes up to the north coast of New South Wales to fly the individual down, to have opposing her on television Ray Martin, the most experienced and distinguished television commentator in this country, and Michael Baume, a distinguished economist and long-time television performer. It merely demonstrated that on television the woman was nervous, not as good a performer as the other two. If one reads the transcript of that program one finds that nothing was said about the merits of what she was doing or what that expenditure was for. It may be a trite and small case to cite but it was the most significant the Committee could come up with concerning wastage of public money-out of a Budget of $72 billion! If that is the worst case that can be cited, I think the Government is doing pretty well. We have to get away from the practice, when things are tough, of battening down the hatches and resolving to do nothing innovative. We have to get away from the conviction that the only way to solve the economic or other problems of this country is to bring everything to a standstill and wait for the resources boom or something else to get us out at the other end. We have to take a long term view. We may be mere passers-by in the history of this country but we have a duty, I believe, to consider ourselves as part of a continuum, to remember that there is a future as well as a past and a present. Having done what I have so often done in this place-waffled round the world and made some philosophical contributions that may not add up when I read them later-I want to thank all honourable senators for the company that I have enjoyed. I want to thank my colleague, Senator John Button, for announcing a job that I have not yet been given. I do not know what embarrassment that may cause. If I do get an appointment to somewhere like the Hague, honourable senators will be welcome to come, but I ask them for heaven's sake not to all come at once. There will be a cupboard there I suppose and I will manage to give honourable senators a drink but I ask them to pick up a bottle of duty free on the way. This chamber performs an important role but we have to continue to look at that role and the methods by which it is discharged. I hope that senators will continue to do that as those of us who came here in 1974 have continued to do. I thank all honourable senators for their kind words. I wish them all well in the future. Friends, comrades, sisters and brothers, you play an important part in the present and the future of this country no matter how much you may be criticised, no matter how much you may be pilloried, no matter how much you may be the butt of the jokes of the media and those who consider themselves superior to politicians, who are willing to put themselves up for election and win or be defeated. I ask honourable senators, no matter how much they may suffer from in that way, to remember that we are a democracy and should stay one; that we will do so only if those who take part in the democratic process are convinced, as I am, that it is the best system. I think the people that I have worked with here are a credit to that system. I am only sorry that I will not be here any longer than today. Senator Shirley Walters can relax; I am not going to change my mind. I will miss Senator Walters and she will miss me. I know that she is casting around for someone else with whom to do battle. The relationship between Senator Walters and me has at least enlivened this place at times. It may have caused her some anguish and me also. I apologise for any of the rude things that I may have said about her or anyone else. I know that she did not mean the things that she said about me! I will miss everybody here, including my friend Senator Shirley Walters. I make the assumption that anyone who is in the Senate is here because he or she wants to improve society, to make it the more loving and caring society that I believe it should be. I know that they will continue to do that-probably even more efficiently in my absence. I thank the Senate. The PRESIDENT —Senator Grimes, I am sure that I speak on behalf of all honourable senators who have not spoken, including Senator Walters, when I wish you good health and good luck in the future. Sitting suspended from 1.44 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and follows a number of statements he has made over a long period about privatisation and, in particular, his concern that the Opposition's privatisation policy would involve flogging off public assets and burning the money in current consumption. I preface my question by saying that I agree with him that it would be the wrong thing to do to sell capital assets for the purpose of funding current consumption. In light of reports of present Government interest in widespread privatisation, can the Minister give an unequivocal assurance to the Senate that the proceeds of any sales of government assets will be used to reduce accumulated debt and not to finance current consumption? Senator WALSH —When this Government was elected we faced a prospective deficit of $9.6 billion. An amount of $9.6 billion was the fiscal legacy which John Howard left this Government. We were failing to raise revenue to fund current consumption to the extent of $9.6 billion. Ever since that time this Government, both in absolute terms and even more so as a proportion of gross domestic product, has been clawing back the deficit. On present indications-and I put in that qualification because we are still more than four months from actually presenting a Budget-that clawing back of the deficit will continue in the 1987-88 financial year. Senator Chaney referred to previous comments that I had made on the question of privatisation. The most comprehensive statement that I can recall making on this subject was in a speech which I made in February of last year at the Australian Financial Review seminar in which I identified very clearly those publicly-owned authorities which I believe should remain in the public sector for functional and economic reasons. Those authorities included Telecom and Australia Post. I also expressed opinions about other publicly-owned authorities to which the particular conditions which apply to Telecom and Australia Post do not apply. I expressed the view that they should be considered on a case by case basis. The Thatcher Government has embarked on a campaign of privatisation, so-called, and sim- ultaneously has increased the degree of regulation. It is very clear that the object of that exercise is not a more efficiently functioning economy but a once-off windfall revenue gain to be used by the Thatcher Government for so-called tax cuts in an attempt to ensure its re-election. That was exactly the same policy as the Leader of the Liberal Party Opposition in South Australia attempted in 1985. It is the sort of policy which is contemplated by the present Opposition today. In respect of Australia Post-this is by no means the only reason why I believe this organisation should remain in the public sector-it is an accepted precept, I think, that we should have a national communications system, and in providing that system there is a substantial amount of cross-subsidy within Telecom's internal accounts. If that function were transferred to the private sector, there is no way that a private sector company operating on market principles would provide a universal telephone service. As for Senator Chaney's specific attempts, I suppose, to get specific commitments out of me regarding Budget discussions or likely Budget outcomes or May statement outcomes, I repeat what I have said before: I will not be drawn into either quantitative or qualitative speculation about the matters which are currently being considered by the Government. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I note that the Minister actually dealt with my question in about the last 10 seconds of his response. He raised a whole series of issues, effectively debating the question, and I point out that the Opposition has made it clear that it believes that the fundamental principle that underlies privatisation is the increase in competition. We are not talking about privatising monopolies and all of the issues that the Minister has raised. Will the Minister, consistent with the statements that he has made in the past, give an unequivocal assurance that if this Government is going to proceed to dispose of public assets, it will not, to use his terms, be flogging off the family silver simply to finance current consumption but, rather, that any moneys obtained will be used to reduce the accumulated debt which, I point out to him, includes at least $20,000m of public debt accumulated under the Hawke Government? Senator WALSH —Is the honourable senator talking about foreign debt or domestic debt in the context of total public sector indebtedness in Australia? Senator Chaney —I am talking about debt, general debt. Senator WALSH —Outstanding Commonwealth Government debt. The phrase `flogging off the family silver' came from the late Harold Macmillan, not from me. If I remember correctly, I quoted it at that Australian Financial Review seminar. My comments about flogging off the family silver to give ephemeral tax cuts for the most cynical political reasons were explicitly put in the context of what the Thatcher Government is doing. I am pleased, and I would like it noted for the record, that Senator Chaney is repudiating, in the question he has asked and the qualifications he has put on it, Thatcher's policy. I am pleased to hear that. The honourable senator referred also to increased competition. Again it should be noted, because there is a lot of confusion and misrepresentation about this area, that the things that the Thatcher Government is doing will not lead to any increase in competition. Indeed, on balance, they lead to an increase in regulation, which demonstrates the essentially fraudulent nature of the exercise in which the Thatcher Government is involved. That, of course, was the central point that I was making in that section of my Australian Financial Review speech. In respect of the rest of the question-Senator Chaney's attempts to get qualitative or quantitative denials or confirmation from me about likely outcomes of the May statement and the Budget-I draw his attention to what I said before. Senator DEVLIN —My question, which I address to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, relates to compensation for Australian prisoners of war who were interned in German concentration camps during World War II. Is it true that the Department of Veterans' Affairs has been involved in an interdepartmental committee since 1984 canvassing options? Has that IDC made recommendations to government and what is the next step in the process? Senator GIETZELT —The question of compensation to prisoners of war has been addressed by previous governments as it related to prisoners of war who in the early 1950s received a cash grant as part of a recognition of their suffering in Japanese prisoner of war camps. However, governments over the years have refused to accept any responsibility for Australian prisoners of war who were incarcerated in German concentration camps, despite representations from individual veterans. However, in recent times the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I have had consultations about rectifying what we consider to be an unresolved issue affecting a relatively small number of Australian prisoners of war who were also incarcerated in prisoner of war camps. The matter is a bit difficult to resolve, having regard to the fact that the West German Government has refused to accept any responsibilities in these matters pending a peace treaty involving the whole of Germany-that is, East Germany and West Germany-and the victorious allies. In those circumstances, the Government has to make a political decision on accepting responsibilities ourselves. The Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, and I have discussed the matter with the Minister for Defence and we have reached a common position. I have this week, with officers of my Department, taken steps to prepare a Cabinet submission because there is general agreement within the Government that there should be some recognition of the particular sacrifices of, and circumstances affecting, those small numbers of Australian prisoners of war who were incarcerated in concentration camps during a portion of the period of World War II. Senator REID —Will the Minister for Veterans' Affairs advise the Senate when the veterans' home care service program will be implemented in the Australian Capital Territory? Senator GIETZELT —The veterans' home care service has been an innovative service. It was begun as a Commonwealth employment scheme. We have entered into appropriate and satisfactory arrangements in every State to ensure that we will be able to purchase the services provided by the States. I am satisfied that through those negotiations we will be able to satisfactorily put in place the sorts of arrangements that will meet our obligations to veterans, wherever they live, including the Australian Capital Territory. Senator ROBERTSON —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to an article on Australia published in the 7 March 1987 edition of the London Economist? Is the Minister aware that some commentators in Australia have reported the Economist's survey as having been highly critical of the economic policies of the Hawke Government? Are their criticisms valid? Senator WALSH —Firstly, I understand that a couple of commentators have said the report was highly critical of the Hawke Government. That claim, of course, is completely in conflict with the facts, because the article in question, as a whole-and in some quite specific instances which I will quote in a moment-endorses the present Government's policies. I would like to make a few specific quotations to back that up. In the context of the fact that Australia has serious economic problems, which nobody in a responsible position in the Government is denying-indeed, most of us have been talking about them for some time-the article said: The fact that Australia is not in much more serious trouble than it is can largely be attributed to a remarkably successful relationship between the Labor government and the trade unions. In the context of wages and the recent increase in the rate of inflation-recent being last year-the Economist went on to say: . . . since the floating of the currency in 1983 and the subsequent decline of the dollar, wage costs have not been a huge burden on Australia. They have dropped in real terms in each of the past three years and the official forecast is for a further fall this year. Australia is not a high-wage country. In respect of taxation policy and the new system of dividend taxation, the Economist said: This is the purest imputation system in the world. If applied in Britain, it would probably do more to promote small share-holding than the flotation of British Telecom and British Gas put together. Then later, in the context of a comment referring to the National Farmers Federation and its political preferences-although not only the National Farmers Federation-the article said: . . . the CAI, the Business Council of Australia and the National Farmers' Federation often speak with different voices on such issues as labour-market deregulation. It is no surprise that the Liberals and their National partners, with such a weak parliamentary team, do too. Labor, by contrast, is rather impressive. Indeed, the claim that this government is the most capable since the war is a strong one. Later, as a general summary of the Government, the Economist said: Australia has a government of exceptional talent, which, free of ideology, is pursuing the right policies and bringing the unions with it. I do not wish to quote any more collectively self-laudatory quotations. I think I have already done more than enough to demonstrate that those people who are claiming that the Economist article was critical of this Government and its policies either have not read the article or are deliberately attempting to mislead the public. Senator HAMER —Has the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce seen the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released yesterday which show a fall in manufacturing output and in manufacturing employment, especially full time employment, during the last six months? Does the Minister agree that the long devaluation of the Australian dollar since the end of 1984 should by now be sharply stimulating growth in exports and import replacements? Does the Minister agree that our economic recovery cannot be said even to have started while the real value of investment in manufacturing is either static or declining, as it did in the last quarter for which figures are available? Does he agree that the level of investment in manufacturing plant and equipment is still much lower than the levels of investment before the present Government took office? Why is manufacturing activity still so sluggish? Senator BUTTON —I agree with Senator Hamer's reading, in a technical sense, of the ABS figures. I agree with none of the other suggestions which he has made. It is quite inevitable that, in the economic context of last year, when the growth rate in this country went down from something in the order of 6 per cent to something in the order of one per cent to 2 per cent at best, there would be a levelling off in manufacturing production statistics. I am just surprised-happily surprised-that the production statistics were not worse than the figures to which Senator Hamer has referred. Senator Walters —Then we would have been a banana republic. Senator BUTTON —No, Senator, because, as I understand the characteristics of banana republics, any analysis of a banana republic's performance would reveal that figures like the ones Senator Hamer has cited for one quarter would have been applicable for many years. That is not so in this case. Senator Walters —It is only because you haven't been here for many years. Senator BUTTON —I do not wish to carry on a dialogue with the honourable senator at Question Time, not because I am snobbish or not capable of loquacity myself, but because I like to have intelligent conversations, and I am not likely to be honoured with one with her. First of all, the overall aggregate employment figures for last year showed an increase in unemployment and the fact that that should be reflected in the manufacturing sector is not surprising in the slightest. Senator Hamer then asked whether the duration of the Australian devaluation should not have led to a much greater stimulus for Australian manufacturing industry. There are all sorts of figures floating about, apart from the figures to which the honourable senator referred. Investment in manufacturing industry showed relatively a strong performance in the same period. But with regard to the devaluation effects this Government has said-certainly I have said-that the so-called J-curve effect would be delayed in the Australian context because our manufacturing sector, as this Government inherited it, had been run down for years and had been totally neglected by policies which were directed to barrier protection and nothing else. Senator Chaney —But it has got worse in terms of investment. That is the point. Senator BUTTON —No, it has not got worse in terms of investment in the manufacturing sector. Let me continue, if I may, without continual interruption. The fact is that we inherited a manufacturing sector which had been brought up in the tradition of governments providing made-to-measure tariffs for every problem which arose in the manufacturing sector, and everything else in the manufacturing sector being neglected. It was for those very obvious reasons that the manufacturing sector would not respond solely to a change in the exchange rate and consequent effects on the price mechanism in Australia in the way in which it might have in a more sophisticated manufacturing economy like West Germany. One can rely on the figures for the last quarter of 1986 in terms of production. If one looks at the details of the figures, one sees that some areas are up and others are down. The sector of manufacturing production which is notably down is the vehicle manufacturing sector. I do not want to debate that now, but when there is an increase in prices for motor vehicles as a result of the devaluation of the dollar at the same time as there is a rigorous regime of wage restraint-which honourable senators opposite say does not go far enough-it is completely obvious that the motor vehicle industry would be the first to be adversely and significantly affected by that, because people make decisions not to buy motor cars or to postpone the purchase of motor cars in those sorts of circumstances. I do not remember all the sub-parts of the honourable senator's question, but I think the situation for manufacturing is very optimistic in this country. Discussions with manufacturers, as distinct from reading the ABS figures, will give one the same sort of view. Of course, the view which I just expressed is quite strongly expressed in the latest report published on Sunday of the Metal Trades Industry Association, which draws attention to the fact that it is very optimistic about this year and the future. Senator HAMER —I ask a supplementary question. I remind the Minister of one sub-part of my question, a fairly important part, which he did not answer. Does he agree that the present level of investment in new plant and equipment in manufacturing industry in real terms is now lower than it was when the present Government took office? Senator BUTTON —That is a different question from the one that Senator Hamer originally asked me. Of course, there was very significant investment in heavy engineering manufacturing and areas like that in 1980-81 because at that time Ministers in the previous Government were psyching up the resources boom as being the solution to Australia's problems. Enormous anticipations were aroused about the resources boom. It was to be the new Liberal Party el dorado for Australians which would take us to the year 2000. I remember the then Deputy Prime Minister saying that the mining industry alone would employ 500,000 people. That was the figure which the then Deputy Prime Minister of Australia talked about in 1980 and 1981, when he was talking up the resources boom, as I say, as some new el dorado for Australia. It was that sort of conduct which led people to all sorts of false anticipations, which led to that investment pattern and which led to a significant percentage of the current overseas private sector debt. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer whether he is aware of the recent performance in the media of the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Gray, suggesting that Tasmania should secede from the Federation-although I note that yesterday he modified that proposal a little to a proposal involving a duty free port, which I presume would involve a loss to the Commonwealth in Federal duties. Has the Minister noticed that the honourable member for Denison has opened his mouth on the same issue? Is the assertion true that Tasmania suffers economically under the Federal system? Has Tasmania experienced relative economic deprivation since the advent of the Hawke Labor Government? Can the Minister outline how Tasmania has fared under this Government in regard to general and specific purpose grants and how that compares with previous periods? Finally, what effect would implementation of the Premier's plan have on the Commonwealth Budget and the May statement in particular? Senator WALSH —I did not know that the honourable member for Denison had opened his mouth on the subject, although, I suppose, on reflection, I should have realised that there is no subject that anybody can think of on which the honourable member for Denison would not open his mouth; so it certainly does not surprise me. I have before me a copy of today's Launceston Examiner, which contains a most extraordinary story. If it were dated 1 April, I would have thought that it was an April fool's joke, but it is dated 2 April, so I presume it is a serious story. It outlines the plan of the upstart from the off-shore island, who is clearly suffering from delusions of grandeur, compounding his fundamental innumeracy-- Senator Walters —Mr President, I take a point of order. I ask the Minister to withdraw that remark. The PRESIDENT —I do not really think that it is unparliamentary. Senator WALSH —An extraordinary plan has been put up by Mr Gray apparently, along the lines that Senator Coates outlined in his question. Mr Gray has been reported as saying-this is not a direct quotation from Mr Gray; it is a quotation from the newspaper: Tasmania would be able to generate increased income in the same way as Singapore, the Channel Islands and Ireland, with limited financial constraint. If I remember correctly, the unemployment rate in Ireland is about 20 per cent, and that is about what it would be in Tasmania, I believe, if Mr Gray's plan was actually implemented. It might be good for the unemployment rate in the rest of Australia if his plan went ahead, or if part of it went ahead, but it would not be too good for Tasmania. The Channel Islands, of course, are a notorious tax haven. Indeed, on further examination, one sees part of the Tasmanian Premier's proposal is to set up a duty free, free trade area, a tax haven into which, I presume, goods which would attract duty in Australia could be imported into Tasmania and then passed on from Tasmania to Australia duty free. Certainly, under those conditions somebody would be able to make a very tidy profit on a large number of commodities, but it would essentially, of course, be a comprador economy, sponging on the rest of Australia, because it would essentially deprive the Australian Government of taxation which would otherwise be paid by Australian citizens on imported goods. I also wonder how, in a truly free trade environment, some Tasmanian senators could make the necessary adjustment, because I recall people like Senator Archer and Senator Watson complaining ad nauseam that two tins of New Zealand peas were sold last week in Tasmania or somewhere else and that it was about time that the Government did something to stop New Zealand peas coming into Australia. I do not know how a truly free trade zone would be reconciled with the sorts of sentiments which are consistently expressed by Senator Archer, Senator Watson and others. I come to the central point of the question. For the 1984-85 financial year-and I use that year because that is the last year for which both Commonwealth payments to the States and Commonwealth personal income tax collections per capita by States are available-we find that personal income tax in Tasmania averaged $1,551 per capita and in the rest of Australia $1,703-a gap of $152. Total Commonwealth payments to the States per capita averaged $1,863 in Tasmania and $1,255 in the rest of Australia, a difference of $608 per head. On a population of, in round figures, 440,000 for that year, Tasmania received $270m more in Commonwealth payments than it would have received if it had received the national average, and paid $67m less in personal income tax than it would have paid had Tasmanians been taxed at the same rate per capita as Australians on average. One can assume with reasonable safety that other sources of Commonwealth revenue, including company tax, if one were to allocate the income earned by companies to the geographic areas in which it was earned rather than the State in which the head office of the company might be located, and other Commonwealth payments such as social security benefits, unemployment benefits and so on are likely to be fairly uniform on a per capita basis throughout the country. No wholly reliable statistics are available for them anyway, so they can be safely ignored. The picture that emerges is that if the redistribution by the personal income tax system and the Commonwealth Government payments to the States were to cease, Tasmania would be $337m worse off than it is now. It follows from that, axiomatically, that if we were able to do this, the Commonwealth budget outlays could be reduced by $270m and taxation by $67m without affecting the Commonwealth budget deficit. In other words, if it were to happen, it would make it very much easier for the Government to put together both the May economic statement and the 1987 Budget. I noted that in the same newspaper report Mr Gray is reported as saying that he put the idea to Mr Hawke last year and Mr Hawke did not want to listen to it, or something to that effect. If he did put the proposition to Mr Hawke that the existing redistribution of income tax and payments to the States from the rest of Australia to Tasmania should cease-and I am in no posi- tion to judge whether he did-I am sure he must have put it so imprecisely, or in such a confused way that Mr Hawke did not understand it. If Mr Gray wants to put the proposition in relation to the Commonwealth or the rest of Australia based on $337m on the 1984-85 figures-which would almost certainly be higher today-I can assure him that both the Treasurer and I would be very willing to listen to him. Senator KNOWLES —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to the diesel fuel rebate system for off-road vehicles operated by primary producers. Is the Minister aware of any moves to amend the current refund arrangements on excise for these vehicles, which allows for a refund to be paid on application to the introduction of an annual repayment system? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the ramifications of the diesel fuel rebate system and I am aware that it is a matter which is constantly under review. It is constantly under review by this Government, and I believe it would have been by previous governments, simply because there are always opportunities in such a system for, to put it briefly, rorts. The efficiency of the system of administration of the diesel fuel rebate scheme must be constantly under review, so I imagine that it is now as well as previously. Senator COLSTON —Could the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations indicate whether the numbers of job vacancies are a forward indicator of economic activity? If they are, do the job vacancy figures issued recently indicate that the Government's economic strategy is on track? Could the Minister also indicate what effect Queensland's economic performance is having on national job vacancy figures? Senator WALSH —It is generally acknowledged that job vacancies are a forward indicator of economic activity or a leading economic indicator as to the direction in which the economy is heading. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures of job vacancies in Australia for February 1987 were released this week, showing that there were 62,700 job vacancies which compares with a figure of 59,000 in February the previous year. In other words, there has been a significant improvement in the availability of employment based on that indicator over Australia as a whole. In Queensland, however, the situation is very different, where the number of job vacancies in that same year fell from 8,000 to 5,700. The job vacancies fell by 2,300 or by around 30 per cent, resulting in a 30 per cent decline in the number of job vacancies in Queensland, and an increase of some 7 per cent in the number of job vacancies nationally. It is not unusual for Queensland's economic indicators and performance to be significantly worse than for Australia as a whole, and worse than any other mainland State. Indeed, that has been the norm in recent years. To convert those job ratio figures to persons unemployed on both a national and State basis, in Australia as a whole there were just over 11 people unemployed for each job vacancy recorded. The comparable figure for Queensland was almost 24 people unemployed for each unfilled job vacancy. In other words, on that sort of assessment it is more than twice as hard to get a job in Queensland as it is in Australia as a whole. The Australian figures as a whole would be quite significantly improved if they were not being dragged down by Queensland. Senator HILL —Has the Minister for Finance considered the leasing of South Australian power stations to Japanese and Austrian interests? Does the Minister consider that the scheme contains elements of tax avoidance? Does he consider that it is in breach of the leverage leasing provisions of 1982? Does the scheme by which the State is to raise some $150m from overseas breach Loan Council guidelines? Senator WALSH —I heard, I think on the wireless a few days ago, some reference to power stations-- Senator Haines —Wireless! Senator WALSH —Yes. I resist North American linguistic cultural imperialism. Senator Puplick —Hear, hear! Senator WALSH —I have one supporter over there, at least on one issue. It was the wireless when I was a boy. That I understand is the English word and radio is a North American incursion. As to the reported arrangements about involving Japanese capital in some way in the operation or construction of power stations in South Australia, I do not know the details of either the leasing arrangement or the Loan Council implications, if any, of the financial arrangements which have been made in total. I will refer the matter to the Treasurer and obtain an answer as soon as I can. Senator BOLKUS —Has the attention of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs been drawn to the veterans affairs policy of the National Party of Australia, as formulated by its recent Federal Council meeting? I presume that it has been leaked since then. If so, can the Minister explain whether that policy differs from the Government's and whether the Government is in any way investigating the implementation of any aspect of such a policy? Senator GIETZELT —Honourable senators will be aware that my shadow Minister is an active person and a member of the National Party of Australia. As he watches me, I watch him-that is part of our joint responsibility. As we know in this game of politics, documents have the habit of falling off the back of trucks. I have seen a copy of the National Party's recent conference. Members of the Party spent the weekend here in Canberra deliberating on a whole range of issues and these showed up the division within that Party rather than the unity. I looked in vain to see the attitude to veterans affairs of the National Party and the shadow Minister, but it was not even listed as an item under consideration. Nor was it listed as an item that was to receive any future consideration. This applied to the future of the Department and to the activities of the shadow Minister in relation to the portfolio's responsibilities. One can only come to the conclusion that, although there is quite a lot of rhetoric about veterans affairs, the subject did not receive any recognition during the recent deliberations of the National Party. Senator POWELL —I draw the attention of the Minister for Education to a recent study of the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research which 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. Given that unemployment benefits are set at a level below the poverty line and given the Minister's statement in answer to my question earlier this week that student allowances are being brought into line with equivalent unemployment benefits by a phase-in arrangement not to finish until 1989, I ask the Minister whether she believes that this constitutes `maintenance of adequate levels of student financial support' as recommended by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission in its review of efficiency and effectiveness in higher education? Senator RYAN —Certainly student allowances are higher now than they have ever been and certainly they are available to more students than ever before. The highest number of students ever will benefit from student allowances this year. It is also the case that next year the education allowance paid to 16 and 17-year-olds who qualify will be the equivalent of the unemployment benefit, which is the first time that such parity has been achieved. Whatever improvements Senator Powell would like to see in the level of student allowances, she must surely admit that this Government has made considerable improvements in these allowances during our four years in office. There have been continual increases and improvements in eligibility arrangements. She must also agree that the group of students who have most benefited from our improvements in student allowances are the poorest students-that is the 16 and 17-year-olds who qualify for Austudy while completing their school education or doing a technical and further education course. When we came to office the level of benefit available to those students was about $19. It is now $45 for some students and $40 for others. Thus, there has been a more than 100 per cent increase in those allowances which, because of the means test, go to children of pensioners, beneficiaries and, in many cases, very low income earners. Not only has there been an improvement and expansion of student allowance schemes under the Hawke Government, but there has also been a targeting of the rate of improvement to the neediest students, particularly to those 16 and 17-year-olds who might otherwise have dropped out of the school system and, in many cases, become beneficiaries of unemployment benefit. I stress that even though a 16 or 17-year-old in receipt of Austudy this year is getting less by way of income support than he or she would get on the dole, he or she is getting immeasurably more in terms of future benefit and employment options by staying in the school system. Senator Powell quoted from one report on the Australian economy, but every report that one sees on the economy, whether it comes from our own institutes of labour market studies, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development or the Economist's recent analysis, advocates improvements in educational standards for the Australian work force. Those improvements cannot take place unless students complete their secondary education. The fact that we have been able, via a system of greatly improved student allowances and other programs, such as the participation and equity program, to work with State governments and the major non-government systems to improve the school retention rate from below 36 per cent when we first came to office to what will be more than 50 per cent nationally this year, with much higher rates being achieved in some States, is adequate demonstration that we understand very well the link between improved education and the elimination of poverty. It also shows that we understand very well the responsibilities on government to assist young people to undertake their education, and that our strategies in these respects have been working. The PRESIDENT —Order! I remind the Senate that we have had only 11 questions today when we should have had about 16 or 17. I ask honourable senators asking questions and those answering them to take note of that fact. Senator COOK —I shall ask a brief question of the Minister for Finance, as Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Government aware of calls within the community for a constitutional referendum to provide a barrier against retrospective tax legislation? What would be the implications of such a barrier? From what sources are the calls for a constitutional referendum emanating? Senator Sheil —From Queensland. Senator WALSH —Somebody said Queensland. I am told that it was Senator Sheil. Such calls may be coming from Queensland as well; I will take his word for that. The Government is aware of calls for a constitutional referendum to ban totally retrospective legislation. While I accept that such calls may come from the Queensland National Party, I must point out that they also come from another source. The National Party Council meeting held last weekend passed this motion: That it be a condition of coalition in government that- (a) there shall be no retrospective tax legislation introduced by that government; and (b) there shall be a referendum to provide a constitutional barrier to retrospective legislation unless that legislation is supported by a majority of States. That motion came from the Western Australian branch of the National Party. It distresses me-although it does not particularly surprise me-that National Party thinking in Western Australia is very much aligned with that in Queensland. Fortunately, that is not true of the respective State populations as a whole. I have been asked about the implications of such a barrier. First, one would have to determine what `retrospective' actually means. If one took a full literal definition of `retrospective' one would find that it would apply to any law which had application prior to its receiving royal assent. In other words, any changes to the taxation law designed to close loopholes or end malpractices would be in the Parliament for anything from weeks to months being debated and notice would be given to all actual and would-be tax avoiders that they had to get their particular rort in before the Governor-General gave the royal assent to the legislation and it was not outlawed by-- Senator Newman —On a point of order, Mr President: I draw your attention to the fact that the Minister is flatly ignoring your request to keep answers short, which you made just a few moments ago. The PRESIDENT —I have no power to tell the Minister how to answer the question, but I would point out that the number of questions answered today has been very small. Senator WALSH —Senator Newman has to try to compete with the `mouth from the south', I suppose. She has to do something to get herself noticed. The problem of a definition is pretty obvious. The second point that is even more obvious is that people who cheat honest taxpayers out of hundreds of millions of dollars-and assorted members of the Liberal and National parties did this in the late 1970s and early 1980s-would be able to pocket that money and keep it. In doing so they would deprive millions of honest Australian taxpayers of that money, thereby requiring those honest taxpayers to pay more tax than they should or need to pay. Finally, the fact that that came from Western Australia suggests that the members of the Liberal Party's finance committee must have joined the National Party in Western Australia. I am also aware of calls in the United States of America, backed strongly by President Reagan, for a constitutional amendment to make it a constitutional requirement to bring in a balanced Budget. That comes from a President who blew out the Budget deficit, I think to about $200 billion, from $50 billion or $60 billion, or whatever it was that he recorded. In other words, the people who pass these sorts of facile motions about all sorts of things should rarely be taken seriously, except in this case, of course, as the National Party has such an affinity with tax avoiders and evaders that perhaps it should be taken seriously. Senator Georges —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I did not interrupt the Minister while he was answering the question, but I would like to have an explanation of your ruling that you have no power over the way a Minister answers a question. I know you have been struggling, since you became President, to bring some order into Question Time, and I know that you are bound by precedents created by your predecessors, but what I would suggest is that you ought to ignore those precedents and consider that a Minister, in answering a question, ought to be relevant; he ought not to respond to matters outside his responsibility; he ought not to debate the subject of the question; he ought not to use offensive words contrary to the Standing Orders; and he ought not in any other way be disorderly. I would suggest, Mr President, that you take up these matters with the Leader of the House to try to bring some semblance of order to Question Time, which you would agree is rapidly getting out of hand. The PRESIDENT —In reply to the point of order, I am well aware that standing order 100 says that a senator shall not debate the matter. There is therefore a fine line in what the President can do in asking a Minister not to debate the matter because, as I say again, there is no power as to how a Minister shall answer a question, particularly when the Minister is relevant to the question. I am aware that this is causing great difficulties and I am aware of the number of questions that have been asked today and on earlier days during the session, to which I referred earlier. But I can assure you that I will carry out the Standing Orders in the way that my predecessors have done, and I will ask the Ministers to take that into account when I call them to order. Senator Georges —Mr President, I raise a further point of order. My suggestion is that you ought to ignore your predecessors and set your own precedents, and that you ought to consider not only relevancy but also the manner in which the question is answered. Most of the answers have been what I would consider to be disorderly, and I think you have power over that. If you are in some way limited by the precedents set by your predecessors, I suggest that you are in a position to ignore that. The PRESIDENT —Standing order 99 clearly deals with the way Senate questions shall be asked, and I am carrying out standing order 99 and trying to ensure that there is some sense of fairness during Question Time in the chamber. Senator BOSWELL —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation to the Government's decision to award the northern littoral aerial surveillance contract to Amman Pty Ltd. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether a separate contract held by Skywest Airlines Ltd for surveillance of the Great Barrier Reef has expired? If it has not, when does it expire? Have tenders been called for a new aerial surveillance contract for the Barrier Reef? If not, how long does the Government intend to let Skywest carry on with surveillance of the reef without going out to public tender? Senator GIETZELT —I am somewhat amazed at the interest that the Opposition parties are taking in the aerial surveillance tenders. I have had several questions and supplementary questions from the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party with respect to the tenders and the success of Amman Pty Ltd. Now I get a question from Senator Boswell, which just shows the extent of the division of opinion in the Opposition parties, because Senator Durack's question sought to suggest that there was something improper in the Government's intention of awarding a tender to a new company and thereby saving $2.5m. Senator Boswell now asks whether the Government intends to let Skywest-that is the one that Senator Durack was showing unusual interest in-carry on with the surveillance of the reef without going to public tender. That is quite a contradictory position which, as we know quite well, is part of the malaise that exists today in the Opposition. The facts are that the surveillance contract for the Great Barrier Reef does not expire until 30 June 1987, and in those circumstances tenders have not yet been called. I suppose it is interesting to look at the fact that we have a National Party of Australia member concerned about the Barrier Reef because his mentor up there, the Premier of Queensland, would like to hock it off, if he could, to the private sector. So those companies which have shown some interest in tendering for the contracts protecting our coastline will have the opportunity to show some interest by tendering when that decision has been made. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has a particular interest in the Barrier Reef and he has had to be consulted by the Minister for Aviation. That consultation is concluding, and when agreement has been reached between those two Ministers, tenders will be called. In the meantime Skywest will carry out its responsibilities under the existing contract and will protect the Barrier Reef, as is required, under the tender arrangements of 1984. Senator VALLENTINE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Has the Minister seen the latest edition of Soviet Military Power, put out by the Government of the United States of America at the end of March? I ask whether he can clarify the statement on page 130, which reads: Moscow has also claimed through its news media that the US military facilities at Pine Gap, Australia, are important elements of the SDI programme. Does this statement about the `US military facilities' in Australia actually quote the words of Moscow, or is it a paraphrase of what the Soviets said? If the latter, is it not strange that in such a widely distributed publication, the United States Department of Defense does not make it clear that Pine Gap is not a United States military facility, or does the statement indicate that this is exactly how it does regard it? Will the Minister also correct the misinformation that Pine Gap is connected with the strategic defence initiative program, when in fact it is Nurrungar? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen the document which Senator Vallentine refers to. The reference that concerns her is contained in that part of the report which relates to Soviet disinformation campaigns against the US strategic defence initiative research program. There is no US military facility at Pine Gap. There is, of course, a joint Australian-US defence facility in which the Australian Government is an equal partner, and is aware of and concurs in all of the roles, functions and activities of that facility. It is not clear, I acknowledge, from the particular context of the passage which Senator Vallentine refers to, whether the expression `US military facilities at Pine Gap' is a Soviet one or an American one. If American, the use of such terminology is manifestly unfortunate and reflects careless drafting, which is not unique in government documents and certainly is not unique in United States ones. With respect to the last paragraph of Senator Vallentine's question, none of the joint Australian-US defence facilities is involved in the SDI research program. The Australian Government, as everyone ought to be well aware, has not endorsed SDI and believes that verifiable agreements for the reduction of nuclear weapons represent a far more effective measure against the threat of ballistic missiles than any protective shield. The US Administration understands the Australian Government's position. We have the clear and categoric assurance of the US Defense Secretary that none of the joint facilities is involved in SDI. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Is it a fact that the Soviet Government has refused to allow the Australian Embassy in Moscow to develop its premises to alleviate an acute accommodation shortage? Is it also a fact that the inability of the Embassy to expand its premises not only has led to accommodation problems but also inhibits some activities requiring a high level of security? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no information on that subject. I will seek an answer from the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the earliest opportunity. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General aware of concern in the community about the future of the family conciliation centres which have been very successful pilot projects in Melbourne's eastern suburbs and in Wollongong? Has the Government made any decisions about the future of these centres and possible extension to other areas and other States? Senator GARETH EVANS —The pilot project for conciliation centres has been operating at Noble Park in Victoria since February 1985 and at Wollongong since September 1985. An evaluation report by external evaluators was given to the Government in November last year and is currently under consideration. The centres are currently fully funded until 30 June this year. Some public concern has been expressed about the continuing operations of the centres, particularly that at Noble Park. There has been some correspondence in the newspapers about this, expressing the view that these centres have worked very well, that they can ease the burdens of the courts and that they ought to be maintained. Certainly the Government will take very seriously those sorts of representations. The decision that we make-and we have not yet made it-will be based on a full and careful analysis of that evaluation study that has been made, and of course it will also have to be made in the context of the budgetary processes for 1987-88. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I draw the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate to last night's adjournment debate in which I tabled Press releases and newspaper articles in which the Labor candidate for the Federal seat of Gilmore, Mr John Wright, invited voters to telephone him for political purposes during working hours at a Canberra telephone number, 062-752221. As this is a telephone in the Australian Taxation Office, where the Labor candidate is a tax officer, I ask the Minister whether it is Government policy to allow government offices to be used for political purposes in this way, particularly in view of the pressure put on other employees in the Tax Office to take political messages for Mr Wright during his lengthy absences from his office while engaged in political campaigning in Gilmore. I also ask the Minister whether it is customary for the Government to use its expensive taxpayer-funded media advisers to assist in media training for Labor election candidates, as indicated in the notice from Mr Ian Henderson of the Australian Labor Party national secretariat which I also tabled last night, inviting candidates to a school in Canberra on 30 May being conducted `with the assistance of media advisers to the Federal Government'. What does the Government intend to do to stop these disgraceful and totally improper practices? The PRESIDENT —Before calling the Leader of the Government I point to the fact that that was also rather a long question. I call Senator Button. Senator BUTTON —There were two questions. The second question in quality casts a less favourable light on what I would regard as a very serious question-the first one. Insofar as the second question is concerned, a number of so-called media experts associated with this Government might be taking part in any such seminar. I employ one, and he is employed, in a sense, as a political officer. That is very different from the first question which the honourable senator asked. In relation to the first question, it is not Government policy to allow any such things. I will refer that matter to the Treasurer. In the light of my statement of a second ago, as far as I am concerned, it is certainly not Government policy to tolerate that. Senator CHILDS —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, concerns the options for the future of Film Australia as outlined in a paper by the Australian Film Commission's Megan McMurchy and Les Neilson from the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. Does the Minister agree that option 4 as outlined in the paper is the most desirable option for the future of Film Australia, given that it will preserve a co-ordinating function in relation to departmental production and support a continuing national program? Does the Minister also agree that option 4 is the best option for the future, given that it does not necessarily rest on narrow economic grounds; provides a degree of support for a natural film industry; will facilitate cultural exchange; and will ensure the continuance of specialised areas such as ethnographic film production? Senator RYAN —On behalf of the Minister, I point out that he is shortly to bring to Cabinet a submission on future options for the Australian Film Commission, so it is not possible at this stage to prejudge what the position might be. Mr Cohen points out that there is some attraction for option B. Mr Cohen says that, as he understands it, the adoption of this option would lead to a leaner and more efficient organisation but would maintain Film Australia in its present location with its essential function as government film maker. The review of Film Australia was undertaken because the Government is concerned that its operations should be as efficient and cost effective as possible. At the same time, future economic grounds are not the sole justification for some activities, particularly in the cultural field. Obviously, when the Cabinet has considered Mr Cohen's position and arrived at a decision, that will be made public. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Given the Government's past encouragement for manufacturers to move into exporting on the basis of the lower value of the Australian dollar and given the increase in the value of the Australian dollar to approximately US72c, I ask: Is not the Minister concerned that this rate of exchange would have an adverse effect on the profitability and confidence of Australian exporters whose business decisions to move into export must now be called into question? Senator BUTTON —The level of the Australian dollar, at about US70c, is higher than anticipated in recent months. Whether that should have a detrimental effect on the export industries, particularly on anticipations and interest in export activities, is a different matter. I have said in the Senate on a number of occasions that I do not anticipate any significant rise in the value of the Australian dollar, for a variety of reasons relating to Australia's national debt, our current account problems, the fact that our major exporting industries are still having significant problems in international markets, and so on. Nonetheless, I appreciate that there are apprehensions about the dollar's value, amongst manufacturers particularly, and sometimes there are alibis and excuses. However, we have traditionally compared the value of the Australian dollar with that of the US dollar. I simply make the point that the value of the US dollar has been declining. Although many Australian contracts are written in US dollars, the fact remains that the trade weighted index figure is also very important and is perhaps not given the prominence which it ought to have. Senator Watson —What about contracts written in TWI terms? Senator BUTTON —If the honourable senator wants to have a conversation with me, I will make some time available this afternoon, and we can have a cup of coffee and a cigarette. At Question Time I do not want to have an endless conversation with him. He asked a question, and I am trying to answer it. The answer is that I am aware of some apprehensions about the current level of the dollar amongst those who might see themselves as potential exporters. They are not matters of significant concern at this stage. If the value of the dollar had been low the honourable senator would have been on his feet whingeing about it. Now that the value is at US70c he is up on his feet whingeing about it. What is he trying to do? Is he trying to talk the dollar down? Senator Watson —We want a stable dollar. Senator BUTTON —Oh, he wants a stable dollar now! That is very interesting. Senator Chaney —You said manufacturers could expect something around the range of 65c. Senator BUTTON —I will deal with Senator Chaney afterwards. I am dealing with the other honourable senator at the moment. He wants a stable dollar and he also wants a floating dollar, or I take it that he does. All these devout wishes which the honourable senator might conjure up in bed at night or in the shower in the morning cannot be achieved in the realities of economic life and they will not be achieved as the result of his asking questions here. Because of that, I ask that further questions be placed on notice. Senator BUTTON —At Question Time on 25 March, Senator Sheil asked me a question which related to duties on certain fabrics. The answer is of some length and quite complex. I ask that it be incorporated in Hansard. Leave not granted. Senator BUTTON —I withdraw the answer. I will not give it at all. I am here to deal not with children but with people who ask questions. 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 Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(2.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave not granted. Senator BUTTON —Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1986-87, together with Appropriation Bill (No. 4) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2), which I shall introduce shortly, comprises the Additional Estimates for 1986-87. In these Bills, Parliament is asked to appropriate moneys to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures additional to the appropriations made for 1986-87 under Appropriation Acts (Nos 1 and 2) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act. These additional appropriations are required to meet commitments that have been approved by the Government since the Budget as well as requirements of an ongoing nature. The principal factors underlying the requirements include certain unavoidable cost and price increases since the Budget was prepared. Although the Budget figuring contained allowances for prospective wage and salary increases, those amounts were not then appropriated, and funds are now required to meet the costs of awards and determinations made since that time, including some $35m for the effect of the first tier wage increase which was part of the package announced by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 10 March 1987. No provision is made in these Bills in anticipation of the negotiation of second tier increases. Any such increase will be met under the separate appropriation provisions in section 5 of the Appropriation Act (No. 1) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1986-87. Of the additional appropriations in the three Additional Estimates Bills totalling $419.3m, $290.5m is sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 3), $127.6m in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) and $1.2m in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2.) These amounts are offset in part by savings in the appropriations made by Appropriation Acts (Nos 1 and 2) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act, 1986-87, reflecting the Government's continued determination to achieve savings in expenditure for ongoing programs wherever possible. These savings, amounting to $384m, are detailed under the relevant appropriation headings in the document `Statement of Savings Expected in Annual Appropriations' which has been distributed to honourable senators. After allowing for prospective savings, the appropriations now sought represent a net increase of $35.3m in expenditures financed from annual appropriations. As a proportion of total estimated outlays-encompassing both annual and standing appropriations-this increase amounts to 0.05 per cent. I now outline some of the main areas in respect of which the Government has found it necessary to seek additional provisions in the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) to meet expenditure for the ordinary annual services of the Government. Some $8.8m is included under the Department of Communications, primarily for a management-initiated redundancy scheme in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to be fully offset by a reduction in its ongoing appropriations in 1987-88, and a reallocation by the ABC between its appropriations. In the 1986-87 Budget, the Government announced the amalgamation of the ABC and the Special Broadcasting Service, with corresponding savings of $1m against the appropriations for each organisation. The delay in the Senate in passing the enabling legislation has postponed the merger until at least the end of this financial year. The Additional Estimates now provide for a reinstatement of that $2m. Eighteen million dollars is sought for the Department of Defence to cover price increases and additional approved commitments for buildings and works projects and $29.5m is included under the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce for a new fertiliser subsidy scheme, as set out in the Fertiliser Subsidy Act 1986. The new scheme replaces the previous nitrogenous and phosphate fertiliser subsidies and is completely offset by reduced expenditure under standing appropriations. Also, $33.8m is included under the Department of Veterans' Affairs primarily for higher nursing home and public and private hospital charges for veterans, together with an increased demand for these services. A fairly large component of the increase-around $10.6m-is for a transfer between appropriations within the Department and, of course, is fully offset. Eight point six million dollars is also included under the Department of Veterans' Affairs as it was not recognised that the special appropriations under the Veterans' Entitlement Act did not cover payments for the commutation of dependant's pensions. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) 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 Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Having read the speech dealing with the substance of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1986-87, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1986-87 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2), I do not propose to seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) 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 Button) read a first time. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.21) —Since the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) is taking the unusual course of not giving a second reading speech, I shall take the unusual course of giving it for him. The Minister has circulated a second reading speech headed `Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1986-87' and apparently has decided that he will not give the Senate the benefit of this speech because he was refused leave to incorporate a lengthy answer to a question. This shows an interesting selective judgment on the part of the Minister since several answers to questions ran for about 10 minutes and I did not see any objection being made by the Minister to that procedure. He allowed an extension of some time to Question Time to permit some further questions being asked. But we have had a succession of Question Times in which this year the average number of questions has dropped significantly. It is time that there was some assessment by the Government of its treatment of the Senate. Senator Button —You are very impressive! You are really in front with this stuff! Senator CHANEY —If the Minister thinks he can introduce Bills without giving second reading speeches, that is his business. The speech which was circulated by the Government was in these terms: In Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1986-87 appropriations totalling $127.6m-additional to those made by Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1986-87-are sought for capital works and services, payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory, advances and loans and for other services. The proposed appropriations are needed to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures for which provision was not made in that Act. The additional appropriations are sought to meet certain cost and price increases which have occurred since the Budget and other requirements which the Government has considered it appropriate to meet this financial year. Areas where significant increases are sought over amounts provided in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1986-87 are as follows: Some $16m is provided for Commonwealth assistance under natural disaster relief arrangements mostly attributable to continued large expenditure by Queensland on eligible relief measures following Cyclone Winifred in February 1986 and to estimated expenditure in respect of the floods in the Sydney region in August 1986. The Commonwealth is, therefore, continuing to assist the States to meet their large and unpredictable expenditures on eligible relief measures following the occurrence of natural disasters. Some $8m is for payment to a trust fund to provide budgetary assistance for Tuvalu, Australia being a principle donor along with the United Kingdom and New Zealand. A treaty is currently being negotiated with a view to having the trust fund in place this financial year. In addition, $7m has been allocated for Solomon Islands post-cyclone reconstruction and partial restoration of South Pacific aid commitments. Realisation of the British Phosphate Commission assets has enabled additional aid to be made available. Some $13m is included for payments to chemists as a settlement offer to pay out advance paid, unprocessed claims under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Some $8.5m is included for the savings bank deposit interest subsidy. The amount covers an increase in lending by some savings banks this financial year compared with their lending activities in the June quarter last year which were below the rate expected by the Government. This necessitated a repayment earlier this financial year of some of last year's subsidy which fully offsets the additional estimate. An amount of $7.6m is included for the Northern Territory Electricity Commission to meet increased operational costs as a result of upward movements in oil prices since the Budget estimates. Some $7m for the defence service homes loan program consequent upon the delay in transferring these activities to the private sector. The speech also reads-I would not want any confusion about who is saying this: I commend the Bill to the Senate. That is the end of the speech which was circulated by the Minister but which he declined to give to the Senate. I will now add a few comments of my own. The response to this speech and to the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1986-87, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1986-87 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1986-87 will be given by the spokesman on finance, Senator Messner, when the debate is resumed at a later time. These Appropriation Bills are being brought forward at a time when the Government has at last conceded that the Budgetary strategy that it adopted in 1986 is seriously flawed. Honourable senators will remember that in September of 1986 the Opposition moved a motion, which was carried, calling upon the Government to introduce a mini-Budget. As early as one month after the Budget we put the view very strongly in this place that the Budget was inappropriate and that, in particular, it involved excessive expenditure which the country could not afford. The Government stoutly resisted that assertion and denied the Opposition's view that the Government's Budget strategy was out of line. We moved the same motion in February in this year and again the Senate dealt with it. The Opposition asserted that there was a need for a supplementary Budget statement. It was some weeks after the Government had resisted that motion that it agreed that there was a need for a supplementary Budget statement, and the whole of Australia is waiting for the May economic statement which the Government has told us will reduce government expenditure from 1 July this year. That is a very necessary step if Australia is to resume a growth path and if some of the policies which the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has been pursuing to encourage investment in new industry in Australia are to succeed. The point I would like to make before resuming my seat is that it is the clear view of the Opposition that as necessary as a May mini-Budget is to adjust the imperfections of the Government's economic policy, the remnants of which are contained in these Appropriation Bills which are before us today, and important as it is that that step should take place, it is the clear view of the Opposition that if the Government does no more than impose additional financial stringency on the Australian people that will not, in itself, solve the problems that this country faces. The reality is that the problems the country faces will be solved only if the Government looks at the whole situation in Australia and is prepared to tackle that situation on a whole basis rather than a piece-meal basis. We have had many lectures from Senator Button when issues and questions were raised with him that there is no single answer to Australia's problems, and that is the view which the Opposition asserts. We would suggest that the Government needs not only to reduce government expenditure but also to do something about the shape of the tax system which is not conducive to individual effort and nor is it conducive to encouraging investment in this country. The second area we think needs to be attacked beyond the problems of excessive expenditure and a tax system which is not designed to encourage incentive is that the Government must do something about the trade union movement and about the whole of the labour market's operation in this country. Senator Georges —What is the trade union movement supposed to be doing at the moment, except in your imagination? Senator CHANEY —The helpful interjection from Senator Georges is: What is the trade union movement supposed to be doing? I suppose the most recent example that can be pointed to is the difficulties which are being experienced at Port Kembla. I am very concerned that this Government's steel plan, which was given support by the Opposition, is being subverted at the moment by the actions of trade unions at Port Kembla and elsewhere. We have a situation where steel is being imported into Australia because the production and delivery of Australian steel is being delayed by trade union action over what are essentially demarcation disputes. Senator Button —That's bunkum and you know it; it's just untrue. Senator CHANEY —The Minister at the table is now taking an interest in the debate, which is good. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether he is satisfied that the steel plan is in fact operating successfully at the moment and whether the trade unions are giving the commitment to improving productivity which was supposedly part of that steel plan. I think the Minister, if he answers honestly, will say that he is not satisfied. The last annual report of the Steel Industry Authority makes it quite clear that there has been a very substantial lift in industrial disputation with respect to the steel industry. Recent reports from Port Kembla and elsewhere show that there are continuing problems. The simple point that I am making with respect to these Appropriation Bills is that dealing with expenditure alone will not solve the problems of Australia. These other issues, which do so often relate to the abuse of trade union power, also have to be dealt with. Senator Georges —Have a look at the views of management, too. Senator CHANEY —Senator Georges, who again is anxious to assist in his new role as an Independent in this place, raises the role of management. I would agree with him. There is a very significant role for management to play if we are to improve the economic performance of Australia. I welcome his intervention because I think he is quite accurate in saying that there is also a heavy onus on management to improve its performance not only in the steel industry but generally. The third area which the Opposition believes needs substantial attention is regulation of industry. The Government has made some very good noises in this area and, indeed, has done some quite positive things. It has established a regulation review unit. The last publication that I saw from the regulation review unit, which was in the nature of a report to the public and to this Parliament, stated that the cost of business regulation in Australia was somewhere between $40,000m and $80,000m a year. That fairly extraordinary range was the assessment by the Government's own unit of the cost of regulation. Whilst I readily acknowledge the value of the work that is being done by the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce with respect to seeking uniformity of regulation, whether it is in the food industry, the chemical industry or whatever, I also want to say that at the same time the Government keeps introducing substantial new burdens of regulation which are a very heavy cost for Australian industry to bear. I could do no more than remind the Senate of the fact that the Opposition has voted against a succession of Bills which, in its view, have added to the cost burdens and the complexity of doing business in Australia. I now refer to the fourth area which, along with the budgetary measures that are currently being considered by this Government, needs attention if we are to have economic recovery. We need to look at the whole question of input costs around Australia and, not least, the costs which are imposed by government itself. We need to look at the charges which are being imposed, not on profits but simply on carrying on a business. A tax such as the fringe benefits tax is one example of new cost burdens on industry. On the other hand, we should look at the inputs which are generally more traditionally regarded as the input costs imposed by government, usually State governments. Let me refer to an area in which again the Minister at the table has responsibility-the manufacturing industry. I am sure that the Minister would have been given the same presentation as I was by a white goods manufacturer who pointed out that the cost of his product had gone up by around 5 per cent a year over a three or four year period and that the cost of electricity supplied by the Government had gone up by just under 15 per cent-I think it was 14.9 per cent. My point with respect to these Bills is that the budgeting of the Government, the expenditure proposals of the Government, has been a part of its Achilles heel. The excessive expenditure of the last four Budgets is now catching up with Australia and the Australian people. The absurd interest rates which are being paid by home buyers, farmers and small business men are a function of the excessive expenditure of this Government over the last four Budgets. I look forward to the Government starting to wind back in the May statement the disadvantage that it has imposed on Australia. There is nothing that we can do with respect to these Appropriation Bills that will help to improve this situation. These Bills, which will pass through this Parliament untouched, are required to complete the errors that the Government irrevocably put in place in its Budget in August of last year. I rise not on the basis that we will be opposing this legislation. I rise principally because of the Minister's extraordinary behaviour in refusing to give us a second reading speech on these Bills. I take the opportunity to say that if the Government focuses between now and May only on the expenditure problems which it has created, it will simply condemn Australia to a respectable misery. In other words, there will be no relief for the 25 per cent of young Australians who are unemployed. There will be no relief for the majority of young marrieds who can no longer afford to buy a house. There will be no relief for the farmers who are groaning under the interest rates on debts which were incurred early this decade on the faith of Australia's apparent future and which are now unmanageable and are driving many good farmers from their farms. There will be no relief for any of those Australians who are groaning under the mistakes of this Government. All that I can say is that, whilst I believe it is correct in the national interest that the Government should run its full term, it is a pity that this Government will not be thrown out at an early election. Debate (on motion by Senator McIntosh) adjourned. Assent to the following Bills reported: Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill 1987 Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill 1987 Debate resumed. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(3.37) —The Australian public really must be wondering why this Government is prepared to waste so much time and money on legislation that the Parliament has already rejected and that the Australian public has demonstrated clearly that it does not want. Senator Haines —You were the one who said it was a waste of time. Senator BROWNHILL —I am not going to waste too much time, Senator Haines. I am going to make only a couple of points about how the Australia Card Bill 1986 No. 2 affects the Australian farming industry, the people who live in the country. I think we are entitled to free speech in this place. That is one of the reasons why we have a parliament in which to debate these matters. I think it would be a good idea if the Government realised the fact that we have a democracy in this country. We do not have a socialist regime under which we could be dictated to by the Government that we have at the moment. If this Bill were to be passed it would take two years before it had any effect. (Quorum formed). I thank all the honourable senators very much for coming in to hear a little about this Bill that the Government is trying to foist on the Australian people-a Bill that will have draconian influences on this country if it is allowed to pass this place. Before the state of the House was mentioned, I was asking what had so dramatically changed in this Bill to give it some chance of being passed now. Of course, no change has been made to it whatsoever, because it was brought in in a cynical exercise to try to bring about a double dissolution trigger. The hypocrisy and the cynicism of this Government have been exposed. The lack of legislation and positive action is evidenced by the latest rehash of this old and rejected Bill. The Government did, however, contemplate changes, and they were alluded to earlier this year by Dr Blewett. Those proposed changes, of course, have already been mentioned in this place, so I will not go through them all again. But changes mooted to the Bill were and none of them were put into place. The last time I spoke in this place on this Bill I spoke of the problems that it would have for the people of rural Australia. I spoke of the problems for the isolated farmers, the invalid, the sick and the itinerant workers. I spoke about the difficulties involved in using the card. Since then, of course, the New South Wales Farmers Association has studied the Bill. It was so concerned that it did a survey of stock and station agents to ask them how they would comply with the regulations under Division 2. Under that Division primary producers are required to produce an Australia Card in order to receive payments from a marketing authority or agent of sale from primary production. The marketing authority or produce agent is then required to provide such information to the Commissioner of Taxation. The survey undertaken by the New South Wales Farmers Association found that the agents and the various marketing authorities intend to charge producers for the additional administrative costs involved in complying with the legislation-this at a time of a rural crisis when people in the rural communities are having a great deal of hardship. The problems producers will have with delays from bodies such as the Australian Wheat Board of individual wool agents are quite horrendous. I quote from a letter from the New South Wales Farmers Federation written by Michael Tooth, the President of that organisation: Under the legislation, in particular Section 43 (2), a marketing authority or produce agent must sight the Australia Card in order to allow payment to primary producers. It may come as a surprise for the Government to realise that there are some 48,000 wheat growers in Australia and the Wheat Board has only 7 offices all of which are in State Capitals. Under the legislation 48,000 primary producers will be required to attend these offices and to show their Australia Card. In addition approximately half of these will be required to provide a statement indicating that they are eligible representatives of various family companies and/or partnerships. What the Australian Wheat Board is going to do with records of 48,000 Australia Cards is anyone's guess, however, the administrative problem to be encountered in processing such records will be enormous. It should also be pointed out in the case of Australia's 80,000 wool growers, the majority of growers would not usually have the personal contact with their agents and would normally initiate the selling of wool by telephone and by documentation. This would mean that these producers would also be required as soon as this legislation is enacted to personally make contact with their broker, and this would result in considerable additional cost to producers. In addition, the legislation requires that an eligible representative of a partnership and/or trust or company to produce his card number, company name and tax file number, again adding to the administrative burdens of both storing and recording information. They are just a few of the areas that will cause problems for people in the rural areas of Australia. We have told the Government that there are problems with this Bill. We have told the Government of these problems numerous times and we are now repeating them all again only to show why this Bill should not now be passing this place and why the Opposition will be voting against the Bill. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(3.45) —It is well known now that the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2] should be pulled off the list, and we should be able to get back to debating the problems of the nation. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) told us earlier this year that he would amend the legislation and try to present it to the Senate for further debate to see whether he could get the Australia Card through the Senate. But what happened? The Government believed it could win an election and we were faced with the cynical operation of this card being put up to be debated again. When the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) saw the research that was coming through to his office, he wimped out and decided that he was not prepared to go for an early election. He hoped that he could put off the inevitable until later in the year when he would face the polls and ultimately be defeated. So we are going through this very cynical exercise of debating this Bill that even the Australian Labor Party does not want. Senator Crowley —Speak for yourself, Ron. Senator BOSWELL —I am speaking for Senator Georges and Senator Bolkus-- Senator Cook —Senator Georges is not a member of the Labor Party. Senator BOSWELL —Yes, he saw the light. After 18 years he finally saw the light. He stood up for what he believed in and resigned from the Labor Party. Everyone in Queensland admires Senator Georges, not because of his stand on many issues, but certainly because he has a character and is prepared to stand up for what he believes-unlike a number of other people over there. Senator Button —When Joh tells you to leave you will walk out of the coalition. Old brownboots! Senator BOSWELL —Senator Button, please do not interject on me, because I want to discuss this Bill. Like much of the Government legislation that has been put before this House in the last four years of government, this Bill will make tremendous impositions on the business and farming sectors. It is proof that the Government has no understanding of or sympathy for the business or farming communities. We have had nothing but one ambush after another on the productive sector of this country. We have seen an all-out assault on many fronts-fringe benefits taxes, all other types of taxes, capital gains taxes, death duties. Senator Button —What death duties? Senator BOSWELL —Senator Button does not know how the capital gains tax works; I tell him that it has an inbuilt death duty. It is something about which he has not been completely honest. He has not gone out and told the really honest story about the capital gains tax. But he knows as well as I do that the capital gains tax has an inbuilt death duty. Both the abolition of negative gearing and the abolition of tax deductibility for entertainment expenses are counter-productive and unjustified, and run a tax on business. We have seen the introduction of the prescribed payments system and the railroading of sub-contractors and the self-employed into the totally inappropriate pay as you earn scheme. We have seen increased company taxes. And the list goes on and on. All these taxes and impositions have meant more form filling and more unproductive time spent ploughing through paper work; and many businesses have had to put on additional staff members just to fill out the paper work the Government requires. Now we have this Australia Card, which hopefully, and thankfully, will be defeated. If it were passed, all telephone selling, all dealing with brokers and stock and station agents would end. Under the Australia Card telephone selling would become obsolete. The grazier and isolated person would not be able to do business over the telephone. He would have to meet his stock and station agent. As Senator Brownhill mentioned, there are 48,000 wheat growers in Australia. The Wheat Board has seven offices. This Government has neglected the farmers who have provided the wealth of this nation for so many years. Their farms and implements are being repossessed and their standard of living is being taken away from them. This unsympathetic Government will now make them go to the office of the Wheat Board in one of the seven capital cities and present their credentials to the Wheat Board. It will cost them quite a sum of money to make the additional journeys into the capital cities. Various partnerships and companies are also represented. This will be a tremendously involved process and an administrative nightmare. All sorts of burdens will be imposed on farmers. The same applies to the 80,000 wool growers. They normally carry out their business honestly by telephone. Now they will also be required to travel long distances to present their cards personally to the wool broking firms. Senator Button and other members of the Australian Labor Party have thrown their net so wide that they have caught all Australians. They work on the presumption that everyone in Australia is a cheat, so they are trying to bring in this draconian legislation which will catch every person in Australia, despite the fact that 99.99 per cent of Australians are decent, honest, law respecting citizens. This fact does not seem to cut any ice with the Australian Labor Party. The Confederation of Australian Industry has claimed-- Senator Crowley —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Clearly, the honourable senator is reading his speech. I also draw to your attention standing order 421 which requires honourable senators not to be tediously repetitious. I suggest that under either of those rulings, you could call the honourable senator to order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —There is no point of order. Senator BOSWELL —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator Button —It is the only way you can be sure which Party you are in by reading your speech, isn't it? Senator BOSWELL —I would not worry about our side of the House. I think Senator Button has enough to do to control the four or five factions on his side. When the Government brought down this Australia Card legislation, it shunted Senator Bolkus off to Bulgaria or somewhere and Senator Georges left. It has tremendous trouble in its own ranks without trying to divide us. Senator Button should worry about his own affairs and we will look after our own interests. The Government never considered for one moment the costs that it would impose on the Australian business community. The Confederation of Australian Industry has claimed that it will cost business $377m a year. That will ultimately mean a loss of jobs and less profit. So the card will have an effect which is completely contrary to what it was designed to do. Neither Senator Button nor his Government has been prepared to come clean and tell us what the card will cost. I would have thought that any responsible government would have done some sort of study on the cost to the private sector. Perhaps this Government is not concerned enough to take into consideration how much this will add to the costs of the Australian business sector and primary industry. Estimates that have been worked out by some prominent business organisations have shown that it will add $2,000m in costs in the private sector over the next 10 years. Senator Button —You had better tell us who they are because we might think that comes out of-- Senator BOSWELL —The Confederation of Australian Industry is one of them. Senator Button —No, it is not. That is not true. You are misleading the Parliament. Senator BOSWELL —I would be eternally grateful, as would the Australian business community, if the Government would tell us what the Australia Card will cost in the private sector. Senator Button —You will get a pimple on your tongue if you go on giving those figures. Senator BOSWELL —The Government admits it will cost the public sector $1,000m over the next 10 years and it will have to employ 2,000 extra public servants. Senator Crowley —Those are government figures. Now tell us the truth. Tell us the rest. Senator BOSWELL —I say to Senator Crowley that this card has been considered by a joint select committee. The majority report recommended that the ID card would have no effect on social welfare fraud, taxation fraud, organised crime-and I forget what the other one was. Senator Giles —Immigration. Senator BOSWELL —Immigration. I thank the honourable senator for her help. It has been proven by a number of people, including Mr Costigan, that the card will not do what it was designed to do. Mr Costigan said that it would not stop organised crime; in fact, it would help organised crime. So on anyone's criteria the card will not prove to be useful. Yet the Government, in a cynical exercise, has brought the legislation forward again, knowing full well it does not have the numbers, knowing full well that the Australian Democrats will not support it, knowing full well that Senator Georges and Senator Siddons would not support it, and knowing full well that its own members would have to be whipped into the House to vote for it; if they did not do so, their endorsements would be on the line. So we are now debating this legislation when we should be debating other matters that are of more importance to the country. We find, as the debate is drawing to a close, that the Government is trying to save a little bit of face and is going through the exercise of talking the matter out. As long as the Government is prepared to try to save face, we in the Opposition will point out to the people of Australia that it is nothing more than a cynical exercise to try to get a trigger for a double dissolution. We are debating the Australia Card legislation, even though the Government knows it does not have the numbers. Senator Townley —A waste of time. Senator BOSWELL —Of course, it is an utter waste of time. The Government knows that the legislation would not be implemented until 1989-90. That is the first full year in which the card would come into force. Here we are in April 1987, two years away from that time, debating a card that everyone knows will not be enforced, which will not do the job, which will not stop organised crime, welfare fraud, immigration fraud-- Senator Button —Tax avoidance. What about that? Senator BOSWELL —And tax avoidance. The Government has placed the Senate in a stupid situation. It is playing the Australian people for a bunch of fools. The Australian people know that the Government has only re-introduced this legislation because it wants a double dissolution trigger. When it had the choice of calling a double dissolution, it wimped out. It was not prepared to go to the people of Australia because of its poor record. I do not blame the Government for not being prepared to go to the people of Australia, because 600 homes in Logan City were repossessed last month as the people could not meet their repayments, and the ordinary Australian citizens are burdened by interest rates that they cannot meet. So the Government has tried to buy a bit of time. It has until March 1988 to enjoy the benefits of the treasury bench. As soon as the Government is prepared to go to an election the inevitable will happen; the Australian people will throw it out unceremoniously from the Government benches in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(4.00) —It is interesting that as this Government staggers through its four years of office we are increasingly seeing that it governs by Press releases and also by the polls. We saw an example of that yesterday. The polls are not quite what the Government wanted, so that the early election the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been talking about is no longer operative. But the Government has brought on the Australian Card Bill in a cynical exercise of looking at the polls. They were fooled by the polls and thought that the Australian people were in favour of the Australia Card. I have to tell the Government that it should beware because the Australian people are not in favour of the Australia Card, and the Government will learn this to its cost. That is why so many senators on this side of the chamber are determined once again to speak strongly against this iniquitous piece of legislation and see that it is voted out. Let there be no thought that we are engaged in any sort of exercise. It is a matter of strong conviction on this side of the House that this legislation should be debated thoroughly, fiercely and rejected heartily. Let us consider what this card will be like. I would liken it to a dog tag-not to the tags that hang around dogs' necks but those that soldiers talk about when they go on operations. Let us remember why they have those tags. They have them to identify casualties. Let us not forget that the casualties of this legislation will be the Australian people. There is a lot more at stake than meets the eye. The Australian people know-they are not being fooled by this-that more taxes will be needed to pay for the card and more bureaucrats will have to be paid. The Australian people know that it will not deal with welfare fraud or with tax cheats. The evidence has been around for too long now and it is too strong. They know that welfare fraud and tax cheats can be more effectively and more cheaply dealt with by greater efficiency from the bureaucrats that they are paying for already. They do not want more. Let the Government allow the bureaucrats to get their house in order. Nothing new has been produced by the Government since the previous debate on the Australia Card. No evidence has been produced to rebut the objections of the Joint Select Committee on an Australian Card. I draw the Government's attention to one of the Government's heroes who spoke in 1939 during the parliamentary debate on the National Registration Bill. That was a very difficult circumstance. This country was going into war and if ever there was a time for national registration it was probably then. But what did John Curtin say? He said: The fundamental principle of this determination to defend Australia is that it is a land in which personal liberty is still a cherished possession . . . Senator Walters —Who said that? Senator NEWMAN —John Curtin, Labor leader. Senator Button —He is dead, Senator, so you can applaud him. Senator NEWMAN —So your principles are no longer operative either, are they, Senator? I am glad to have your acknowledgment. Senator Button —He is a dead Labor leader, so you can be nice about him. Senator NEWMAN —I can be nice about him. There are some good ones still alive, but it is hard to find them as they are thin on the ground. He said that this is a land in which personal liberty is still a cherished possession. I would have thought that that still applies today even though he is dead. He continued: . . . and that there are limits to the coercive authority which the State may exert on the individual liberties of the people. I intend to quote the words of Mr Tim Robertson, Secretary of the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties-and I notice that the Australian Council for Civil Liberties has a prominent left wing Labor lawyer member of parliament from Tasmania, Mr John White, as a member of its executive. Mr Robertson said: What would John Curtin say today when it is possible that government computer profiles constructed from the database could fall into the hands of a person with the civil rights record of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen? I shall not comment on whether Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen would be good on civil rights issues or not, but it makes one worry what would happen if these computer records fell into the hands of somebody with whom one was politically at odds. During the previous debate I canvassed the issues very thoroughly and I do not intend to go through them at length today. However, I do intend merely to highlight the points which continue to convince me that I should oppose the Bill. I look first at immigration. I do not believe that the Australia Card will help much with immigration at all. There are a few reasons for that. I think that in one sense it will make the situation in Australia much worse. It will force more and more people into the black cash economy by pushing them further away from the mainstream of community life, and probably will reduce the chance of detecting and apprehending them. It is difficult to control entries and exits into the country, but with the lack of co-operation that currently exists between the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and other departments-one knows that they are notorious for their lack of communication and co-operation-it is inevitable that departments should be finding great difficulty in apprehending sufficient of the illegal immigrants whom, they admit, come to this country. If they could get their act together, we would be much better off and would not need to try to use the Australia Card to deal with illegal immigration. But it will not do so for the simple reason that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has no right under the Act to demand production of the card from anybody it considers to be an illegal immigrant. Not only that, but that department has only a limited right to request information from other departments. It seems to me that the Department of Immigration has been left out in the cold under this legislation and that it is very unlikely that the Australia Card could possibly do much to help in apprehending illegal immigrants. In the area of organised crime we see that the legislation gives plenty of opportunities to the crooks in Australia to create false identities and to get false ID cards. We gave illustrations in the previous debate as to how the Australian Federal Police expressed concern that this will make it easier for organised crime to get more of a hold in this country. Obviously this will create a black market in the card and also in the visitors' cards which are given to people who come to Australia for short terms. It opens the door to people working under false names, or drawing benefits under false names, or banking or taking part in other financial transactions under false names. Once one has that false identity, one is home and hosed if one has an Australia Card saying who one is. Certificates of identity which can be provided for under the legislation for people who cannot attend to prove their identity at all times will also enable false identities to be established. It is clear that before long a number of the visitors cards that are handed to people coming into the country will be recycled and will come back with people whom we do not want in this country. I suspect there will be quite an industry in that area and it is a matter of great concern. I understand the crime world is already working on it; it got its act into gear long ago. I am afraid the Government has lagged a long way behind in that respect. I fear that if this legislation were to go through, the Government would be giving crime a great leg-on in spreading its illegal influence around the country. On the subject of social security fraud, the evidence of the Department of Social Security given to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card has not been challenged, and I believe cannot be challenged, that only 0.6 per cent of frauds on the Social Security Department is due to false identity and the remainder is due to misrepresentation of people's circumstances. Nothing will be achieved by an Australia Card in the case of false circumstances. I am glad to see that the Government has already started a crackdown on welfare fraud. It is proper that it did so and it is already showing results. I am glad that the Government has had the courage to take action. It is only a small step so far, and I urge the Government to keep it up. This is the way that it should be going. The important consideration in this area is that people should fear that it is too likely they will be caught. If there are a sufficient number of prosecutions and people have their benefits withdrawn publicly, we will prevent a lot more people from taking this course of petty crime, which is really what this is. It is quite clear to me that there is no reason to compel all Australians of good fame and character to carry their dog tags just because some of their neighbours are cheats. I mentioned the cash economy earlier in relation to immigrants who would be forced into the `black economy' through being in the country illegally. We must not forget that the Australia Card will not do much for the black economy. Cash transactions will still be made-people will be paid behind the barn for casual work on the farm. The same will happen with people who do the gardening, babysitting or cleaning. These are some of the many areas in which there are cash transactions which currently do not attract tax or any attention from the authorities. There is no reason to think that these cash transactions will not continue in the future. It will suit both parties to keep mum about it. No one will want to start flashing Australia Cards around and keeping records of these relatively small transactions. The Government will not catch the cash economy with the Australia Card, whatever law it may make. I am afraid that it is endemic and it can only be countered by an increase in the indirect tax base. In that way the money that is being lost through the black economy could be recouped. I turn now to taxation. I draw attention to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, which is an all party committee, and to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, once again an all party committee. The interesting point is that both those committees concluded that there should be a major improvement in the administrative efficiency of the Australian Taxation Office to bring in revenue, rather than pursue the Australia Card proposals. Those committees went into these particular areas in great depth. They spent a lot of time on these subjects. It is clear that the Australian Taxation Office has not been efficient and has not spent almost $50m that was allocated to it for computer upgrading. It has been very lax and has misused its resources. I am glad that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has announced a major computing upgrading program for the ATO. Although I support that upgrading, I am afraid that it recognises that there is outstanding revenue that needs to be and will be collected by the upgrading. If the Treasurer is recognising this fact by his announcement, he cannot have his cake and eat it too. He cannot say that he needs an Australia Card as well. If he can get this revenue by the computer upgrading program, that is the way he should go. We do not need a national identification and registration system simply because the ATO cannot do its job. I also wish to canvass briefly the cost of the Australia Card. We know that the cost to the Government will be about $1 billion. I suspect that that will not be the real cost. We have seen how this Government starts off with a small sum and then lets it grow, grow, grow. One wonders whether the Government puts `Betta Gro' on its projects, because its budgets never seem to stick. We have a place just behind us on the hill which reminds us every day how this Government is unable to keep its costs within budget. There is no reason at all to expect that the cost of the Australia Card will remain at the level that the Government has stated. It is interesting to note that our shadow Minister for Health had to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on appeal for details of the cost of compliance with the ID card provisions. He is due to receive those documents on 21 April. It is extraordinarily interesting that there seems to be such urgency now to get a decision on the Australia Card Bill. The documents will be available to our shadow Minister two or three weeks after this debate is concluded. One has to wonder what this Government is hiding. One suspects the worst. It is a similar situation to the one that I am facing over the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill which we are due to debate after we have finished this Bill. Once again, my freedom of information requests will arrive too late for the debate. In view of the fact that the departments concerned dragged their feet for so long, I am sure that this was a deliberate ploy to ensure that embarrassing evidence was not put before the Senate when the legislation was being debated. Quite clearly this is the way this Government operates-keep everything secret, do not worry about the Freedom of Information Act, put a blanket on it and try to slide through without letting people know the truth. That is not good enough. We have had criticisms from the banks about the ineffectiveness of a card in dealing with automatic teller machines, credit cards and other areas. The costs to the banks will not be as great as those to many other businesses. We have so many small businesses that are not yet computerised and that do not have regular reporting requirements to the Australian Taxation Office. The banks have the benefits of experience and equipment in both those areas, but so many small businesses do not. They do not have computers and they do not have regular reporting procedures. Such businesses include small employers, solicitors, real estate agents and a myriad of small firms around this country. One more layer of government regulation will be imposed upon them. In the last four years they have been inundated with regulation and this will be the last straw. We have estimated that the cost to business will be about $2 billion, but once again only when the legislation gets under way will it be possible to see the enormity of the cost. The rule of thumb has produced that figure and it is probably not too far out. I turn now to the question of civil liberties. I wish to draw the Senate's attention to the fact that the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, of which I am a member-- Senator Michael Baume —And a very good member. Senator NEWMAN —Thank you, Senator, that is very kind of you. Last year, when this Bill first came before the Parliament, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee made a number of quite strong criticisms of various sections of the legislation and eventually it received a reply from the Minister for Health. In most of the areas of criticism the Minister agreed that necessary amendments would be made to the legislation. At that time he thought that the amendments would have to be made to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in the autumn session of 1987. This legislation is before us for the second time and the Minister has had ample opportunity to incorporate the amendments to which he had agreed. He has not made these amendments and I take great exception to the fact that he told the Scrutiny of Bills Committee one thing and did something quite different. He produced this legislation and he had the opportunity to amend it in the form required by the Committee, but he has not done so. That is not good enough. I do not intend to go through all those parts in the Bill which the Committee criticised in detail; they were canvassed in the previous debate. But I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that the Minister is quoted as saying on page 43 of the Committee's fifth report of 1987: . . . I undertake that this test of reasonableness will be made explicit on the face of the legislation. One cannot get anything much clearer than that. So much for the Minister's word. I also wish to draw attention to some points made by the Australian Council for Civil Liberties. It has noticed that Dr Blewett has broken his word. The Council wrote to most senators drawing our attention to that fact. I am pleased to think that Government senators will also have received that letter. The Minister for Health is under severe criticism for his failure to keep his word. I also draw the Senate's attention to a letter that I received from Professor Martyn Webb, Emeritus Professor in the Geography Department at the University of Western Australia. I shall quote a couple of sentences from his most interesting letter which he described as `a non party plea for the rejection of the Australia Card'. Professor Webb said: Senators must, therefore, appreciate that the card's real purpose is to create a data base for central register of information about the socio-economic activities of every Australian, man, women and child which may be tapped at will and as a matter of routine by federal government departments who will, as a matter of routine, each go on `hunting expeditions' by introducing flagging or tagging techniques in order to identify deviant subjects who will immediately come under suspicion. Senator Cook —You know that to be wrong, though, don't you? Senator NEWMAN —I know no such thing, Senator. Senator Cook —You do know that to be wrong, yet you repeat it. Senator NEWMAN —I do not know that. I will be very glad to repeat it for the honourable senator. I am perfectly happy to repeat it. If he would like me to repeat it 20 times, I will. I would like to draw the Senate's attention to the fact that security of information cannot be guaranteed even if the collection of information were desirable, which it is not. The shadow Minister in the other place drew the attention of the House of Representatives to a leaked Special Minister of State document which stated that the Australian Federal Police investigating the leaking of confidential Medicare records said that they had identified 197 people throughout Australia who had access to the information notwithstanding the fact that only 20 possessed computer access codes. He said: In other words, the same system which is to be invoked to maintain security of confidential records under the ID card proposal has been found by the Federal Police not to work. What is more significant is that for the first time under the ID card proposal, tax, health and social security records will be linked with a common identifier and, therefore, all the very personal and highly sensitive material will be much more readily accessible. Of course, there are also going to be some 2,150 more new people who will be legally entitled to access under this card. So we really do have reasons to be concerned about the security of the system in view of the history of this Government in managing confidential records. Honourable senators opposite were interjecting just now about my allegations about the sinister nature of this legislation and, by way of final quotation, I draw attention to the Health Insurance Commission, which proposed by way of submission to the Government in May 1985 that the Government should go about overcoming public fears about this identification scheme. It said: It will be important to minimise in advance public reaction to implementation of the system. It also stated: 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. If that is not big brother finding ways to creep up behind us quietly, I do not know what is. It worries me that the Health Insurance Commission, which is going to be responsible for the administration of the Australia Card, is proposing to the Government how it can sneakily introduce something without telling the people what its eventual destination and aim are and how to make it more palatable by giving it a pretty name, something like `as easy as ABC'-the Australian Benefits Card-to make it sound attractive and make us believe that it was giving us goodies. It is really quite frightening to think that that sort of device is being wheeled up to the Government. Australians who have studied this proposal are appalled by it. We know that it will not work to deter illegal immigration; we know that it will not work to deter illegal immigration; we know it will not work to reduce taxation cheating. We know that it will not work to reduce social security fraud. We know that it will not work effectively in the cash economy. We also know that it will assist organised crime and will add to the cost of government and the cost of business. We know that it will not protect our civil liberties or our privacy. In fact it will threaten them. I have no problem whatsoever in once again opposing an obnoxious Bill. (Quorum formed) Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(4.24) —This debate on the Australia Card Bill 1986 (No. 2) should not be proceeding now because under normal arrangements the Senate would be involved in examining the Estimates today, as that was on the schedule. The reason for our debating this Bill is that the Government has adopted a cynical, disgraceful and insupportable approach to a Bill which was already discredited on its last appearance here and to which amendments had been promised by the Government before it returned it to this chamber. The fact that this Bill has returned to this chamber unaltered is evidence not only of cynicism but, I believe, also of a deep ingrained dishonesty within this Government. There can be no honourable explanation for a government returning to this chamber a Bill which it gave undertakings it would correct because it recognised, it said at the time, that there was a need to correct the form it was in when it was first rejected in this chamber. Those corrections have not taken place and we have every right to ask why not. Why has this Government cynically and dishonourably refused to do what it undertook to do? Senator Richardson —Take your hands out of your pockets. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —If the honourable senator would take his fingers out of his ears, he might hear something to his advantage-some sense about this dishonest and disreputable Government which has presented to this chamber a Bill which it knows perfectly well to be flawed, which it agreed to change and which it presented back to us only because of the most disgraceful motives; because it sought to make a cheap political gain; and because it sought in fact at one stage to force a situation where there could well be a double dissolution of the Houses of this Parliament. Senator Gietzelt —Your Party is the greatest Party for double dissolutions in history. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —There is no other justification for the Minister who is now rabbiting on having conspired in effect in this decision to bring back to this chamber a Bill that his own Government had given undertakings on; one cannot call them solemn because there is nothing solemn about any undertaking given by this Government. Every promise it makes is breakable. There will be no capital gains tax-you name it. All those promises are breakable. Senator Walters —Only for one year, though. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As the honourable senator says, for only one year. This Government would not know how to maintain an obligation or how to stick to a promise. The promise with this Bill, after it had been rejected, was that it would be corrected and brought back. Let us look at the reality in this matter. Senator Newman touched on it towards the end of her outstanding speech. Let us look at the areas in which this Government had promised to make changes to this Bill; that is, before it adopted the cynical approach of bringing it back unaltered to try to force a political situation, a political confrontation. This is from the Government that does not believe in confrontation. This is the non-confrontationist Government, except of course with the Opposition; except of course where it can get a political advantage; except of course where its cynical approach gives it the view that it may achieve a benefit. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, in its fifth report of 1987, dated 1 April 1987, restates the position that it outlined last year when it first had a look at this matter, which was on 19 November 1986. It noted then that no provision had been made for parliamentary scrutiny of notices in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette about the need to comply with requirements relating to photographs. It took the view that, because there was no parliamentary scrutiny of such notices, they are therefore not subject to tabling and disallowance, as would be the case if the classes of persons to be exempted were to be prescribed by regulations. The Committee then drew to the attention of the Senate clause 12 (15) in that it might be considered to subject the exercise of legislative power insufficiently to parliamentary scrutiny. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) responded: I appreciate the Committee's concern in this matter. Although the provision was devised as a method for the Minister to exempt a person, included in a class of persons specified in the notice, from one or more of the requirements in clause 12, in the event that it appears unreasonable for the person to have to comply with the requirements, I agree that there should be Parliamentary scrutiny of such notices and that they should be subject to tabling and disallowance provisions. There was an acknowledgment, an admission, by the Minister that there was a need to fix this up. At that point, last November, the Committee said: The Minister further indicated that the necessary amendments would be made- this is when he still thought he would get the Bill through last November- through the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in the Autumn Session of 1987. In other words, there was an admission that there would be a need in this present sitting of the Parliament to amend the Australia Card Bill effectively through the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. As we understand it, when the Bill went back to the other place that was the Government's undertaking that it would include that amendment, for example, in the Bill before it brought it back here. It has failed to do so because it was a dishonourable government. I suppose we are lucky that we have not yet seen the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in the autumn session yet because we may have been obliged to amend a Bill that did not exist had it been brought up earlier in this session. The important thing in relation to the Australia Card Bill was that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which is a bipartisan committee, noted that should the Bill be read a second time in the Senate the Committee would prefer to see the amendments made to the Bill while the Bill is before the Parliament. What can be the possible justification for this Government not only ignoring the recommendations-the unanimous recommendations-of this Senate Committee but also deliberately setting about to bring a Bill here which, it admits, is in need of amendment in this session? The cynicism is just appalling. The credibility of the Government is non-existent on this matter, but this is not the only example of this kind of nonsense. I refer to another section of the Committee's report where it drew to the attention of the Senate clauses 121 (1), 145 (1) and 147 (1) in that by failing to contain an appropriate stipulation they may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) responded: My view is that exercise of the powers referred to in these sub-clauses would be subject to an implicit requirement of reasonableness and if the powers were exercised unreasonably they would be subject to challenge in the courts. The defence of reasonable excuse would also assist persons who having received a notice to attend any Agency inquiry or to provide information to the Agency were unable rather than unwilling to attend an inquiry or investigation or produce the information. The Minister went on: However I appreciate the viewpoint expressed by the Committee that the provisions specified should include a proviso that the times and places referred to in notices should be reasonable- and get this- and I undertake that this test of reasonableness will be made explicit on the face of the legislation. That is the quote that Senator Newman gave us. Once again the Committee said that the Minister indicated that the necessary amendments would be made through the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in the autumn session of 1987, and it thanked the Minister for this undertaking. Once again there is no justification whatsoever, no explanation-other than mendacity-for this Government not to have included that amendment in this Bill at this time. If any Government speaker can justify, or establish any honourable reason for the omission of those amendments from this Bill, which would have taken no effort at all except of course that it would not have been a possible double dissolution trigger, I would be glad to hear it and I am certain that the Senate and the people of Australia would be interested to hear why the Government behaved in this dishonourable way. Another matter that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee took up related to delegation and the powers of delegation. The concern was that clause 186 (1) might be considered to make rights, liberties and/or obligations unduly dependent on insufficiently defined administrative powers. The Minister for Health responded: I did not envisage that this clause would be used by the chief executive officer of the Authority or President of the Agency to delegate powers to anyone other than the staff of the Authority or the office-holders and staff of the Agency. The word `person' is used in the clause to encapsulate in one word those to whom the powers can be delegated, namely the staff of the Authority and the Agency and the office-holders of the Agency. I interpose there to say that by using the word `person' it could well mean any person whatsoever; the legislation is not limited to staff. It is a bit of sloppy drafting. The intention is that it should be staff, but it is not what the Bill says. The Minister then went on to say: I am willing to undertake that the legislation should be amended so that the intention to restrict the scope of the delegation in this way appears on the face of the legislation. Senator Walters —How many times is that? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —It just goes on and on; the honourable senator is right. The Committee's report states: Once again the Minister indicated that the necessary amendment would be made through the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in the Autumn Session of 1987. Here we have this Government treating with contempt committees of this Parliament and the proper procedures when it had the opportunity, after this Bill was rejected by this chamber last year, to bring it back in a correct form, a form that may well not have been acceptable to this chamber but nonetheless one which would have met the quite proper objections of a bipartisan committee, such as the Scrutiny of Bills Committee-objections that were so proper that the Minister had accepted that the amendments should be made. The dishonour of the Government in this matter is overwhelming. That is not all. What about the other amendments to this Bill which the Government had indicated to other bodies that it would make? The banks which say that the identity card will not work properly-of course they are right-had, as I understand it, been assured that suit- able amendments would be made. I quote from an article in the Age of 17 March this year which states: The controversial Australia Card will not work in the banking system without amendments to the legislation, the banks have warned the Government. Although the Government was told almost a month ago- that is six weeks ago now- that the card simply would not be able to be applied to the banking system without important changes, Cabinet decided last week that it would reintroduce the legislation without amendment. So it does not matter whether or not it would work. That is inconsequential. The important thing about this legislation is that it was to provide a trigger for a double dissolution. There was no other possible motive for rejecting the advice of the banks, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and a wide-ranging body of competent and experienced commentators who suggested to the Government ways by which this incompetent card at least could be made more effective. I read on from the Age: The advice from the Australian Bankers Association highlights the political nature of the Cabinet decision. This debate today has nothing to do with whether or not the Australia Card is right or wrong; whether this ID card is good or bad, at least from the Government's point of view. This debate is about the Government's cynicism in re- introducing to this chamber legislation it knows to be flawed and which it is too disreputable to repair because its intentions today are not to try to get this card rejected by the Senate-because that is what the objective really is-because it is a bit of failed legislation; it wants it rejected in exactly the same terms as before. If the Government were fair dinkum it would have amended the legislation. It clearly is not fair dinkum. The Age says: The Government had been prepared to make the amendments suggested by the banks before Cabinet decided that it would prefer to present an unaltered bill before Parliament so that its likely rejection in the Senate would give the Government a trigger for a double dissolution. It is not just me making this point. I am saying what is recognised widely throughout the community: This Government's behaviour is totally dishonourable in this matter. The Age continued: A submission to the Government last month said that without amendments the banks would not be able to incorporate use of the card into its systems in line with the Government's timetable. It said that a number of technical aspects of the Bill needed amendment before the card could be used in the banking system. The director of the bankers' association, Mr Alan Cullen, said yesterday that the legislation made some unrealistic assumptions. The banks had not disagreed with the identity card on principle, they had only pointed out the many problems for banks with the present legislation. Then he added that the card's introduction would cost the banks between $60m and $70m in setting up costs and about $5m a year to run. That is on top of the incredible costs of this card to the community at large. The banks stressed that they were not becoming involved in this debate on a political level. The Australian Bankers Association said in a submission that was rejected and ignored by this Government, at least in terms of the Association's attitude to this Bill as it returns, that it neither opposed nor supported the Australia Card because it had not been able to evaluate the wider aspects, which go far beyond the identification of bank transactions. However, the banks were concerned at the operational aspects of the scheme. Some of those concerns are natural self-interest; nonetheless, they are worth recognising. For example, penalties in those parts of the Bill that concern banks fall almost wholly on the financial institution. The penalty in every case is $20,000 and is expressed so as to be applicable to each offence. A simple error or omission, says the banks' submission, could lead to multiple `offences' with resultant larger accumulation of penalties. With the millions of accounts to be accessed, and the Australia Card number and other details as required recorded thereon, it is inevitable that errors in recording will occur. Banks seek mitigation of the penalties or none at all in cases of error where there was no intention to assist a customer to evade the restrictions intended by the legislation. Let us recognise that it is not the banks that would be guilty of doing something disgraceful. This relates to a procedure which is supposed to supervise, in effect, the activities of a dishonest operator in the market-place. Yet the banks face a $20,000 penalty for making a technical mistake. This Government is too arrogant to consider amending this legislation in an appropriate way but returns it in its original flawed state to this place. Let us look at the problem of dishonoured cheques being presented for payment. The banks say that because of the impact of dishonoured cheques and many other matters relating to cheques the Australia Card legislation will result in a marked reduction in the availability and convenience of banking services for the community. The effect on ordinary Australians of the Bill as it now stands will be a marked reduction in the availability and convenience of banking services to the community and an undermining of confidence in the use of periodical payment and direct entry systems, particularly for salary and social security-in other words, payments made directly to one's account. According to the Australian Bankers Association, there will be an undermining of confidence in those arrangements because of the way the Bill now stands and a possible reluctance within the community to accept cheques as a form of payment. Obviously, this will push more and more people into using cash. This is just a nonsense if we are to push people into having more and more cash transactions because of the impact of this legislation on the willingness of people to accept cheques. These points, I believe, are very serious and the consequence of this, as the banks' submission says, would push society much more heavily towards the use of cash without utilisation of banking facilities or the resultant records of financial transactions. What happens if we push people more into cash? This very legislation, if it pushed people more into the use of cash, would push them more into the black economy, even more into the area where there is no adequate taxation cover and where the Australia Card will do nothing-as has been accepted by all the expert advice-to limit tax evasion. Senator Richardson —It is not true. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The honourable senator opposite says that it is not true. I do not mind if Senator Richardson describes the Australian Bankers Association as containing people who tell things that are untrue-which I suppose is another word for an unparliamentary word-but if Senator Richardson has that opinion of the Australian Bankers Association, that is his business. But if that attitude is spread throughout the Government it might explain why this Government does not understand and has not taken proper cognisance of the very real concerns raised by a very significant and competent body in this area. If Senator Richardson, from the depth of his experience of running a right wing political machine in New South Wales, knows that the Australian Bankers Association is wrong, I congratulate him. He obviously has much greater contact with banking than I thought. I often wondered what went on in the New South Wales right wing of the Australian Labor Party. Obviously, it is much more involved in banking than in running a political party which is supposed to represent the workers. I simply say that if Senator Richardson is trying to take comfort out of the fact that this is wrong I would appreciate his outlining when the Australian Bankers Association is wrong in this area. Senator Walters —The Minister did not think it was wrong. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —That is exactly right. The reality is that in so many of these areas the Minister has agreed that there is a need for amendment. The Government had agreed that there was a need for amendment. The Age newspaper reports that the Government was prepared to make the amendments suggested by the banks. Senator Richardson —That is just not true. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Senator Richardson says that it is not true. I do not mind if Senator Richardson describes the Australian Bankers Association as an organisation which says things that are not true, which I suppose is an unparliamentary word. If Senator Richardson has that opinion of the Australian Bankers Association, that is his business and it might explain why, if that attitude is spread throughout the Government, this Government does not understand, and has not taken proper cognisance of, the very real concerns raised by a very significant and competent body in this area. If, from the depth of his experience of running a right wing political machine in New South Wales, Senator Richardson knows that the Australian Bankers Association is wrong, I congratulate him. He obviously has much greater contact with banking. I often wondered what went on in the New South Wales right wing of the Labor Party. Obviously it is much more involved with banking than with running a political party which is supposed to represent the workers. If Senator Richardson is trying to take comfort out of the fact that this report is wrong, I would appreciate his outlining where the Australian Bankers Association is wrong in this area. Senator Walters —The Minister didn't think it was wrong. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Exactly. The reality is that in so many of these areas the Minister has agreed that there is a need for amendment. The Government had agreed there was a need for amendment. The Age newspaper reports that the Government was prepared to make the amendments suggested by the banks. Senator Richardson —You can't believe what you read in the papers. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I have not seen an effective denial of this report. If Senator Richardson is saying that the Age newspaper was totally incorrect in reporting that the Government had been prepared to make the amendment wonder how they will feel when they realise that that will be the situation that the Australia Card will present. I turn to an outline plan prepared for the interdepartmental committee on a national identification numbering system and put to the Cabinet in May 1985 by the Health Insurance Commission. I want to refer to this document because I think it is pretty important that the people of Australia realise just how far this Australia Card can go. The document states: This preliminary report has been prepared for the IDC on a national identification numbering system (chaired by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet) to provide an outline of how the Health Insurance Commission might establish and operate such a system. It continues: It is understood that the principal objective of the system is to establish a facility that would, by uniquely identifying every Australian: . . . . (b) in particular, to prevent or at least reduce the incidence of-incorrect payment of benefits and other government moneys. The principal objective was not tax evasion. The interdepartmental committee said that the principal objective was `in particular, to prevent or at lease reduce the incidence of incorrect payment of benefits and other government moneys'. The Government talks emotively about tax evasion and tax cheats. It is beyond my imagination how the Government can have the hide to talk about tax evasion and tax cheats when its own Treasurer (Mr Keating) did not put in his tax returns on time for two years running. He did not put in one tax return for over 12 months and he was late with his next one. But then, the hypocrisy of this Government is quite unsurpassed. The document also said: . . . it must be emphasised that the plan is simply a statement of how a national identification system might be put in place, as requested by the IDC. It does not represent management's views on the desirability of the Commission undertaking this task. I do not blame the people who drew up the document for saying that. If I had been asked to do it, I would be covering myself too. The document went on to state: Labels or acronyms selected even at this early stage tend to become entrenched and it is for that reason that the Commission has not used . . . NINS (National Identification Numbering System) which has unfortunate connotations. A positive name that helps to emphasise the beneficial nature of the system for members of the public is needed. If the system objectives can be defined (for the public) so as to emphasise benefit entitlements (e.g. Medicard and social security) a suitable name might be the Australian Benefit Card-it's as easy as ABC! Unfortunately, that name was unable to be used because there was no benefit to the Australian people. It was suggested that the Government should put forward a name which did not have bad connotations, such as `national identification numbering system'. It was suggested that we should adopt a name as easy as ABC-the Australian Benefit Card. This is a good argument from the point of view of selling the idea but it falls far short of giving the people of Australia the accurate information that they need and deserve. The document went on: It will be important to minimise any adverse public reaction to implementation of the system. How does one go about that? The document continues: One possibility would be to use a staged approach for implementation, whereby only less sensitive data are held in the system initially with the facility to input additional data at a later stage when public acceptance may be forthcoming more readily. So the document proposed doing it in easy stages, starting off with just a little bit. Senator Gareth Evans intimated by way of interjection the last time I spoke on this legislation that this would happen. I will refer to that later. The document suggested doing it in easy stages-this year a little bit and next year a little bit more, until finally the people of Australia will more readily accept the whole lot. The document continues: Other related issues . . . are the extent to which: (a) the nature of all items of data held on the central database will be made known to the public- the document talks about the extent to which all the information would be made known to the public, about how much the public would be told- (b) the names of the government agencies with access to the system will be made public-- We know that this information was given to Cabinet. The document raised the question of what the public would be told. It continues about the extent to which non-government agencies would be permitted access to the system. How many non-government agencies would be permitted access to the system? The document continues: It seems sensible only to issue cards to adults. However, it is the Commission's view that registration on the system database should be effected for all persons even though cards would not be issued for minors. This approach would: (a) ensure a comprehensive database covering the entire population; (b) enable initial registration of newborns to be done automatically . . . That is, this system would cover people from the cradle to the grave. The document goes on: It can be expected that, after the system has been implemented and has settled down, the personal identification number would come to be used as a universal identifier. In other words, after everything has settled down, after people have got used to having an identification number, after people have got used to the fact that they have a number from the cradle to the grave, the number can be used as a universal identifier. The document continues: In time it might be used as that person's Medicare number, Income Tax file number or even bank account number etc. Overseas experience relating to privacy considerations should be carefully examined to determine the extent to which this practice should be allowed. The document continues: The preferred strategy would be one which would: . . . . (b) avoid, or at least minimise, adverse public criticism; The document continues: It is envisaged that arrangements would be made . . . to access databases in all participating government agencies i.e. those that hold basic identification data for a significant number of Australians and have a legitimate interest in matching that data against other government records. It is expected that participating agencies would include Medicare, the Australian Taxation Office, Foreign Affairs (Passport Office), Department of Social Security, Department of Veterans' Affairs, Australian Electoral Office, State Registrars of Births, Deaths and Marriages and any other authorities with data suitable for inclusion in the system. Relevant information from these databases would be extracted and converted to a new standard format on the national identification database to facilitate matching of personal data. We are told by Senator Tate that this would not occur. We were told, no, that would not happen. What were we told last year? Everyone remembers. We were told: There will be no capital gains tax. The Prime Minister said: Let me make a promise so that even the Opposition can understand-- Senator Reid —You mean even the Government. Senator WALTERS —Yes, so that the Government can understand. That was the time when the Prime Minister said that there would be no capital gains tax. What do we have? We have a capital gains tax. When I said that last time, what was the interjection from Senator Gareth Evans? I read from Hansard. He said: One election later. That promise was not for that election-and we in the Senate are expected to accept this Government's promise that the Australia Card will not be used for all those things that have already been suggested. We are being expected to believe that the Government will not make a decision on the extent to which the items on the general central data base will be made known to the public. We are expected to believe that secrets will not be held-that there will not be things that the public do not know about. What absolute rubbish. Senator Tate —That is what the legislation says. Senator WALTERS —That is right. But Senator Tate should not forget that that applies only to this election. That is what Senator Gareth Evans said to me last time. He said: `That promise was only for this election'-not for the next election, not for any election after; that promise was only for this election. There have been no promises of what will happen in the future under this Government-none at all. Since we last debated this Bill in the Senate the Australian Bankers Association has come out very strongly saying that credit card transactions will be unworkable. Transfer of funds and cash withdrawals through access to automatic teller machines will not be workable. Electronic fund transfer point of sale transactions-the system of debiting personal bank accounts for supermarket and other purchases-will not be workable. The Minister promised us amendments to fix these things, but because the Prime Minister said `We need it unamended for a double dissolution' it was pushed through the House of Representatives. But before it was able to be pushed through here the Prime Minister changed his mind. He had read the polls and he knew he would not win. The Government has said that the Australia Card will cover a few things. It would cover social security fraud; it would deal with crime. It said that the cost to the Government would not be all that great. It would not talk about the cost to industry. It said it would deal with tax frauds and there would be no concern at all about privacy. I can assure the Special Minister of State, Senator Tate, that his Government's department has let him down because, during the Estimates hearings, I asked the Department of Social Security whether an identification card would assist it to deal with fraud. It said no. I said: `Explain why it would not'. It said: `Identification is not our problem; it is misstatements that are our problem. An identification card will not deal with that'. I think Senator Crowley must think that the people of Australia are so naive. It is incredible. She tried to convince us today that people would put all the money they earned and did not make statements about in the bank so that it could be picked up there. What absolute rubbish. If people take a part time or full time job and put their hand in for the unemployment benefit, they will not bank it; they will spend it or put it under the bed. They may put it anywhere, but they will not put it in the bank to have it identified. So the Australia Card will not do what the Government says it will do; that is, fix the social welfare fraud. The Department made it very clear that it would not do that. As far as crime is concerned, the Australian Federal Police have told us that it would have no impact on crime-none at all. Mr Costigan went further and said that in fact it would be quite detrimental. Also, as Senator Michael Baume said today, the New South Wales Department of Transport made it very clear that an ID card photo on a driver's licence would mean only that that person was the person photographed. It would mean nothing else at all-just that that person was the person photographed. But, as Mr Costigan said, it is much worse than that because once one presents an ID card then for all intents and purposes, without further questioning, one is accepted as that person. If one has six identification cards one is accepted in various areas amongst various people as six different people. We come now to the cost to Government. We know, because the Minister has told us, that there will be 2,150 new public servants. We have been told that that is a fact. According to the interdepartmental plan that I was talking about, for card issues alone, six million visits of 10 minutes were expected per annum. One million inquiries per annum of four minutes are expected, and Dr Blewett says that there would be about $759m in expenditure. We have tried very hard to get from the Government what the cost will be to industry. There has not been an answer. Why not? Has the Government not calculated any figures on what the cost to industry will be? None of us believes that. Indeed, so little do we believe that that the shadow Minister in the other place, Mr James Porter, has dropped me a line saying: I am continuing to pursue through an FOI application the Government's calculation on the business costs of compliance with the ID Card legislation. Only after I applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal have I made any headway, however, it could be sometime before details are provided. So the shadow Minister has been seeking information through the Freedom of Information procedures and has had to appeal-and still we have not got the information that the Government is so carefully hiding. I wonder why. What will the cost to industry be? There have been assertions that the cost will be $2 billion. The Government cannot deny it because it will not tell us what it will be. We then come to the privacy angle. We have been told that everything will be nice and safe; that it will all be tucked away and nobody will be able to get this information except the proper people. The headline in the National Times of 21 September last year was: `For Sale: Social Security files'. Public servants in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane had social security files for sale-nice and secure! They were offering information to debt collecting agencies. The article states: The information would be invaluable for debt collecting agencies because it contains current addresses of millions of Australians, and to credit companies because it contains invaluable information about potential borrowers. So social security files are for sale-a penny a dozen. The Minister broke a confidence in regard to Medicare when he announced some of the doctors' incomes. The Minister, when cornered, broke Medicare's privacy information. He said that Dr Shepherd was earning $75,000 a year. That is an absolute disgrace, but it proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that public servants are no different from other people in the community, that there are bad apples in every section, and that there are a certain number of public servants who, for gain, will sell information. The Minister for Health, when cornered, will break privacy information and give out information that he can only get from private computer systems. Medibank Private would share common staff, offices, management and board structures with the Australia Card section. The Australia Card program and the Medicare program will be together. So Medibank Private will also have access to this information because of its location. Any public servant who is a software developer, who goes into private enterprise and has the availability of the password and the account number, would know how to type into the system and would be able to get the required information. The privacy angle is shot to pieces. We really cannot have all of the information that the Government aims to have on every citizen being placed in the hands of people who are as vulnerable as any other group in society. The last matter that I will raise is that the Government has been talking about tax fraud. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure reviewed the Auditor-General's efficiency audit reports. Its report was entitled `A Taxing Problem'. The Auditor-General pointed out in many sections of the review how inefficient the Australian Taxation Office was, that all of the money that had been given to it for expenditure on computerware had not been spent and that, year after year, it was still doing things manually and inefficiently, and allowing tax evasion to go on. It did not need a computer to work out that Mr Keating had not paid his tax for a couple of years-but then, he only got a letter to remind him that he had not-- Senator Puplick —And a special phone call. Senator WALTERS —And a special phone call. He only got a letter and a special phone call. The rest of the citizens in Australia do not get a phone call and a special letter; they get abuse. If the Tax Office would buy the proper equipment, perhaps we would not have the problems that the Government is talking about so freely. I will read one small paragraph on page 18 of the report, because it is indicative of the lot: Their database is woefully inadequate. Their computer system, their ability to extract the required data and to be able to interface that data between different systems, is inadequate. They do a lot of manual checking now where, theoretically, they should be able to run two different computer tapes, interface them and get a computer printout. There is that sort of thing that goes on. It does not occur because of a lack of money. The Tax Office was given the money years ago. Because it is so inefficient and it has not bothered to buy the stuff, it is still doing the work manually. It is just ridiculous to say that an ID card will fix that. There is no way that it will be fixed until the Office does the proper thing. I refer to a few final points. It will not fix social welfare fraud. The Department told us that very quickly. It will not have an effect on crime. Not only the Australian Federal Police but also Mr Costigan said that it will be detrimental. What is the cost to the Government? Dr Blewett says that it will cost nearly a billion dollars and that 2,150 extra public servants will be required. We do not know what the cost to industry will be. Privacy is out the window. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(5.26) —We are debating the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2]. As I stand here, noting that I am at least the twentieth speaker in what is presumably a long list of speakers on this card, I am reminded of how Richard Burton must have felt when he became husband No. 8 to Elizabeth Taylor: He knew the task ahead of him; his difficulty was to make it interesting and different. Senator Puplick —And stimulating. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —And presumably stimulating. One ought at the outset to look at what this card-euphemistically called an Australia Card-is intended to do. In essence, it is a licence to live; it is a licence to function; it is a licence for an individual to be an intrinsic part of the Australian economy. Without the card one has nothing. Without an Australia Card one cannot sell or buy primary products, one cannot sell or buy real estate and one cannot buy or sell shares. Without a card, public companies cannot register shares that one might buy and seek to have registered. One cannot conduct transactions at a bank, a building society or a credit union. Senator Tate —You only have to produce it once to your broker, and then you're right. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, that is right, but one cannot commence any of those functions without an Australia Card. If what is euphemistically called the Australia Card is taken away, one's identity is taken away and one cannot function in this society. It is put to us that this card is intended to prevent social security and taxation fraud. Of course, it will do neither. Let us look for a moment at the cash economy-the area which the National Australia Bank, I think, has described as having a ballpark figure of about $12 billion. What will the card do about the cash economy? Absolutely nothing. What about those people who work in bars, restaurants, clubs or pubs, who, quite improperly, of course, draw their wages or their stipend from the till? This card will do absolutely nothing to prevent that. What will it do in regard to those who work under false names? It will simply drive them into the black money market. It will take them into the cash economy. They will do what others have done before them-again, improperly-and simply take their cash from the till. So we see that the Australia Card is not in any way intended or designed to deal with the fundamental problems in the community in respect of tax evasion and social security fraud. Let me deal with another weakness of the card, that is, its proof of identity and the very source documents which are used to complete the information on the central register. The very reason that the card is being introduced is that it is presumed by the Government that that information which is available presently by way of identification is not adequate and does not have the required integrity, that a birth certificate is not adequate, that a wedding certificate is not adequate, that a driver's licence is not adequate, but that another document is required to demonstrate that a person is who he says he is. Yet the very foundation on which the identity card is to be established, produced and developed is the very documents which are considered by this Government to have such fragility and inadequacy as sources of identification. There are many recorded cases of people having as many as 20 Medicare cards. No panacea has been found to that problem because it is so easy to reproduce these documents. It is not without significance to note, as was noted in the submission to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, that the Department of Social Security indicates that it intends to require better and more substantial material identification than just an Australia Card. The Australia Card will not be suitable for a citizen of this country to provide to the very department for whom the card is designed as to the person's identity. Further and better material evidence of identity will have to be established. That is the conundrum. The truth is that the card will not be accepted as prima facie evidence of identity by the very department that has the greatest interest in ensuring that it has a clear understanding of who a person is. The card will not deal with the problem of organised crime. In fact, if I recall correctly, it was Frank Costigan, QC, who in evidence to the Committee suggested that it would give to criminals perfect anonymity behind which they could hide, flourish, grow and prosper. Senator Archer —They are all in favour of it. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Of course they are; Senator Archer is right. Because of the card, they will be able to identify themselves as whoever they wish to be for the time being. Senator Archer —Another brand new industry. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Of course. With their capacity, skill and cunning they will ensure that the card becomes a protection for them. It is inevitable that it will not be just government departments but society as a whole that will begin to accept the card in absolute terms by way of identification. The criminal element will flourish behind the veneer of respectability that the card provides in respect of their identification. I think that was a real concern expressed by Costigan. One can draw the assumption that part of the reason offered to us by the Government for the card is that a significant amount of false identification is leading to false payments by the Department of Social Security. The truth is that on the evidence available false identity represents 0.6 per cent. It seems that overpayments result primarily from clerical errors and unintentional misunderstandings of the terms and conditions of the benefits and the failure of recipients to disclose a change of circumstances. False identity is not a significant source of loss of revenue to the social security and social welfare sectors, and presumably that is why the Department said that it will be of no material financial benefit for it to implement and to use the card. When one looks at the risk of the card containing inaccuracies, I am reminded of a comment that was made in this debate on the previous occasion by Senator Puplick, as I recall, who pointed out that the Australian Electoral Commission had indicated that there were some 1.2 million corrections or variations to the Australian electoral rolls every year. One can imagine the alterations, variations and changes that would be required on an ID card and the inevitable risk and hazard of those details being incorrect. It seems that the card, according to evidence given to the Joint Select Committee by the Department of Social Security, will provide absolutely no benefit whatever and that it will cost as much to administer the card to cover the small areas where it might yield some advantage as it would, say, by reducing fraud. So in many respects the card is of no benefit to the Department. As for the claim by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that it would cost $21m to implement and would save in the range of $1,292m, when the figures are carefully examined it seems that it estimated that of the 50,000 illegal immigrants in this country 0.4 per cent were recipients improperly of social welfare benefits. When the Department provided a list of names to the Department of Social Security, it was found without exception that none of those contained in the lists was receiving benefits. In my view, that is a damning indictment and reflection on the confidence, capacity, ability and efficiency of that Department. I turn to the grave dangers that the system poses for privacy and the freedom of Australians. It is not without significance that individuals are described and categorised as `card subjects' right from the outset. They lose their character, their soul, their individuality-they are suddenly card subjects. It seems a matter that is not of the slightest concern to this Government. For the moment there are some limitations on to whom and to which departments the information will be provided, but I am reminded of a government submission to the Joint Select Committee which referred to possible uses of the Australia Card. The Australian Taxation Office, the Departments of Health, Social Security, Housing and Construction, Education, Veterans' Affairs, Community Services, Employment and Industrial Relations, Foreign Affairs and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, as well as the Australian Institute of Health, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Federal Police, to name a few, thought that the card would be of some benefit to them. Senator Tate —That is not right. They do not have access. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am not saying that they have got access. I am saying that those departments have said that the information would be very useful to them if they had a choice. Senator Tate —The Government has said no. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I know that it said no-no, for the moment. Senator Tate —It said no. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It said no, but it was in the present tense. Whatever the ideals for the future may be, the truth is that, as Senator Tate well knows, once these cards are introduced it seems so obvious to a bureaucratic or a civil servant that he says: `If the information is there, why not use it?' It will seem so obvious for this information to be provided to other government departments. Our elected representatives will stand up here in reduced numbers some time in the future protesting about the proposals of the government of the day to make that information available. That government will argue that supplying the information to other departments will make for efficiency, reduced costs, reduced taxes and that the world will be better for it. That is the inevitability of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I quote from the Government's submission. It said: . . . the Government cannot rule out categorically the possibility that at some future date additional uses may suggest themselves as being desirable or essential to meet the emerging problems in taxation, welfare or other areas. The Government is providing a caveat on its `no for now'. We know what will happen to those caveats. Without question they will be removed in due course. I turn to my philosophical objections to these obnoxious cards. We have a community and a society based on a legal tradition which gives citizens the opportunity to do whatever they like unless they are constrained by the law. Perhaps that is best illustrated by the ten commandments which are based on a series of `thou shalt nots', indicating that if a thing is not prohibited, it is permissible. Unless something is clearly stipulated as being illegal, it is legal. From this has grown the idea that liberty is not something that is created by governments-- Senator Tate —At least one of the commandments is not `thou shalt not'. What about `honour thy father and thy mother'. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Senator Tate, please let Senator Crichton-Browne finish his speech in peace. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I was delighted by the interjection, Mr Acting Deputy President, I am sorry that I missed it. Senator Watson —Senator Tate is a very religious man. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, he certainly is. We now find ourselves in a situation where one's rights, liberties and freedoms are set out by the form of this card. Unless we have a card, unless we have the Government's permission, we do not have the ability to work, to conduct commercial transactions, to buy or sell shares or to buy or sell primary products. It seems to me that that is not something which concerns this Government. Typically, the history of many has been a struggle against the powers of autocrats, bureaucrats, kings, oppressive governments and generals. I suspect that, with the emergence of a more sophisticated type of democracy, we have in part let the memory of those struggles for liberty slip from our minds. We should be very mindful of this because it is so easy for governments in this day and age, on the pretext of efficiency, good government and good management, to suspend the fundamental rights of democracy. This legislation seems to me to be a product of a political party whose majority has no care or concern for the intrinsic rights of individuals within society. This legislation comes from a group within a political party whose majority no longer has a soul, a heart, or a belief in the rights of the individual. It makes economic judgments without regard to the effect of those judgments on individuals, their rights, their liberties, their freedoms and their capacity to function. Economics becomes an end in itself rather than a means to enlarge, improve and give growth to that liberty and freedom. It is sad that the repository of integrity for concern for the individual within the Australian Labor Party is now the small core of left-wing members; they are the bastions and final supporters of the rights of individuals. They are not prepared to compromise themselves for political expediency in the pursuit of a few dollars. Senator Watson —I hope that you are not supporting the Halfpennys of this world. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No, I am not supporting them; they just happen to be supporting a view that we have put forward over decades. The Australian Labor Party also used to accept and embrace this view. Now that it is in government that has all been suspended. It has the hard heads, the pragmatists. It has the numbers who believe that it is more important to be efficient and to chase the dollar that they see in the distance than to provide the people with essential freedom. The Labor Party now believes that a government can subjugate or suspend the basic rights of the individual whom it pretends to represent. This legislation is a crude and misguided lunge at a mirage of money, at an illusion. That is shown by the very example that I have given in terms of the amount of money that is lost to government as a result of false identification, by dishonest representation-0.6 per cent of all revenue lost and that could be recovered by a more efficient taxation system and a more efficient Australian Taxation Office. It will not be recovered by imposing on the total community a system which gives citizens a licence to function, to live-a system without which a citizen cannot function. It seems that this Government has aborted all the fundamental principles that it pretended to have in the past. Besides being oppressive, this legislation is heavy fisted and ham handed. It is a diabolical intrusion-in the real sense of that word-into the rights and lives of the citizens of this country. I do not believe that I have heard one speaker on the Government side even express a concern, a reservation or an anxiety about the trampling of this legislation on the citizen's basic rights, liberties and freedoms. I have not heard anyone on the Government side express the slightest concern or care that this legislation will visit upon the community a rigid strait-jacket of a system by which it must function and with which it must conform. There will be no place in society for those who do not conform. I ask honourable senators to remind themselves what would happen to any individual who had his card withdrawn for any length of time. If one thinks about that one realises that at the end of the day that is the level of intrusion, the level of the imposition upon the individual. Honourable senators should remember that without a card one cannot buy, sell, borrow, receive, earn or be employed. Not one of those things can be done without a card. That is what this card intends and that is the extent to which this Government is prepared to go, rather than deal with the problem in a practical and obvious way. As I said before, it is prepared in this ham-fisted and heavy-fisted way to impose this diabolical card on our whole society, a card which forever and a day will inhibit the activities and the rights of all individuals. Of course as time goes on, the collection of the information which will be stored in a central computer will be made available to more government departments and to more civil servants. No doubt, at the end of the day, for the right amount of money a pimply 18-year old civil servant will press a button and a computer will spew out the most intimate personal details of individuals within society; yet there is not a care or a concern felt by this Government. I hope that this legislation is defeated and defeated properly and quickly and that it is cast out of this Parliament and that we are not visited by it again. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.51) —Let me continue my contribution to this debate with the following quotation: There are cheaper and more effective ways of coping with the problem that arises from tax evasion and tax avoidance. These were the words of Frank Costigan, QC, who is probably this country's foremost authority on organised crime. He made this comment when referring to the Hawke Government's proposal to introduce a national identity card. Other groups that have not endorsed the identity card proposal include the Department of Social Security, the Australian Federal Police, the Law Society of New South Wales, emeritus Professor Martyn Webb of the University of Western Australia, and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, to name but a few. The Joint Committees of Public Accounts, which I remind the Senate is an all party committee and which in fact it has a majority of Australian Labor Party members on it, examined the social security fraud matter something like two years ago. In its conclusions the Committee actually dismissed the idea of an identity card as being able to rectify the problems in the area of fraud in an efficient way, and said that another or alternative approach would be much more desirable. I remind the Senate that this was the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, the largest committee of the Parliament, and a committee that is most concerned about fraud maximising revenue from illegitimate sources. In fact the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card also recognised that such an ID card was not necessary. Even if we go across the waters to the United States of America, we find that studies on the imposition of a national identity card concluded with the comment that: Organised crime would take advantage of any national identity system because of the presumption of validity surrounding such a system. Now, faced with two parliamentary reports, faced with comments from distinguished lawyers investigating organised crime, such as Frank Costigan and Douglas Meagher, QC, and faced even with disunity within its own ranks and severe criticism from the national and State Council of Civil Liberties, faced with I think overwhelming national opposition to an identity card, faced with reports from overseas countries rejecting national identification card systems and faced with the plain and simple fact that it is actually wrong, the Hawke Government nevertheless continues to ignore this chamber's previous decision not to put this foolish and ill-considered proposal into the statute books. I think it is unfortunate that we are pursuing this legislation in the knowledge that even if it does pass, there are going to be amendments in the future. At one stage the Government was prepared to bring in an amended Bill to recognise many of the shortcomings of a Bill which has already passed the House of Representatives and a Bill which the Government hopes to pass in the Senate. A number of bodies will be affected by this proposed identity card legislation and the Government has not taken their advice. In time it will be forced to recognise some of the unintended consequences of this Bill and it will be forced to put before this House, if the Bill passes, amending legislation. I believe that we have enough examples of ill-considered legislation passing through this chamber, and shortly after having to be substantially amended. I submit that if this Bill passes the Senate it will be required to undergo further massive amendment to avoid, as we have so often found with legislation introduced by this Hawke Government, its unintended consequences. I hope that you, Mr Acting Deputy President, are not one of the Fabian elements in the Australian Labor Party because I think this Bill is an insidious example of perhaps this Fabian element actually tightening its grip and forcing out the moderates to what I believe is to the great long term-not the short term-detriment of the Labor Party. I believe there are very few in favour of this identity card system, except this present Federal Government which is really so keen to try to stoke up the furnaces of a burgeoning bureaucracy and which has very little interest in the protection and privacy of ordinary individuals. The Hawke Government has put forward what we call this insidious identification card system, which is euphemistically named the Australia Card and which is coloured green and gold, our national colours. If ever there was manipulation of patriotism, the naming and the colouring of this card must take the cake. We are all justifiably proud of the colours green and gold when our athletes go to the Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games. We find that these colours have been insidiously selected and therefore our patriotism has effectively been manipulated by this Government by the colouring and the naming of this card. The fact of the matter remains that the identification card will unfortunately not be a foolproof method for establishing identity, for the following reasons: Guidelines established for the issue of cards will not stop the creation of false identities. I believe this to be one of the great weaknesses of the card, apart from a number of onerous impositions that it places on people, organisations and businesses. In order to be listed on the Australia Card Register an individual must produce at least one of the following sound documents as proof of identity: An original birth certificate, a passport, a marriage certificate, a citizenship certificate or apprenticeship papers. We are really getting down the line with apprenticeship papers. Honourable senators can therefore well understand that the value to be placed on such documentation-on any one of these-depends on one or more people telling the truth. It is as simple as that. It would not be an extraordinary obstacle for someone wishing to establish a false identity to obtain, for argument's sake, another person's birth certificate or apprenticeship papers. In some cases the provision of personal details, such as name, year of birth and parents' names, together with reasonable explanations for requiring it, will obtain another person's birth certificate. Having presented such fraudulently acquired documentation, an application for an Australia Card can therefore be made. The Government's claim that the photograph, signature and digitalised strip will make the card hard to forge, has no bearing on the fact that the card can be obtained in the first instance on the basis of fraudulent information. I believe that this is one of the weaknesses. Having obtained the card in such a manner, in such fraudulent circumstances, the individual would be in possession of what then can be regarded as proof of his or her identity. In such cases the Australia Card will really legitimise the illegitimate, given that it will be the public expectation that these cards will provide guaranteed proof of identity. The provision under clause 36 of the Bill for the use of certificates of identity as substitutes for the card also opens avenues for fraudulent representation of identities. The use of such a certificate will mean that a piece of paper, which does not have the security devices of the card and which shows only what purports to be a particular person's signature, may be used for identification purposes. As can well be imagined, the possibilities of producing forgeries under these circumstances will be great, and their existence will greatly undermine the alleged value of the identity card in providing sound proof of identity. The visitor ID card is another area where false identification may occur under the system, and I think this is one of the shortfalls. As a number of my colleagues will obviously be aware, the identity cards will be issued to anyone entering the country for a period in excess of six weeks. As photographs and relevant information are not to be obtained at the point of arrival, certain risks of falsification are inherent in such a process. There is no obligation to return a visitor's ID card on leaving the country. I believe that a scenario which could quite easily be imagined even at this time is that a person, having visited Australia and obtained a visitors identification card, could easily hand it to a friend of similar appearance, who then enters the country under a false identity. Despite the Government's stringent claims of the soundness of the card, the creation of false identities will be quite possible. Given that the aim of the legislation is to establish an accurate national system of identification, the many opportunities that really exist for falsification of identity greatly undermine the whole foundation on which this legislation before us rests today. Let us now look at some of the costs which will be involved. They simply do not equate to the supposed benefits which will flow from it. As we said before, there are cheaper and more effective solutions to dealing with the problems of tax avoidance, social welfare fraud and illegal immigration which the identification card legislation purports to answer. The problem is that this Hawke Government refuses these alternatives in its rush to implement a policy that presents the very real possibilities of the invasion of the privacy of all Australians. What about the cost to government of the Australia Card proposals? The original estimate was put at $1,046m over 10 years. This figure was quickly revised downwards to $733m. Whatever figure we are to accept is nearer the mark, it must be remembered that cost estimates have an uncanny tendency to blow out. My colleagues who have attended Estimates committee meetings this week would be well aware of this, as would anybody who has looked at a government proposal involving a major capital acquisition. The Government's Australia Card proposal would involve the employment of in excess of 2,150 new public servants. I wonder how this really fits in with Prime Minister Hawke's pledge this week to slash spending in 1987-88 to demonstrate his Government's commitment to fiscal restraint. Existing Medicare branch offices will have to be upgraded and 42 new offices will have to be opened. All this is being done, I suppose, in the name of fiscal restraint. I believe this notion fits rather uneasily. Many costs have been omitted from the Government's estimates. There has been no allowance for the replacement in this time frame of capital equipment, and no costs are included for private sector compliance. We now have a private sector that is already reeling under the heavy burden of taxation which this Government has forced upon it. As we see from the bankruptcy and solvency figures, many businesses are already going to the wall and many others are operating under very marginal conditions at the moment. All these additional costs could well prove to be the straw that broke the camel's back for many of these businesses that are finding it difficult at the moment. Yet we are still asked to accept this proposal as a solution to the many economic woes which have been brought upon the Australian people by this Hawke Government. Let us look at some of the benefits. As the costs of implementation of the scheme are a matter for some dispute, so too are many of the alleged benefits. Most of the expected revenue is to be gained from tightening up on tax evasion. However, if we further examine this, revenue estimates relating to the expected gains from the implementation of the Australia Card received from the Australian Taxation Office are highly questionable. It has been revealed that these estimates were made on a qualitative assessment of how tax evaders operate. On this premise I ask therefore: Is this a sound foundation upon which to base our estimates? The answer must surely be no. Instead of wasting valuable resources on bringing the Australia Card into operation, the Government should be taking up some of the recommendations of the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and the report of the Senate Select Committee on an Australia Card. Having set up this expensive Committee, the Government should be taking up its very important recommendations. I will refer to some of them. There should be greater communication between banks and relevant law enforcement agencies about suspected fraudulent activity and more efficient use of the wealth of information that the Tax Office already has in its possession. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure has already drawn attention to a lot of techniques that are not being used in order to maximise collections in a number of areas, including failure to check on group certificates. A third recommendation was the introduction of up to date technology designed to counter tax evasion. The 1984 report of the Auditor-General stated that the Australian Taxation Office had failed to take advantage of technological advances available to it in minimising tax evasion. In other words, the Auditor-General has acknowledged that the Tax Office is not using all the avenues within its power or taking advantage of all the technological resources to ensure that maximum collections are made, particularly from those people who are trying to minimise or evade their tax obligations. There should be stricter rules for identification when opening bank accounts. All these are very positive measures which could be introduced without the need to implement the Australia Card, with all its attendant buildup in bureaucracy, huge expenditure and civil liberty issues. Similarly, the tightening up of the identification requirements and information update strategies in the Department of Social Security and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs would significantly enhance their ability to cut down welfare fraud. Let us look at the current situation. The Department of Social Security relies on birth certificate extracts, which may be easily obtained by fraudulent means, or in some cases documents such as drivers licences. Must we go from this extreme to the other of issuing every Australian with an identity card to solve these problems? I hope not. Let us look at another problem. There is no guarantee that the identity card uses which are presently mentioned in this Bill will not be extended. In this identity card legislation I believe we are faced with little more than a wolf in sheep's clothing, something like the Fabian attitude to things. We have nothing more than this Government's doubtful assurances that the Bill's provisions will not be extended. We can remember many of the election promises of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his subsequent disregard of them. I remind the Senate, for example, of the attitude to capital gains tax and the Prime Minister's disregard for many such assurances. When faced with this identification legislation many people will doubt the Prime Minister's assurances in this area, too. We could yet see another slick performance which is designed to manipulate public opinion of what is in the best interests of the Prime Minister or the Labor Party. In one of the earliest documents on the Australia Card, the Government was issued a warning by the Health Insurance Commission that many Australians would reject the concept of an identify card. A number of my colleagues have quoted from the Health Insurance Commission's statement and it is important. It says: It will be important to minimise any adverse public reaction to the implementation of the system. One possibility would be to use a staged approach for implementation, whereby only less sensitive data are held in the system initially with the facility to input additional data at a later stage when public acceptance may be forthcoming more readily. This advice came from the Health Insurance Commission. Is this legislation at hand the first instalment of a scheme by this Hawke Government to introduce a general purpose national identification system? Senator Gareth Evans —No. Senator WATSON —I thank the honourable senator for his assurances. We might hold him to them in a short time. But that is not much use to use. We held the Prime Minister to his assurances that he would not introduce capital gains legislation, but he was not in office very long before this concept of a capital gains tax was introduced. In fact, I remind Senator Evans, as he has interjected, that this capital gains tax is the highest capital gains tax in the world so far as the disposition of a right is concerned, because it taxes us at the maximum marginal rate without any off-set for cost and an inflation adjustment. Despite the honourable senator's assurance that he will not extend this identification card system and the numerals on it to get additional information, one could be forgiven for thinking that he will not be right on this occasion because once this card is implemented the chances of it being extended are very real. In 1976, as a response to the growing discontent of the Swedish people with regard to their national identification card, what did the Swedish Government do? It investigated the abolition of the personal identity system but found that the cost was too high. In other words, there was some dissatisfaction even in that advanced democracy of Sweden. This identity card will have 50 separate items of information on every man, woman and child in Australia. Before the Bill was passed like a hot potato from the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) it was proposed that 17 authorities would have access to the databanks. Now Dr Blewett has temporarily got this number down to only four. I emphasise that he has temporarily got this number down because, despite the assurances from across the road, it can be-and I believe it will be-easily extended to a greater number or the original 17 or even more than that. As I said, this number could be increased by the stroke of a pen. We believe that Australia is still a democratic society and in such a free society people should scrutinise the Government-not the Government scrutinising the people. I therefore submit that there is very little in favour of the Bill. It has been acknowledged that five Ministers in the Hawke Government and many of the Labor back benchers oppose the Bill but were forced into line by the rules of Caucus and solidarity. No other Commonwealth country has a similar compulsory national identification system. Those of course are democratic countries, but countries such as Albania, the Soviet Union and East Germany have these sorts of restrictions on personal liberties. The card will be enormously costly. It will be insidious and, despite its proposed name, will be most unAustralian. It is nothing more than a system of computerised surveillance of the Australian people. As such, I believe it should be deplored and soundly rejected again by this Senate. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.16) —A great deal has been said about the Australia Card to date. I want to speak just briefly on some aspects of the debate. I do not think it is necessary to go through all the arguments that have been presented so eloquently by so many of my colleagues up until now. It is true of course that a number of Australians have indicated that they would not mind having an identity card. I can understand that, because most Australians are honest, law-abiding people who feel that to have such a card really would not inconvenience them. But perhaps they have not read the real implications of this legislation. They also feel that it would perhaps help to cut out welfare fraud, tax fraud and illegal immigrants. But in having that view, I suspect that they have not read the report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card which has looked into this legislation and has reported to the Parliament. For that reason we need to look at some of the things that have been said and why this again is the Government's glossy response to a problem. We have seen this so often since those opposite came into government. Priority One was a glossy response to a very real need to combat unemployment, particularly amongst young people. The Drug Offensive was a very glossy and expensive response to a very real problem in our community. It was meant to look as though the Government was doing something. We also had recently the `true blue' campaign. Certainly there is a need to persuade Australians where possible to buy Australian but again this was a glossy response. The card comes into the same category. As long as it looks as though those opposite are doing something, to heck with the consequences and certainly to heck with the expense. But what about those items that we hear about such as cutting out welfare fraud? The Department of Social Security gave evidence that the ID card proposal would result in no net savings and would be ineffective in tackling the real issue of welfare fraud or the misstating of personal income. That fact needs to be known by everybody in this country. There are ways of getting around social security and there still will be. There is not the slightest doubt that there will be a thriving industry of false identity cards not too long after the first legitimate cards come into operation. Mr Acting Deputy President, as you probably know, a person can go down the street in New York and buy an identity card-any form of identity card which exists. A person can get a card for Princeton or Yale universities. They cost about $US10. That takes about five minutes. It contains the signature of the Vice-Chancellor and has all the supposedly high integrity aspects. It has the person's photograph. A number of those cards are quite valid. We are setting up another potential, flourishing mafia industry in this country. The Joint Committee's report, in relation to welfare and social security, said: The Government submission reveals that DSS would have no net gain from the introduction of a national identification system. The cost benefit summary indicates that the costs of implementing the Australian Card program equalled the benefits received from the program; that is, $18.2 million over a period of ten years. There is no real evidence before us that that suggestion has been counteracted or answered. None of us is against dealing with tax frauds but again, I turn to the report of the Committee which states: . . . the Committee believes that the Australian Taxation Office has available to it powers and information which are not fully utilised, and that there are alternative measures which can also make substantial inroads into tax evasion. The report goes on to indicate the alternatives which are suggested. After lengthy consideration of the Government's proposal and the arguments and explanations put forward in its support, and with due regard to all the evidence before it, the majority of the Committee opposed the introduction of the Australia Card system. This opposition had two major bases. One was the concern at the effect of a national identification system on the nature of Australian society and the civil liberties of individuals in that society. I can only assume that the Government does not care about those sorts of things. That is not an unreasonable assumption in the light of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill that the Government attempted to force on the community last year. The second basis for opposition was the fundamental doubts as to the cost effectiveness of the proposal and whether it is an appropriate solution to the twin problems of tax avoidance and evasion and the many other fraudulent activities which it claims to cover. Again, those are all emotive responses, but no real arguments have been put forward which indicate solutions. Perhaps we get most responses about illegal immigrants. Some 60,000 illegal immigrants are in this country at the present time. Evidence was given to the Committee by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and part of it stated: The Government's submission claims that one of the largest gains to revenue through the introduction of an Australia Card is in the area of the identification of illegal immigrants. The submission notes that over a ten year period the cost to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (DIEA) of implementing an Australia Card program would be $21 million and that the revenue gains over the same period would be $129 million. The basis of the DIEA's estimates is that by requiring employers to sight the Card and quote the employee's Australia Card number when submitting taxation returns, the system, when fully implemented, has the potential to make in-roads into an estimated 60 000 jobs currently being filled by illegal immigrants and visitors working without Departmental authority. As an aside, it is a bit ironic that when we capture an illegal immigrant as often as not he uses the system to stay in this country and he suddenly becomes entitled to legal aid and such benefits. He uses our legal system to make his presence here different from what it really is. That in itself is a very strange aspect of our immigration policy. This is naive. In any event many illegal immigrants would not file income tax returns. Anybody who sets out to become an illegal immigrant in this country more than likely will have an ID card in his pocket when he gets here. Certainly before too long he would be able to acquire one. I see nothing in this legislation that gives any indication at all as to what one does if one comes across somebody who has an ID card but who it may be suspected is an illegal immigrant. What does one do about that? I would have thought that an ID card would entrench the illegal immigrant system. Once one has a card the likelihood of actually being apprehended or getting into any form of trouble is pretty slim indeed. At the present time the likelihood of getting caught with tax fraud or social security fraud, we are told, is fairly slim. But once a person has this card that proves he is who it states he is, there is no evidence at all to suggest that a system is being established which can challenge such a person. What we are doing is making the whole system much easier for those people who want to work it to their advantage, who want to rip off the system. I see nothing in an ID card that will change that situation. We have heard that the costs are enormous and there is no reason to believe that they will not be greater than what has been suggested by the Government. However, an aspect of the matter arises from the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills report that I think needs to be answered. That Committee reported to the Senate last year and it has reported again because the Government has not seen fit to make any changes even in areas where it is very apparent that the Government recognises that changes ought to be made. I particularly want to refer to a portion of the Committee's report but I hope the Government will read all of it and take notice of it. It deals with the security of information which comes into the Government's hands. The Committee corresponded with the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and it stated: The Committee thanked the Minister for this response. While in practice the protection accorded to personal information by the Freedom of Information Act 1982 . . . and the Archives Act 1983 . . . may be no less than that provided for information on the Australia Card Register under the Australia Card Bill 1986, the Committee noted that it was structured differently. Whereas under the Bill only the Card-subject or the prescribed representative of the Card-subject (apart from officials of the Department of Social Security, the Taxation Office and the Health Insurance Commission) were to be entitled to access to the Register, under the FOI Act and the Archives Act there was a prima facie right of public access. The question whether access should be refused on the ground that the document contained information relating to the personal affairs of a person rested to be determined in respect of the FOI Act by the agency or Minister to which the request for access was made . . . The Committee continued in some detail. It drew our attention to a matter in which there is an area of conflict that needs to be resolved and people who are concerned about it need to know about it. Mr Acting Deputy President, it cannot have escaped your notice that in recent times many petitions have been presented to the Senate by people who have taken the trouble to look into the legislation, who do not want it and who say that it should be opposed. That also needs to be taken into account. Very clearly there is a growing awareness in the community of what this legislation really means and what it will really cost. I also refer to a letter, a copy of which was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), by the Australian Computer Society. Dozens of letters have been received by all of us from individuals, and organisations representing many individuals, opposing the ID card. Very few letters-I do not think I have received more than one letter-have suggested that the legislation should be supported. I refer specifically to the Australian Computer Society's representation because that is one group which has some idea of what this legislation is all about and what it can mean. It does not by any means, as honourable senators will hear, take a bigoted approach to the matter. It wrote to the Prime Minister as follows: This Society submitted to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card that, because of its significant social implications, such a scheme should not be introduced until privacy legislation has not merely been enacted, but has also had sufficient time to be proven . . . There is a privacy Bill but the Society states that it should not merely be enacted, not merely be around, but it has to be proven. The letter continues: It appears that Dr Blewett intends proceeding with the proposal in conjunction with, perhaps even in advance of, the long-awaited Privacy Bill. This would conflict with the recommendations of the majority report of the Joint Select Committee, a report which had the support of members of all parties. It would also risk breaching the OECD Privacy Guidelines, an international document which your Government- the Computer Society is saying this to the Labor Prime Minister- has ratified. This Society- the Australian Computer Society- is the professional body of the data processing specialists who would implement such a scheme, and is the third largest such professional body in the world. The Society recognises the importance of your Government's attack on the problems of tax evasion, welfare fraud and illegal immigration. However, it draws attention to the existence of alternatives, such as those contained in the parliamentary committee's report. The Society strongly urges your Government to restore the natural order of events. It should enact the privacy legislation first, then establish the Data Protection Authority, and only consider the proposal for an Australia Card within that protective framework. The Government should not consider the legislation at all; it should be rejected. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(8.02) —I would like briefly to address three important aspects of the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2] which is now before the Senate. I will look at the costs and savings associated with the card, the gross intrusion into people's lives that will result from its introducion and how it just will not do what the Government claims it will do. Firstly, with regard to costs, the Government continues to claim that the Australia Card will be effective in combating tax evasion and welfare fraud. The Opposition has repeatedly said that it will support any reasonable measure that will achieve these objectives, but the card would not do so. The Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, which investigated the proposal, said it would not; the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure entitled `A Taxing Problem' indicates that it would not; and five reports of the Auditor-General prove that it would not. The Government has claimed that the cost of introducing the Australia Card is about $760m. But, as we all know, by the time anything a government establishes is up and running, the costs will be far in excess of that figure and realistically we can expect the figure to be at least $1 billion. As pointed out by previous speakers, especially those on the Opposition side, the cost to business will be far greater than that. I acknowledge that Government members also have not overlooked that there will be a massive cost to business. Using the 2:1 ratio put forward by the Government's business regulation review unit-and I accept that ratio as appropriate-we can see that the cost to private industry will be at least double the government cost of $1 billion-that is, $2 billion. That makes a total cost to government and private business of $3 billion. It must also be recalled that the proposal will involve the employment of an additional 2,000 public servants and the upgrading or creation of more than 300 Medicare offices. At the same time, the Government expects to make savings of up to an average of $540m a year each year for the first 10 years of the operation of the card. On this basis, and given the setting up cost of $3,000m for government and private industry, no net saving can be expected until the sixth or seventh year of operation of the identity card. But there are reservations that these apparent net savings will not arise even after 10 years, if ever. There is no reliable basis on which we in the Senate can be assured that net savings will arise at any stage of the operation of the Australia Card as set out in this legislation. For example, last year Roger Clarke, a reader in information technology at the Australian National University, made a submission to the Joint Select Committee in which he examined the Government's costing. He found: The means whereby the arguments give rise to the figures, and the assumptions and estimating bases underlying them are not provided. So no plausible foundation has been given to the Joint Select Committee, the Parliament or the public for the figures that have been just hypothesised by the Government. We do not have a reliable base. In fact, Roger Clarke concludes that the proposition that the Government's estimates of savings, whether over a year or over 10 years, should be accepted on the basis of such flimsy justification strains credibility to breaking point. This is not just another member of the public making a statement about the foundations for the Government's estimates; he is a careful and responsible reader in information technology at the ANU, a person who made to the parliamentary inquiry a submission which was about an inch thick and most carefully put together. I have not heard from any Government member a critique of any inadequacy in that submission. I have not heard any Government rebuttal of the flimsy basis that I have just described. So it is fair for the Senate and the public to place little credibility on the Government's figures. I reiterate the conclusion on the first vital point that we cannot be assured that any net savings will accrue at all. The Government does not appear to have taken into account other costs that are involved. According to figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 15 per cent of the Australian population change address within a State each year and a further 1.7 per cent move interstate. When allowances for family movements and international movements are taken into account, the estimates range upwards of 20 per cent. The cost and complexity of keeping up with these movements would be enormous. Twenty per cent of the Australia Cards would need to be updated every year. This would involve an enormous additional cost, quite apart from the arrangements that would need to be made by those families and individuals. The Opposition has said many times that it will support any reasonable legislation that will combat tax evasion and welfare fraud. The fact is that a desired crackdown can be achieved at a fraction of the cost and in a way which will not infringe civil liberties. The opportunities are already before this Government without the need for this legislation. The Opposition has addressed itself to this task. It has developed its own proposals which involve the Australian Taxation Office enforcing existing legislation which requires interest paying agencies to provide the Taxation Office with all dividend and interest payments. The Opposition would also require the Tax Office to upgrade its technological capabilities. Speaker after speaker on the Opposition side has been critical of the Taxation Office, especially in these recent years, for not even using the money allocated to it by Government to upgrade its technological capability. There could be a review of all Tax Office administrative procedures to ensure that the Office is fully using all the information made available to it. Again and again we learn from investigations of tax procedures that even the information now received by the Tax Office is not fully used. All interest paying institutions should be required to record name, address and date of birth of account holders so that the information can be matched with tax returns. It does not require legislation to do that. It does not require this Australia Card to do that. It does not require $750m of setting up costs to do that. What is needed is the imposition of strict identification procedures on recipients of social security payments, the enforcement of the existing eligibility tests, with regular checks of those tests, and the increasing of the number of field officers involved in checking and investigating all accusations of fraud. Yet despite the overwhelming arguments that have been put in favour of these already to hand opportunities for checking upon fraud and for ensuring that the tax law is followed, these possibilities have not been carefully followed up by the Government. Despite the overwhelming arguments against the card and the far superior alternatives for achieving the same objectives, the Government is persisting with this measure. It is doing so in spite of the fact that the Auditor-General's report and the Expenditure Committee's report have said that taxation revenue losses through non-detection of total taxpayer incomes could amount to $7 billion. It is not a small amount that is at risk for the want of acting upon those half dozen procedures I have just reminded the Senate about. Several billion dollars in government revenue are going wanting under an equitable taxation system for the want of procedures to hand for the Government to follow. To summarise, the want of collecting these estimated several billion dollars is largely attributable to the Australian Taxation Office's internal inadequacies. In other words, the Government is going to ridiculous and expensive lengths to achieve an objective that would best be achieved by other far simpler and more effective means. I turn to the second criterion of judging the legislation that is before us; that is, the question of Australian families' and Australian individuals' privacy. This legislation gives government an enormous power to invade the privacy of Australians. I am opposed to the legislation on the basis of this analysis. Apart from the grounds of cost, we are also opposed to the legislation on the grounds that it will greatly infringe on the rights of privacy and the individual liberties of Australians. Many have called this ID card a licence to live. All Australians will need the card to get a job, to buy or lease a house or flat, to open a bank account, to use hospital services, to send money overseas or to travel overseas. There are no cries or protests from elsewhere in the chamber. Lest any Government member thinks it is exaggerated to call the Australia Card a licence to live, I will demonstrate what I mean by that. We have received so many representations from people who agree with that description, that it is a licence to live, that it must be a major consideration before us. Consideration had led me and my colleagues in the Opposition to oppose the Australia Card on that ground along with the two other major grounds that I am referring to. It is little wonder that the Government is trying a soft sell approach with the Australia Card, an approach that says that it will be only another piece of plastic in one's pocket, that it will be practicable and that, even though people will have to carry it often-and many people will feel that they will need to carry it always-it is only another piece of plastic in one's pocket and it is no great difficulty. I believe it is a great difficulty and so do many Australians. If the Government wanted to be true to the Australian people it would have to advertise the card in these terms: `The Australia Card-you can't leave home without it'. Senator Durack, speaking first for the Opposition, described the card as a dog licence for people. It is another metaphor that, again, many in the Australian public think appropriate for the Australia Card. I think it is a fair assessment. But I think the popular Australian currency of describing it as a licence to live is more comprehensive and apt. As Ron Caston, QC, the President of the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties, has pointed out, if the computer has a malfunction or makes an error, affected card holders will not be able to function in Australia. There will be delays. There will not be an ability to proceed if the procedure for handling the card is put in jeopardy by such a malfunction. That is not the case now. One can present oneself and one's identity and one can carry out the transactions that we have outlined without that jeopardy. Although the Government says the use of the card will be restricted to the aims that are set out in the legislation, the possible uses of the card are endless, and the implications for civil liberties, already under threat, are horrific. There must be something seriously wrong with legislation that requires people to prove their identity before they can enter into a considerable number of common transactions and activities. The third criterion on which I would evaluate the Australia Card concerns the effectiveness of its operation. I find that it will be ineffective. There are sound reasons for entirely doubting the effectiveness of the Australia Card scheme to achieve even the Government's stated objectives. For example, the card will be relying on a small black and white photograph and a signature for identification. This is inadequate, as appearance can easily be varied and signatures are easily forged. We already know that fake driver's licences are selling among Sydney teenagers so that they can buy alcohol and gain entry to nightclubs and the like. We also know that there will be plenty of problems when the cards are used, if past experience is anything to go by. For example, when Medicare cards were first issued, 15.8 million Medicare cards were distributed at a time when the population numbered only 15.2 million. Six hundred thousand redundant additional or fraudulent cards were issued the last time there was anything like the Australia Card procedure. Six hundred thousand fraudulent holders of Medicare cards amount to a great amount of fraud and abuse, and what guarantee is there that there will not be a like occurrence? With our current population of 16 million, perhaps three quarters of a million surplus Australia Cards will be issued. I refer to a newsletter I received only today. It is from the Credit Reference Association of Australia Ltd. In an example of consumer fraud it cites one family, that was eventually caught, that had in various Australian cities `up to 70 aliases'. The newsletter said further: This family of itinerants based in NSW, but roaming Victoria and other southern States-and frequently Queensland and the Northern Territory-has made off with consumer goods worth more than $300,000 since 1972-but the CRAA says its efforts have stopped the family getting away with another $350,000! This Association was able to pick up this family and stop half of its fraud, but these people still got away with $300,000 in consumer fraud. We have heard of similar examples with regard to multiple fraudulent social security claims. There is no guarantee that the Australia Card's effectiveness will be any better. Not only does the Australia Card fail for the want of any savings-there will be no net savings-and on the ground of invasion of privacy, but it also fails in regard to its very effectiveness, which is entirely wanting. I note also that a constituent of mine said this week that when she needed verification of her citizenship, acquired five years ago, she went to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to ask for an appropriate paper, which is now issued through a computer printout. She found that she and her husband were indicated as citizens, as were their six children-except that she has only four children. Her four children were all listed by the computer, but there were two more as well. Their names, addresses and ages were listed. Lo and behold, the family did not consist of mum, dad and four children, but mum, dad and six children. When this was followed up by my office I was told this week that in the transfer of all of the records to the computer in recent months, through this Government's arrangements the terms of contract for those who were doing the transcription were such that they were not paid according to accuracy; they were paid according to the hours they served while doing the task. There is `an enormous number of transcription errors'. I raise some current examples of the kinds of error that are involved when one starts to deal with 16 million Australia Cards, or the like. Eventually, someone will begin to argue that this ineffectiveness for the want of positive identification would have to be made good by using physiological characteristics which cannot be altered. The most obvious example is fingerprints. It would soon be the case-I am not advocating this-that a vigilant Minister would say: `We also need fingerprints on the Australia Card to tighten up procedures'. Once a photograph and signature storage and retrieval system is in place, it will not take much effort to add fingerprinting to the Government's burgeoning inventory of information on individual citizens. Another factor for which the proponents of the card deem to have no answer is the fact that many people quite legally use more than one name-for example, artists, authors, actors, people who work in prisons and psychiatric institutions, private detectives and some involved in intelligence work. Indeed, it is quite normal for many spouses these days to have two names. There are also grave doubts about using a card to crack down on social security fraud. In any event, the Department of Social Security estimates that only 0.6 per cent-less than one per cent-of welfare fraud and overpayment is based on false identification. It would be much cheaper to make positive proof of identification a condition of benefit payment than to attempt to identify all 16 million Australians in this way. The card has little chance of dealing with the cash economy. Except for some general rhetoric, no one in this debate has claimed that it will. But many members of the public think that this Australia Card procedure will deal with the cash economy, which they complain is one of the areas of tax avoidance. But it will not do anything about the cash economy. It will not do anything, either, about organised crime. With regard to organised crime, Frank Costigan has put on record that he believes it would have done little, if anything, to inhibit the organised crime that he investigated in recent years. Another inadequacy of the legislation is the proposal to establish a data protection agency which is supposed to protect information gathered under the authority of this legislation. This agency gives the appearance of protection, but the proposal is hollow and also ineffective. As the Law Society of New South Wales has pointed out, the agency's function is purely inquisitorial and advisory, and it does not have the power to make enforceable orders. Before concluding, I turn to the major reason why this legislation is before us. For the sake of completeness I ask: Why is the Senate considering this legislation for the second time, having already defeated it? It is a cynical procedure by the Labor Government to get a double dissolution trigger. The Government knows that the Bill again will not be passed. It will be opposed when we come to vote on it later tonight or tomorrow. However, this twice refusal will give the Government a political opportunity it otherwise would not have-that is, the opportunity to dissolve the Parliament. Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced that he will not use the double dissolution trigger, but will wait until the end of the year or early next year to call the election. This does not alter the fact that the reason that the Government introduced this legislation in the Senate was to achieve a political outcome-a double dissolution opportunity. That is made particularly clear by the fact that the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, saw that this legislation is not workable in many respects and that it requires amendment. He suggested a number of amendments were needed, arising from discussion over recent months. But the Government knowingly did not include those amendments in the legislation that is before us, because its intent is not to get sound legislation, even on its own grounds of assessment, but to get the double dissolution trigger. To do that the legislation had to be in exactly the same form as when it first appeared in the Senate. I find that cynical, and it is transparent that the Government's intention in this debate is a political intention. I refer briefly to the attitude the Government has taken to promoting acceptance of this ID card proposal. The Australia Card scheme was referred by the Senate to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, which considered the Australia Card proposal between December 1985 and March 1986. But wait for this: Public comment to the Committee was severely constrained in that inquiry because the Government failed to publish its significantly changed proposal until after the closing date for those public submissions to the Committee. It is hardly surprising that the Government wanted to gag public comment on that occasion, particularly as so many groups and organisations have vigorously opposed the legislation. As is well known, those groups included the International Commission of Jurists-it is opposed to this legislation; the New South Wales Privacy Committee; the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board; the Australian Catholic Welfare Commission; the Victorian Teachers Union; the Australian Festival of Light; the Australian Council for Civil Liberties; and so on. Earlier in this debate Senator Crowley said that the arguments of the Opposition were based largely on lies. That is not true. Also in this debate Senator Elstob said that those opposing the Australia Card were frauds and cheats. That is not true. I hope they note that the arguments of the groups that I have cited coincide with those of the Opposition. I point out that a direct colleague of Senator Crowley and Senator Elstob, the Premier of South Australia-my own State-is on record yesterday in the House of Assembly as not endorsing the Australia Card, reserving his position on the Australia Card, and even not committing himself and the State of South Australia to co-operate with the Australia Card. I cite the report in today's Advertiser. It is a report not only of the view of the Premier of South Australia, but also of the fact that in June last year the United Trades and Labour Council voted to oppose the Australia Card. Mr Sumner, the South Australian Attorney-General, said: . . . the Government had not decided how it would help the Federal Government administer a national ID card. The colleagues of Senator Elstob and Senator Crowley are lining up with, as they have described them, the liars, the cheats and the frauds. It is not true to make those accusations, but there are sensible people of all dispositions who are opposed to the Australia Card. The polls of the public at large may be showing some support for the Australia Card, but that support will quickly wane if ever the legislation were to come to pass. I add that I interpret the polls to mean that those who hope that an ID card might work are calling for action to require honesty and discipline in taxation and social welfare matters. I support honesty and discipline in taxation and social welfare matters. The polls are right to show this public concern, but it is impossible for the polls to measure other than this general concern and the genuine plea for an effective remedy. To conclude, I am opposed to this legislation because it will not stop the creation of false identities, will not stop fraud and evasion, is not cost effective and will significantly erode the privacy of all Australians. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.32) —I have another meeting scheduled on acquired immune deficiency syndrome and I shall be very brief. One thing that concerns me about this whole debate is that there is a good deal of emotionalism contained in the various allegations that are made, particularly by those people who support the Australia Card system. One of the problems that I foresee-and I object to it-is that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and others go careering around Australia criticising people for having the temerity to oppose the Australia Card, by implication indicating that those people somehow are unAustralian because they oppose the card. McCarthyism obviously is not dead in Australia, and it is time that this debate got on to a proper and higher level and that those sorts of tags are not attached to people who have genuine civil liberties and other concerns about the Australia Card. There are strong arguments against the Australia Card as proposed by the Australia Card Bill. However, there are valid arguments for a system of identification which will overcome a number of problems that have been identified in the taxation area and the social security area. It is not beyond the collective wit of the people of Australia, and particularly the collective wit of members of parliament-not that we have got better wit than those outside-to get our act together and to address those problems. A large number of persons have come out opposed to the card and a large number have identified certain problems with the current legislation. The issues raised by the various law societies and computer societies in respect of problems of privacy and so on should have been addressed by the Government. Indeed, it looked as though the Government was going to address those issues. There are a number of media reports that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) was going to amend the ID card legislation to take account of a number of those criticisms, yet the ID card proposal has come back in its original form. For my part-and I do not know whether there will be too many with me-I shall call the Government's bluff. If the Government has said that it intends, as the Minister said, to amend the legislation, let us see those amendments. The only way we can see what those amendments are, in my view, is to say: `The Bill is not acceptable in its present form. Let us see what amendments the Government will propose'. So far as I am concerned, I am prepared to vote for the Bill into the Committee stage to see just what amendments the Government is considering before something intervened to make the Government choose to come back to its original legislation which, as I say, is unacceptable. The first amendment I would make to the Bill would be to cut out the word Australia from the name Australia Card. It ought to be called what it is and what it is designed to do, and that is an identity card. Then, so far as I am concerned, there should be a number of serious amendments which go far beyond the amendments that were being talked about in a number of media articles I have referred to. Let it not be thought that I believe that this legislation is acceptable in its current form; it certainly is not. But I believe that it would call the Government's bluff if this Bill were voted into the Committee stage and the Government then had the opportunity to come forward with the amendments it proposes, and for the Committee to consider a number of other amendments which would substantially alter the Bill, but which would more directly reflect the concerns of people within the community who have given deep and long consideration to the privacy and other implications of this measure. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(8.38) —The Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2] is an admission of the failure of the current law to control both the taxation and welfare areas. I repeat that the ID card is an admission of defeat. The ID card is not only an admission of defeat but it is an invasion of privacy. It is not the card itself, the little piece of plastic, that is the invasion of privacy, but the associated database and the access to it. Thirdly, the ID card is yet more red tape and regulation which will weigh down the people of this country. The ID card proposal will cost more than it saves, since the Government in its estimates has failed to take proper account of the costs to business and the private individual. I shall return to that matter later. The Government has failed to listen to the Auditor-General regarding the poor procedures for collecting and distributing moneys in both the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Social Security and taking reasonable steps to do so at a minimal cost. It has failed to estimate savings realistically using the available information from the departments that it runs. So the Government has over-estimated the savings considerably and neglected very much cheaper ways of making them than introducing such a thing as the Australia Card. The Government has failed to take proper account of the risk of cost inflation and cost over-run which is the normal rather than the abnormal fate of current government projects. All I need do is mention the new Parliament House to underline that fact. The Government has failed to tackle the real problem of tax evasion. This can be dealt with much more cheaply by closing the loopholes in the law, with possible gains of at least 100 times the amount that the Government estimates it will recover from the Australia Card. It only has to introduce a simple system for taxing the corporate sector in this country rather than run its current system of corporate welfare. The Australia Card is an infringement of the basic rights and freedoms of people in our society, particularly our right to privacy and our right to protection from abuse and harassment by bureaucracy and abuse by criminals and exploitative big business-all groups which can wield excessive powers over the individual. It is a breach of our freedom to trade and our freedom to live how and where we wish while fulfilling our responsibilities to ensure the same freedoms, protection and privacy for others. The ID card is an admission of defeat. The Hawke Government and its predecessors have failed absolutely to control the existing taxation system. The Government has failed to ensure that tax and social security equity is available for all people in Australia. Instead, it has provided this charade and given it a jingoistic name. It promised us tax reforms. Instead of controlling our major tax rorts and lowering taxes for ordinary working people, this Government has given us taxes that are higher than ever. The rich and powerful, however, continue to evade taxes on a grand scale and red tape has spewed out and threatens to engulf the whole of Australia's small business in a complete mess which is strangling it. In fact, the ID card is a fraud on the people of Australia. It is an attempt by the Government to prove that it is taking some kind of action, that no expense is being spared and this is without its making any attempt to put the house of government in order. The Government is blaming ordinary citizens of Australia for the failure of its tax and social security administration, its failure to provide security of employment and its failure to keep its election promises. It is taking no action whatsoever to stop the large tax rorts, to stop transfer pricing, to crack down on corporate takeovers exploiting interest deductibility for tax, or to stop the widespread use of overseas tax havens and other tax avoidance devices by high income earners. This Labor Government's main concern seems to be corporate welfare. Corporate welfare is being provided for its big mates-the press barons, the corporate raiders and those people for whom the Government sees itself as an agent. Instead, the Government seems to want to pin an unavoidable label on each of us as ordinary citizens. It wants to track our movements from birth until death. It wants to hold this information on cross-indexed files which, in the wrong hands, pose a potential threat to safety and at best a threat to privacy and the livelihood of every single Australian. The Government blames the unemployed, the elderly, the sick, and the poor for taking advantage of bureaucratic sloppiness by taking a little more than they are entitled to. The Department of Social Security itself admits that only 0.6 per cent of overpayments are deliberate frauds and that 99.4 per cent are really the result of departmental sloppiness. Nothing is happening about that. The Auditor-General has criticised the Australian Taxation Office for its failure to cross-check interest and dividend payments with income declared by recipients, even though its computing facility would, if properly used, en- able it to carry out this simple check. By suitable procedures in the Australian Taxation Office, the Government could recover almost all the savings it hopes to make by introducing this expensive identity card. This is really the problem that we face. The other scandalous fraud of the Government lies in its attempts to foster racist hostility and unrest in Australia. The Government is attempting to justify the Australian citizens' identity card-ACID-by promoting the card as `a disaster for our illegal immigrants'. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) promoted this Bill by dwelling on the disastrous problems that it will create for the 60,000 illegal immigrants living in Australia. I point out that the so-called illegal immigrants are, in many cases, people who are so desperate to rejoin their families in Australia or to escape from persecution in their own countries that they have come to Australia as visitors and stayed on after discovering the brick wall of our immigration red tape and overloaded backlogs. The reason there are so many illegal immigrants in Australia is again due to government incompetence in the failure of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to deal with applications for entry promptly and sympathetically. Not only is the proposed ID card a fraud, but also the name itself is a misnomer. It should be called the Australian Citizen Identification Data-base, or ACID, or the Australian Government Citizens Identity Card as Alan Ransom, of Macquarie University, remarked in an excellent letter to the Sydney Morning Herald summarising many of the wrongs which may be expected to follow the introduction of this ID card. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the text of his letter, since I believe that it is highly pertinent to this debate. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- The ID card is a fraud on the people SIR: Having served as counsel to the Judiciary Committee of the US House of Representatives, I saw numerous proposed legislative schemes designed to make it easier for the Government to keep tabs on the populace. Thankfully, Congress, ever mindful of the legal implications of constitutional challenges under the Bill of Rights (among other things), knocked back the vast majority of them. The Australian people (through the marriage of ideology and political expedience represented by the coalition and the Democrats) should do the same with the Australia Card. The name itself is a misnomer: it should be called the Australian Government Citizen Identification Card. Simply put, the Australia Card is a fraud. It is not designed to deter cheating on taxes or income where it really counts: it is designed to make the people think the Government is doing something about it, while permitting those who avoided (but not necessarily evade) taxes by making use of so-called ``loopholes'', to continue doing so. The Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, has conceded (Herald, November 18) that the new income reporting requirements to be introduced in conjunction with the Citizens Identification Card, would not catch the ``small fry''. As for big fish, tax avoidance is largely legal, anyway. And if the scheme is illegal, it is not so because of the identity of actors (that can always be forged); it is a matter of the legality of the scheme itself. The real point, as Ian Temby, parliamentary reports and others have pointed out, is that neither the Tax Office nor the Department of Social Security have effective recovery systems. Cross-filing of information is essential to schemes such as Dr Blewett's. And, inevitably, such schemes will be abused by government-any government. Even in the US, which has more legal safeguards than any other democratic society-and a litigious population willing to use them-such abuses have occurred by both major political parties. For, fundamentally, governments do not trust their citizens; and citizens should never trust their governments. Governments want a docile populace with, as Malcolm Fraser put it, politics off the front page and sport back on it. If governments will abuse it, private business will, as a matter of convenient and inevitable course, require it for almost every financial transaction. Without this, the ``paper trail'' plan of the card simply won't work. Nor should one believe that a Liberal or coalition government will repeal the legislation. All governments are in favour of plans that increase government's ability to keep track of its citizens, particularly when it is paraded as a revenue-enhancing mechanism at the expense of ``tax and welfare cheats''. It is thus no wonder most citizens supposedly favour the Citizen Identification Card. The average citizen has only the barest concept of civil liberties, anyway. Footy is much more exciting, and it is sad, but predictably true, that as Washington Irving put it, ``They who drink beer will think beer.'' For the most part, they are quite at home with the ``What have you got to hide?'' mentality of the McCarthy era. In the final analysis, it is this passivity which the Government is trying cynically to exploit by a crass resort to patriotism, in order to instil a surveillance system worthy of any Balkan bureaucracy. Alan Ransom, Macquarie University, Ryde. November 30 Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. By using the term Australia Card, the Government has descended to the cheapest tricks of advertising and fraud. Senator Georges has described the so called Australia Card as `a licence to live, and a licence to exist in our society'. He rejects absolutely the right of any government to impose such restrictions on human freedoms. His stand for his vital principle led him to sacrifice his lifetime commitment to the Australian Labor Party rather than compromise the freedom of Australian citizens. I agree with him. The ID card has been sold to the people of Australia on the furphy that the Government is doing something to eliminate cheating in the tax and social security areas. In fact, the Government is continuing to allow wholesale tax avoidance by its rich and powerful friends. Corporate tax is avoided in large quantities. We have a corporate welfare state with suppression and control of the individual as an adjunct. Transfer pricing is a right which companies think they have but it is a rort on society. It is a rort which is imposed by transnational networks of companies where goods and services are imported at inflated prices or exported at reduced rates in order to minimise the Australian tax liability. Most of our large companies, or a large number of them, actually enter into this type of operation and the Australian Taxation Office says it cannot do anything about it. Personal taxation is avoided by the wealthy who hold earnings in overseas companies in tax havens in order to avoid Australian tax as far as possible. The Government seems powerless to stop them, since it is afraid to offend people who have control of the media and the economic power in this country. The ID card will not affect these large tax rorts by the wealthy and the powerful, yet the amounts of money that are involved are much larger than the amounts of money alleged to be saved by the card, even if they can be saved. The ID card will not affect any of the multitudinous schemes currently used for tax avoidance by the rich. Very little tax fraud is due to small pay as you earn-PAYE-taxpayers. Once again the Hawke Labor Government is spending big to tax the small. The PAYE tax avoiders are a mere drop in the ocean compared with the big players in the avoidance industry. Moreover, the cost of paying PAYE taxes is high and almost equal to total PAYE tax revenue, although most of that cost is borne by business, not by government directly. Since small business is the major employer in Australia, it is small business which bears most of the direct cost of PAYE tax. They are the tax collectors for the Government. However, ultimately those costs come home to roost since they are deducted from the earnings of the business before their tax is assessed. It is very unlikely that the Australian Taxation Office will be any more efficient in its administration of the Australia Card information than it is in the administration of any other tax information. The simple extension of use of the tax file numbers on shares and other documents of financial interest would, I believe, and the Australian Democrats believe, allow the Tax Office automatically to match interest and dividend payments to taxpayers, and to eliminate most of the inadvertent tax avoidance of which it complains. The simplest remedy for the problem of corporate fraud is the introduction of a turnover tax at a very low rate. A turnover tax is unavoidable. It is simple and it is cheap to collect. The tax can be passed on to the consumer, and it is likely that this would indeed happen. It would be a tax on consumption rather than a tax on production, which we sorely need at this stage of our economic development. It is therefore vital that any changes to consumer or corporate turnover taxes be accompanied by a guaranteed minimum income so that the poorer members of our community are not harmed by such a measure but enabled to pay their share also for the provision of essential community services. The overwhelming advantage of a corporate turnover tax is the opportunity it provides for effective encouragement of responsible resource use and for positive encouragement of employment. The current taxation system exempts raw material costs and all other costs on an equal level. This does nothing to discourage waste and it does not encourage in any way the recycling of scarce resources. Discriminatory payroll and other taxes on employment, together with accelerated investment allowance, positively encourages the replacement of people by robots and automation in general. One would have thought that a Labor government, which supports union views, would support a turnover tax exempting wage and salary costs from the tax, which would give a positive incentive for employment. In fact by exempting that and the cost of materials on which tax has already been paid, we would get recycling and good resource management in the community. In this way a corporate turnover tax could become a materials added tax and an effective tool for government policy, which taxes equitably and unavoidably according to consumption, and stimulates employment while allowing most people complete exemption from income tax. This is the type of visionary measure that this Government needs to introduce, rather than the ridiculous concept of the Australia Card. It is a pity that the Government does not have the gumption to proceed with its promised tax reforms; in fact it is taking this cowardly, dishonest and fraudulent way out of trying to solve the problems of inefficiency in its tax collection and social service system. I turn to the costs of the card. Having looked at the estimates which the Government has made, I believe they are quite unrealistic and do not correspond to the estimates which have been made by private sector entities, such as the Business Council of Australia. The Government estimates the cost at $1 billion over ten years, but this will probably blow out to at least $2 billion over ten years, it we are to believe the Business Council of Australia, which puts the cost to business also at $2 billion. The cost to private individuals has been completely ignored by the Government. It is likely to average out at around $50 per adult per annum, which includes the time taken to obtain and look after the card as well as producing it for transactions for which it will be necessary. The Government seems to have taken no cost account at all of the people's time and the cost of managing the card and of checking that the information, which is on the databases associated with the card, is correct. I believe that most tax savings could be realised by better computer checking of interest and dividend payments in the Taxation Office. The cash economy will not be at all affected by the card-totally untouched-and corporate fraud will also be quite unaffected because we will not have corporate identity cards. Only 0.6 per cent of the $300m or $1.8 billion lost in 10 years in the social security area is due to fraud. As we have said, the rest is due to mistakes in overpayments. It is hoped to collect an extra $3,000 in annual tax from each of the 60,000 illegal immigrants that are now estimated to be in Australia. The Government assumes that the desperate refugees are costing $3,000 per annum in services to which they do not contribute, and this will all disappear into thin air. I believe that if we do a calculation, a reasonable and realistic estimate of the saving in this area is $0.2 billion. To save time I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which shows that rather than the Government showing an eventual gain at the end of ten years of $4.3 billion, as it estimates, it is much more likely to show a loss of nearly $300m at the end of ten years. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 1 Government estimates: Costs $1 billion/10 years to government $1 billion/10 years to business $2 billion/10 years total costs Savings: $4 billion in tax fraud $0.3 billion in social security $2 billion in stopping illegal immigrants $6.3 billion Government profits $4.3 billion in 10 years Realistic estimates: Costs (private sector estimates)-BCA $2 billion/10 years to government $2 billion/10 years to business $0.5 billion/10 years to private people ($50 p.a. to adults) $4.5 billion/10 years total costs Savings: (dept. figures) (personal guess) $4 billion in tax fraud $0.018 billion in social security $0.2 billion in stopping illegal immigrants $4.218 billion Losses $0.28 billion in 10 years No Australia Card: Costs (private sector estimate)-BCA $0.5 billion/10 years to government $0.5 billion/10 years total costs Savings: (dept. figures) $4 billion in tax fraud $0.22 billion in social security $4.22 billion Government profits $3.72 billion in 10 years This option is the low risk, high return option, and has no disadvantages of invasion of privacy or freedom. Senator VIGOR —When it is considered that $4 billion worth of tax saving could be achieved by merely using existing and projected computer facilities and staff, at an increased cost of around $0.5 billion in ten years, so realising close to the same savings as the Government now proposes with the ID card, the total madness of the ID card project is seen in its realistic terms. Risk analysis alone, with the high probability of cost blowout, as happens in most large government projects, points to the high probability of econ- omic failure of the Australia Card. Not only is the proposed Australia Card legislation a fraud and an admission of failure by the Government, but also it is an invasion of privacy. It is an invasion of people's basic rights in society for protection, for freedom and for the ability to have a private life. Privacy becomes very much more precious as society demands more communal control over our lives. Life in modern society is regulated completely by society in terms of health, safety, education, defence and economics. We are already required to register almost everything significant that we do, from birth, to marriage and death. We must obtain licences to trade or barter, to manufacture or to distribute. We depend on matriculation certificates and trade certificates for employment and visas to travel abroad. We pay in one way or another for every privilege and convenience which modern society offers us. The only privacy which remains, apart from our thoughts, our dreams and our loves, is that no single public body, no single bureaucrat, no all knowing person could hold all this public information and know everything about us. This separation of public control of our lives is the last vital protection of our privacy. Bureaucracy rules and regulates all the public aspects of our lives. To give one bureaucrat, one person, complete knowledge is to give power to that person. This power we normally reserve only for those we love and trust, and nature provides a bond of love which normally protects family members from misuse of this knowledge and power. Most crimes of violence happen within families for this reason. This legislation proposes to give the power of complete knowledge to bureaucrats and to bureaucracies, which have none of the natural constraints of love and common understanding which exist within the family structure. The privacy protection legislation which is also before the Senate is quite inadequate to protect our privacy, in the fact of linked files with common identifiers, covering births, deaths, marriages, passports, banking, taxation, social welfare, health and various other aspects of our lives, which are being proposed in the ID card legislation. What is more, the centralised government information has a commercial value commensurate with the cost of accumulating the information, plus the value derived from its completeness and its scarcity. In other words, the government databanks will carry an eventual value of around $20 billion. The temptation to copy even selected parts of this information will be enormous, and the value will far exceed the price of any person or persons whose responsibility it will be to maintain its security. This temptation to organised crime, to unfriendly nations, to unscrupulous business organisations, and even to money-hungry governments of the future, will inevitably prove irresistible, and no reliability can be placed on the security of such a wealth of data. The associated problem of demand for forged identity cards and forged identities will also attract organised crime into supplying this new market opportunity. In the United States identity cards are bread and butter for the mafia. In Australia, the price of a forged drivers licence is currently around $30. They are readily available for young people wanting a passport into hotels and licensed clubs and discos. The price of a forged identity card is likely to be higher, and the criminal connections of the suppliers are likely therefore to be stronger, and open the people who seek it to the possibilities of blackmail. An Australia Card system as proposed will tend to deliver many of our young people experimenting with what they perceive to be life into the hands of forgers and blackmailers, from which they may find difficulty in extricating themselves. The higher the penalty for forged cards, the higher the price and the deeper the involvement of organised crime is likely to become. The ID card is a threat to our personal safety, and it is bread and butter for organised crime. It could lead to a takeover of our country. It could deliver us into the hands of an unscrupulous government, as the German identity files did in Hitler's time. It destroys the protection we should expect from our society. The privacy legislation is vital, whether or not the ID card legislation goes through. Yesterday, in an admirable maiden speech, Senator West made the point that a number of private organisations have access to growing databases, the amassing of personal information unbeknown to people. The increasing use of this information in screening people for jobs and credit requires privacy controls, not only in the government area but also in the private area. The privacy legislation is overdue. I welcome the Government's initiative in introducing the Privacy Bill. Unfortunately, it is tied to the Australia Card. Currently, the information which is in private hands is available to be freely spread around without the knowledge or permission of the person concerned. Mailing lists of people are bought and sold, even by government agencies. These mailing lists may be of all the people who have shopped at a particular place, who belong to certain professional classes, who have income over a certain level or who have donated to a particular cause. Similarly, businesses receive junk mail because of a magazine's subscription list which might have been sold or which they might have bought from a particular supplier. Even more pernicious is the use of this information by credit agencies. It is because of this type of use that the Democrats have modified and freed the privacy legislation from the constraint of being associated with the Australia Card. On the second day back in the next sitting period we will be putting this legislation as a private member's Bill to the Parliament. It is very important that this should be considered. Privacy protection is needed to make it mandatory to inform a person that the information being held about him is available to him to allow him to check it, correct it and object to its being held if that is what he wishes. Privacy protection is required to ensure that where information is held it is not supplied to other parties without the permission of the person concerned. In particular, both government and private databanks and record systems need to be covered by the privacy legislation. Our Privacy Bill will be independent of the Australia Card Bill and will establish the Data Protection Agency as a statutory body, independent of any government department. The Australian Democrats' Privacy Bill will cover information held by both government and private people and organisations. It will ensure that people can know and control information which others hold about them. Other countries have long seen the need for such protection of privacy and individual rights, and have introduced privacy legislation of a similar kind. Sweden and Norway, which are countries of a similar size to Australia, were among the first to introduce citizen protection agencies. The privacy laws have proved very successful in those countries, and helped to soften the introduction of new information technologies in their societies. It is time that Australian citizens also have legal protection against the increasing misuse of computerised personal information. In summary, the Australian citizens' identity database-ACID-legislation is fraudulent, costly and dangerous. It threatens our right to privacy, protection and freedom, and it is unnecessary. The privacy legislation, on the other hand, which the Government is introducing only as a sop to some of the opposition to the Australia Card is vital for the protection of the privacy of people, which is already being fast eroded and put into the hands of big business, big bureaucracy and big crime. I recommend that every senator should vote against the ID card and support the Democrats' privacy legislation. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(9.08) —I will speak very briefly tonight on the Australia Card Bill 1986 because I was not here when this legislation was first dealt with in the Senate. I was in New Zealand on a very hard-working business trip. I want to state my opposition to the Australia Card, which is based on civil libertarian grounds. I will mention only a few points because all of the arguments have been well canvassed by other honourable senators. I believe that such a card is open to abuse by government agencies and could, by default, come into such common usage as it would be demanded by police to identify individuals at demonstrations, for example. It is very important to me that that does not come about. It is also true that computer databases are open to abuse. It is also particularly objectionable to me that children from birth would have to be considered merely as numbers in this identity card system. It is extremely disappointing that a Labor government is introducing this identity card when two of its great heroes, Curtin and Chifley, argued so strongly against the introduction of this kind of identity card years ago. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(9.10) —As one of the tailenders in this very important debate I have had the benefit of listening to the excellent and able arguments of many of my colleagues. There have been persuasive and compelling arguments but, unfortunately, they are falling on deaf ears. Nothing it seems will convince the Federal Labor Government that it should retreat from the course on which it has embarked. I fear that honourable senators opposite may be kidding themselves that the Australia Card is truly a popular measure. Perhaps they have been duped by their senior colleagues into believing that the card will really reduce taxation, social welfare and immigration fraud. For whatever reason, they are clearly impervious to the sound criticisms which have been made of this card, not only by Opposition members of the Parliament but also by a great many informed members of the community. The Government cannot pretend that the only opposition to this card comes from its traditional political opponents. That is not the case. The opposition to this measure comes from thousands of ordinary Australians, many of whom do not normally take an active role in party politics but are concerned about moves which will adversely affect their quality of life. The Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2] has also been opposed by numerous organisations, many with a great deal of expertise very pertinent to the legislation under consideration. Honourable senators opposite cannot pretend that the opinion polls allegedly showing public support for the card are a sufficient basis for claiming that the Government has some sort of mandate to proceed. Many of those polls were taken using loaded questions which solicited the required response of those surveyed. Recent polls show that the so-called support for the legislation has dissipated considerably. To reassure honourable senators opposite that it is not simply the coalition and its supporters who oppose this Bill I would like to quote from some of the very many representations which I have received in recent days and weeks as have, no doubt, many of the senators on both sides of the chamber. The Law Society of New South Wales, I thought, summed up the Government's approach to the Australia Card quite aptly when it applied the English proverb: `The road to hell is paved with good intentions'. The good intentions of the Government are, of course, for the reduction or elimination of tax, welfare and immigration fraud. There is no question that these objectives are ones which we should all work towards. However, the Opposition like the Law Society of New South Wales, is not convinced that the identity card will achieve this objective. At the same time, the Law Society is convinced that there are serious civil liberties issues involved in the Australia Card debate. It rejects the Federal Government's argument that the proposed Australia Card is similar to the United States social security number system. According to the New South Wales Law Society it is more akin to the Swedish system which has come in for considerable criticism, even from within its own bureaucratic watch-dog, that is the Swedish Data Protection Agency. The Law Society statement on the Australia Card states that the head of that Agency, Jan Freese, resigned earlier this year, apparently on the grounds that the Data Protection Agency and Board were unable to stop the `shrinking privacy and extremely new vulnerability' of the computerised society. Other nations have been reluctant to extend existing identification systems. The United States, for example, has rejected moves to extend the existing social security number system to a universal identifier system. The Law Society concludes: The Australia Card Bill contains some provisions protecting the privacy of the information contained on the register. This does not, however, detract from the fact that the Government is setting up a standard universal identifier, where abuses could far outweigh any advantages . . . for this reason the Society opposes the introduction of an Australia Card. Another letter, no doubt circulated to all senators, from the Law Council of Australia, expresses similar opposition to the identity card. The Council says that it fully acknowledges the need to act on tax, social security and other fraud, as do we all. However, it believes that the arguments favouring the legislation are outweighed by other factors, principally the privacy considerations relating to basic rights and freedoms of individuals in society. To quote from the objections of the Australian Law Council: The rules and procedures relating to the protection of individuals' rights to privacy are excessively complex and difficult to understand. That is a most alarming analysis coming from a council of lawyers. If they, people who are used to dealing, often, with complicated and detailed language, have difficulty understanding the rules associated with this Bill, how will laymen cope with them? The Law Council goes on: The Data Protection Agency is not given any effective means of penalising infringements of privacy. The rights of review of the Data Protection Agency are excessively complex and difficult to understand; those rights are contained in 40 clauses of the Bill which set up a confusing multiplicity of procedures. The principles governing the Data Protection Agency in the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers consist of vague generalities and are, at times, contradictory; apart from creating uncertainty these features would render it virtually impossible to show that the Agency had applied incorrect criteria in arriving at a particular decision. The efficacy of the Data Protection Agency is dependent upon subjective factors such as the provision of adequate funds for its staffing and the skill, energy and philosophical attitudes of its members; sufficient reliance could not be placed on the Agency to monitor and protect the rights of privacy which, by virtue of the other provisions of the Bill would become vulnerable. The discretionary prerogatives of the authority are excessively wide; this affects the right of an individual to a card, the power to decide which documents must be produced, the right to replacement or renewal of a card, the right to change information on the register; the authority is protected from being sued and will become a large powerful bureaucracy exercising virtually unlimited control. That is a very powerful quotation. In addition, the Law Council cites its further objection to the Bill, which requires persons to prove their identities before they can enter into many common transactions and activities. The Law Council believes that this involves an unwarranted restriction on the freedom that individuals have to engage in ordinary activities and transactions. The same view is shared by the Australian Council for Civil Liberties. Honourable senators will no doubt have received representations from this organisation, but in case a few of those opposite have forgotten what the Council for Civil Liberties thinks of this Bill, I would seek to remind them. It said: The card will not be cost effective or efficient in any of the most publicised areas of use (social security, immigration, organised crime and corporate tax avoidance). The ID card and number system will present a serious threat to civil liberties. This is the analysis of the most influential and experienced civil liberties organisation in this country and the Federal Government is prepared to ignore it, in its blind determination to go on with the identity card legislation. Many other representations were received from individuals in the community, who clearly had expertise in the area of computerised identification systems. Their conclusions were equally critical of the identification system proposed by the Labor Government. One such person was Roger Clarke, a reader in information systems at the Australian National University, who took the trouble of providing a very detailed examination of what is being proposed. Mr Clarke has excellent credentials to comment on the ID card Bill. He has had 17 years in the private sector, in professional, managerial and consulting work in commercial software and development technology. He holds a masters degree in commerce and is a Fellow of the Australian Computer Society. He has been involved in the privacy data protection issue for many years, and has done research work for the New South Wales Privacy Committee and consultancy work for the Australian Law Reform Commission. He is also Chairman of the Australian Computer Society's Economic, Legal and Social Implications Committee. Mr Clarke has some very severe criticisms of this card and the way in which the Federal Government went about its campaign to introduce it. Firstly, he states: Public comment, to the Joint Select Committee which considered the card, was severely constrained by the failure of the Government to publish its significantly changed and further developed proposals until after the closing date for public submissions. Despite this, a majority of the Committee, comprising members from all parties, concluded that the scheme should not be proceeded with. The Government ignored that conclusion. Mr Clarke continued: During the early months of the campaign, public opinion polls showed significant support for the scheme. The questions were in the form `the Government proposes to introduce an Australia Card to address the problems of tax evasion, welfare fraud and immigration. Are you in favour of such a card?' The fact that some 25-30 per cent of samples said no to this heavily biased question may reflect considerable cynicism in the community about government power. However, as Mr Clarke notes, the Federal Government was determined to press on promoting the scheme by focusing on tax evasion, welfare fraud and illegal immigration. The Government was cleverly playing on public concerns about three issues, and being less than open about the extension of the card into other uses. As Mr Clarke reports, the Health Insurance Commission, in its advice to the Federal Government, is refreshing and frank. The Health Insurance Commission stated: It will be important to minimise any adverse public reaction to implementation of the system. One possibility would be a staged approach for implementation, whereby only less sensitive data are held in the system initially, with the facility to input additional data at a later stage . . . What damning evidence! How much more evidence do we need to prove that it is the Federal Government's intention to set up a surveillance system to monitor the lives of Australian citizens. As my colleague Senator Durack has said, the Government is issuing Australians with a plastic dog tag which, realistically, will have to be carried at all times. Mr Clarke also lists a number of technical deficiencies in the identification mechanism, that is, the problems of merging numerous databases, the lack of a reliable identification scheme and the small, grainy photograph which is proposed to be used which will be entirely inadequate. Some people will have problems in providing initial identifying documents. There will be problems for some people who were born overseas in providing documentary evidence of identity, and so the list goes on. Mr Clarke is highly critical of the Government's alleged attempts to protect individual privacy and he lists a number of deficiencies in the data protection arrangements proposed to be put in place. He also makes some very important points on the wider social implications of the card, referring to the scope for misinterpretation of data and the problems of maintaining security. Mr Clarke said: Ensuring security for the register would be impossibly difficult. As in other, similar countries, there is at present, no single, reliable source of names and addresses in Australia. Six per cent of telephone subscribers pay to keep their addresses and telephone numbers out of the telephone directory. The register would therefore be of interest to many people, variously for good reasons (such as debt collectors are presumed to have), for ambiguous ones (estranged spouses, jilted ex-boyfriends and over protective fathers and brothers), and for downright sinister reasons (criminals pursuing ex associates). Every record would be accessible on over two thousand terminals operated by thousands of clerks in the offices of at least three different government agencies, at over four hundred locations throughout the country. The list of criticisms of this legislation is endless. It has been roundly criticised by the banks which regard it, in its present form, as unworkable. Apparently they have been promised amendments which have not materialised. One wonders, as have many honourable senators who have spoken tonight, why the Government has proceeded with this Bill when it has admitted that there are faults in it. The Government has agreed that the criticism of the banks is genuine and that amendments are necessary, so why has it once again introduced this Bill in its original form? I do not think I have to answer that question. Of course the reason would be that until a day or so ago the Government wanted the legislation to be put back to the Senate in the same form as it was when it was rejected last year, and that was to provide a double dissolution trigger. If the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, were sincere about not having an early election, the rational path would have been to increase the necessary amendments, as I have just mentioned, and at least acknowledge that the Bill, even if it were passed, would not be workable in its present form. One can only assume that it is the Government's bloodymindedness which makes it so determined to get a vote on this Bill regardless. I understand that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, have indicated that if the Bill is defeated-as it will be-they will use it in the next election campaign. Senator Archer —I hope so. Senator KILGARIFF —So do we all. I will look forward to that, as will many of my colleagues, because I know that the people I represent, that is the majority of the people of the Northern Territory and the people of Australia do not want this card and will tell Mr Hawke exactly that when they get an opportunity of voting at the ballot box. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(9.27) —I will follow what Senator Kilgariff was just discussing in the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2] debate. I also wonder just why the Government is bothering to continue with this legislation. I think it just shows that it has a complete lack of imagination, a complete lack of knowledge, on how to run this place well at all. We have been made to abandon the Estimates committees which were due to be dealt with today and tomorrow and many people have been put to a considerable amount of trouble just so this Bill can be dealt with. We are told that it will not be used; we are told that it is a useless Bill and yet we are wasting the time of the Senate on a piece of legislation that we-- Senator McKiernan —You said it, Senator. Senator TOWNLEY —Let me tell Senator McKiernan that this Bill was a complete waste of time from the minute it came into the Senate. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) admitted that it needed amending. The Government knows that it does not work and that it never can work. Nobody in his right mind would consider letting a Bill such as this through the Senate in the condition that it is. The fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has chosen not to have an election shows that perhaps he has some political judgment. He knows that the polls are very volatile at the moment and also that the people of Australia are sick and tired of Prime Ministers of all persuasions-not only Australian Labor Party Prime Ministers-organising elections in a most cynical way. It is time we had fixed term elections in this country and the sooner we get them the better off this country will be. Had the Prime Minister had an election I believe that he may have regretted it to his dying day, but forget that. The Government brought this Bill back into the Senate unamended originally because the Prime Minister wanted a Bill to trigger a double dissolution even though, as I have said, the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, in his statement on 5 February announced that the Government had decided to amend the Australia Card Bill. Perhaps the Government will, as Senator Kilgariff foreshadowed, try to use it in the election campaign when that occurs. I agree that it will be to its detriment if it does. The Government knows that the piece of legislation we are dealing with tonight will not do the things it is intended to do without certain serious and substantial amendments. That is what we should be doing now-not wasting time on this cynical piece of rubbish, this legislation that originally was cynically brought into this Senate so that the Prime Minister would have a chance of having a double dissolution if the polls had happened to go his way. I believe that the Government should have withdrawn this Bill from the Senate or at least brought in the amendments which it obviously has ready. Senator Jessop —They were scared it was going to be passed. Senator TOWNLEY —Senator Jessop admits something that the Press has been saying over the last few weeks, that is, that this Bill may well have been passed. Maybe the Prime Minister did not want to be painted into a corner and have to have an election. He would have looked very weak had this legislation been passed and he had not gone immediately to Government House, as many people in the Press were recommending that he should do. This Bill was brought back in a totally cynical way to try to get a few more years of government for the Labor Party. Now Mr Hawke has has his change of heart, but we still have this useless piece of legislation before us. It is a complete waste of time, unless we are not to believe what the Prime Minister said at his Press conference yesterday. I must say that usually I do not believe what the Prime Minister says. I think his track record has shown that one cannot always believe him. But this time I believe that he has locked himself into not having an election until at least after the Budget in August. I believe that any attempt to do otherwise would seriously rebound on him. I do not think that even the Press, which quite often seems to be on his side, would let him get away with that kind of act. I read recently that now is the time for mature and astute political judgment. I must say that that is why I have been making efforts to stop an election at this time. It was my political judgment that this was not a good time for an election from my Party's point of view. As the polls have shown-- Senator Childs —It has never been a good time. Senator TOWNLEY —Senator Childs says it will never be a good time. Let me say that it is my political judgment that, in spite of all the troubles that the coalition parties have had over the past few weeks, we will go through a period of stability and after that we will donkey lick the Labor Party at the next election. There is no doubt about it. So, as I have said, I did not think it was a good time for an election from my Party's point of view. The people of Australia have shown that they do not vote for political parties that are divided. That was the main reason why I thought that a double dissolution trigger at this time was not a particularly good idea. Let me also make it quite clear that at no time have I had any love for the idea of an Australia Card. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. I also feared that this country could not have afforded another three years of Labor, although if we had had the cynical early election that was contemplated, it would not have been for three years-it would have been for only two years because of the required back dating of the Senate situation. But I believe that even two years would have been much more than this country could afford. There was one other problem. I feared at one stage when the polls were not going the way that I hope they will from now on that Labor would win control of the Senate as well as win another election. Perhaps Labor could have tried to do then the kinds of things it tried to do in the Whitlam years when it attempted to change the voting system. That was another thing that I did not want to see. The Government could have come back in here and rigged the Senate. If it had a majority, the Government could have taken all of the long term senators. That was a risk that I did not believe we needed to take. That was the kind of thing that was exercising my mind and the minds of some other people around this place-I think I can say that Senator Jessop was one of them-over the last few weeks. Mention does not seem to have been made of the fact that if Labor had won a double dissolution we would have ended up with the Australia Card anyway because the likelihood of its being passed at a joint sitting was high. That was another of the factors that led to the statements that have been attributed to me-some of them right and some of them wrong-over the last few weeks. I must say that I thought the reasoning of some of the people in my Party over the last few weeks left a lot of long range thinking to be desired. Of course, they did not seem to realise that this Bill does not cause any card to be implemented straightaway. The Australia Card would not have come into operation until 1989. Let me make it clear that I am opposed to the Bill but I have been trying to stop an election for the reasons that I have mentioned. I recognise that we will have a much better chance of winning government after the coming period of stability. I notice that Senator Watson is waving. Is he trying to take off or is he trying to tell me something? Senator Watson —You are doing very well. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Order! Senator TOWNLEY —Mr Acting Deputy President, some of the people in this place have spoken for a full 30 minutes. Although I have spoken for about eight or nine minutes, some of them are trying to hurry me up. I will take as long as I want. Senator Archer —Keep going. Senator TOWNLEY —Oh, the honourable senator wants me to keep going. I will start again. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Senator Townley, you should direct your remarks through the Chair and continue your speech. Senator TOWNLEY —Are you winding me up or slowing me down, Mr Acting Deputy President? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Senator Townley, you should direct your remarks through the Chair and continue your speech. Senator TOWNLEY —Mr Acting Deputy President, I have trouble with my eyes-they keep drifting. It is like one of the Prime Minister's peculiarities. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! I am quite sure that Senator Townley can finish his speech without any help from Senator Watson, who is trying to interject. Senator TOWNLEY —I have just been handed a note on something that I must include in my speech. I do not think I can keep going for as long as some honourable senators would like me to. I do not know why they want me to keep going for so long. Senator Crichton-Browne —I think you read my `pinks'. Senator TOWNLEY —No, the honourable senator's `pinks' are too fast for me. Mr Acting Deputy President, I know that this debate has gone on for a long time. I apologise to Senator Watson; I thought he was trying to slow me down. I am going slower now. Senator Tate —Oh, come on! Senator TOWNLEY —Here we have the Minister getting aggravated. He has been a Minister for only a few weeks and he is getting aggravated. Senator Tate —No, I am anxious to hear you. Senator TOWNLEY —I have seen it before. I am talking through the Chair to the Minister. As a pharmacist, I have to say that it is a very dangerous job being a Minister. May I say-through the Chair, of course-that it is very bad for the Minister if he lets himself get wound up. Senator Tate —I agree. Senator TOWNLEY —I hope the Minister recognises that. If he needs a prescription for tranquillisers I am sure that there are several doctors on this side who will give one to him. Mr Acting Deputy President, as I have said, this debate has gone on for long enough. I rose simply to state my position because of the many reports that I believe were treacherously leaked from my Party room a couple of weeks ago about my position. I must say that most of those reports were inaccurate. Senator Crichton-Browne —What was your position? Senator TOWNLEY —I stated my position a moment ago. Senator Crichton-Browne —Would you state it again? Senator TOWNLEY —Speaking through the Chair, the situation was-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Senator Townley should speak either for or against the Bill. Senator TOWNLEY —Mr Acting Deputy President, I would hate to challenge your ruling because it would take an hour if I did so, but I have been asked to speak to this Bill and that is what I thought I had been doing. One of my colleagues, by way of interjection, asked me to run a few reasons past him again as to why I had been trying to stop an election. I can do that. One of the main reasons was that I was scared that the polls were not particularly good for my Party at the time. I have done what I said I would do. I say to Senator Crichton-Browne that that was the main reason and the fact that I thought the Labor Party might get control of both Houses of Parliament, rig the Senate and rig the voting system. If that is not sufficient reason to have had worry about a double dissolution, I do not know what is. They are the reasons for the things that were attributed to me recently. May I say that I agree fully with the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, which investigated this Bill and reported to the Senate. I fully agree particularly with the attitudes of my colleagues Senator Jessop and Senator Puplick and, to save the time of the Senate, I suggest that people refer to the speeches of those gentlemen; what they said I agree with fully. Finally, I must say that I am very grateful to the many people who have written to me about this matter following a lot of erroneous things that were printed because of party leaks in the newspapers around this country. I thank those people for their advice and for their consideration in writing to me. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —I call Senator Tate. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(9.40) —I thank all those honourable senators who have contributed to the debate on this most important-- Senator Archer —Mr Acting Deputy President, I wish to speak on this Bill. Senator TATE —Well, I am sorry; I am closing the debate. In that respect, I must say that nevertheless it is very important-- Senator Walters —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Archer —On a point of order: I wish to speak to this Bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Well, the Minister was on his feet-- Senator TATE —I understood I was the next one on the list. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I certainly do not want to be in a position, Senator Tate, of thinking that anyone is missing out on speaking, so I suggest that we allow-- Senator Gareth Evans —You won't be long, will you? Senator Archer —No, I won't be long. Senator Gareth Evans —Okay. Senator Archer —Thank you. Senator TATE —Just in case anyone reads the Hansard, I want to make it clear that I got to my feet in good faith. I had understood that I was next on the list to close the debate. My Whip had informed me of that, and Senator Archer has rushed into the chamber in order to make his contribution. I am happy that he make it, but I did receive the call and was acting in good faith when I commenced my remarks. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Thank you, Senator Tate. I call Senator Archer. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(9.42) —Mr Acting Deputy President, seeing that this is a moment for baring hearts, I suppose I should also advise the chamber that I had been on the list and that I had been removed, but that I had not advised you, prior to Senator Tate getting to his feet, that I wished to speak to the Bill. I do not blame Senator Tate at this juncture, because it has been a long and involved debate, and certainly I understand that the Government Ministers by how must have really heard all the problems and all the faults that go with this piece of tawdry legislation to the extent that it must upset them quite considerably. All the issues that have been raised by members on this side of the chamber really tell the whole story. There is this question of privacy. Government members make such a lot of privacy, as if it is something that belongs to them. As I mentioned in the course of a short speech yesterday, we make all sorts of arrangements about privacy and we remove things because of privacy; yet here is the most damning piece of intrusion that we have ever tried to push through this Parliament. The numbers and the range of people that have complained about it legitimately are really quite astounding. But the area that I believe has not been adequately dealt with and that brought me into this debate- Honourable senators interjecting- Senator ARCHER —Mr Acting Deputy President, do you think you could get the football match somewhere else? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Yes. Senator Tate! Senator Watson! Senator Sheil —All Tasmanians. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —All Tasmanians. I call Senator Archer. Senator ARCHER —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. My need to come into this debate is on the basis of what the proposed identity card will not do. It will not clean up this matter of social security fraud; it will not stop people avoiding taxation liabilities. If honourable senators need any references, I have all the references that I can possibly imagine here, from the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence annual report, from the Australian Federal Police annual report, from the report of the Director of Public Prosecutions, from the National Crime Authority, from the Auditor-General, and so it goes on. All these authorities are saying that the problem with the enforcement of the law is the Government's total ineptitude in properly carrying out its responsibilities under the law enforcement agencies that currently exist. We have the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence starved for funds-starved for everything. We have the Federal Police begging for money, begging for services. We have the Director of Public Prosecutions saying that there is no use going to him because he does not have the resources. We have all these people saying: `All we have time to do is a few of the big ones. We just cannot possibly get around to the little ones'. So what do we do? We are now looking up both barrels of trying to establish another body of thousands of people all over Australia. Are we going to supply it with all the resources that it needs, while we will not supply the resources that the existing law enforcement bodies need to do what they are set up to do? That is what we are on about at the moment. That is exactly what the Government is talking about. If it would properly look after the enforcement agencies it already has, we would be much better off. I have heard various honourable senators talking about the Australian Taxation Office. It is in a deplorable state. It has been granted the resources and it will not spend them. It has not the faintest idea of how to go about trying to get itself out of the mess it is in. How do we know that this new body will not wind up in the same sort of sticky mess that the Taxation Office is in? Social security fraud is not a matter of false identity. We know that. We have been told that over and over again. But no, the Government says: `Let's put in identity cards so that we can try to stop the 0.6 per cent', or whatever it is. What else are we dealing with? Who is it that we are trying to stop? The numbers are not there. The people out in the real world have been told over and over again by the Government that this measure will stop all these problems. It will not stop these problems. It will not even make a dent in these problems. It will not stop the cash economy. It will not stop the criminals. All the people that are now all over Australia involved in criminal activities-- Honourable senators interjecting- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Would the Senate please come to order? Senator Archer is entitled to be heard in silence. Senator ARCHER —It is hard work in here. And I am trying to be as quick as I can. If honourable senators opposite would only sit down and shut up for a while, I might finish. One need only look at the reports on Dugan's luggage to see the absolute fallacy and farce in the things that the Government has been saying. When Dugan arrived at the barrier and his case was opened, it was found that he had very little in there except a whole bundle of drivers licences, passports and counterfeit currency. People like this are just looking forward to this ID card. It is a brand new line of business for them. It is absolutely pennies from heaven to have something like this that will be so good. The cost of implementation is something that I cannot possibly let go by without some comment. The small business people of Australia have been taxed and thrashed and inconvenienced and over-regulated to the extent now that to give them another one like this means that we may as well pass this Bill and put them all out of business in one hit. We might as well add one more clause saying: `We will close every small business in Australia'. That is just about what it amounts to. The black economy will not be changed one iota by this measure. Anybody who is paying cash now will be paying cash in the future. I can assure the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) that in the areas of his responsibility, the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, the Federal Police and so on, the passing of this legislation will not make one scrap of difference from what occurs now. They will have more people to deal with because there will be this brand new, exciting method of making money on the side The whole thing is an absolute farce. Goodness only knows why the Government has gone on with this. It is prepared to go on with this and make itself look absolutely ridiculous by producing this sort of rubbish, that has no relevance and no use, and to keep us here when the Estimates committees could be meeting. I realise that it is trying to keep us out of the electorate at present. I do not blame the Government for that. But while it is prepared to be so foolish, at least it is up to us to demonstrate this point and keep on commenting on it. Where does the Government think this will get it? What possible advantage can there be in going through the farce of presenting this legislation? It knows it has lost the vote. It knows it will not serve any purpose. It knows that if it were passed it would not serve any purpose. Senator Sanders —Sit down and we will defeat it. Senator ARCHER —I do not need advice from Senator Sanders. Senator Sanders —Why not? You are not doing very well on your own. Senator ARCHER —I would do a jolly sight better if it were not for Senator Sanders. I recommend to Senator Tate, in particular, that when he gets time, he should read the reports of the law enforcement authorities for which he is responsible-and one or two others for which he is not responsible-and assess from that the fact that the problem is that the Government until now has paid no heed to trying to improve the law enforcement capacity of the bodies that already exist. If we took the trouble to make sure that they were capable of doing the job with which they are charged, we would not need any cards or any further authorities. In fact, we could save money if we did the job better. I trust that when Senator Tate rises to his feet, he will be able to confirm how foolish the Government has been. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(9.52) —in reply-I thank all of those honourable senators who have contributed to this very important debate on the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2]. I think that initially we ought to refresh our memories in case they have been clouded by the distortions and scaremongering that has been engaged in by those on the other side of the chamber as to what this Bill aims to do. It does not intend, aim or try-even in its very structure, as a cursory glance at the Bill would reveal-to introduce an internal passport, a licence to live or some of the other phrases that have been tossed around the chamber. It aims to require the production of a card with a unique number, a name, a photograph, a signature and an expiry date. It is as simple as that. When does that simple photographic card have to be produced? Firstly, whenever one could manipulate and use multiple names to avoid paying tax-for example, by holding several jobs under different names to take advantage of the tax threshold on each job, instead of the second employer knowing that the person already had the advantage of the threshold. That is why there are hundreds of thousands of unclaimed group certificates sitting in the Australian Taxation Office. That is one aim. The second aim is to ensure that when a person presents himself or herself for a medical or hospital benefit under Medicare, or claims an entitlement under social security, the correct person presents himself or herself and is truly entitled to that benefit. We all know of the hundreds of cases we have read about in reports of the courts in which people use multiple identities in order to defraud the system. We have heard a lot about the fact that the introduction of this Australia Card will somehow distort our democratic traditions. I would like to know what principle of democracy, or what tenet that can be derived from the common law tradition, allows people fraudulently to misrepresent their identity. Senator Crichton-Browne —How much revenue do you want to save? Senator TATE —I ask Senator Crichton-Browne what principle of the common law of our democracy allows people to use deception in order to claim an identity that is not their own in order to avoid paying their proper dues into the revenues of the Commonwealth by way of taxation, or in order to obtain a benefit from the health or social security system which is funded by their fellow Australians. Since when has deception had an honourable name in the common law or in democracy? It never has. This Australia Card Bill is designed to stamp out that sort of deception. Senator Crichton-Browne —At the price of democracy. Senator TATE —It is not at the price of democracy. What does undermine our democracy is depriving our democratically elected governments of the sinews and muscles they get from the tax revenue in order to carry out their programs, as they are elected to do. That is what undermines our democracy. I tell Senator Crichton-Browne that the decent, ordinary taxpayer who pays all of his tax is heartily sick of the tax cheats who continue to not make their contribution to the revenues as they should. Not only that; our democracy is undermined because people begin to be very begrudging in the contribution of their taxation to the hospital, medical and social security benefits systems which some genuinely needy people require if we are to be a civilised and caring society, which Senator Don Grimes spoke about in his parting remarks today. They are the sorts of things that make for a tolerant, civilised democracy. They are the sorts of things that are undermined by the misuse of identities, the claiming of multiple and false identities, which this Bill aims to deal with. To dress all of this up as some sort of dossier system, internal passport or licence to live, totally distorts that practical reality. Occasionally, of course, some over zealous policeman or government official might demand to see this card, apart from in those prescribed instances set out in the Bill. I can assure the Senate that when that happens that person will be guilty of an offence, punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 or gaoling for up to two years. In that way we will ensure that a police state does not emerge in Australia as a result of the introduction of this Bill. What is the alternative that is occasionally proffered by those opposite? The use of the tax file number-this tired old alternative. Regrettably, a tax file number is precisely that-a file number; that is all it is. It is a method of following a sheaf of papers in a manila folder through the various corridors of the Tax Office. It is a paper processing number. It is allocated to whoever sends in a tax return. It in no way guarantees that the name of the person in the file is correctly linked with the person who ordinarily uses that name or, indeed, any person whatsoever. The tax file number, if used as an identity link to a particular person, can be, and quite often is, a bodgie number. There are hundreds of false identities in the tax system. Senator Haines —Well, do something about it. Senator TATE —What would one do about it? One would try to upgrade the tax file number. But such upgrading requires such a degree of verification that one would end up with a de facto Australia Card number. When Mr Trevor Boucher, the Commissioner of Taxation, appeared before the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card which was set up to examine these matters, he made it very clear that what one would end up with would be a rose by any other name. If one upgrades the tax file number with the degree of integrity that is required to ensure that the name in the manila folder corresponds with the ordinarily used name of somebody in the community, one has undertaken all the verification that presently under the Bill would be required to be undertaken to produce an Australia Card number. Let me deal with the central feature of this system that has caused some controversy, that is, the Register. The Register has been made out to be some tremendous holding of all sorts of details of the lives of ordinary Australians. In fact, the Register carries the most minimal identifying factors imaginable. The Australia Card Register will contain only identifying information. There is no information on the Register, despite what we have heard from the other side, about the income or tax payments of any particular person. There are no details of employment or of income, as I say. There is no record of social security benefits which have been claimed by that person. The Register contains only minimal identifying criteria. The only bodies with access to it are the Tax Office, the Department of Social Security and the Health Insurance Commission-of course, supervised by the Data Protection Agency. As was emphasised by Senator Susan West in her excellent maiden speech, the fact is that a holder of an Australia Card can have access to that Register at any time-has the right to have access to that Register at any time-and can check on who else and for what reason another person has had access to that Register. That is immediately available. There is a full display of all the access that has been gained, who looked at it, and why. As I say, Senator Susan West in her contribution yesterday pointed out that no other system in our society with which we are all so familiar-the credit providing institutions in our society, the banks and so on-offers the same degree of protection of the privacy and confidentiality of that register information in the way that this Bill sets out to do. We guard against unwarranted intrusion. I believe we have succeeded in devising a scheme which prevents abuse of privacy. That is a reasonable misgiving on the parts of people when they hear of an Australia Card, but if they read this legislative package as a whole, and in particular marry to it the good faith that the Government has shown in the privacy legislation that was introduced in this place, with its 11 principles, I think they will see that there is a comprehensive package which, as I say, guarantees to the greatest extent possible the privacy and confidentiality of that register and of the identifying information in it. In fact, the production of the card will then lead to much less intrusion into people's private lives than would otherwise be the case. I get sick to death of hearing Frank Costigan's name being bandied about. What did he say a person should do if he approached a bank manager to open an account as the result of his hearings into the use of corrupt bank managers by organised criminals? He recommended: Each person applying to open a bank account should be required by law to provide a written statement containing the information set out below. This form should be signed personally and witnessed by the bank officer opening the account. The statement should contain inter alia the following details: (a) the full name currently being used by that person; (b) the name under which the person was born; (c) the date and place of birth; (d) any other name used between the date of birth and the date of the statement; (e) whether the person is or has been a taxpayer, and if appropriate- (1) the name under which he lodged his last return; (2) the place of lodgement; (3) the taxation number allocated to him; (f) his current address and any address used by him as his principal place of business or residence during the previous five years. That would be much more of an intrusion into the privacy of somebody approaching a bank manager than the simple production of the Australia Card. So much for Frank Costigan. I could list the sorts of organisations which have come out in support of the Australia Card. I could mention the Australian Retailers Association, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, the Australian Taxpayers Association, the Australian Hotels Association and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, but in a democracy I suppose at the end we should have regard to what the people think. It is interesting that in the Bulletin we find a report on a public opinion poll, which I quote: Approval for the Australia Card has risen 3 per cent since November and now more than two-thirds of Australians are in favour, the Morgan Gallup has found. By asking a very simple, straightforward, honest question it found that the supporters of the Australia Card in the community have grown from 66 out of every 100 to 69 out of every 100 Australians. Senator Haines —Do they know what it is about? Senator TATE —I believe they do know what it is about, Senator. One of the reasons is the very well informed public opinion which has been moulded in large parts and I give due credit to Dr Neal Blewett who has taken a lot of flack out in the community to try to explain the ramifications of this legislation to the Australian people. It was all the more shocking, therefore, to hear the attack made on Dr Blewett by Senator Walters in the course of her remarks; she accused Dr Blewett of criminal activity, of transgressing a Commonwealth statute, which was quite unfounded, quite unwarranted and unequivocally denied. If she goes outside this chamber and make that same allegation she will be hit with such a writ she will wonder what has happened to her. She has made an allegation against a Commonwealth Minister of integrity that he was engaging in criminal activity in disclosing the income, she said, of Dr Shepherd of Sydney. She quoted a provision of a statute to say that the Commonwealth Minister had transgressed that provision in that statute. It is utterly unequivocally denied. I challenge her to say the same outside this chamber. She is laughing to herself, I do not know why. It is a serious and shocking allegation, and is absolutely refuted. I am getting somewhat diverted. We have to ask ourselves why the Opposition is concerned to prevent the passage of this Bill. Partly it is the old story. If this Bill had been confined to dealing with those who were making claims on the social security system, Opposition members would have been supporting it. The fact is that this Bill goes further and attacks those who want to manipulate and pervert the tax system by using false identities to their own benefit. In that way the temerity of this Bill in attempting to clean up the perversions of the tax system is what upsets Opposition senators. More than that though there is a cruder political reason why Opposition senators would want to deny to us-because we will be re-elected to government-the revenues that will flow from the implementation of this provision. One looks at the Opposition and wonders how its members can come together with such unanimity on this proposal. It is simply that they want to deprive us of revenues in our next three years of government so that we either have to cut back on programs or increase taxation on the ordinary decent non-cheating taxpayers of Australia. There lies the real reason for their unanimity. It is as crude and political as that. My final remarks are to say that I am as committed as anyone in this chamber to having a tolerant civilised democracy, but I believe that that requires that we have a system where those who should do so contribute to the revenues of our democracy in order to support the programs and policies-and their implementation- devised by the elected representatives of the people. The provision of social security, medical and hospital benefits which are essential if we are to have a civilised and tolerant democracy depends in large measure on the passage of this legislation which will help us achieve those ends. Mr President, I am pleased that you are in the chair and are here for the vote on this very important piece of legislation. I believe that this Bill deserves the support of this chamber as it has warranted after many long months of debate out in the community the support of the Australian people. It gives me great pleasure to support the Bill. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Aulich, T Harradine, B. Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. Button, J. N. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Morris, J. Coates, J. Richardson, G. F. Colston, M. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Cook, P. F. S. Ryan, S. M. Cooney, B. Sibraa, K. W. Devlin, R. Tate, M. C. Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A. Foreman, D. J. West, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Giles, P. J. Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Archer, B. R. Macklin, M. J. Baume, Michael Mason, C. V. 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. (Teller)Carrick, Sir John Sanders, N. K. Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C. Durack, P. D. Townley, M. Georges, G. Vallentine, J. Haines, J. Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Vigor, D. B. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Knowles, S. C. Elstob, R. C. Parer, W. R. Jones, G. N. Hill, R. Ray, R. Guilfoyle, Dame MargaretReynolds, M. Powell, J. F. Crowley, R. A. Lewis, A. W. R. Coleman, R. N. Withers, R. G. Question resolved in the negative. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —by leave-For the information of honourable senators I indicate the progress of discussions so far as to how we might rationally order our business for our remaining time here in Canberra. The proposal is that we sit on the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987 for the remaining 17 minutes until 10.30 p.m., that we adjourn at 10.30 p.m. and resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow. It is proposed that we should deal with the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill with as much dispatch as possible. We also propose that at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning, or later tonight, if honourable senators prefer, there should be some discussion between the various chairmen of the Estimates committees and their members as to what might be the most convenient arrangement for Estimates committees sitting tomorrow in the event that we have some time up our sleeve before our afternoon plane. The original proposal was that Estimates Committees A, B and C be scheduled for Friday. It may well be that if we get the Lemonthyme Bill over early, perhaps by mid morning, we could have Question Time then if senators wish-or we can dispense with it! If we get the Lemonthyme Bill over with, plus or minus Question Time, we might be able to have in effect a full half day on the Estimates before we leave to catch our plane at 4.30 p.m., to which most of us are committed. This is simply a convenient way of putting the issues down so that honourable senators can discuss them and so we can make a sensible decision when we resume tomorrow morning. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-There has been a quite unusual and extraordinary state of uncertainty about the sittings of the Senate over this period and in discussion with the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans) it was agreed that the most sensible course, in the event of extra time being available tomorrow, would be to allow the Estimates committees themselves to assess what they should do tomorrow. All members of the Estimates committees have been fairly severely inconvenienced by the changed arrangements. Some of them have made alternative arrangements and members of Estimates Committees A, B and C should themselves assess what use they can make of any spare time that may be available tomorrow should we complete the Lemonthyme legislation and Question Time-the only two things that are permitted to us under the resolution. Obviously Opposition senators on Estimates Committees would be prepared to meet and presumably the chairmen of the committees will take the responsibility of meeting before 9 o'clock tomorrow if possible with those committees and advise the Manager of Government Business, his Whip and our Whip of their views. We can then determine, depending on how the Lemonthyme debate pans out, whether there is any useful time available. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —by leave-I think that the proposal before us is extraordinary. Never in all my time here have I seen such a mess develop. It is fairly clear that we will proceed to complete the Lemonthyme legislation but it is extraordinary to expect the Estimates committees to meet because not only are members of the committees concerned but also the public servants who have to come before the committees. Senator Gareth Evans —They have been kept on notice. Senator GEORGES —They may well have been kept on notice but let me tell the Manager of Government Business this: Because of his rearrangements, we cancelled a meeting of the Select Committee on Animal Welfare tomorrow. We cancelled it because that was the cleanest and neatest thing to do in the circumstances. Rather than bring witnesses from across the country to this place, we made a decision not to hold our meeting. What I find objectionable is this: Those who manage business in this place-and I am not sure who does manage it now; it is certainly not the Whips-could have brought the Australia Card Bill to a vote earlier today by arrangement instead of allowing all the piffle that went on this evening. We heard restatement after restatement after restatement. Even the people who were speaking were embarrassed because there was no clear decision from anyone to bring the matter to a vote. Had the matter been brought to a vote earlier, we could then have proceeded with the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill and finished the committee stage tonight. It seems to me that this place has lost its rudder. I think that the proposition of the chairmen getting together tomorrow morning to discuss whether they should spend a couple of hours on Estimates committees is ridiculous. I think that the best proposition is that we should finish the Lemonthyme legislation and come back some other time for the Estimates committees and the other committees. Consideration resumed from 26 March. Clause 8 (Functions). Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.18) —I wish to refer to clause 8 (2) and also clause 8 (1) (d). I shall begin with sub-clause (2). I believe that a number of people in the forest industries in Tasmania and the Premier of Tasmania were seeking certain government assurances in relation to job losses in the Tasmanian forestry industry. I point out to the Senate that if, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) suggests, the Federal Government is not trying to put people out of work, why is there a paragraph in the legislation which asks the Commission of Inquiry to find ways to try to minimise job losses? We will find-and I shall speak on this matter again later-that about half the saw mills are likely to have their log supply affected over the period of the proposed inquiry.These sawmills are going to have a right to compensation. Clause 8 (1) (d) goes to the very heart of the State Government's ability to manage the State's forestry resources. In effect, an inquiry has been undertaken and studies have been made. Again I wish to point out to the chamber that 60 per cent of the Lemonthyme is never intended to be logged. It has been the subject of an inquiry and an environmental impact statement. What is going to happen? This inquiry is going to usurp something that has previously been agreed upon, and clause 8 (1) (d) goes to the very heart of a State government's responsibilities to undertake, in a responsible manner, the exploitation and development of its own resources, something that should properly belong to the State and should not be taken away from it. Senator Sanders —They cannot do it. They have shown themselves incapable of managing their own resources. Senator WATSON —It is not a question of being incapable of managing our own resources. The studies have been undertaken and agreements have been reached, but the Federal Government is attempting to walk away from those agreements. This inquiry is going to repeat what has been done by the Tasmanian Forestry Commission and other parties in Tasmania in drawing up the environmentally sensitive areas and declaring how they should be logged and what roads should be constructed through what parts of the Lemonthyme to make sure that that sensitive resource can continue growing. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.22) —During the Committee debate last week Senator Tate, in reply to a question from Senator Newman, indicated that a Senate Estimates committee would be able to consider the Government's provision for the administrative costs of the Commission of Inquiry. I am now able to advise more particularly on the budgetary arrangements for the inquiry costs. No provision has been made in the Additional Estimates-Appropriation Bills (Nos 3 and 4)-to be considered shortly by a Senate Estimates committee, because it is not normal practice to make provision in an Appropriation Bill until the enabling legislation has been passed by Parliament. At that time the basis for the inquiry will have been clearly established and costs can be estimated accordingly. As a practical matter, however, it is also helpful to have discussions with the presiding Commissioner, when appointed, on matters such as the main location of the inquiry and the number and locations of hearings. This would help in estimating the costs. Provision for the inquiry will be made in the Budget context and accordingly will be subject to consideration by a Senate Estimates committee in due course. Just before the debate was interrupted last week, Senator Newman asked whether the Government would accept the decision of this inquiry. In reply I should make it clear-and it has been said already by Minister in this debate-that the role of the Commission of Inquiry is not to make decisions. Its role is to gather and to evaluate information on world heritage values and alternatives to logging particular areas, and then to report its findings to the Government. When the inquiry's report has been received-and Ministers have already said this-it will be up to the Government to consider the options then open to it in the light of the inquiry's findings. This is the normal position in regard to a government inquiry. Since the inquiry will not be making decisions, it is meaningless to ask whether the Government would accept the decision of this inquiry. What the Government will do is accept the findings of the inquiry as the basis for a careful consideration of options then open to it. The Government expects that other parties will also accept the Commission's findings, and it will not entertain suggestions of any further inquiries into those matters. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(10.24) —I thank the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) for those answers, which I was about to ask for again in case they had been forgotten. I do appreciate that they have been provided tonight. I also ask the Minister whether there is not some ball park figure which has already been calculated by the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment as to the costs of this inquiry. It is not unused to setting up such inquiries, and I feel that it must be fairly clearly understood what the likely cost is going to be. I would very much appreciate hearing that tonight. Am I also to understand that, as the money will not be allocated until the Budget, this Commission of Inquiry will not be sitting until later into the next financial year? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.25) —There is no ball park figure-to use Senator Newman's words-available at this stage. However, the inquiry would be able to sit because the costs of it should be provided out of the Treasurer's advance. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.25) —I find it quite incredible that the Government would set up a commission and would attempt to pass legislation through the chamber without having any idea of the cost to government. Senator Archer —Walsh is getting soft. Senator WALTERS —Yes. I thought it was the decision of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) that everything would be costed. At a time when we have been told that finance is critical to the Government, when indeed the May economic statement is to be put down cutting costs considerably, I find it very difficult to understand that the Government would not have some estimate of what this whole inquiry would cost. Is the Minister saying that the Government has been so irresponsible as to set up a commission when it has no idea what the cost to the taxpayer will be? Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.26) —I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the irresponsible use of the Advance to the Minister for Finance, if that is going to be the mechanism used to finance this inquiry. I remind the Minister that this advance is for unforeseen and unexpected circumstances. We have a Bill before us but we can hardly say that it is unforeseen or unexpected. I do not think it is good enough for the Government to use this mechanism to finance this inquiry. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(10.27) —I draw the chamber's attention to the fact that in clause 8 (3) we see these words: the Commission shall take account of: the potential for changes in forestry industry technology . . . the need to ensure sustainable forest yields . . . Should there not be some kind of inquiry into the dependence of the Tasmanian economy on each of the jobs and the investment in this industry? I am concerned that there is instability to investment in this industry in Tasmania. There does not seem to be any recognition given to the impact on the future of this industry from the work of the Commission itself, in that it is looking at the potential for changes in the industry and technology areas and at such matters as yields and techniques, but the industry is based on the confidence of those who invest in it. This is a very relevant matter when we look later on at the question of compensation. As I see it, there is no provision made for compensation to those who have an investment in the industry. I would like to have the Minister comment on what it seems to me to be a pretty serious omission. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.28) —The inquiry will go on for only one year, so the Government is not anticipating that compensation claims would arise from that short term inquiry. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(10.29) —I am afraid that that answer has to go down in the history books as one pretty ignorant of the way business operates. It is quite fanciful. If the Government thinks that businesses can pick up and put down at the whim of a government and have a year's interruption of their operations, it is no wonder that the country is in such a terrible state. For goodness sake, we cannot have millions of dollars invested in an industry and then just tell that industry, practically overnight, to shut down at the whim of a government which does not seem to have any understanding at all of the way business works. I hope that everybody in Australia can understand just what this means. If we put dollars into something and somebody comes along and tells us to stop, we are not going to continue to put dollars into that industry. What does that mean? That means that there are no more jobs. It is not just what will happen this year; it is a long term investment. It is a matter of tremendous concern to Tasmania, and it is quite clear now why the Government is taking this action. It has no idea what enormous impact this decision is going to make on this industry. I find the Minister's answer absolutely incomprehensible. This is clearly a government run by Labor ideologues and fuelled by bureaucrats with no experience at all in the workplace. The Government is totally removed from the real world. It is living in the ivory tower of Canberra. For goodness sake, what is wrong with the lot of them? Send them out to the States. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- The PRESIDENT —Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.30) —I rise on the adjournment tonight to speak about certain aspects of the capital gains tax as it affects the mining industry. It is, of course, the declared objective of the Liberal and National parties to abolish the capital gains tax as soon as they are elected to office. At the outset I remind the Senate of the difficulties presently being experienced by the mining industry. The price of iron ore has recently fallen. Mount Newman was forced by the Japanese to take a reduction of 3 per cent in the price it was paid for its iron ore. The industry did tip that the reduction could be as drastic as 10 per cent. It was only a little over a year ago that the price of oil fell by more than half. That price has not yet recovered. Coal prices will continue to be under pressure particularly in view of the reduced demand for coal and iron by Japanese steel mills. As the Government has said, our metal and mineral exports have been savaged by the world market. This is the situation of the mining industry. It is for this reason that the effect that the governments capital gains taxes are likely to be all the more damaging. It is ironic to remember that only shortly before the introduction of the capital gains tax, during debate on the fringe benefits tax, I warned the Government that average returns for the mining industry were only a little over 5 per cent on capital. I would like to direct the Government's attention to the matter of farm-outs. I remind the Senate that the capital gains tax is supposed to tax capital gains-the making of money from the selling of property. It was never portrayed as taxing what is in effect the raising of capital. Yet in reality that is the effect of the tax in the area of farm-outs. Typically a farm-out involves one party who holds an exploration permit seeking to share the risks and raise capital by inviting someone else into the project. It is really quite a simple arrangement. The owner of the property offers a share in the venture to another party in accordance with the amount the other party is prepared to expend on the project. This action which is designed primarily as a capital raising venture by the initial owner is regarded as the disposal of the property concerned under the capital gains tax legislation. The farmer may receive no cash in the hand whatsoever from the farmee but is required to pay capital gains tax. Similarly where the farmee simply enters the project on the basis that he will complete certain work the work is regarded as consideration for the disposal of the equity in the project. Once again there is no cash supplied, but a capital gains tax accrues and the farmer is required to produce the money. In this latter arrangement, where the farm-out takes place by reference to specified work rather than to work to a certain dollar value, there arises the additional difficulty of determining the value of the gain which has arisen. Quite possibly the Australian Taxation Office could make an assessment of the value of the disposal by determining the amount the farmee spent to do the work. This raises the immediate problem of cost overruns. This could occur because of inefficiency on the part of the farmee. It is hardly fair to assess value of the capital gain to the original owner on the basis of his ability to select efficient farm-out partners. There is also the possibility that the cost overruns are completely beyond the control of the farmee. Say there is an industrial dispute which holds up equipment or supplies perhaps hundreds of miles away. This might cause an extensive cost overrun. Will the Australian Taxation Office make allowances for these eventualities when it attempts to determine the value of the disposal of property on a farm-out? Whenever an explorer swaps property with another there is an exposure to capital gains tax. This arises because of the extremely limited nature of the rollover relief available under the capital gains tax legislation. A mining explorer may swap property for perfectly valid, economically efficient reasons. It may be that he finds that his equipment or skills are more suited to working in another type of area than the one he owns. A swap may be a highly efficient way of overcoming this. As I pointed out in the debate when this legislation was introduced, it is not the case that people who dispose of property are making great profits. As I have just demonstrated, it may be that the disposal is made only to invest in another piece of capital. Taxation simply reduces the ability to make that investment. It is inevitable in these situations where there are farm-outs, which are very legitimate, perfectly normal, commercial arrangements, particularly with respect to the oil industry, that there may not necessarily be an accruing cash or financial benefit to the person who is the original holder of the tenement. Yet under the circumstances I have spelled out he may find himself, for a number of reasons, attracting and attaching unto himself a capital gains tax. The final point I would like to mention while discussing the effect on the capital gains tax on mining farm-outs is the problem which the Govenment continually ignores and with which it continually plagues taxpayers. This is the matter of administrative costs. The capital gains tax legislation requires records to be kept for seven years after the disposal of an asset. These records are to show the calculation of any capital gain or loss and therefore must include not only the price received on disposal but also the amounts included in the asset's cost base. As I have indicated, calculating the cost base where property is acquired as a result of a farm-out will involve recording the amounts expended as consideration for the equity gained. It may not have occurred to the Government but the exploration and development of a mining tenement or a number of mining tenements or an area may take years. Then there may be a period of operation which could go on for some considerable time. It is possible that records could have to be kept for decades. The other matter which I would like to raise concerns the statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of 22 May 1986. In that statement he indicated: Gains realised on the sale, transfer or assignment by `Bona fide prospectors' of mining right relating to gold or metals and minerals which are prescribed under section 23 (pa) will also be exempt from the capital gains tax. It has been brought to my attention that this may not be the effect of the legislation due to the interaction of the sections of the Income Tax Assessment Act and the capital gains legislation. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard section 23 (pa) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Leave granted. The section read as follows- 23. The following income shall be exempt from tax. (pa) income derived by a person from the sale, transfer or assignment by the person of his rights to mine, in a particular area in Australia, for gold or for any prescribed metal or prescribed mineral, being a person who is a bona fide prospector, that is to say- (i) a person (other than a company) who has personally carried out the whole or the major part of the field work of prospecting for gold or for the prescribed metal or prescribed mineral, as the case may be, in that area or has contributed to the expenditure incurred in the work of prospecting and development in that area; or (ii) a company which has itself carried out the whole or the major part of such field work, except that- (iii) where, under Division 10, or under the Division for which that Division was substituted, a deduction has been allowed or is allowable from the assessable income of the taxpayer of any year of income in respect of expenditure on exploration or prospecting in a particular area, this paragraph applies to so much only of the income of the taxpayer derived from the sale, transfer or assignment by him of rights to mine in that area as exceeds the sum of any deductions so allowed or allowable; and (iv) this paragraph does not apply in respect of a sale, transfer or assignment of any right to mine for a metal or mineral, other than gold, if- (a) any party or parties of the one part to the sale, transfer or assignment has or have the power (whether under the terms of the transaction or otherwise) to control, directly or indirectly, the entry into the transaction by, or the activities in connexion with the mining rights of, a party of the other part; or (b) any person or persons has or have the power (whether under the terms of the transaction or otherwise) to control, directly or indirectly, the entry into the transaction by, or the activities in connexion with the mining rights of, a party of the one part and a party of the other part to the sale, transfer or assignment; Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Prior to the passing of the capital gains legislation, the section exempted both income as it is normally understood and capital gains because the two capital gains provisions in the Act, section 25a and section 26aaa, deemed what would otherwise be regarded as a capital gain to be assessable income. Following the passing of the Income Tax Assessment (Capital Gains) Act, section 25a no longer applies to property purchased after 19 September 1985. This property is now covered by the capital gains legislation. The effect of removing section 25a is that section 23 (pa) has a more limited operation for property purchased after the September 1985 cutoff date. It now covers only income and not capital gains. No longer are the two, by definition, described as income and exempt under the old definition. Despite the assurance given by the Treasurer in his statement, it appears that the sale of bona fide prospector's mining rights for prescribed metals particularly will be subject to capital gains tax, even if not income tax. The attempt was made to protect prospectors in section 160 L (7) of the capital gains legislation. That section says that the capital gains tax does not apply if section 23 (pa) applies, but it does nothing to reverse the restriction imposed upon section 23 (pa) by the change which was made to section 25a. I might point out that the comments that I have made do not apply to gold tenements. They are saved by section 160 L (6) which exempts assets from capital gains tax if they were used for producing exempt income. Income from gold mining is exempt under section 23 (o) of the income tax Act. The point is that prospectors for other metals are liable to capital gains tax when they were not previously. The prescribed metals and minerals which are now exposed in this way were at August last year. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which demonstrates and defines the prescribed metals and minerals as such. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Asbestos Ores of Bauxite Antimony Chromita Arsenic Emery Beryllium Fluorspar Bismuth Graphite Cobalt Ilmenite Columbium Kyanite Copper Magnesite Lithium Manganese Oxides Mercury Mica Molybdenum Monazite Nickel Quartz Crystals Osmiridium (piezo-electric quality) Platinum Radio-active Ores Selenium Rutile Strontium Sillimanite Tantalum Vermiculite Tellurium Zircon Tin Tungsten Vanadium Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I note the comments made in the Gutman gold tax inquiry, an inquiry which recommended the retention of section 23(pa) as a cost-effective encouragement to exploration. Gutman also indicated that no cost estimates had been made of the income foregone under section 23(pa) but he said that it did not appear to be substantial. Only 1,000 taxpayers received exemptions under section 23(pa) in 1984-85; only a small proportion-some 5 per cent of the exemptions under section 23 (pa)-related to mining for metals other than gold. It is obvious that the complete restitution of section 23(pa) would not be costly to the Commonwealth. As Gutman indicated, it is a valuable stimulus to the smaller prospectors in the mining industry. Such a change, in my view, ought to be made. Let me return to the first part of my speech. It is obvious that the capital gains tax is having ramifications far beyond the picture the Government has chosen to paint for us. It is threatening capital raising and not just catching speculative profits as such. It is a threat to the mining industry. I conclude by saying that I earnestly ask the Government to seek to inquire into the interpretations that I have placed upon the removal of section 25a after 19 September 1985 and the effect that that is having on section 23(pa). The ultimate effect of the amalgamation of those two proposals would simply mean that from now on the sale the sale of mining tenement by prospectors for metals or minerals, defined and described in the section, are now subject to a capital gains tax which, I understood from the Minister at the time, was not the intention, thrust or purpose of the legislation. As I pointed out, and as Gutman pointed out, that is a very small section in terms of numbers of people, and the amount of revenue to the Government is insignificant but it is having a burdening effect of removing the stimulus for exploration of those metals and minerals which are defined in section 23(pa). I earnestly ask the Government to reconsider its position to ensure that section 23(pa) and section 25a are reinstated in their original status so we can create the stimulus for exploration in mining in those areas in the same way that we have seen enormous stimulus because of the lifting of the threat of a tax on gold. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education) —I seek leave to make a short explanation about something that was said in the Committee stage of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987. Leave granted. Senator RYAN —During that stage, Senator Newman sought to inquire as to the Government's expectations about compensation. I gave her a short answer which was that the Government does not expect to pay compensation because of the relatively short period of the inquiry and because logging areas in the southern forests are protected. However, the Bill provides for compensation for those directly affected. If people can establish losses they can seek compensation. The Government has also given a commitment in the second reading speech to consider ex gratia payments to people other than those directly affected if they have incurred losses due to the Bill having made certain acts unlawful. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(10.44) —I want to address my comments to the Australian Airlines plan to cease operating on western Queensland air routes and the decision by the Hawke Labor Government to remove a $2m a year subsidy from the western Queensland air routes. The decision has serious ramifications for the people of western Queensland who depend very much for their means of transport and the getting of parts, newspapers and bank papers on those services. The distances are so vast that the only way that people can practically travel is by having a relatively quick and regular airline service to these great outback areas. Australian Airlines services out of the way places such as Birdsville, Windorah and Winton and important towns such as Charleville, Roma and Longreach; it even services Barcaldine. Without these regular airline services to Barcaldine, Senator Georges would be unable to make his annual pilgrimage to the Tree of Knowledge. It is said that the Australian Labor Party was founded in Barcaldine. Now the Labor Party will have to find some other means of transport to Barcaldine. The facts remain that so much of the nation's wealth is created in the outback areas of Queensland, by mining, wheat, wool and cattle, and yet this Government has once again demonstrated its absolute cavalier attitude to the primary producers of this nation. It has reduced the airline subsidy by $5m from $7m to $2m and only a couple of months ago it reduced the $2m to nothing, thereby inflicting a decision upon Australian Airlines to no longer continue the routes into western Queensland. It is acknowledged that the services run at a loss and have been subsidised for many years. Last year there was a loss of $4m. This financial year, losses on western Queensland air routes are expected to be up to $9m. This must be balanced by two factors: The first is the value of the service to the people of western Queensland which I have already spoken about; and the second factor is that Australian Airlines benefit from the two-airline agreement which gives it duopoly rights on many air routes in this country. Its annual report shows that total revenue from passengers last year was $758m with a net profit of $34m. Australian Airlines benefits enormously from the two-airline agreement and now wants to renege on its responsibilities to provide a full service to all Australians, which it has to give under the terms of the two-airline agreement. It is not on for it to say that it will not service an unprofitable route when it continues to reap the benefits of a two-airline agreement. As we all know, currently there is vigorous debate in Australia about the deregulation of domestic airlines. I know that I will find it difficult to support a two-airline agreement when this debate comes up if the airlines that receive the benefits of the two-airline agreement are not prepared to accept their responsibilities and service the outback areas of Australia, not only of Queensland. I note that Senator Robertson, on the other side, nods in agreement. These airline companies are given a licence to print money. If they are not prepared to honour the agreement and service the outback areas, I for one will not be able to support a two-airline agreement. I also point out that if Australian Airlines can spend $60m to change its name and image from Trans Australia Airlines it can afford the relatively small loss it suffers by operating the western Queensland air service when compared with its overall operation. Australian Airlines would impress many more Queenslanders by maintaining its western services than by expensive advertising and public relations campaigns. We are now faced with a situation in western Queensland where, in one month's time, with maybe an extension of two weeks, there will be no air services. A great number of people rely on those aeroplanes to go to hospital, to receive health benefits in the cities and to send their children to school. One of the fears that people in the outback areas of Queensland are expressing is that they will get an inferior service not only in the times that flights are scheduled but also in the type of plane that will be operating in those areas. People are concerned that unless in the summer months the aircraft are pressurised the trips will be terribly rough; and unless they can fly at something like 19,000 feet a great deal of sickness and disruption will be caused to the people who travel in them. I call on Senator Georges, who is sitting in the chamber, to support me on this matter. I have travelled to western areas with Senator Georges and I have pointed out to him the great difficulties that are experienced by people in the Longreach, Barcaldine, Clermont and Hughenden area. Senator Georges, as a representative not only of city and metropolitan areas but of Queensland, should join me in this debate and stand up for the people of Queensland and ask the Government and Australian Airlines to continue their services because they enjoy the benefits of a two-airline policy and they have reneged on their responsibilities to service the outback areas of Queensland. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(10.52) —I do not want to delay other honourable senators, but if I do not respond the Senator Boswell no doubt he will mention it from time to time. What I found extraordinary about Senator Boswell's contribution was this: He attacked Australian Airlines for withdrawing from a service that has proved to be desperately unprofitable. The reason for that is that an arrangement that Australian Airlines came to with the Queensland Government was reneged on by the Queensland Government, which allowed another airline to intrude. I would support Senator Boswell if he had said that, as a result of the benefits which Australian Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia received from the two-airline agreement, they ought to be providing services to outback places. Senator Boswell —That is exactly what I said. Senator GEORGES —No, the honourable senator did not; he concentrated just on Australian Airlines. Senator Boswell —No, I didn't. Senator GEORGES —Yes, the honourable senator did. If he were to amend his remarks and include Ansett, he would have my wholehearted support. Senator Boswell —I agree with Senator Georges. Senator GEORGES —The honourable senator has conceded the point. He really meant to include both airlines in his remarks. If that is what he meant to do, I support him because airlines have responsibility, charging the fares they do between capital cities, and between Sydney and Canberra in particular-- Senator Crichton-Browne —You try flying to Perth, George. Senator GEORGES —And Perth too, I am not quite certain about that. The point is that, if the airlines are to get benefits on the main routes and charge high fares on those routes, they ought to be providing services to areas which are not profitable. That is the situation in western Queensland. The people there, even more than city people, deserve a quick, efficient and comfortable air service, which they are not receiving at present, let alone what will happen when Australian Airlines pulls out. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(10.54) —On Monday evening I spoke in the adjournment debate about a matter relating to my constituency, and fortuitously the Special Minister of State, Senator Tate, was then also the Minister at the table. I remind him that I spoke about Dr Peachey and the Beaconsfield medical practice that he was hoping to take over. The option has now expired; we are now into April. I also remind the Minister that I had written three letters, starting last November, to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) and received three acknowledgments and no replies. I also remind him that it is approximately 30 weeks since Dr Peachey applied in South Africa for permission to migrate to Australia. I also remind the Senate that Dr Peachey is a specialist in underwater medicine and has a wife who is a triple certificate nursing sister. I am sure the Minister will remember those details. I hope he also remembers that he said to me, when I complained about the delay in getting an answer from the Minister's office, that I should have rung the Minister's office earlier-that it might have unstuck things. I draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that I spoke in the adjournment debate on Monday night after having been told by the Minister's office in the middle of last week that the letter was in the mail to me. The letter has still not arrived, even though I presume that the Minister's good offices have taken place in the meantime. I draw the Senate's attention to the lack of capacity there seems to be in the office of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in dealing with his correspondence, in expediting applications for visas and in replying to senators' representations in this chamber on behalf of their constituents. I hope that this time Senator Tate may be able to unplug the system. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —I seek leave to make a statement on the issue that was raised by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) by leave in the adjournment debate tonight. Leave not granted. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.56) —Today and yesterday we have seen an incredible manipulation of the timetable by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans) which has led to a great deal of confusion in this place and problems for the conduct of Estimates committees. The Manager of Government Business has taken the attitude that the Opposition does not count, that it does not have any rights in this place; and this was further emphasised at lunch time today when he refused to allow the General Business debate which normally takes place on Thursday. Tonight we saw a continuation of the Government inappropriately trying to use the forms of this place. We had a disgraceful situation in which an answer given by a Minister was queried by this side of the House. An opportunity was given by means of interjection to correct that answer. The Minister sat there refusing to correct that answer, and yet she used the forms of this adjournment debate to make some sort of statement which a number us missed hearing. I believe that Ministers are abusing their rights and privileges in this place to the detriment of parliamentary democracy in Australia. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(10.58) —Senator Crichton-Browne raised a question relating to capital gains tax and its effect on resources development, but in the course of it he gave a very long legal opinion which he claimed-- Senator Crichton-Browne interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Crichton-Browne should not be making interjections and he should be in his correct seat. Senator TATE —Yes; so I hope it is not recorded by Hansard. Nevertheless, the information Senator Crichton-Browne gave to the chamber was an extended legal opinion on his understanding of the effect of the abolition or removal of certain provisions on 19 September 1985 from the Income tax Assessment Act, I take it to be. He claims that it has an effect which is at variance with the announced understanding of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) as to the impact of that package of legislation. I will certainly bring that matter to the attention of the Treasurer. Senator Boswell brought up the question of the ramifications of the withdrawal of the subsidy, I think he said, of the order of $2m which had formerly been paid to Australian Airlines in order to service some of the communities and therefore the peoples of outback Queensland. He was supported in his remarks, not so particularly those directed to Australian Airlines, by Senator Georges, who pointed out the responsibilities of both airlines being protected by legislation of this Parliament in the generation of their profit base, et cetera, to service areas which might, on the surface, appear to be unprofitable. I will bring those matters to the attention of the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris). Senator Newman brought up the question which has already been brought to the attention of the chamber of the difficulty that a South African medical practitioner has had in securing the necessary documentation and permission to enter Australia and take up a medical practice in an area adjacent to Launceston and service a small country community. I have, as I undertook to do, passed on to the office of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) the Hansard of Monday night. I can only say that I will make yet another representation by forwarding to the Minister the Hansard of tonight's contribution by Senator Newman. Mr President, the other matters that were raised were dealt with by you. I do not know whether I need to explain why I did not grant leave to Senator Watson. As I understood it, the Minister for Education asked for leave to make a personal explanation. It is customary in this place always to give leave when a honourable senator rises to make a personal explanation. I did not know what the content of Senator Ryan's personal explanation would be. I arrived in the chamber just after the adjournment debate started. As I understood it, Senator Watson merely stood up and asked for leave to continue an element of the Committee stage of the debate on the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Committee of Inquiry) Bill. Senator Walters —You were in here. Senator TATE —I am sorry, Senator, I was not here when the adjournment debate commenced. I understood that the normal rule in this place was that the adjournment debate when commenced superseded any questions which had been before the Chair, obviously including the Committee stage of a debate. I acted in perfectly good faith in memory of a reprimand that was meted out to me by Sir Condor Laucke when, in my enthusiasm in my first few months in this place, I tried to continue a second reading debate in the adjournment debate because I did not feel that I had had enough time when I was speaking at the second reading stage of the debate. I understood that Senator Watson had risen to continue the Committee stage of the debate and I thought the adjournment superseded the Committee stage or, indeed, any question before the Chair. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(11.04) —I rise on the adjournment to defend the honour of Senator Ryan, which I think was rather unjustly and unfairly traduced by what Senator Watson had to say. I hope that in speaking to this I will be able to clarify for the benefit of Senator Chaney and others the procedural matters in issue here and hopefully make unnecessary any further debate on this matter. I repeat for Senator Chaney's benefit that I hope I can clarify the procedural issues and make unnecessary any further debate on this once it is understood what did in fact occur. Senator Reid —You weren't in here. Senator GARETH EVANS —I was listening to it on the blower and I have subsequently informed myself of the detailed sequence of events. They were as follows: Just before 10.30 p.m. Senator Ryan, in answer to a perfectly reasonable question from Senator Newman about compensation payable, gave an answer on advice from officials which was incomplete and, in fact, misleading. At that time, at 10.30 p.m., the adjournment was called on and it became-- Senator Walters —No, you have missed a bit. you have missed a lot. Senator GARETH EVANS —The error was drawn to Senator Ryan's attention by subsequent contributions, if you like, to the debate. Before it was possible for Senator Ryan to clarify the situation, which she was in the process, as I understand it, of trying to do, and find out what the proper answer was in response to the points that were being made, it came to 10.30 p.m. and we were in the adjournment debate. At the first opportunity in the adjournment debate, Senator Ryan rose to her feet and took advantage of standing order 408 which is, as honourable senators will be aware, in the following terms: By the indulgence of the Senate- that is to say, the leave of the Senate- a Senator may explain matters of a personal nature, although there be no Question before the Senate; but such matters may not be debated. It was pursuant to that standing order that Senator Ryan sought leave to make a personal explanation. The personal explanation was one of a familiar kind in this place-that she had inadvertently mislead the Senate in her earlier answer and she wished to supplement that answer and put the correct answer on the record so that there would be no further misunderstanding of her position. It was after that, as I understand it, that Senator Watson sought leave to make a statement, at that stage it being clear that what was in issue was not the accuracy or otherwise of what Senator Ryan had said but the substance of it. In other words, it was getting into a debate on the issue which had itself been the subject matter of the Committee stage. Senator Tate denied leave. He did so entirely consistently with the rulings and procedures of this place. I refer to page 200-if people would not mind having a look at it-of Odgers Australian Senate Practice where this is said: On a motion for-- Senator Archer —You quote Odgers when it suits you, don't you. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am doing this on the advice of the Clerks. This is what is assisting us through the morass that this might otherwise become. Odgers says: On a motion for adjournment a Senator cannot allude to a debate in Committee, except by the indulgence of the Senate for personal explanations. What was in issue here from Senator Ryan's perspective, and deliberately put in these terms, was a request to make a personal explanation because she had made a statement which was incomplete, she had been challenged on that statement and she wanted to correct it for the record to make it clear that she had not been deliberately or otherwise misleading the Senate. When Senator Watson sought to further the debate, he was not doing so by way of a personal explanation; he was doing so by way of a further challenge to what was said and a desire to continue the substance of the debate. It is perfectly proper for Senator Watson to do that, as no doubt he will, when the Committee stage is resumed. But it is not proper to get into that on the adjournment. It was for that reason, and that reason alone, that Senator Tate denied leave. If Senator Tate had not denied leave, it would have been appropriate for the President to rule Senator Watson out of order had he purported to continue with it. I do not think even Senator Watson would claim that what he was trying to do was make a personal explanation. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.08) —Mr President, I had thought not to intervene in the adjournment debate because it seemed to me that Senator Gareth Evans was doing his best to put an untidy situation right. But it seems to me that he got it completely messed up at the end and that Senator Tate is equally confused. What we have is a Minister who again has given apparently incorrect information to the Senate and who, understandably, to protect her somewhat fragile reputation sought to make a personal explanation. She did that and apparently corrected the misinformation that she had given the Senate earlier in the debate. That then involved Senator Watson seeking leave to make a statement. It is my understanding that one can do anything in the Senate by leave. If leave had been given, Senator Watson would have been entitled to make the point that he was seeking to make. I just want to say to the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans) and to Government senators that it is all very well for Ministers contemptuously to criticise Opposition senators when they raise points and then later to come into this place on the adjournment and correct their errors. The Opposition is not terribly impressed when an attempt to make a statement by leave by one of the Opposition senators involved is then denied. All I can say is that co-operation is a two-way street. If leave is going to be given to Ministers in these circumstances, I think leave should be given to members of the Opposition. We have had to put up with a good deal from Senator Ryan. She gave us an answer on interest rates recently which she then told us was incorrect. She told us that there was no prospect of a reduction in housing interest rates through, I think, to the middle of 1988. She then, in the most extraordinary series of answers, withdrew from that position. She told us that there was no way that the Government was a party to paying the tertiary fee that she introduced-- Senator Ryan —Be careful. You are on dangerous ground. What I said was absolutely right and you were seeking to mislead. Senator CHANEY —Here we go. Here is the Minister who presides over an administration which issues explanatory notes to senators as a guidance; she has not read them; she has not authorised them; and she has to crawfish her way out of it-- Senator Ryan —You were seeking to mislead the Senate. The PRESIDENT —Order! I would ask Senator Ryan to cease interjecting and I would ask Senator Chaney to make his remarks through the Chair, and not in reply to interjections. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I thank you for your protection. The point I was making-- Senator Gareth Evans —Is this on the point of order? The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Evans. I call Senator Chaney. Senator CHANEY —The point I was making is that Senator Ryan seems to be blissfully unaware that there seems to have been a substantial move, in the administration of which she is at least partly responsible, to pay this fee on behalf of public servants. Senator Gareth Evans —Is this a point of order or are you making an adjournment speech? Senator CHANEY —I am speaking on the adjournment. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chaney is speaking on the adjournment. Senator CHANEY —Thank you, Mr President, for your protection yet again. The point is that Senator Ryan has shown herself to be completely ignorant of what is going on in her Department. One must question the situation we have arrived at when documents are provided to the Senate, and answers are provided to the Senate, which Ministers then feel free to come into the Senate and tell us we cannot rely on. What is the record of Senator Ryan? Senator Ryan's record is that she stood up and told us in the Senate that a certain state of affairs existed with respect to interest rates. She then went out of the Senate; she was spoken to by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke); she came back and recited the Prime Minister's account of what is going to happen to interest rates. But the critical thing for the Senate is that it is quite clear that what she has told us is that we are not entitled to rely on her answers if they are taken from a briefing note which she has read if she subsequently decides that the briefing note-even though it is a briefing on facts-does not represent Government policy. That is a pretty extraordinary proposition, because it really means that the whole basis of Question Time, and the whole basis of believing that it is the ultimate parliamentary sin to mislead the parliamentary chamber, is being undermined by the actions of this Minister. She has, it seems to me, displayed an extraordinary capacity to depart from accepted parliamentary standards and to be quite unblushing and unashamed about it. I think that for a Minister, who has misled the Senate as substantially as Senator Ryan has over recent times, to then have her colleagues preventing Opposition senators from making statements by leave when she herself has been given the leave of the Senate, is pathetic and, on behalf of the Opposition, I would simply like to record my strongest possible objection to the Minister's refusing leave in those circumstances. I think that it is entirely inappropriate and it is typical of the conduct that is, I think, making the Senate a very difficult place to manage. Senator Coates —He did not ask for leave to make a personal explanation. Senator CHANEY —The fact of the matter is that, in a situation where the Government has admitted to misleading the chamber and where the Minister herself has admitted to misleading the chamber, not for the first time, I would have thought that sensible give and take would enable the Opposition to have something to say on this matter, rather than leave being refused. I came in here and though that it might be appropriate to move for the suspension of Standing Orders to enable the debate to be resumed now. I think, on the other hand, since it is the fourth sitting day of the third week, since all senators are beginning to look very tired and since we are sitting again at 9 o'clock in the morning we can take up the debate then and that will do. All that I want to say is that if we get a continuation of the treatment that is being meted out by the Government, then we will respond in kind especially when we get the sort or petulance that was shown in the Parliament today. We put up with Senator Walsh taking 10 minutes to answer the first short question that was asked in this place. The Leader of the Government then sought leave to incorporate an answer at the end of Question Time because it was lengthy and, because he was refused leave, he petulantly refused to give a second reading speech. All I can say is that any suggestion from the Manager of Government Business that it is the Opposition which ought to be extending some co-operation is farcical. We have put up day after day with rubbish from the Minister for Finance, whose approach to answering questions and to the Opposition is utterly offensive and totally outside the traditions of this House. I put the Government on notice that, if we are to continue to put up with that, it will be repaid in kind. I do not mean that we will try to emulate the boorishness of Senator Walsh. I do not mean that at all because, unfortunately, we do not have that capacity, but we will use the forms of this place to ensure that it is not an easy place for the Government to work in. I say that with regret because it is my view that the Parliament as a legislature has significantly declined over recent years. I suppose that none of us is guiltless in that respect. Senator Aulich —Exactly. Senator CHANEY —The senator who said `exactly' has contributed nothing to this place since he arrived and I do not appreciate his contribution now. However, I do want to say that unless there is some return to a reasonable level of manners in this place from Government senators, the place will become unmanageable and unworkable. I suggest that, in particular, the Government should ensure that Senator Walsh adopts rather higher standards in this place in future than in the past and that if he fails to do so, all I can say is that this chamber will be a place where the achievement of government business will be a very slow matter indeed. Senator Gareth Evans —I rise on a point of order. I acknowledge the force of something, at least, that Senate Chaney said, and that is that this Senate can grant leave to a senator to say anything, whatever might otherwise be the case in the Standing Orders. If Senator Watson, for example, were to be granted leave now, he could canvass an issue that was raised in the Committee stage. The reason why he was denied leave earlier was that it was all too evidently clear that Senator Watson, and I suspect quite a few on his team, were all too anxious not just to correct a particular point but to embark upon a full scale repetition of the debate. If it is the case that Senator Watson simply wants to put something on the record to clarify something which he thinks may have been a misstatement and he seeks leave in order to do so now, that leave will not be denied. I hope that that particular-- Senator Kilgariff —When didn't you do that before? Senator Gareth Evans —I am explaining that I hope, Senator Kilgariff, that that particular small gesture of conciliation and co-operation-I have no confidence that it will make any difference to some members of the Opposition-will succeed in finally clearing the air at least on this particular matter tonight and enable us, after a reasonable night's sleep, to approach the last day of our third week of sitting with a little more sanity than seems likely at the moment. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —I wish to take up the offer afforded by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, and seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator WATSON —Unfortunately the Minister attributed improper motives to what he thought I might wish to say. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that I was somewhat affronted and concerned at the lack of courtesy displayed by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). She was aware that this was an important issue. It is a normal courtesy of this place to inform those who are affected or interested in the subject matter being raised on an adjournment debate. Senator Ryan did not follow the usual courtesies that are afforded to members in this place this evening in that she rose and sought to make a personal explanation but did not give notice to the four Tasmanian senators, who had a close interest in the matter and who challenged the initial statement in the first place. I think it is a sad day when the courtesies of this House are ignored for the purposes of putting a political point of view. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.20 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals 1987-No. 3-New topics to be included in the population survey. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act-Price Determination, dated 27 March 1987. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1103) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: (1) What measures did the Federal Government make to address the problem of informing people of their legal rights, in 1984 and 1985, and what information procedures are currently in place or in prospect, in line with remarks made by the President of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, Justice Michael Kirby, that not enough was being done in this area. (2) Does the Attorney-General accept Justice Kirby's further assertion that there is a dangerous hypocrisy in deeming everybody to know the law but doing very little to ensure that citizens have a ready means of access to the basic rules by which they are governed. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) I am not aware of the context in which the remarks attributed to Mr Justice Kirby may have been made. While I am not in a position to provide details of measures taken within the portfolios of other Ministers, a number of measures have been taken within my own portfolio to inform the public about legislation for which I am responsible. These measures include publication of pamphlets and brochures, as follows: Trade Practices and Consumer Affairs ``Trade Associations'' ``Deceptive Business Practices'' ``Insurance and the Trade Practices Act; a guideline for the insurance industry'' ``The Money Matters Made Much More Meaningful Manual'' (a booklet aimed at young people outlining their consumer rights and responsibilities) ``Contract with Debt'' (a video with an associated teaching kit prepared in association with the Victorian Ministry of Consumer Affairs and the Victorian Law Foundation) ``Insurance and the Trade Practices Act: a Guideline for the Insurance Industry'' ``Objectives, Policies and Priorities in Relation to Restrictive Trade Practices'' ``Restatement of Future Directions of TPC Consumer Protection Work'' ``Deposits and Loans: their advertising and the Trade Practices Act'' ``Guide to the amendments to the Trade Practices Act'' ``Conferences on Recalls and Bans'' (a booklet providing guidance to industry on product recall) ``Consumer Product Standards Bans and Recalls'' (a leaflet for consumers) Administrative Law ``Reviewing Commonwealth Decisions'' (prepared for Law Week 1984 and 1985) ``The Administrative Appeals Tribunal'' ``Your AAT Hearing-What Will It Be Like?'' Freedom of Information ``Unlocking Government Information'' ``I Want To See My File'' ``How To Appeal'' (There have also been public seminars on the operation of the Freedom of Information Act, accompanied by media coverage, in Adelaide, Ballarat, Bendigo, Brisbane, Darwin, Geelong, Melbourne, Perth and Townsville. A number of other Commonwealth agencies have also undertaken their own programs to promote public awareness of the legislation.) Human Rights ``The Sex Discrimination Act and You'' ``The Sex Discrimination Act and Advertisers'' ``The Racial Discrimination Act and You'' ``Sexual Harassment in the Workplace'' ``Sexual Harassment in Educational Institutions'' ``Putting the Sex Discrimination Act into Practice'' ``Leave Me alone'' (a video and teaching manual on sexual harassment) ``Getting the Most Out of Work'' (a pamphlet on the rights and responsibilities of young people in a discrimination free work environment) ``The Human Rights Commission and You'' Family Law ``Family Law-Lawyers, Legal Costs, Legal Aid'' ``The Importance of Access for you and your children'' ``Property Settlements in the Family Court'' ``Abduction of Children from Australia'' ``Family Court of Australia-Applying for a Divorce: A Practical Guide to Processing Your Own Divorce'' ``Marriage Breakdown and Separation'' ``Separation, Divorce and the Family Court'' ``You can Prevent Your Child Being Taken'' Other Matters ``Criminal Injury Compensation Ordinance: How Can I Apply for Compensation?'' ``Copyright Law in Australia'' ``Who Gets Legal Aid?'' It is also proposed to produce an information pamphlet on the Cheques and Payment Orders Act 1986. Information procedures currently in place include: appearance of Commissioners and officers of the Trade Practices Commission and National Companies and Securities Commission on television and radio; frequent issues by the National Companies and Securities Commission of policy statements, practice notes and general bulletins to give guidance as to the laws administered by it; information sessions held by the various Family Court registries; and a quarterly newsletter ``Minder'' dealing with consumer and business issues distributed to business schools and tertiary institutions. a video on the Constitution entitled ``Whereas the people . . . '' published by the Australian Constitutional Convention. Within the limits of existing resources, high priority will continue to be given to explaining the operation of laws coming within my portfolio. Senator Gietzelt —On 19 February 1987 (Hansard, page 265) Senator Hamer asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Transport, the following question without notice: Has the Minister representing the Minister for Transport seen reports that crew levels in some Australian-manned ships are to be sharply reduced to levels only slightly higher than international standards? Though this would be a welcome improvement, is not the problem of crew numbers only one of the man-power problems which seriously affect the economic viability of Australian-manned ships, which have very high total manpower costs? What is being done to ensure that Australian crews do the same amount of maintenance work as the smaller crews from countries which have a higher standard of living than ours? Does not this failure of Australian crews to do reasonable maintenance work impose heavy additional ship costs on Australia? Is not the third problem the extraordinary leave entitlements of Australian seamen-6 months a year-so that in Australia one needs 48 men to fill 21 places on a ship? Why should Australian seamen have by far the highest leave entitlements in the world, double those of Norway, West Germany and nearly four times those of Japan? What is being done to stop these outrageous rorts, which are doing great harm to the Australian economy? The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Senator Hamer clearly has not appreciated the significance of recent industry and Government initiatives to improve the competitiveness of Australian flag shipping. The Report of the Maritime Industry Development Committee ``Moving Ahead'', recently endorsed by the Government, represents a major breakthrough. Through that Report the industry has re-examined traditional shipboard organisation and work practices and proposed a radical, new approach for Australian ships. The key element of that approach is the introduction into the industry, for the first time, of multi-skilled ratings, i.e. ratings capable of working both in the engineroom and on deck. This will add flexibility to the way labour is used on board ship and will permit full advantage to be taken of the productivity of high technology ships. This represents what is probably the single largest advance ever made by Australian shipping. That it has taken so long to get there is a condemnation of decades of neglect of shipping by previous Governments. As an immediate benefit, the MIDC proposals allow, as Senator Hamer has correctly acknowledged, crews in new Australian ships to be reduced significantly. More importantly, they will put in place a system of shipboard organisation that will allow Australian shipping to improve its competitive position over time, in step with the best of international practice. In assessing the overall efficiency of Australian shipping what matters is total operating costs not, as Senator Hamer suggests, merely crew costs. It is deliberately misleading to describe award conditions as ``rorts''. Senator Hamer would also be well aware that leave conditions are only part of the overall conditions and costs of employment of crews. These costs in turn can be offset by reductions in the non-crew component of total ship costs, which are up to 86% of total costs, and by higher payloads. Contrary to Senator Hamer's assertions, on a berth by berth basis, Australian costs are presently of the same order as those of German and Norwegian crewed ships, and considerably less than Japanese crewed ships. With lower crew sizes, the right design and operating * the proper market niche, Australian flag shipping can hold its own internationally. BHP's new bulk carriers, the ``Iron Pacific'', ``Iron Newcastle'' and ``Iron Kembla'', prove that. The MIDC proposals represent a remarkable industry achievement, an effective blueprint for the future of Australian shipping. They deserve the full support of all who want to see an effective industry providing long term, worthwile economic benefits to the nation.