Wednesday, 3 June 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in parliament assembled. The 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 Hill (from 53 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that. 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains a satellite communication dish, that sends to the United States the information, gathered by the `joint high frequency stations' in Australia and New Zealand, indicating the position of the Soviet naval ships and submarines. This information from Watsonia is combined with data from satellites and underwater sensors to calculate the location of the Soviet vessels with great accuracy. 2. This would make it possible for the US nuclear naval ships an submarines to destroy all nuclear Soviet naval ships and submarines, while the US nuclear submarines, naval ships and bombers launch their missiles in a `first strike' attack. 3. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 4. The `joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `Joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senator Zakharov (from 90 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth. The costs of raising children are rising and the value of government provided economic assistance to families is declining. Families raising children are providing a vital function to society and are deserving of government provided economic assistance. Your petitioners therefore urge the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: 1. Restore family allowance payments to their 1976 real money value. 2. Provide for the regular and automatic indexation of family allowance payments. 3. Increase the value of the Dependant Spouse Rebate to $1851 per annum and convert it to a cash payment given directly to the non-income earning spouse. 4. Amend the Family Income Supplement Scheme so that its value is increased, its eligibility provisions widened and its withdrawal provisions eased. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cook (from 206 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 Cook (from 72 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Brownhill (from 112 citizens), Cooney (from 23 citizens), MacGibbon (from 18 citizens), Parer (from 57 and 104 citizens), Robert Ray (from 56 citizens), Reid (from 62 citizens) and Short (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. There is no legal barrier to the importation of X-rated videos into the A.C.T. or to their sale in the A.C.T. 2. The Government has ignored the repeated protests of the Senate and the people of Canberra on this situation. 3. As a result X-rated videos are being sold from Canberra to other States, although they are banned in all States. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to put pressure on the Government to ban the importation and sale of X-rated video material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 130 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support ``The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill'' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of wide-spread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. by Senator Vigor (from 165 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Moreton Island is an invaluable natural resource for Queensland and the world and that mining on Moreton would gravely compromise its unique flora and fauna and its outstanding recreational archaeological and scientific values. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: Urge the government to use its proven constitutional powers to halt sand mining on Moreton by supporting the Moreton Island Preservation Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 1,965 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned: (i) are greatly disturbed by the dangers to health posed by passive smoking, and evidence of which is being documented daily by medical authorities around the world; (ii) note that environmental tobacco smoke has been identified as the major pollutant in aeroplane cabins, and that its direct threat to health is recognised in the special leave provisions for flight attendants specifically on grounds of upper respiratory infections; (iii) appreciate the government's undertaking to legislate for smoke-free travel on aeroplanes, but are dismayed at the apparent reluctance to follow up the Minister for Aviation's December announcement with action; and (iv) call upon the government to make smoke-free aeroplane travel a reality without further delay, and to ensure that smoke-free areas which cannot be contaminated by recycled pollutants, are available at all aerodromes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 100 citizens). To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The introduction of the Higher Education Administrative Charge for tertiary students has and will continue to restrict access to higher education for a range of disadvantaged groups, particularly women, low income earners, mature age, and part-time and external students. 2. Students are being deterred from furthering their education because of the probable escalation of the $250 charge in future Budgets, preventing students' ability to plan the long term costs of their education. 3. The introduction of the Administration Charge is contrary to the ALP/ACTU Accord and ALP policy which states that the party ``will maintain the provision of free tertiary education.'' Your petitioners therefore pray that the annual administrative charge and overseas students `visa charge' are abolished so that education will remain accessible to all. by Senator Vigor (from 144 citizens). This petition of the undersigned citizens shows their concern that Senators George Georges and Norm Sanders who represent the Senate on its Select Committee on Animal Welfare have been publicly reported as being opposed to hunting which occupation is morally legitimate and in accordance with the prevailing law, and therefore your petitioners request and recommend that these Senators be replaced on the Select Committee in order to ensure the public confidence in it and the results of its proceedings and your petitioners as in duty bound will pray. by Senator Short (from 61 citizens). To the Honourable Speaker of the Senate of Parliament House, Canberra. We the undersigned call for a moratorium on logging in the Eden area and an end to the woodchipping export licence. We humbly pray you give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sanders (from 252 citizens). Petitions received. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) appreciates the marked reduction in tobacco consumption in New Zealand since the Lange Government in 1986 used a sizable Budget increase in excise as part of its health strategy; and (b) commends a similar course of action in the preparation of the 1987-88 Budget in Australia as an effective means of discouraging smoking among the young. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Federal Government's blatant disregard for Queensland's cultural heritage; (b) notes that Brisbane's historic Shaftston House and Amity House, both Commonwealth properties listed by the National Trust and the Australian Heritage Commission, are being proposed for sale; and (c) calls on the Government to assume proper responsibility for the conservation of Queensland's architectural heritage. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the presence of a United States Navy Task Group led by the aircraft carrier Midway which is visiting 8 Australian ports between 31 May 1987 and 16 June 1987; (b) notes also that 5 of these 9 ships are likely to be carrying nuclear weapons on board; (c) commends the Australian peace movement for opposing the visit of these nuclear armed warships to our ports; (d) condemns the refusal of the United States Navy to admit the presence of nuclear weapons on board these ships when any Australian citizen can find out just by looking up what is on board these vessels by checking a copy of Jane's Fighting Ships in any public library; (e) regrets the refusal of the Federal Government to consider the social consequences of 9,000 visiting sailors by continuing to refer to their visits as rest and recreation and only counting the cost in dollars; (f) calls on the Australian Government to place a moratorium on all nuclear ship port calls while the Senate inquiry into the port safety arrangements for such visits is under way; and (g) further calls on the Government to make the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone fully comprehensive by including a ban on all nuclear powered and nuclear armed warships in the region as Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, New Zealand and the legally elected Government of Fiji have already done. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with deep concern that the Queensland Premier's decision to withdraw his bid for Canberra ensures that Queensland will have to endure for many years yet the State's unfair electoral system; and (b) condemns the continued refusal of both the Federal Labor and Liberal parties to hold a referendum which would enshrine the one vote one value principle in the Constitution, thereby replacing the Queensland electoral system with one consistent with democratic principles. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, condemning: (a) the disruptive tactics of the Queensland Premier which have created havoc in Her Majesty's Opposition; and (b) the extravagance of the Queensland Premier in using Queensland Government resources to promote a personal ambition which he has now abandoned, expresses its sincere regrets to National Party Leader Mr Ian Sinclair who has been jilted by the Queensland National Party while Liberal Leader Mr John Howard has rushed off to Brisbane for the shotgun wedding. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes with concern that Mr John Singleton, having once been sacked for telling the truth about Medicare, is now to be paid $4m for telling lies about it. Motions (by Senator Georges) agreed to: 1. That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Georges moving a motion relating to the order of business on the Notice Paper. 2. That General Business Notice of Motion No. 348, standing in the name of Senator Georges, be called on forthwith. 3. That the Senate declares that no changes in the structure or responsibilities of the Parliamentary departments should be made until- (a) particulars of proposed changes have been provided to all senators; (b) the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing has examined the proposed changes and reported to the Senate; and (c) the Senate has approved of the changes. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(10.09) —I move: That Government Business, Order of the Day No. 16, Customs Tariff Bill 1987 and two related Bills, Customs Tariff (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 and Customs Tariff (Installations at Sea) Bill 1987, be considered together with Government Business, Order of the Day No. 3. I understand that this has been the subject of discussion around the chamber, and there is agreement that these two formal harmonisation Bills be dealt with at the same time and in the same package as the customs and excise Bills that are being considered later today. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 4 May, 7 May, 20 March and 28 April, on motions: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.10) —One of the Bills before the Senate is the Social Security Amendment Bill 1987. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) described this Bill as `measures to streamline the Social Security Act and its administration'. That all sounds quite innocuous; however, this Bill covers a multitude of sins. I will quote from the Minister's second reading speech. He said: As honourable members will be aware, the Government has taken initiatives to ensure that social security expenditure is limited to those who are eligible under the Act. Measures have also been taken to reduce the level of overpayments. This includes initiatives to limit fraud and to detect and prosecute those who abuse the system. That sounds fine. In line with that, the Minister assured us some time ago that the easy time for dole cheats was over and the work test would be enforced. He said that the Government would crack down on them. That statement was hardly put in a restrained manner. I am sure that everyone here would agree. It was only recently that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that there needed to be a tougher work test. Let us see what the Government has done to tighten up the Act to overcome these excessive frauds and overpayments occurring in the Department of Social Security. The Minister assured us in his second reading speech that he would toughen up the work test. At the time of the last Budget we were told with much fanfare that the Government would undertake a review of all young unemployed people who had been unemployed for more than two years. There were to be interviews and counselling in an effort to see whether we could help all those young people who had been unemployed for more than two years. The Government was also to conduct a review to look at their financial position to make sure that these people were not defrauding the Government, that they were not accepting the unemployment benefit while they had jobs or part time jobs. This was thought to be necessary because the increase in the long term unemployed had ballooned under this Government. But what actually happened? The Minister made his high falutin statements and members of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association-the union of officers of the Department of Social Security-refused to carry out the Minister's requests. They said that they would not ask the questions the Minister had set them to ask, that they would not ask any questions if they did not feel like it, that they would not ask for any identification if they did not feel like it and, indeed, that they would do their own thing and were not going to be told what to do by the Minister. We all remember their work bans. They would not undertake the direction of the Minister. As usual, the Government was helpless before the onslaught of these unions. Nothing was done. The Minister sat on his hands for nearly 12 months. There was no crackdown on fraud and no reviews took place,-nothing at all. Finally, the Government has brought this legislation before us. It has done a real cave in. The unions have told it what they are prepared to do and the Minister has backed off. He said: `All right, you do what you want to do and we will conduct this public relations exercise for the benefit of the people of Australia because, after all, we are facing an election. We have to pretend to the people of Australia that we really are cracking down on the fraud that is going on within the Department'. The Auditor-General has already said that fraud is going on. The estimate is that the Government has been defrauded of roughly $1 billion. So we will just see in this legislation what the Government has been prepared to do. Let us not forget the questions that the Minister for Social Security wanted asked. Those questions simply are not being asked. Unions blatantly have refused to do so. They say: `If we think it is necessary we will ask those questions-but only if we think it is necessary'. The Minister has sat back and said: `All right, you take over. You ask the questions you think are necessary'. The Minister asks that questions be asked and that each page of the declaration be signed by the applicant for unemployment benefits. Unions have said: `We will not enforce that. We will not make them do that. People can sign at the end of the declaration, and that is all'. There will be one signature only. The unions also said that they would not indulge in any counselling unless they saw fit. It is up to the officers to determine the format and length of the interview. The Government has even backed off the requirement in the review to ask questions relating to identity because the officers said: `We will not be told by the Government how to conduct a review'. Employees of the Government have told it that they will conduct the review in the way they want. They will not necessarily ask questions about identity. If they do not want to they will not ask any questions at all and the declaration will have only one signature. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) admitted last year that he believed about 10,000 unemployed people were getting benefits that they were not entitled to. A pilot group of 4,000 people was interviewed. Of those 4,000 people, 1,000-a quarter-were getting unemployment benefits that they were not entitled to. But as for being able to investigate this throughout the whole of the Department, the unions have informed the Minister that that is not on. They will do what they want to do. This legislation increases penalties. I will read from the Minister's second reading speech: Penalties are to be increased for other offences under the Act. For failure to comply with the requirements to report circumstances or events which affect entitlement to a social security payment- that is good stuff- the penalty will be increased from a $500 fine to a $1,000 fine or six months imprisonment, or both . . . It goes on: For failure to comply with a requirement to provide information about entitlement, the fine will be increased from $1,000 and six months imprisonment to $2,000 or 12 months imprisonment, or both . . . That sounds like good stuff. But if the questions are not being asked, if identification is not being insisted upon and if signatures are not put on each page, as the Minister requested, how will any misstatements be proved? So we find in this legislation that the Minister is having a good public relations exercise-but that is all. He is not forcing his officers to carry out his demands. He is not forcing his employees to do the job that he wants them to do. I quote again from the Minister's second reading speech: Section 17 of the Principal Act places an obligation on officers not to divulge personal information obtained in the course of their duties. This section will be extended in line with the secrecy provisions in other Commonwealth legislation such as the Income Tax Assessment Act. Reference to `officers' will include former officers as well as others performing work for the Commonwealth . . . The Government sees the need for tightening the security of information. I could not agree more. I certainly am not critical of the officers of the Department. We are all well aware that there are a few-I stress `a few'-bad apples in every group of people. On one occasion some officers were caught selling private information. The Minister, very correctly, is trying to tighten up that area. So there is an attempt by the Government to tighten up the secrecy provisions but it will have to do a lot better than that before it can introduce an Australia-wide Australia Card. There is no guarantee at all that that private information can be kept secret. So much more is attached to that Bill. The Bill also provides for the indexation of the threshold limits on the assets test. Whilst under this Government I certainly would support the indexing of the threshold limits on the assets test, under our government there will not be this Government's assets test on the aged-no way in the wide world-and the people of Australia know it. One of our promises-and there have not been many-is that we will do away with the inhumane, uncaring and lacking in incentive assets test. There is no doubt in the community that after 11 July the assets test will go. Another area of the Bill we agree with is the provision whereby the Department's decision can be appealed against in every situation. This is very important to the rights of the people. I am glad to see it in this legislation. It is not so with some of the other Government legislation we will be discussing later in the week. There are a number of minor amendments, including provision for more effective recovery of compensation claims. Again, we agree with this. Perhaps of greatest concern to the Opposition is that this Government has attempted to sneak through-I say this because it is the truth-a redefinition of the words `de facto spouse'. It was not mentioned in the Minister's second reading speech or in the substantive legislation but is tucked away in the Schedule to the Bill. What has this Government done? This Government and its Ministers lack any standards. Do honourable senators remember Mick Young's long lunch? Mick Young was on the most secret committee this Government has, or any previous government had, which deals with the security of Australia and what did he divulge? He divulged to one of his mates the fact that they were tossing out a Russian spy and that Combe was involved. Senator Ryan —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: Senator Walters's remarks have nothing to do with the Bill at hand. I ask you to bring her to order and ask her to address her remarks to the legislation being debated. Senator Chaney —On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: It is the Government which has put together a series of Bills under this guillotine, including the mixture of social security amendments, which reduce the entitlements of invalid pensioners and widows; the Ships (Capital Grants) Bill, which provides for Commonwealth funds to be made available for ship building; and the Ministers of State Amendment Bill, which enables money to be paid to Ministers of State. It is not the fault of the Opposition that we are dealing with this disparate group of Bills. Talking about the behaviour of Ministers of this Government, including Mr Young who was guilty of a breach of national security in the rather shameful way that was indicated by Senator Walters, is perfectly legitimate in debate that includes debate on legislation that goes to the payments received, if not very adequately earned, by Ministers including the Minister at the table. I object in the strongest possible terms to a point of order on the issue of relevance when this Government, because of its untimely and early election that the Prime Minister promised he would not hold, has forced us to debate this extraordinary grab bag of Bills. Then the Minister dares to take a point of order, disturbing Senator Walters's comments on these Bills in this way. Clearly, there is no point of order and I think that you, Mr Acting Deputy President, should tell the Minister that she should not interrupt debate in this political and pathetic manner. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —I have noted the point of order. Senator Walters, I would ask you to stay within the guidelines. Senator WALTERS —I am talking about the standards in this legislation that I believe have been downgraded by this Government and, as such, I am talking about standards-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, I have ruled that you can continue and I have asked you to stay within the guidelines. Senator WALTERS —Under your ruling, Mr Acting Deputy President, still I come back to the standards of this Government. As I said we had the case of Mick Young, and also we had the Treasurer (Mr Keating) refusing to fill in his income tax forms. What sorts of standards are these? He received a letter from the Commissioner of Taxation-- Senator Ryan —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: I suggest that Senator Walters is defying the Chair. Now she is making allegations about the Treasurer which, even with the fantastic leaps of imagination in which Senator Chaney has just engaged, cannot be regarded as being in any way pertinent to the legislation. Senator Chaney —On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: Your ruling was that the senator on her feet could proceed. You did not rule her out of order and the point is that the Government has put before us legislation including legislation that involves the Ministers of this Government. It is acceptable to talk about the performance of those Ministers and, in my view, it would be quite wrong of you, Mr Acting Deputy President, to interfere with any comments that Senator Walters may choose to make about the performance of Ministers when we are debating whether or not we should pass legislation that enables the Ministers to be paid even more handsome salaries. Your previous ruling certainly was not a ruling to which I objected because, as I understood it, you did not rule Senator Walters out of order. The Minister has totally misinterpreted your ruling. As far as I am concerned, the Opposition would strongly resist any suggestion that, in these cognate debates that have been forced upon us by the Government, there is anything to prevent senators addressing matters that go to the range of Bills that are before us. Senator Coleman —On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: I draw Senator Chaney's attention to the fact that you have already ruled that Senator Walters was to stay within the bounds of the legislation before the chamber. She has deliberately moved outside the bounds of that legislation, and once again I have to ask, as part of my point of order, that you call her to order and tell her to remain within the Bills that are before the chamber at this time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, I request once again that you stay within the realms of the Bills and I request that you respect the Chair by doing so. Senator Chaney —Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek clarification from you. I would like to know what your ruling is. Are you ruling that in this debate, which includes debate on the Ministers of state legislation, senators are not entitled to discuss the performance of Ministers for whom pay rises are being sought through this legislation? I ask whether you are ruling that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —What I am asking is that Senator Walters stay within the realms of the Bills before the House. Senator Chaney —Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek your clarification. The honourable senator was addressing questions relating to the conduct of Ministers of this Government. You have twice allowed her to be interrupted by points of order which suggest that her doing that is outside the bounds of the debate. Mr Acting Deputy President, your ruling is not at all clear to me and I would like to know whether you are ruling-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I am certainly not ruling that Senator Walters cannot refer to Ministers of state. What I am asking is that she does not go outside the realms of the Bill. Senator WALTERS —That makes it very clear to me. Thank you very much, Mr Acting Deputy President. Your ruling also makes it clear to the Government that I can, indeed, refer to the Ministers of state. I am referring to the standards of these Ministers. I have already referred to Mick Young. I have already referred to the fact that he divulged secret security matters of this country to his mates and was, indeed, suspended for a time. He then brought into this country undeclared goods and another inquiry was undertaken on his behalf. What standards do we have? We then had the Treasurer, Mr Keating, refusing to fill in his tax returns. He got a special letter from the Commissioner of Taxation pleading with him to do so, and he refused to do so for two years running. Citizens of Australia are fined if they do not fill in their tax returns but the Treasurer said that he was too busy. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I refer you to the requirement of relevance, beyond which I would strongly argue that Senator Walters is now trespassing to the extent that her remarks do not bear upon the remuneration of Ministers, which is the subject matter of the Ministers of State Amendment Bill before us, but rather on other alleged matters of their behaviour. As such, I would ask you to draw Senator Walters's attention to the Standing Orders on that ground alone. Secondly, I refer you to standing order 418, which I will quote. It is expressed, as I am sure you are well aware, Mr Acting Deputy President, in the following terms: No Senator shall use offensive words against either House of Parliament or any Member of such House . . . unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal- I do not think that is applicable in this instance- and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly. We have-not in the context of a substantive motion about the Ministers in question but in the context, at best, of a Bill which deals with an addition to the remuneration of Ministers of state, now some 12 months old-reflections on members of the other place, Ministers in the other place, which are highly disorderly within the meaning of standing order 418, and I urge you, Mr Acting Deputy President, to call Senator Walters to order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, I think you are going a bit too far, and I am suggesting that you stay within the realms of the Bill and do not make remarks about-- Senator WALTERS —Mr Acting Deputy President, it is obvious that the Government does not want me to speak about the standards of Ministers. I will not do so, because they have now taken 10 minutes of my time. But I will refer to the standards in this legislation, which, as I said, are being sneaked through. The Minister was not prepared to speak about this matter in his speech, but we find that the Government has redefined `de facto spouse' and it is prepared to pay a married rate of social security benefit to underaged children committing crimes by living together. Mr Acting Deputy President, let us just suggest that your little girl of 14 was infatuated with a bloke a bit older, say 16. She might have a few arguments at home about doing her homework and she might then say: `I am going to live with Joe Blow'. You could rightly say: `You can't do that. How would you survive?'. She could then say: `The Government will pay me the married rate to live with Joe Blow down the hill as a de facto spouse'. That is how the Government has redefined `de facto spouse' in this legislation. That is why the Government refused to acknowledge that in the Minister's second reading speech or in the legislation but tucked it away in the Schedule. The Government says it will pay minors, but I might add that in every State it is a crime for a young girl, without special permission, to live in a married relationship with a more senior male. If they are to be married, a judge and the parents must give permission. There is a whole range of areas where permission must be granted. But this Government is prepared to pay people a married rate if they want to live in a de facto relationship without any permission at all being granted. It is a disgrace. We have been told by the Government on so many occasions that we should not impose our middle class morality on the people of Australia, but that is because the Government has no morals. It is taking action deliberately to encourage young girls and boys to get away from home; it is undermining the family. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I ask you to draw Senator Walters's attention to the fact that her fulminations are directed against a clause in the Bill that the Government has foreshadowed it will amend. That underlines what Senator Walters is suggesting, and accordingly I ask Senator Walters to bear that in mind in making her remarks. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —There is no point of order. Senator WALTERS —That is no point of order at all. This is the legislation that got through the House of Representatives purely because the Government had the numbers. Indeed the Opposition is putting up an amendment. This is not the Government's amendment. The Bill was passed unamended in the House of Representatives. If the Government was sincere and wanted to amend it, it would have done so in the House of Representatives. The Government did not want to amend the Bill. It was pushed through the House of Representatives. The Opposition is putting up an amendment which reads as follows: (1) Page 15, Part 1 of Schedule 1, omit the amendment of the definition of ``de facto spouse'' in subsection 6 (1). (2) Page 16, Part 1 of Schedule 1, after the amendment of the definition of ``Reserve Forces'' in subsection 6 (1), insert the following amendment: ``Section 6: Add at the end the following subsections: `(10) Where: (a) a person who is living with another person of the opposite sex as the spouse of that other person on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to that other person; and (b) either of those persons is under the age of consent applicable in the State or Territory in which those persons are living; neither of those persons shall be treated as a married person for the purposes of this Act. `(11) The rate of a pension, benefit or allowance under this Act payable to a person to whom subsection (10) applies shall not exceed the rate at which it would be payable to the person if the person were married to the other person.'.''. We have refused to back down and public pressure has forced the Government to withdraw and accept our amendment. We will not tolerate the standards of Australian families being lowered by this Government. That is what the Government has done ever since it came to office. There is no way in the world the Opposition will allow it to carry out the destruction of the family any further. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(10.39) —The Ships (Capital Grants) Bill 1987 provides a grant of 7 per cent of the price of new trading ships whether purchased or newly built or 7 per cent of the modification cost of existing ships. These grants could be substantial. A new bulk carrier would cost between $30m and $50m, so 7 per cent of that could result in a grant of $3.5m. It is appropriate-in fact it is essential-that we should provide support to Australian shipping in capital costs, for virtually all our competitors already do this, and capital costs are by far the biggest shipping expense. Although, of course, the balance of costs varies with such things as the changing costs of fuel, a typical breakdown of the costs of running a ship is: Forty-seven per cent capital, 19 per cent fuel, 14 per cent manpower, 8 per cent port charges, and 12 per cent for the remainder, of which by far the largest cost is for repairs and maintenance. As I have said, because our competitors do provide capital assistance to ship owners, it is essential if our shipping is to be fairly competitive, that we should do likewise. I would be grateful if the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), when she closes this debate, could provide more detail about the financial impact statement provided with this Bill, or if the Minister is not going to respond to the debate, she could table a statement in answer to these questions before the Senate rises. The questions are as follows: How many ships are expected to be eligible for this grant? How is the foreign exchange contribution of $40m to $50m a year to be achieved? How is the saving of $40m a year from the use of more efficient coastal ships to be achieved? Further, can the Minister provide a breakdown of the estimated boost to tax receipts from increased profits and job creation? I observe that the balance of payments argument is also part of the Government's rationale for this Bill. The balance of payments bogy has long been a favourite catchcry for those encouraging us to put our trade into Australian ships. At first sight the argument is plausible. As the `Moving Ahead' report stated, `Australia has the fifth largest shipping task of the world's trading nations on a tonne/kilometre basis. Yet Australian ships carry only about 3 per cent (by volume) of our overseas trade. The cost of the 1984-85 sea freight bill to the deficit for invisibles amounted to $5,800m, and this cost represented approximately 11 per cent of the total value of Australia's overseas trade'. The Minister claims that this is a heavy burden on our balance of payments. However, the experts do not agree on the balance of payments argument. Many of them have estimated that the effects of freight costs in foreign ships are offset by the lower freight rates offered by them, compared to the higher freight rates in Australian ships-which is the result of the high costs of manning our ships. If we are to carry more of our trade in Australian ships-and I would very much like us to do so-our costs must be competitive with foreign ships. That, of course, is the purported intention of this Bill. Nevertheless, if we are going to make capital grants of as much as $3.5m a ship, it is obviously necessary that conditions should be attached to ensure that the objective of making Australian shipping competitive with the shipping of other countries is achieved. In this respect the Government's proposals are quite inadequate. The Government does indeed attach conditions, but they are not nearly stringent enough to achieve the objective of making Australian shipping internationally competitive. What conditions does the Government impose? The ship attracting the grant must be a trading ship, a tanker, a container vessel, a bulk carrier or a liner, crewed with Australian residents at a maximum level of 21, except in the case of tankers on the coastal trade, for which the maximum crew level is set at 23. The ship to attract a grant must also be owned and registered in Australia. This Bill is the result of one of the recommendations in the recent report of the Maritime Industry Development Committee, called `Moving Ahead'. This Committee concluded that a modern bulk carrier, either a new or a modified second-hand vessel, should be manned as follows: Four deck officers, including the master, one radio officer, four engineer officers, and 12 ratings, integrated and catering-making a total crew of 21. This crew of 21 is still very large by international standards. A modern West German ship, for instance, operates with a total crew of 17, compared with our proposed crew size of 21. On the West German ship three are deck officers, including the master, which would mean that the master would have to keep a watch. I can see no objection to this on international voyages, but there would be some difficulties on a coastal vessel. A West German ship would also have a radio officer, two engineer officers and one electrical officer. The reason that we have four engineer officers on Australian ships-one chief engineer and three watch-keeping engineer officers-is that we are still stuck with the idea of someone brooding over the machinery all the time it is running. Other countries have woken up to the fact that with modern machinery this is not necessary, and it is a step that we should follow. Finally, a West German ship would have 10 ratings instead of 12. Although the proposed Australian crew of 21 is still far too high-it means that our crew levels are still about 20 per cent greater than those of our competitors-nevertheless it is a great improvement on present Australian crew levels. It may sound extraordinary, but last year when we had 21 Australian flag vessels engaged in overseas trade the average crew was well over 30. One of these ships, the Iron Sirius, had a crew of 40; the Iron Shortland had a crew of 39; two ships had crews of 35; six had 33; five had 32; two had 31; two had 27; and two had 26. In other words, 17 of our 21 overseas trading ships still operate with a crew of more than 30, and only four have crews of less than 30. All are still far above this new level of 21, and none of these ships will be affected by this new legislation which will apply only to newly purchased or converted ships. We are still a very long way from facing up to the economic realities of manning levels on our ships. I accept that we must proceed step by step in reducing our crew sizes because one of the necessities is ratings trained in more than one discipline, and the production of such ratings by the Australian Maritime College does take time. Nevertheless, we must keep on pressing to bring our crew sizes into line with those of our competitors; otherwise we will never be competitive. For that reason I shall be moving in the Committee stage that, instead of the figure of 21 being fixed permanently in the Bill as the crew size, the crew size will be reviewed annually and adjusted by regulation. I hope that in a few years it will be down to levels which other nations find satisfactory. Nothing in the legislation, says the Minister, will prevent ships from being operated with lower crew levels provided that that can be done with safety. Frankly, I cannot imagine any union in present circumstances agreeing to a crew level of less than 21 while 21 is still enshrined in this Bill. The union response, of course, will be that it cannot be done with safety. If some honourable senators think that I am being unjust or cynical, they should remember that one of our ships still carries a crew of 40. Therefore, I will be moving in the Committee stage for a provision for an annual review of this figure of 21 in the light of developments in crewing and manning levels in comparable Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development ships. We must not get carried away with 21 being the best possible level that we can achieve. We should be aiming for crew levels well below 20 and for manning conditions matching those of comparable overseas shipping nations. Only then will we begin to be competitive. Before I leave crew size, some other problems concern me. Although tankers engaged in foreign trade will have a crew level of 21, tankers engaged in the coastal trade will have their crew level set at 23. I have heard two arguments why this should be so: The first is that coastal tankers carry refined fuel, which requires more care in loading and handling than the bulk oil usually carried by tankers in the foreign trade, and the second is that coastal tankers have more ports of call and therefore more handling of the cargo is required. I am not in the least convinced by these arguments. I see no reason why Australian seamen should not be at least as productive as foreign competitors. A coastal tanker manned by the West Germans would have a crew of 16 and one manned by the Japanese would have a crew of 14. Why on earth do we require a crew of 23? I shall move an amendment at the Committee stage to bring the crew for coastal tankers back to a maximum of 21 which, I again emphasise, is extremely generous by international standards. There have been far too many rorts for far too long in our coastal shipping trade. These rorts have made coastal shipping very expensive and, coupled with our deplorable port handling arrangements, have resulted in cargoes that should, on any economic criteria, go by sea being sent by land instead. Typically, such cargoes have not gone by the next most economic method of transport-that is rail-because, despite the extraordinary subsidies paid by State governments to rail transport, the incredible incompetence and inefficiency of our nationalised rail network has also discouraged the use of rail cargoes. So cargoes that should go by sea or rail are consigned by road which is free enterprise and not dominated by militant unions. Therefore road is the only efficient form of transport in this country. But it is not the most economical way to move many of our cargoes, if only our sea and rail transport systems were run sensibly. I will give just one example of the sorts of rorts that have been going on in our coastal shipping. Until 1983 there was no liquefied petroleum gas carrier on the Australian register and foreign LPG carriers were used to transport LPG to Tasmania. In 1983 we acquired an LPG carrier and the price of LPG in Tasmania immediately rose 75 per cent at a time when the price of LPG dropped everywhere else in Australia. Some rort. The second worry I have about these manning levels is the discretionary power given to the Secretary to the Department of Transport by this Bill to give approval for ships to operate above the very generous maximum crew level of 21. If this Parliament delegates to a public servant the right to approve additional crew members, two things should happen. Firstly, Parliament should be informed every time its instructions are varied in this manner and informed of the reason for the variation and, secondly, there should be an opportunity for Parliament to disallow this measure. In the Committee stage I will move an amendment to give effect to this. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) talks about improving the productivity of Australian shipping but the only commitment he exacts in return for these very generous capital grants is this very modest reduction in the present grossly excessive crew numbers. This does not begin to tackle the problem of the lack of competiveness of Australian shipping. The Australian maritime unions have had a monopoly on our coastal shipping and they have used this monopoly ruthlessly in order to exact conditions of service far in excess of those provided for the crews of foreign ships, including countries far wealthier than we are such as West Germany, Norway and Japan. Worse still, our crews do virtually no on-board maintenance which results in our repair costs and out of service time of our ships being far greater than those of comparable foreign ships. What we must do is bring crew conditions in our new ships-that is all that is being covered by this Bill-to levels which are in line with those of our competitors. In terms of national income per head, we are right in the middle of the OECD countries-these are, of course, developed countries-and there can be absolutely no justification for our seamen using their monopoly power, demanding conditions that are far in excess of those provided for the seamen of any other OECD country, including those much wealthier than we are. Let us look at a few of the rorts that have gone on. First there is leave. The figure for leave entitlements for Australia is grossly higher than for any other comparable country. For every crew billet provided in one of our ships, we require 2.3 seamen. This is because our seamen get nearly six months leave a year. This figure of 338 days leave for each year's work for an Australian should be compared with 226 for a Frenchman, 216 for an American, 174 for a West German, 141 for a Norwegian, and 84 for a British rating. For an Australian it is 338. This is outrageous. Senator Chaney —Four times as much as the British. Senator HAMER —Yes, and the costs reflect that. Then, there is travel, the question of air travel to relocate crews. Our seamen always travel first class. No other nation's seamen do. There are our repatriation conditions. If a crew member becomes ill with even a minor complaint in an Asian port, he may be flown to Sydney, first class of course; a replacement crew member may be flown from Australia to the ship, first class of course; and the ship may be delayed for several days at a cost of between $30,000 and $50,000 a day. There is victualling. Australian awards require two hot meals a day with alternative menus and full catering in port, despite the low crew numbers left on board. I am not for a moment advocating unfair or depressing conditions for our seamen, but I think a monopoly union and complacent management have allowed the whole Australian community to be ripped off. I will therefore move in the Committee stage an amendment to provide that the conditions for Australian seamen should be as generous as, but no more generous than, the average of the OCED countries. These countries are not flags of convenience; they are developed countries like Australia, and I can see no justification for our seamen exploiting their monopoly to extract from the Australian community conditions that are far more generous than those of any other OECD country, including many that are far wealthier than we are. Then there is the problem of the accommodation and facilities required on board our ships. It has been estimated that to fit a ship out to the standards successfully demanded by our unions adds $1m in capital costs over and above that required for the seamen of any other country-an extra $50,000 a head. It would seem to me outrageous that this proposed new grant from the taxpayers would be used to provide swimming pools for the use of the crew in all Australian ships of more than 8,000 tonnes. In ships of more than 15,000 tonnes all officers must have private bathrooms and so on. I do not see why, in a country in Australia's economic position, we should be providing for our seamen conditions which are not provided for the seamen of any other country. The other problem is the lack of routine preventive maintenance done by the crews of Australians ships. Our crews do virtually no such work, which is one of the reasons why the repair and overhaul bill for our ships is so high. I can think of no justification for this behaviour and I shall move an amendment in the Committee stage to provide that our seamen should do the same amount of on-board maintenance as is done by the average of the OECD countries. I was delighted to hear from the Minister that: Australia's seafarers have adopted an enlightened approach, squarely facing up to the issues and supporting measures which will put Australian shipping on course for a better future. If they really are, that is wonderful news for the community. I have outlined some of the measures which the Bill has not provided which would, to quote the Minister again, `squarely face up to the issues and put Australian shipping on course for a better future'. We have got to bring our crew levels down to international standards; we have got to provide conditions of service which are on a par with those of countries of our economic standing; and we have got to ensure that our crews do adequate on-board maintenance, so our ships do not have high repair bills and long out of service time. In my experience Australian seamen are as good as any in the world and I think that they deserve good conditions. However, in the past the monopoly power they have been given has enabled them-as all monopolies do-to extract unreasonable conditions from the rest of the community. This has been damaging both to our shipping and to our national economy. The measures that I will move in the Committee stage will help to put these matters right. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(11.01) —This is a debate of four remarkably unrelated Bills and most of my comments will be addressed to the Social Security Amendment Bill 1987. The other three Bills in this debate are the Ships (Capital Grants) Bill 1987, the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1987 and the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. As Senator Chaney has already indicated, this is a disparate group of Bills. He further indicated that he believed it was purely the Government's fault that such a situation should arise because the Government had seen fit to call an inordinately early election. However, the experience of the past months of sitting so far this year indicates that plenty of time has been wasted in this chamber. The very small amount of legislation that we get through is astonishing. This is something which the Parliament as a whole needs to address. I take the opportunity to point out that while it is currently the prerogative of any Prime Minister of any political persuasion to do what this Prime Minister has done and call an early election, it is the policy of the Australian Democrats that we should have fixed term parliaments. Our preference would be a four-year term so that both the Parliament and the people of Australia would know when an election was due and perhaps that would encourage parliaments to get through their business in a more efficient way than they do at present. As I said earlier, my remarks will be addressed mainly to the Social Security Amendment Bill 1987, which makes a large number of changes to the Social Security Act. In fact, it seems that the changes made in this Bill are so vast that when the Government was getting the Bill together and taking it through the House of Representatives it did not even realise that a provision in Schedule 1 would have required the Department of Social Security to pay married rate benefits to underaged de factos who, in some States, would have been committing a crime under State law. As was pointed out earlier in this debate, the Government has now seen fit to bring forward amendments which appear to be mirrored by subsequent Opposition amendments. I am not sure why the Opposition has done this because the Government amendment was circulated to the Australian Democrats many days ago and that fact seems to have escaped the attention of the Opposition spokespeople on this legislation. The Government has decided to amend that oversight in the original legislation-if that is what it was-and the Australian Democrats support that amendment. The legislation also includes current reciprocal agreements on social security with the United Kingdom and New Zealand in the Social Security Act. It updates provisions concerning criminal prosecutions and increases the level of penalties for offences against the Act to current levels under other Commonwealth legislation. It extends the secrecy provisions to bind officials who have access to confidential information but who do not otherwise have duties or functions under the Act. It also extends the review and appeal provisions to all decisions made under the provisions of the Act. It further extends eligibility for the supporting parent's benefit to a person whose spouse was held in legal custody on remand. This is to be welcomed. It provides for indexation of the assets test threshold limits-again, a welcome inclusion in the legislation. Clause 37 of the Bill amends the offence provisions involving fraud. The amendments make it clear that an offence is committed only if a person knowingly or recklessly engaged in certain conduct and extends the crime of fraud to cover the cases of an application under the pen- sion loans scheme and in instances where a person obtains only part of a payment that is not payable. The amendments also enable a monetary penalty of $2,000 and a period of imprisonment of 12 months to be imposed. The Australian Democrats do not oppose the tightening of fraud provisions in this Bill. We cannot, however, support the most recent attempts by the Government, embodied in the package of mini-Budget Bills to come before us later today, to increase the power of the Department of Social Security to access and divulge information about and collect debts from social security consumers and persons associated with them. In this upcoming legislation, legislation of a very draconian nature, the Government seems to be intent on changing the Department of Social Security from a provider of assistance to the poor to a prosecutor and persecutor of the poor. We will have a great deal more to say about that in the very short time that is being allocated to the mini-Budget legislation, and in particular on the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill. This Bill before us reflects the increasing concern in the community that fraud in the area of social security should not occur and should not cost the taxpayer money. That is a concern which I am sure all taxpayers share. However, it is of some concern to me that there is no balance in what is happening to taxpayers' money, and in general terms in relation to contributions to Government revenue. For instance, there does not seem to be an equal concern about the actions of those people perhaps at the other end of the economic scale. In the corporate sector it is a fact that over the last decade that sector's contribution to Government revenue has gone down from some 20 per cent to around 10 per cent overall, meaning, of course, that the pay as you earn sector has had to pick up a greater part of the burden. Whilst this legislation, as I said, is supported by the Australian Democrats and we believe that most of its provisions are reasonable and necessary, the Government has now gone too far-obviously under pressure from the forces on the Right, which themselves seem to be crumbling somewhat this morning-with this sort of provision and we are looking at too much victimisation of people receiving payments from the Department of Social Security. Much more balance is needed in this area and will be encouraged by the Australian Democrats at all possible opportunities. I take this opportunity to point out that it is not only the Australian Democrats who believe that the scales are not balanced when it comes to who is making a contribution and who does not have the right attitude. I would like to place on record the comments of a very notable Australian, Mr Dick Smith, who has expressed the view that people should think about putting something back into this country. In the May edition of the magazine the Australian Way which, of course Australian Airlines has on its aircraft, he is reported as follows: One of his general disappointments is the apparent selfishness of the wealthy in Australia. Where he asks, are the modern philanthropists? . . . He believes Australians should be delighted to pay tax. To him that's putting something back into a fantastic country, investing in the future. He believes the wealthy should pay more tax. . . . . If you do well in the United States, as well as paying your taxes you almost have an obligation to put something back into the country. . . Here the attitude is amazing. All of my business friends- and I am quoting Dick Smith- constantly complain about socialism, the taxes and the Government. But when you ask them to put money into this or that they say `The Government should pay for it'. They will put nothing in, the Government should do it, but the Government should do it without raising their taxes. Until we change that attitude, we have no hope. I echo those remarks wholeheartedly and suggest that we must have proper balance in the way this country is managed and, in particular, in the way we give support to those who need it. I agree with Dick Smith that there are amongst us those who appear not to be prepared to make their contribution. Whilst this legislation makes adequate and necessary provisions, it is really the forerunner of further draconian legislation which must be resisted, and will be resisted by the Australian Democrats to the extent that it is possible. In the interests of balance and a correct attitude in one area, in the Committee stage of this debate I will be moving amendments which would broaden the provisions for access to the carer's pension under the Social Security Act. This is a measure which the Parliament should support. I will address a few remarks to it now, especially as the Committee stage of this cognate debate will not provide a great deal of time for my remarks. The spouse carer's pension was introduced in 1983 and was available only to husbands. Wives of age or invalid pensioners were eligible for a wife's pension. In November 1985 an expanded carer's pension replaced the spouse carer's pension. The new pension was available to spouses and a number of specified close relatives but not to aunts, uncles, nieces or nephews. There was also a discretionary clause which allowed the Secretary to treat any other person as a relative in certain circumstances. In May 1986 this discretion was repealed, which means that various categories of carers are not eligible for a carer's pension but are eligible for the special benefit. There are, however, substantial differences between the payment of a special benefit, which is intended to cover short term and temporary situations, and the payment of a carer's pension, which is intended to cover long term situations. I will outline in some detail what the differences are. For instance, there is a difference in the rate of payment. Seven dollars a week less is available to special benefit recipients compared with carer's pensions. No rent assistance is available to special benefit recipients for the first six months and then it is a maximum of $10 a week, whereas carer's pensioners receive a maximum of $15 a week from day one, which is a significant difference in many cases. Pensioner concessions such as concessions on rates, telephones, medical expenses and travel, which could easily be worth up to $30 a week, are not available to special benefit recipients. A stricter income test applies to special benefit recipients once other income exceeds $70 a week-a dollar for dollar reduction compared with a 50c for $1 reduction for carer's pensioners. Carer's pensions are usually reviewed annually, whereas special benefit claims are usually reviewed quarterly. Currently, eligibility for either the carer's pension or special benefit requires that the person cared for must be an age or invalid pensioner, must be severely handicapped-that is, he or she must have a physical or mental disability by reason of which he or she needs constant care and attention-and the claimant must be providing the needed constant care and attention in the home where both the claimant and the person cared for live. Currently there are two further requirements for eligibility for the carer's pension. The first is that the person cared for must be a relative as defined by a limited definition. Secondly, the care must be required permanently or for an extended period. This has been interpreted to mean either that the illness must be terminal or that care will be needed for at least six months. Whilst I agree that there is a strong rationale for the requirement that the person cared for needs constant care and attention and that the care required must be permanent or for an extended period, my amendments will remove the relative requirement, save the government the cost of institutionalised hospital care and improve the quality of the lives of both the carer and the person being cared for. The relative requirement serves no purpose other than to restrict the numbers who would be eligible for the pension. Indeed, the reason given for repealing the discretion was that payment to persons other than close relatives went beyond the intention of Cabinet when it approved the expanded carer's pension. A carer is significantly disadvantaged where only special benefit is available and those differences that I have outlined make that clear. It has emerged that two groups are being excluded by the present relative requirement. The first group comprises those persons who conventionally are related to the person cared for in a way not recognised now by the existing legislation, especially aunt, uncle, niece and nephew relationships. The second group comprises those caring for a person with acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Those carers may be partners or friends of the person cared for, but are unlikely to satisfy the relative requirement. For over 12 months the New South Wales and Victorian AIDS councils have sought appropriate legislative change on behalf of this group. Two cases have been particularly prominent, those being David Zuber in Victoria and David Wain in New South Wales where currently there is pending an Administrative Appeals Tribunal case in which the carer seeks recognition as a relative under the guardian ground, which is section 33 (3) of the legislation. However, in general, neither the carer nor the person cared for will have the capacity or the will to pursue an appeal through the labyrinthian social security appeals system, particularly because under the existing legislation the chances for success are slim. My amendments will make the grant of the carer's pension dependent solely on the needs of the person cared for as well as the capacity and the willingness of the carer to meet those needs rather than upon their status as relatives. I believe that a strong case exists for the removal altogether of the relative requirement and paying the carer's pension to any person who satisfies the present constant care and attention requirement on a permanent or an extended period basis. The special benefit caring for category would continue to be used where care is to be provided only temporarily, for example, during a short illness. This is the option favoured by the New South Wales and Victorian AIDS councils. In these days of economic stringency, perhaps one of the strongest arguments in support of my amendments is the cost saving factor. The alternative to home care, the sort of care that this will enable to be provided and encourage in many more cases, and certainly in the case of AIDS victims, is institutional care in a hospital, nursing home or hospice, particularly where home care is being provided primarily by a friend, partner or the relative to whom only the pension need be paid. The net savings really are quite enormous. For example, the AIDS Research Unit, which is part of the National Health and Medical Research Council, recently estimated the average daily cost of hospitalising a person with AIDS at $570 and that excludes the cost of any special treatment or investigations. Some may argue that these cost savings can be achieved by paying special benefit as is currently the case. However, the significant disadvantages that I have already outlined relating to the special benefit are likely to deter potential carers, particularly those with fixed commitments such as mortgages. As the marginal extra cost of paying carer's pension rather than a special benefit in a particular case is only about $350 to perhaps $1,100 per year, depending on the level of rent assistance, even a small deterrent factor leads to a net increase in expenditure; in other words, a modest increase in expenditure by the Department of Social Security is likely to yield substantial savings overall. A further argument relates to the availability of public health facilities. Apart from the cost factor, institutionalisation of the chronically and terminally ill increases the strain upon already overburdened public hospital, nursing home and hospice facilities. In the case of AIDS, the development of specialised facilities has not kept pace with the spread of the disease and, unfortunately, this situation can be expected to worsen. Government policy is directed, as it should be, at least as the Government expresses it, towards maximisation of home or community care of the chronically and terminally ill. Voluntary care by friends, partners and relatives is a human resource which should be utilised to the fullest extent. Fundamental to this is the provision of adequate income support. It is irrational to create a two-tier system of income support for long term carers. Income support at pension level is a minimum community standard in a permanent or long term situation. It is inappropriate to pay less merely because the defined relationship is not present. There are, too, the humanitarian arguments, which I believe should have great weight in these situations. In most cases the chronically or terminally ill will prefer home care to institutionalisation, as I am sure all honourable senators would agree, particularly where a friend, partner or relative is providing the care. The Government should recognise and encourage the contribution made by carers to the well-being of the chronically and terminally ill, in addition to the cost savings generated which I have already indicated. Apart from the deterrence factor of the lower special benefit rate in fringe benefits, lower rates also worsen the living conditions and increase the financial pressure in the home care situation on people who are already under enormous physical and emotional pressure. Even apparently minor matters such as the non-availability of travel concessions can prove significant. For example, David Wain, whose claim for a carer's pension is, as I said, pending with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, cared for a friend with AIDS, from July last year until that friend's death in January 1987. As a pensioner, his friend was entitled to take a free rail trip anywhere in New South Wales. Several months before his death, he wanted to take a final weekend journey, but he could not take this journey without the assistance of his carer. As a special beneficiary, David Wain was not entitled to a free journey and therefore they were unable to take the trip. That is just a small human story which I think should bear some weight in the argument. Perhaps there will be some opposition to my proposal on the basis that it might be considered that this measure would open the flood gates resulting in a huge number of claims from people who would then be eligible for the carer's pension, resulting in a cost blowout. I do not believe that this is a reasonable fear. The existing constant care and attention requirement, which my amendment would leave in place, is a stringent and effective filter. Clearly, only full time carers resident in the same home as the person cared for should be eligible. All those who satisfy the constant care and attention requirement are already eligible for the special benefit. Statistics on the payment of the special benefit, therefore, give a good indication of the numbers likely to be eligible. The Department's own figures indicate that, as at 13 February this year, only 728 persons in Australia received special benefit in the `caring for' category. Of course, not all those people would be eligible for the carer's pension due to the additional requirement that the care be required permanently or for an extended period. In fact, the marginal cost of paying the carer's pension to every special beneficiary would probably be less than $500,000 annually-a small sum when the overall savings represented by the home care are taken into account. To the extent that a more adequate level of income support leads to an increase in the number of carers, the increased social security expenditure would be more than offset by the savings in other areas, particularly in the areas of health and community services. Indeed, this is one of the aims of the initiative which I am attempting to take at the moment. The only dramatic increase which might be expected would be in AIDS related cases. However, the following factors make the payment of the carer's pension particularly appropriate in these cases. Once the disease has progressed to the stage where constant care and attention is required, hospital or hospice care will almost always be necessary unless home care can be arranged. The development of facilities, as I have said, for the treatment and accommodation of people with AIDS is likely to continue to lag behind the need, particularly if the numbers dramatically increase. People with AIDS are less likely to have potential carers in the defined relative category, and the resources of the volunteer networks of part time carers which have been established until now, such as the community support network, are stretched to the limit and there is an urgent and immediate need to encourage potential full time carers. The Bill before us provides an opportunity for us to take this initiative, and I commend my amendment to the Senate. If it does not attract sufficient support on the humanitarian grounds that I have outlined-and I believe it should-certainly I urge honourable senators to look at the economic benefits of such a proposal and give them serious consideration. As I have already suggested, this legislation makes very appropriate changes, mainly of an administrative kind, and therefore it will be supported by the Australian Democrats, as indeed the other Bills in this disparate package will be supported. It was interesting to hear Senator Hamer, in his remarks on the Ships (Capital Grants) Bill, criticise certain provisions that apply for Australian seamen. I refer in particular to those comments that seemed to be having a bit of a swipe at what he called a monopoly union in that area. Senator Hamer was very critical of the fact that Australian seamen in relocation have first class travel. I am not sure that access to first class travel has a lot to do with a monopoly union. If that is the case, I do not know to which union members of this place belong so that they also are entitled to first class travel to and from their place of work-and, of course, that is an entitlement for parliamentarians. I just wonder whether I can assume now that Senator Hamer, who believes that Australian seamen should not have such access, will join me in the economy cabin as I travel to and from Canberra. I have not seen him there to date. He is also critical of swimming pools and private bathrooms for Australian seamen. Having had an opportunity to look at the new Parliament House just last week, I noticed that these facilities too will be provided for members of this place and the other place. I do not see why working people such as Australian seamen should not have such access if those facilities are to be available to parliamentarians. I did note, however, that what will not be available to parliamentarians in their new place of work is a child minding facility, which I believe is something we should have. I do not know whether Australian seamen have those facilities; if they do not, I believe that they should have them. I commend the Social Security Amendment Bill, particularly those amendments that I have spent some time outlining to the Senate. I suggest that this would be an excellent time for the Parliament to take this step. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(11.28) —In view of the fact that I am one of six speakers still to go and we have only a little more than half an hour left in this debate, I will try to be more considerate to those following me. I refer to the Ministers of State Amendment Bill. Ministers of State, of course, come under a separate requirement and the proposed amendments will increase the amount stipulated in the Bill by omitting $660,000 and substituting $680,000. The whole question of remuneration of Ministers and non-Ministers requires a lot of attention, and I believe that the present system is one of the worst possible conglomerations that one could imagine. It is in much the same category as the area we recently fell into relating to the provision of computer services. It would not work anywhere else in the whole community, but we inflict it on ourselves. It is difficult for me to take the Minister of State (Senator Tate) to task because he has been in the job only a short while, but I can certainly take to task some of his predecessors. We are now in the position where part of our salary is taxed and part is not taxed in the initial period, where we have to record certain things but we do not have to record others and where a certain amount of our remuneration is subject to our own contributory superannuation scheme and part is not. I believe that there is nowhere else in business or industry where such a scheme would be allowed to remain. It would be very helpful if the Government considered this issue. I can only say that, should members and senators be unfortunate enough to have me as Minister responsible for this area at any time, I can guarantee that changes of a very considerable nature will be made. It should be borne in mind, though, that these matters are really more or less in the hands of the Special Minister of State or the Treasurer (Mr Keating). In looking back over the last year or two, we of course would concede that the Treasurer and the former Special Minister of State, Mr Young, were probably too busy doing other things to worry about looking after such fundamental matters as those which we are considering now. On the other hand, the attitude of some people might be that it is a matter of whether there are profits to be made by offsetting, say, customs payments or anything else. If a certain amount can be saved on customs duty that amount may not be needed in the form of an allowance, or perhaps an amount may be provided for a travel allowance or living away from home allowance, although a person does not live away from home. Perhaps one might not put in a tax return for a couple of years, as has been alleged in some cases. Perhaps the Ministers themselves are looking after this matter in their own way. However, the fact that the documents that accompany the Bill show that Ministers magnanimously withheld their 11.7 per cent rise is hardly the point. I believe that we must make sure that the Ministers are worth a rise, that they are doing their jobs, that they are doing them with impartiality and that their standards are sufficient to set an example for others. I have great doubts about this in relation to the members I have mentioned. I believe that, for example, even the private pursuits in Parliament House of Mr John Brown really do not do him much credit and certainly do not indicate that an increase in salary is deserved. However, hopefully by 11 July the electors of Australia will have worked this out also and will make their own arrangements. (Quorum formed) The Opposition does not oppose the legislation. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.35) —We are dealing with a package of Bills as part of the program that the Government wants us to get through before the election. One of those Bills to which I want to address myself is the Ships (Capital Grants) Bill 1987. This piece of legislation has been a long time in the making. I think a lot of the original discussions go back to when the Hon. Ralph Hunt was the Minister for Transport. He tried to get some semblance of order and cost control into our shipping industry. Obviously some costs, such as capital costs which represent about 50 per cent, are quite fixed and almost beyond our capacity to alter. Then we have fuel costs which add up to about 19 per cent, crewing costs at about 14 per cent and other incidentals, including port charges, at about 20 per cent. It is to these areas, beyond the original 50 per cent capital cost, to which we have to look to make the savings that are so necessary. It seems ironic that a trading nation such as Australia has not paid more attention to its shipping costs to this point in time. We have seen many industries almost go out of business-indeed, some have gone out of business-in times past because of the massive costs associated with shipping both on and off the wharf and in relation to the ships themselves. This Bill tries to address the costs relating directly to the ships. It pays attention to two particular aspects: Firstly, the encouragement for more fuel efficiency, which is one of those areas in which we can make savings, and, secondly, the crewing costs. I understand that overseas countries have only 1.5 crews per ship whereas Australia has 2.25. Is it any wonder that we will see a further demise in putting Australian products going overseas in Australian bottoms. It has to be recognised that it also creates a problem with our current account deficit. Being the trading nation that we are, we are sending literally hundreds, thousands or millions of tonnes of products overseas every year-whether it be manufactured product in containers or bulk wheat, sugar or coal. When most of that is sent in overseas bottoms that means that the freight component is being paid overseas and that is showing up in our adverse current account deficit. It is essential that we as a nation try to take control of that situation and make our shipping industry more efficient so that we can make better use of our ships for those reasons. One purpose of this Bill is, as I said, to encourage greater fuel efficiency. It is to be done by way of grants, as a percentage of the purchase price of new ships and certain secondhand ships. Another purpose is to get the crewing level in line with that of our competitors in overseas shipping and coastal shipping. We are an island nation and our coastal shipping is almost being put out of business because of the costs. Another thing which really has nothing to do with this Bill is that both the previous Liberal and National Party Government and this Government insisted that our shipping company, Australian National Line, pay its way, yet we find that in many instances it is competing against the government-owned railways whose charges are set not necessarily on a cost basis but according to what they think they can do to undermine anybody else, including the truckies and the shipping business. We find that the taxpayers are picking up the tab for the losses on the railway system of Australia while the Federal Government is insisting that its shipping company meet its own cost obligations and indeed pay off some of the capital charges which it has incurred in times past. As I have said, this piece of legislation is part of the negotiations that have been going on for a long time. One must acknowledge at this point that the Seamen's Union of Australia has also shown some sense of responsibility in recognising that it has to play its part if its members are to maintain their jobs and if we are not to see more and more of our products transported by overseas ships. I will support this legislation. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.41) —I wish to speak to the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 which is included in a package of legislation under the guillotine. It is an important piece of legislation which requires a great deal more debate and attention than is possible, lumped together as it is with amendments to the Social Security Act and the Ships (Capital Grants) Bill and the Ministers of State Amendment Bill. All of this legislation has a debating time of two hours. This defence legislation has a number of important features. I think the most important feature deals with the call-out of the Reserve forces and the provision for long term enlistments for Australian soldiers, sailors and airmen. The present provision enables the reserves to be called out in a time of war or a declared defence emergency, but this Bill enables them to be called out when there is a low level threat. The Bill certainly makes provision for that measure to be scrutinised by the Parliament, and the Opposition supports this. Although the Bill enables the Reserve forces to be called out in response to a low level threat, it must be an external threat, not simply an internal threat and not, say, to aid a civil power. The Opposition certainly believes that this extension of the Reserve forces' obligations is fully justified, and it is well accepted by the Reserve forces. It will mean that the responsibilities of the defence forces will be further extended. Not only will that be good for their morale but it will also provide a greater opportunity for Australia's defence forces to respond to threats of that kind. The Opposition has been very concerned about the morale of Reserve forces under the present Government. Under this Government for a considerable period they lost their tax exemption for their pay. Although the Government realised that it had made a bad mistake and restored that provision, it certainly weakened the strength of the Reserve forces. The Government has seriously contributed to the morale of the Reserve forces. As I have said, this legislation may help to improve morale and may help to encourage greater enlistment in the Reserve forces. The Opposition would certainly support any move in that direction, although I simply point out that the record and attitude of the Hawke Government in relation to our Reserve forces have been dismal and negative. Much more needs to be done to encourage not only those people who are in the Reserve forces but also those who may be attracted to them. It is important that they be given every encouragement. As I said, this Government has taken a quite different approach to them during the time it has been in office. The provision for long term enlistment for our service personnel is also important, particularly when one considers the extent of dissatisfaction of our full time personnel. They have certainly not been encouraged as they should. There has been a significant increase in the number of resignations by members of the defence force, particularly amongst officers. For instance, in January of this year over 1,000 resigned compared with only 444 in December. The resignation rate of officers is also unacceptably high. The housing of our servicemen is another problem which the Government has at long last sought to address but, again, so far it has done very little to rectify that problem. So the provision giving them the opportunity of enlisting for a period up to retiring age is a step forward and the Opposition supports it. The old arrangements, whereby they had to enlist for a specific period and then re-engage, did not give service personnel the career opportunity to which they were entitled. Other aspects of the legislation are of a relatively minor character and I do not propose to deal with them in this short debate. Again I register the Opposition's protest that such an important matter as the responsibilities, obligations and terms of engagement of Australian service personnel-both full time members of the defence force and our reservists-which raises major questions of defence policy, is unable to be debated properly in this chamber because of the Government's application of the guillotine so that it can rush through a whole lot of legislation this week in order to proceed to an early election. With those comments, the Opposition supports this Bill. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(11.50) —This is, as has been noted by all speakers, a very short debate on a number of important topics. We have just heard a speech by Senator Durack. I have always felt that Senator Durack could make a tied footy final sound like a day in the public library. We have heard his tones over and over again in the Senate this year. I think that is probably one of the reasons why we are so far behind in our business. It would be nice if we did have a shorter speaking time in the Senate, perhaps 15 minutes, and a greater sense of responsibility on the part of speakers. The reason that we have such a backlog is that we have had so many matters of public importance and so much filibustering during the year. I shall confine my brief remarks to the Ships (Capital Grants) Bill 1987. I am the transport spokesman for the Australian Democrats, and I have had an interest in and knowledge of the shipping industry over the years. This Government Bill is a step in the right direction in restoring Australia's position as a viable shipping nation. At one time in Australia ships carried most of the trade, as indeed they should have done, between our cities, the biggest of which are almost universally on the coast. It makes good sense for ships to carry cargo. After all, with ships one does not have to repair road beds or rail tracks, one is away from other modes of traffic, and certainly ships are an energy efficient way of carrying cargo including large bulk items. But over the years because of union problems, inherent in port development, perhaps pressure on the city ports by real estate interests, there has been a decline in shipping and an increase in the use of road and rail. I believe that this is to the detriment of the general community because the roads get clogged with trucking traffic and rail is a far more costly operation in the use of public money than is shipping. Therefore, anything that will encourage and enhance the use of ships in Australia is well worth supporting. This legislation is supported by the Australian Democrats. Senator Hamer came to me earlier with a number of amendments which he felt would make the situation better for shipping in Australia. I read the amendments and discussed them with Senator Hamer. I was also visited by a group called the Australian National Maritime Association which represents the shipowners. I was surprised to find that the shipowners did not support Senator Hamer's amendments. I have always felt that the Liberal Party was in tune with big business interests, but in this instance the shipowners, who represent big business, Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and the Australian National Line among them, said that they did not want Senator Hamer's amendments because they felt that Australia's shipping industry at the moment was heading in the right direction. If the Hamer amendments were to pass, they felt that it would lead to a breaking down in the proposals which have now been made and the steps towards greater rationality in the shipping industry. The unions, which have been blamed for much that has been wrong in the shipping industry in the past, perhaps rightly so in some respects, obviously have seen the writing on the wall and are trying their best to make shipping viable in this country. Certainly the shipowners are trying to make shipping viable. This Bill is a step in that direction. The Opposition's amendments will slow down this process, perhaps even throw a monkey wrench into it, and thus make shipping less viable. For this reason the Australian Democrats supports the Government Bill and will be opposing any Opposition amendments. This concludes my remarks. I would like to have studied the other Bills, as I am sure would other members of my Party, but in this brief debate we feel that we have been curtailed in this operation. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.54) —I wish to thank honourable senators for their contributions to the second reading debate on these somewhat diverse Bills. I have not had the opportunity of hearing everybody's comments, but I am sure they were good and contributed to the level of debate. I have nothing further to add by way of reply to what has been said. Some of the points made will be taken up in the Committee stage of the Bills, and I imagine that we can deal with them then. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The Bill. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.55) —I have two amendments, which have been circulated, to move on behalf of the Government. They relate to the treatment of a person under the age of consent as a de facto spouse. I understand that the amendments have been approved in principle by the Opposition parties and the Australian Democrats, and in fact that an Opposition amendment is circulating that is in identical terms to the Government's amendments. I seek leave to move the two amendments together. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —I move: (1) Page 15, Part 1 of Schedule 1, omit the amendment of the definition of `de facto spouse' in subsection 6 (1). (2) Page 16, Part 1 of Schedule, 1, after the amendment of the definition of `Reserve Forces' in subsection 6 (1), insert the following amendment: ``Section 6: Add at the end the following subsections: `(10) Where: (a) a person who is living with another person of the opposite sex as the spouse of that other person on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to that other person; and (b) either of those persons is under the age of consent applicable in the State or Territory in which those persons are living: neither of those persons shall be treated as a married person for the purposes of this Act. `(11) The rate of a pension, benefit or allowance under this Act payable to a person to whom subsection (10) applies shall not exceed the rate at which it would be payable to the person if the person were married to the other person.'.''. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.56) —In my second reading stage speech on the Social Security Amendment Bill I explained to the Senate how the Government had put forward this Bill in its original form through the House of Representatives. The Government did not attempt to amend that Bill in any way in that House. Far from its being a government amendment, it is indeed the amendment that the Opposition demanded before the Bill came to the Senate. The Senate assured the Minister that there was no way that the Government would get that amendment through this place. Let us look at what we are trying to amend. Let us be very clear on this: The Government put through the House of Representatives an amendment tucked away in a Schedule-it was not mentioned in the Minister's speech or in the substantive legislation-that allowed de facto married rate pension to be paid to underage children. As I said during the debate, it would allow a 14-year-old or younger child, a little girl, who had a crush on a fellow of 14, 15 or 16 and had been getting a bit of a hard time at home for not doing her homework, to say to her parent: `I am off. I am going to live with Joe Blow down the street'. The parent could not say to her `You could not survive. Where will you get money?' because her answer would be: `This Government will pay us a married rate of pension if we are both unemployed because we are living together in a de facto relationship'. This is what the Government put through the House of Representatives. It would enable that little girl to undermine her parent's authority by saying: `We have not got to rely on you. We will get a married rate of pension from the Government'. If underage children want to get married they have to get special permission. Their parents have to give permission as well as a judge. There is quite a rigmarole to go through before that marriage can take place. This Government is not only allowing but, through the alteration of legislation, also encouraging young children to go off and live in a de facto-- Senator Button —That is not true, Senator; that is a deliberate untruth. Senator WALTERS —It is part of the amending Bill that this Government pushed through the House of Representatives. It is quite true. The Government is indeed allowing, and by legislation encouraging, young children to go off, live together in a de facto relationship and, in most States, commit the crime of carnal knowledge. I am sure that Senator Button is well aware of that. These children are living together in de facto relationships and this Government is allowing them to be paid a married rate of benefit. As I said earlier in the debate, we will not allow that to occur. Yet that is what the Government pushed through the House of Representatives. We must not let the Government hide behind the fact that it now wants to amend the Bill, because that does not give the true position. Had the Government been sincere it would have passed that amendment in the House of Representatives, but it did not do so. It was not until public pressure was such that it was forced to accept the amendment that the Opposition had put forward-- Senator Coates —No, that is not so. Senator WALTERS —Senator Coates says `no'. Can he tell me why this amendment was not brought forward in the House of Representatives? Senator Coates —I will tell you in a moment, if you give me the opportunity. Senator WALTERS —He will tell us in a moment! That will be most interesting. I will be most interested to know why the Government allowed a provision to go through the House of Representatives which makes it possible-it was not possible before-for young people to go off, live together and get a married rate of benefit. Individual cases where young couples had babies have gone before an appeals tribunal. Those were individual cases, each looked at individually and on merit. This provision, which the Government pushed through in the House of Representatives, gives us open slather; it redefines `de facto spouse'. Senator Button knows that I am right. This redefinition takes away any age limit and allows these little children to pretend that they are nice and grown up, and thus it undermines the family authority. This Government has no standards; its Ministers have no standards. We have the Mick Youngs and the Keatings. Mr Keating claims that he lives in Sydney, yet he sends his kids to school in Canberra and, indeed, he is on the electoral roll in Canberra. Yet, every day he lives in Canberra he is paid his travel allowance. Those are the sorts of standards we have in this Government. We have a Treasurer who refuses to fill in his tax form and receives a special letter from the Commissioner of Taxation pleading with him not only to fill in this year's tax form but also to complete last year's. Those are the sorts of standards that this Government has. We have John Brown, another Minister, refusing to abide by the small print-- Senator McIntosh —I raise a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. Should not Senator Walters speak to the amendments for a change, and never mind this garbage that she is throwing at us? She should stick to the amendments. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Morris) —There is no point of order, but perhaps Senator Walters should relate her remarks to the amendments. Senator WALTERS —Senator McIntosh says that we should not discuss the standards of Ministers on his side of politics. I know that he is uncomfortable about it; by gee, if they were my Ministers I would be more than uncomfortable about it, I assure him. I would not want brought up the fact that the Minister does not read the small print of his entitlements. That was the excuse that Mr John Brown used for diddling the taxpayers and getting his children free extra travel. I would not like it brought up that our Treasurer refused to fill in his tax form. I would not like it brought up-- Senator McIntosh —I raise a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. Can you tell me how this relates to the amendments? Senator WALTERS —It concerns standards-that is how it relates. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, will you direct your remarks to the amendments, please. Senator WALTERS —I am, Mr Temporary Chairman, because I am talking about standards. I am talking about the amendment of the term `de facto'. I am talking about Schedule 1. I am talking about the standards of this Government and of its Ministers. No wonder the Government lowers the standards for the rest of the country when its Ministers behave in this way. Mick Young brings in undeclared goods on behalf of his wife-- Senator Coates —I raise a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. Senator Walters obviously does not want to hear a response from anyone on the Government side to the allegations that she made about the need for this amendment and I ask you, particularly in view of that, to ask her to confine her remarks to the amendment, or at least to the Bill, rather than ranging over a broad debate on the conduct of Government Ministers. She challenged me to respond to her on this amendment; I would like the opportunity to do so before the time allotted expires. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, I have asked you to restrict your remarks to the amendment. Senator WALTERS —I believe I am doing that. I have made my point that this Government has no standards. I enforce that by underlining once again that the Opposition has put forward an amendment which the Government has been forced to accept. Had the Government been sincere in wanting the amendment, it would have introduced it in the House of Representatives and would not have left it to this chamber. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(12.08) —I am relieved that Senator Walters has finally given us the chance to deal with this matter in the last few minutes of this debate. She knows that this matter arose at the very last minute during the Committee stage of the Bill in the House of Representatives. At that point Mr Howe, the Minister for Social Security, said that the matter raised during that debate would be examined. This amendment is a result of that examination. Senator Walters tries to make out that the Government pushed this provision through the House of Representatives against some great public pressure at the time. This matter was raised at the last minute and the Minister said at that time-not even the next day-that he would have it examined. The Government announced its decision about that the next day. Therefore it is a lot of nonsense about public pressure. Senator Walters also should acknowledge that we are talking about the Government's genuine attempt to clarify the existing law. Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions raised doubts about the intent of the Social Security Act. We are talking about the law as it has been administered under Labor and conservative governments for years. This situation arises because of differences in ages of consent in different States. Senator Walters can raise all sorts of emotional points about people being 14 years old and so on, but the fact is that we are talking about 16- and 17-year-olds who are over the age of eligibility for the unemployment benefit but, in some States, are under the age of consent. The point about encouraging illegality is totally false as well. It is the States' responsibility to administer these laws. The Government has attempted to clarify the existing law to ensure that people are not paid more than they would be if they were treated as single people. It was possible that if they were not treated as if they were married, two people both eligible for benefits would receive single rate benefits which could take them over the married rate and put them in a better position than people who were married. This was a genuine attempt to try to clarify this law. Of course, there was argument about the way that definition should have been worded. This is the alternative proposition put by the Government, after discussion amongst all those involved and interested in this matter. Senator Walters may wish to raise a whole lot of emotional arguments about the Government's intentions but she ought to acknowledge that the facts of the case are that this legislation is intended to clarify the law. If she is concerned about people in that situation she ought to talk to State governments about ensuring that the proper rules are applied. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Morris) —Order! The time allotted for the consideration of the Bills has now expired. The question is: That the amendments moved by Senator Button be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(12.11) —Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move: That so much of standing order 407b be suspended as would prevent the question being put in respect of any amendments circulated by the Australian Democrats, and that such questions be put accordingly. An amendment was circulated earlier on behalf of the Australian Democrats. Question resolved in the affirmative. Amendment (by Senator Powell) negatived: Page 6, after clause 15, insert the following new clause: Carer's pension ``15a. Section 33 of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by omitting from paragraph (1) (a) `a relative of the' and substituting `another'; (b) by inserting in paragraph (1) (a) `first-mentioned' after `home of the'; (c) by omitting from paragraph (1) (a) `relative' (last occurring) and substituting `other person'; (d) by omitting from paragraph (1) (b) `relative' and substituting `other person'; (e) by inserting in subparagraph (1) (c) (i) `first-mentioned' after `the' (first occurring); (f) by omitting from subparagraph (1) (c) (ii) `relative' and substituting `other person'; (g) by inserting in subsection (1) `first-mentioned' after `the' (last occurring); (h) by omitting from subsection (2) `a relative' and substituting `another person'; (j) by inserting in subsection (2) `first-mentioned' after `the' (last occurring); and (k) by omitting from subsection (3) the definition of `relative'.''. Senator HAMER(Victoria) —I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard 12 amendments to the Ships (Capital Grants) Bill which I have not had the chance to move, as there was no Committee stage on that Bill. Leave granted. The amendments read as follows- (1) Page 2, clause 3, definition of ``eligible ship'', lines 18 to 31, leave out the definition, insert the following definition: `` `eligible ship' means: (a) a tanker or non-tanker that could be operated on a foreign or domestic voyage with a crew of not more than 21; or (b) a ship that: (i) could, on a particular voyage, fall into a regulation category; and (ii) could be operated on the voyage with a crew whose number does not exceed the maximum crew number for the voyage; but does not include a ship less than 12 metres in length;''. (2) Page 4, subclause 6 (1), lines 5 to 8, leave out the subclause, insert the following subclause: ``(1) For the purposes of this Act: (a) tankers on voyages constitute a category of ships; and (b) non-tankers on voyages constitute a category of ships.''. [IF AMENDMENT (2) IS CARRIED:] (3a) Page 4, subclause 7 (1), lines 29 to 36, leave out the subclause, insert the following subclauses: ``(1) Subject to subsection (2), for the purposes of this Act: (a) the maximum crew number for a ship's voyage on which it falls into a category referred to in paragraph 6 (1) (a) or (b) is: (i) in respect of the year beginning on 1 July 1987-21; and (ii) in respect of each subsequent year beginning on 1 July-the number prescribed by the regulations in respect of that year, not being a number greater than: (A) 21; or (B) the number prescribed by the regulations in respect of the immediately preceding year; whichever is the lesser; and (b) the maximum crew number for a ship's voyage on which it falls into another category is: (i) in respect of the year beginning on 1 July 1987-the number prescribed in relation to the category by the regulations in respect of that year; and (ii) in respect of each subsequent year beginning on 1 July-the number prescribed in relation to the category by the regulations in respect of that year, not being a number that is greater than: (A) the number prescribed in relation to that category by the regulations under paragraph (i); or (B) the number prescribed in relation to that category by the regulations in respect of the immediately preceding year; whichever is the lesser. ``(1A) The power of the Governor-General to make regulations referred to in subparagraphs (1) (a) (ii) and (b) (i) and (ii) in relation to the maximum crew number for a ship's voyage shall be exercised only on advice of the Executive Council, being advice that has regard to the competitiveness of Australian shipping.''. [IF AMENDMENT (2) IS NEGATIVED:] (3B) Page 4, subclause 7 (1), lines 29 to 36, leave out the subclause, insert the following subclauses: ``(1) Subject to subsection (2), for the purposes of this Act: (a) the maximum crew number for a ship's voyage on which it falls into a category referred to in paragraph 6 (1) (a) or (c) is: (i) in respect of the year beginning on 1 July 1987-21; and (ii) in respect of each subsequent year beginning on 1 July-the number prescribed by the regulations in respect of that year, not being a number greater than: (A) 21; or (B) the number prescribed by the regulations in respect of the immediately preceding year; whichever is the lesser; (b) the maximum crew number for a ship's voyage on which it falls into a category referred to in paragraph 6 (1) (b) is: (i) in respect of the year beginning on 1 July 1987-23; and (ii) in respect of each subsequent year beginning on 1 July-the number prescribed by the regulations in respect of that year, not being a number greater than: (A) 23; or (B) the number prescribed by the regulations in respect of the immediately preceding year; whichever is the lesser; and (c) the maximum crew number for a ship's voyage on which it falls into another category is: (i) in respect of the year beginning on 1 July 1987-the number prescribed in relation to the category by the regulations in respect of that year; and (ii) in respect of each subsequent year beginning on 1 July-the number prescribed in relation to the category by the regulations in respect of that year, not being a number greater than: (A) the number prescribed in relation to that category by the regulations under paragraph (i); or (B) the number prescribed in relation to that category by the regulations in respect of the immediately preceding year; whichever is the lesser. ``(1a) The power of the Governor-General to make regulations referred to in subparagraphs (1) (a) (ii), (b) (ii) and (c) (i) and (ii) in relation to the maximum crew number for a ship's voyage shall be exercised only on advice of the Executive Council, being advice that has regard to the competiveness of Australian shipping.''. (4) Page 5, subclause 8 (4), after paragraph (e), insert the following paragraphs: ``(ea) the terms and conditions of employment (other than rates of remuneration) of members of the ship's crew or crews after the purchase or conversion did not exceed the standards prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph; (eb) all members of the ship's crew or crews after the purchase or conversion were required to perform maintenance work on board the ship in accordance with the requirements prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph;''. (5) Page 5, after subclause 8 (4), insert the following subclauses: ``(4a) The regulations shall not prescribe for the purposes of paragraph (4) (ea) a standard in relation to any term or condition of employment which is in excess of the average terms and conditions of employment of members of the crew of ships in countries which are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. ``(4b) The regulations shall not prescribe for the purposes of paragraph (4) (eb) requirements in relation to the maintenance work on board a ship to be performed by the crew of the ship which are less than the average requirements imposed on members of the crew of ships in countries which are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.''. (6) Page 6, paragraph 8 (5) (b), after subparagraph (ii), insert the following subparagraphs: ``(iia) while the ship is owned by the shipowner, the terms and conditions of employment (other than rates of remuneration) of members of its crews will not exceed the standards prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (4) (ea); (iib) while the ship is owned by the shipowner, all members of its crews will be required to perform maintenance work on board the ship in accordance with the requirements prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (4) (eb);''. (7) Page 14, paragraph 22 (3) (a), line 36, after ``approve'', insert ``, by notice in writing given to the applicant,''. (8) Page 15, paragraph 22 (7) (a), line 18, after ``approve'', insert ``, by notice in writing given to the applicant,''. (9) Page 15, clause 22, at end of clause, add the following subclauses: ``(10) A copy of a notice in writing given under paragraph (3) (a) or (7) (a) approving: (a) the operation of a ship on a specified voyage or voyages with a crew whose number is higher than the maximum crew number for the voyage or voyages under subsection 7 (1); or (b) the operation on a ship or a specified voyage or voyages with a crew a number of whom are not Australian residents; shall be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the giving of the notice together with a statement setting out the reasons for which the approval was given. ``(11) If either House of the Parliament, within 15 sitting days of that House after the copy of a notice in writing has been laid before it in accordance with subsection (10), passes a resolution disallowing the approval given by the notice, the approval shall cease to have effect.''. (10) Page 16, paragraph 25 (a), line 3, leave out ``or''. (11) Page 16, clause 25, at end of clause, add the following word and paragraph: ``or (c) an order or award of a court or tribunal having power to fix terms and conditions of employment.''. (12) Page 16, paragraph 26 (2) (b), after subparagraph (i), insert the following subparagraphs: ``(ia) to be operated by a crew the terms and conditions of employment (other than the rate of remuneration) of any member of which exceed the standards prescribed for the purposes of paragraph 8 (4) (ea); (ib) to be operated by a crew any of whose members are not required to perform maintenance work on board the ship in accordance with the requirements prescribed for the purposes of paragraph 8 (4) (eb);. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —The question now is: That the Social Security Amendment Bill, as amended, and the Ships (Capital Grants) Bill 1987, the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1987 and the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Social Security Amendment Bill 1987 reported with amendments and Ships (Capital Grants) Bill 1987, Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1987 and Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Debate resumed from 28 May, 27 May and 1 June, on motions by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.14) —We are now debating the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill and other Bills. Having been gagged by the Government on the Social Security Amendment Bill we are now being forced to debate another package of Bills that we cannot possibly debate in the time given us. The amendments before us today are mainly to implement the decisions of the May mini-Budget. The May mini-Budget should have been an unnecessary exercise if the Government had not squandered money, had contained its spending and had been responsible in its spending rather than just trying to buy votes. We would not have found ourselves in this position. We would not have had to have a mini-Budget or this legislation which is before us today. We all know that the best Treasurer in the whole wide world, the one who has downgraded our credit rating for the first time in Australia's history, has been hiding behind the fact that the world has not been paying us the prices he wants for our commodities. We know that when Mr Cain at the Premiers Conference accused the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of behaving like the builders labourers he hid behind the fact that he was breaking his promises to the States because the world had broken its promises to pay us what he thinks we should get for our commodities. This excuse however has been blown wide open by Senator Walsh. Senator Walsh has his faults-who knows this better than the Senate?-but on this occasion he was honest enough to explain that the Government had squandered $4 billion through a series of high Budget deficits. Senator Walsh at a Labor conference in Hobart, when addressing the delegates, said: I know some people believe, that budget deficits don't matter. They do matter in the degree to which they lock in future expenditure. If we had a public debt interest payment, the same level of outlays as it was in 1982- and here I interpose that that was the last year of the Fraser Government- we would in this financial year have about $4 billion extra to either cut taxes, increase welfare spending or whatever else you wanted to do with it. But because we have run a sequence of high budget deficits, we are lumbered with a crippling public debt interest payment which restricts the ability of this Government and Governments for the foreseeable future, to deliver the programs they would like to deliver . . . Senator Walsh said that the Government would have saved $4 billion if it had not run a series of high Budget deficits. That $4 billion is a very familiar figure because the May mini-Budget was meant to cut $4 billion off government spending. So, as Senator Walsh said, if the Government had not been so free with its spending we would not have needed this May mini-Budget. Let us look at the May mini-Budget because it is part of the debate before us at the moment. Like any bankrupt business, the Government is having an auction sale of its assets-$1 billion of assets is up for grabs. The Williamstown Naval Dockyard is up for sale-who will buy it? All the airports around Tasmania are for sale-who will buy them? Part of the Tokyo Embassy and the Paris ambassador's residence are up for sale. But that $1 billion is not a cut in government spending. It is an auction sale-a one-off. It will not do anything next year for our deficit. So that is a quarter of the $4 billion that was not a spending cut. Then we had a whole array of new taxes-an additional half billion dollars of taxes. We have added sales tax, customs duty, fuel rebate schemes-the whole lot comes to another half billion dollars. Those are hardly cuts; they are just added costs to the people. That is more money coming in to the Government. That will only increase inflation. Telecom Australia has already put up its prices and so has Australia Post-hardly cuts in government expenditure. So now we are down to just over $2 1/2 billion of supposed cuts. But $1 billion of those have been taken from the States. Are these hard Commonwealth decisions? No, the hard decisions were given to the States to make. The Federal Government has said: `You raise your own taxes if you want part of that back'. That will help inflation, will it not? The States will have to raise the money. But no hard decisions come from this Government. So we are now left with just a little over $1.5 billion out of the supposed $4 billion of cuts. There has not been a cut by the Federal Government to date. As has been said, when it comes to cutting Federal expenditure it is done with a rather rubbery axe. Apart from about half a billion dollars of cuts in defence and road construction, the section of the community that will bear the cost of the cuts will be students, the poor, and families. We have before us today the legislation which makes those cuts which will affect those people. Most of the cuts will occur after August, the normal Budget time. So why did the Government need the May mini-Budget? Senator Walsh has said that the Government needed it because of its overspending. However, it also needed the May mini-Budget because it wanted to go to an election. Very few of the cuts will occur before the August Budget. Most of them will occur after October. Mr Hawke has gone to the people saying that he wants a mandate to finish the job. Let us consider what he has done to families and whether we believe he ought to be given a mandate to finish them off. Already he has done so much to families that there is no likelihood in the world of the Australian people giving him such a mandate. Let us consider what has happened to the disposable income of families under the Hawke Government. Under the Fraser Government there was a steady increase in the disposable income from $297.90 a week in 1975 to $316.80 a week in the last financial year of that Government. Since then, the disposable income of a family on average weekly earnings has almost dropped back to its 1978 level. It has gone from $316.80 a week in 1983, when we left government, to $302.92. That is a considerable drop in the disposable income of a family. That is what the Government has done to families in that area. Let us consider the family allowance, which the legislation before us is specifically concerned about. The Fraser Government increased the family allowance for a family with two children from $4.30 a month, which it was in 1975 when we came to office, to $32.55 a month-an increase of 657 per cent or, to put it another way, an 89 per cent increase for each year we were in government. What has this Government done? It has not only not increased the family allowance at all, but also taken it away from families with dependent children aged 16 years and over. It has treated the family allowance as welfare and now is means testing it for families with combined incomes of over $50,000. The Government says: `That is quite all right as those families will be getting tax cuts in July, and that will even it up'. But let me tell honourable senators and the people out there that a single person or a family without children on $50,000 a year will get the cuts in July. They will not have anything taken from them. But families with children will have their family allowance taken from them. This Government treats children as a luxury. It says that children are a luxury and that any assistance given to families with children has to be means tested. Children are not a luxury. Family allowance is paid in recognition of the fact that it costs a family with children, of whatever income, more to live than a family on the same income without children. The Government commissioned a report by Bettina Cass and her chief recommendation to the Government was that the Government should not means test the family allowance. She states under the heading `Horizontal Equity: A Fair Share for all Families': This principle recognises that at any level of family income, people with children incur greater costs and have greater needs than do people without children at the same level of income. Bettina Cass said how unjust it would be to means test the family allowance. This is a report that this Government commissioned. When it came up with a recommendation the Government did not like, the Government ignored it, continuing to maintain that children are a luxury in this country, which the taxpayers are not willing to support. Let us consider further what Bettina Cass says. She says that 38 per cent of families which receive the family allowance have adjusted incomes below $16,000 a year, while about 75 per cent have adjusted incomes below $28,000 and only 7 per cent have adjusted incomes above $40,000. Bettina Cass maintains that the principle of horizontal equity would surely prevent any government from means testing the family allowance. The Government keeps saying that its July tax cuts will offset this measure for these families but it does not tell us that anyone receiving under $19,500 a year will not be getting any tax cuts in July. That is the sleight of hand the Government is refusing to spell out. Hidden in the small print at the back of the May mini-Budget-not in the speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-we find that there will be a phasing out of the B class widow's pension. B class widow's pension recipients are women over 45 years old, mainly women over 50 years old, who have been at home looking after their families for, perhaps, the last 20 or 25 years and have suddenly lost their husbands-their husbands have died. In the past these widows were entitled to a B class widow's pension. But this Government says that these widows must go out and work, that these women over 50 years of age, who have not worked since they were young, who have been out of the work force looking after their families, are suddenly going to have to retrain. The Government is providing $2m for retraining. These widows are going to be forced out into the work force. What sort of Government is that? What sort of compassion does that show? It shows none at all. Those women are being forced on to unemployment benefits because-- Senator Walsh —I suggest that you read the May statement. What you are saying is wrong. Senator WALTERS —The Minister had better be careful, because Senator Ryan said that that was wrong. Senator Walsh —You are either a fool or a liar. Senator WALTERS —Mr Acting Deputy President, I do not want that remark withdrawn, because the Minister will have to apologise to me. When I spoke to Senator Ryan in this chamber after her interjection on Senator Chaney she told me that I was wrong. I said: `Get it straight. I have spent my whole 12 years in this Parliament on the social welfare committees. I know what a B class widow is'. Senator Ryan replied: `It won't affect women over 50'. I said: `Fine, you go back and check with your Department'. She checked with her Department and she had the decency to come to me and say: `I am sorry, you are right. There is a phase in period only, but after that phase in period, no 50-year-old woman-- Senator Walsh —That is not what you said in the beginning. Senator WALTERS —I said that it involved a phase out of the B class widow's pension. That is what I said and Senator Walsh cannot hide behind that. Yes, women who are now 50 years old will get the pension, but only during the phasing out period. After it is phased out, 50-year-old women will be sent out into the work force to hunt for jobs. Ye gods, what does the Government expect them to do? Does it expect them to go and look after some other family? Looking after a family is all they have been doing for the past 25 years. The Government tells them to get out into the work force. For the information of Senator Walsh, 50-year-old women cannot retrain for the high-tech industries or any industries. They have been out of the work force for the past 25 years and they do not have the necessary skills. It is all very well for Senator Walsh as a man and for other men in Australia who have been able to upgrade their skills during the past 25 years of their work experience, but they have no idea what it is like for these women. It is not possible for the 50-year-old woman who becomes a widow to be retrained. Under this Government such women have been completely dumped and deserted. They have been told to retrain themselves at the age of 50 and over to get back into the work force. They will suffer the indignity of having to visit a Commonwealth Employment Service office every week to try to get a job for the next 10 or 15 years that they will be in that situation. Senator Michael Baume —And they will be competing with out of work young girls. Senator WALTERS —They will be competing in the work force with out of work young men and girls, for a job that they cannot possibly get. It is a disgrace. The Government does not care one iota about women and it cares even less about the traditional mother who has brought up a family. It is interested only in the feminists who are in the work force and who have no kids because, after all, they are a luxury. The Government could not care less about the traditional family, or the family at all. Let us look at the other areas where the family has been viciously hit. There is no doubt that the family has been the major target of this Government in relation to health care costs, but I will leave that to the shadow Minister who will deal with that matter. Because of this Government's ideology, it will get stuck into the families in relation to health care costs. Statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics demonstrate that over 46 per cent of families, that is, married couples with dependent children, who receive only $126 per week-and Senator Walsh would not understand this-are prepared to take out private health insurance, because they are not prepared to leave the priority of family health in the hands of this Government. The Hawke Government is responsible for more people than ever living below the poverty line. It is responsible for more married women being forced into the work force because of the necessity for two incomes to support their families. It has ruled over the highest level of company and personal bankruptcies in the history of the nation-and the Prime Minister asks for a mandate to finish the job; a mandate to make us all bankrupt, to turn Australia into a banana republic. The Treasurer has already downgraded our credit rating, so has he not almost finished the job? He has presided also over the highest level of personal taxation that Australia has ever seen. As I indicated, the disposable income of families has never been lower. The Government's contempt and lack of compassion for the people of Australia have never before been experienced in this country. We all remember the list of broken promises that will come home to roost. On April Fools Day, before the announcement of the election, the Prime Minister took Australians for April fools and said that there would be no early election, and he gave a commitment to that effect. A month later he chose to announce an election. We all remember well the commitment he made when he said: `Let me make it clear so that even our opponents can understand it: There will be no capital gains tax'. Now we have a capital gains tax, and this Government has broken 20 other promises. I now turn to what the Prime Minister's own electorate thinks about him and what it believes this Government is all about, the compassion that it believes the Government is likely to show to the people of Australia. Several people were interviewed in Mr Hawke's own electorate and one person said: I draw your attention to the fact that this Government is not a Labor Government at all but is a Government which supports the business circle. That is, big business. Another constituent said: The people in areas such as this one, and it's the Prime Minister's own electorate, are the ones that are bearing the brunt. That is, the brunt of this Government. Another said: This so-called Labor Government, under the leadership of your local member, Bob Hawke, is annihilating any concept of income support from the Government. Another constituent stated: As the Prime Minister, we felt that he's representing a government that's not adopting policies that are in the interests of the people . . . Another said: I think it's up to us to use our vote to teach Hawke a lesson. It will not be only Mr Hawke's own electorate that teaches him a lesson, but all the families of Australia, who would like and expect to be able to believe the word of a Prime Minister. They would like, and they should be able to expect, to have a certain standard from the Ministers of the Crown. They would like, and they have every reason to expect, the government of the day to look after the average person and the average family in Australia, not just themselves. They expect the Treasurer to abide by the law and not to avoid sending in his tax returns. The people of Australia expect the Ministers of the Government to abide by the laws that they set up. They should not avoid customs duties, as Mick Young did. They should declare the goods they bring into Australia. People also expect Ministers not to divulge security secrets of this country, as Mick Young has done, and not to get, as the Treasurer has got, travel allowance which is not due to them. Ministers should not, as the Treasurer has done, say that they live in Sydney while being enrolled in Canberra for voting purposes and while sending their children to Canberra schools-and claiming every day that they are here a travelling allowance to which they are not entitled. That is the least that the Australian people can and should expect from the Government-and the Government has dumped them on every one of those expectations or issues. When the Prime Minister announced this election he said that he is asking for a mandate to finish the job. There is no way that the people of Australia will give this Government a mandate to finish them off. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(12.42) —This afternoon I am debating the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 1987. That Bill gives effect to the measures in the May economic statement which affect the social security and veterans' affairs portfolios. In the May economic statement the Government was able to reduce the Forward Estimates of outlays next financial year by some $4,000m. The objective of that exercise was to reduce government spending in future financial years to cut the Budget deficit and, as a result, reduce pressures on interest rates. The measures in the Bill before the Senate at the moment which affect the social security and veterans' affairs areas will contribute some $360m of those total savings in the next financial year. The changes in the May economic statement reflect the Government's intention to restructure unemployment and education allowances for young Australians. From 1 January next unemployment benefits for 16- and 17-year-olds will be replaced by a job search allowance. That new allowance will be paid at the rate of $50 per week unless a person's family income is relatively high. New unemployment benefit applicants aged 16 or 17 years will also have to wait 13 weeks instead of six weeks as is the case under the current system. By introducing these measures the Government is indicating that it wants to discourage young Australians from leaving school early without any training. There are basically two reasons for that. If Australia is to become a successful exporting power in the world it must have a well trained and well educated work force. The unfortunate reality is that teenagers leaving school without jobs or training are effectively heading for a dead end. That is the second reason why this Government has introduced those particular measures. The Government is giving school leavers a clear message: Find work or undertake training. The new job search allowance will not harm jobless young people from low income families. I will repeat that: The new job search allowance for 16- and 17-year-olds will not penalise young Australians coming from low income families. Unemployed teenagers will still be able to receive up to $50 a week, subject to a parental income test. This amount is made up of a minimum of $25 a week job search allowance plus another $25 a week for applicants from low income families. For those young people unable to live at home the Government will increase the young homeless allowance, which it introduced in last year's Budget, to $76 a week. These are some of the major changes which have been made in the May economic statement. The Government reforms will eliminate the financial incentives for young people to leave education and shift on to Australia's social welfare system. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce refers again to continuing industrial disruption in the Victorian metal trades industry directly attributable to the urgings of the Minister's Victorian Senate ticket colleague, John Halfpenny. Is the Minister aware that, despite agreement by union leaders before Mr Deputy President Keogh in Melbourne yesterday to try to bring this disruption to an end, workers at the Australian National Industries Ltd subsidiary, ANI National Forge, today voted to continue the strike which has prevented that company from delivering parts to vehicle makers since 21 May and which threatens its very existence? Is the Minister concerned that the intense pressure on the company may force it to agree to demands, encouraged by Mr Halfpenny, for payment of whole or part of the 4 per cent second tier wage increase in advance of the framework laid down by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, with the risk that such a decision might flow on to other parts of the metal trades industry? Given that the Minister, as I have, received a request from the company for urgent assistance, what can or will the Government do to resolve the continuing dispute at National Forge which threatens to disrupt the orderly wage fixing processes and destroy thousands of jobs in Australian manufacturing? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the situation described by Senator Chaney in his question. It is true that I have had discussions today with the Managing Director of ANI, Mr Neil Jones, about this matter. Let me say first that Mr Jones has been a person who has always indicated to me on a whole range of issues that governments should keep out of these things and that ANI could solve its own industrial problems and other problems without assistance from government. I am not in any way trying to escape the point of Senator Chaney's question in saying that, but it raises an issue in respect of the industrial relations policy of the Opposition which, as Mr Howard described it not so long ago, could lead to five years of industrial chaos in this country. Although it is not Senator Chaney's obligation to answer-and I know that he will make me aware of that-I would be very interested to hear what he would do in that situation. He tries to pretend to the Australian people that he would wave a magic wand to settle the dispute at ANI. Of course, he would do nothing of the sort-he could not, and he knows that perfectly well. He knows that in the Fraser Government's seven years in office it tried to wave a number of not magic wands but big sticks to resolve disputes, but the level of industrial disputation in this country under that Government was twice what it is now under the Hawke Labor Government. Senator Chaney is implying by this question that on this occasion he has a magic wand, which may take the form of a big stick, he could use to resolve the problems, but of course it will not; it is not as simple as that. I return to the specific point of Senator Chaney's question, quite apart from his general implication. Let me say that I have had discussions, as I indicated, with Mr Jones, and I hope to have discussions this afternoon with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations about this matter. We will see what can be done, but I do not intend to reveal the nature of those discussions at Question Time in the Senate. Senator CHANEY —I wish to ask a supplementary question, if we can ignore the Minister's attempt to politicise the question. Are metal trades employers, including National Forge, operating within both the spirit and the letter of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's decision on the second tier wage negotiations? If the Minister agrees that that is the case, does he further agree that the meeting of those conditions by employers is in this case being met by a flagrant breach of the arrangements by the trade union concerned? Does he also agree that there is no apparent remedy available to an employer in this circumstance to protect himself or the company against this flagrant breach of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission decision by the workers concerned? I ask the Minister, since he is still in government and will be in government for the next six weeks, what advice he has to offer these employers who are following the Government's own request to employers in respect of how they deal with their own work force but who are now being held up to this sort of industrial ransom. Senator BUTTON —The terminology of the supplementary question is revealing, because Senator Chaney did not have as much time to think about it as he had to think about his initial question. He asked: Is there no apparent remedy available to the company? The implication of that part of the question is that somehow under Senator Chaney's charge of these matters a remedy would be immediately available to the company. The second part of the supplementary question to which I want to refer is the suggestion of a breach of arrangements by the union. That is not entirely consistent with my information. It may be that the honourable senator's information is different, but I understand that, in fact, the union takes a different position regarding the situation at ANI, or at least a position that is not identical with that of the work force at ANI-that is, that the work force at ANI is the issue of most importance, not the union's influence. So, once again, I come back to the question: What is the apparent remedy available to the company? The theory of industrial relations espoused by the troglodytes who sit behind Senator Chaney-in whichever forum he sits, whether in coalition with the Queensland Nationals or not-is that, in essence, these matters are best left to what is called enterprise bargaining. Senator Chaney —Agreements are then binding on both parties. Senator BUTTON —Maybe. Enterprise bargaining means slogging it out in the market place. I suppose that that is what is happening at ANI. When enterprise bargaining gets a big tough, then honourable senators opposite say-- Senator Chaney —You have imposed the system on people. Senator BUTTON —No, I have not imposed this system. The honourable senator was in the Fraser Government for seven or eight years. People who were around at the start of the Fraser Government will remember Malcolm Fraser's famous speech about how these issues should be resolved by conciliation but if there was no conciliation, he said, there should be penal legislation which, to use his words, carried consequences. For seven years we had that system that involved legislation which carried consequences, and what happened? The Liberal- National Party Government had a record of industrial disputations that was twice as bad as the record of the present Government in the last four years. Senator Chaney —You are not going to answer the question, so why don't you just sit down? Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney asks why I do not sit down. That is the best interjection Senator Chaney has made. It reveals his true purpose-to get me to sit down and not answer this question. Not only did the Liberal-National Party Government have a level of industrial disputation during those eight years that was twice the present level but also it had wage levels that sent the economy of this country down the tube. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. We can tell that the Leader of the Government is debating the question, because he is shouting and waving his arms around. I draw your attention to the fact that the Standing Orders preclude the debating of questions and I suggest that you call the Minister to order and have him answer the question. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator BUTTON —I am just rounding off, Mr President. I can tell Senator Chaney, in conclusion, that during the next five weeks he will not, when he wants to shut me up, be able to take a point of order. Senator CHILDS —I direct a question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs that follows on from an answer he gave Senator Lewis two days ago. If the Department of Veterans' Affairs were to agree with the Opposition and give in to the demands of the medical profession, what would be the likely cost to the Government and how does this fit in with the Opposition's policy to close public hospitals? Senator GIETZELT —As Senator Childs has suggested, it is true that Senator Lewis asked me a question on Monday of this week which suggested that there may be some support from the Opposition for the outrageous demand of $119 per hour that was being made on the Government in respect of fees in the hospital system. He did so in his capacity as shadow Minister for the Territories as well as shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I responded by pointing out to him the difficulties that the Government had in trying to reconcile the claims that have been made on the Government by the visiting medical specialists at the repatriation hospitals. In response to the question asked by Senator Childs, I point out that the costs are borne by government-that means, of course, either a Liberal government led by Mr Howard or the present Government led by Prime Minister Hawke. If we were to accede to the demand that was originally made of the Department of Veterans' Affairs to award the Macken fees, the cost to the Department would be some $30m. In a period in which the Prime Minister has suggested that there should be equity and restraint-which of course has been applied to trade unionists, pensioners, Commonwealth beneficiaries, and even to members of Parliament-I submit that that was an outrageous claim to make, having regard to the current economic circumstances. I am led to believe that the Opposition has a more benign attitude, a more understanding attitude, of this claim and what its implications would mean. However, if I were to move beyond the matched rates to any substantial degree in respect of the repatriation hospital system, that would have an immediate flow-on effect in relation to the State hospital systems. That would probably mean that doctors throughout Australia would be able to demand $100m from the public sector. I believe that that would be completely unacceptable to all State governments in Australia, whether that be the National Party Government in Queensland, the Labor Government in New South Wales or the Liberal Government in Tasmania, for example. As I have been asked questions on this matter several times in recent weeks, I shall take this opportunity to inform the Senate that the Government has now agreed to make an offer to the visiting medical officers in South Australia. We hope that its implications will have a flow-on effect to the doctors at Heidelberg, Greenslopes and Hobart of $69 a sessional fee hour, which would represent an increase of 33 per cent on the current rates that are being paid on the contracts which expired in December 1986. The Government has made a substantial concession, having regard to the economic environment to which I have referred. I am sure that this measure will enjoy the support of the major ex-service organisations. It will certainly remove any threat to existing functioning of the repatriation hospitals throughout Australia. I am hopeful, therefore, that the doctors will appreciate that the Government has moved considerably from its previous offer. Therefore, this outcome should enjoy the support of the visiting medical specialists in whichever State they operate. The Government is also prepared to say that if the States in their budgeting arrangements are able to offer a higher fee in the negotiations of contracts pertaining to the way in which the State systems operate, the Government will be prepared to move even further in a matching rate arrangement. In other words, the Government again commits itself publicly to work in co-operation with the States, of whatever political complexion, to provide a matched rate for each of the respective States. At this stage they do vary for a whole variety of historical reasons, although there is a co-operative approach. I hope that this approach will enjoy the support of veterans' organisations, patients, the war widows, and ex-service personnel, who comprise the majority of patients in the repatriation hospital system. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer the Minister to the Government's decision to try to buy some industrial peace with the Queensland coal unions for the purpose of the election campaign by its promise of a High Court of Australia challenge to that State's anti-strike legislation. Has this price been sufficient to persuade the unions to call off next week's planned 24-hour strikes? Have the unions given undertakings not to disrupt the coal industry during the High Court's consideration of this matter? Finally, have the unions undertaken to abide by the decision of the High Court? Senator GARETH EVANS —Unlike our opponents, who are all too keen to provoke and generate industrial confrontation in order to secure some marginal and transient political advantage, we are a government which is determined to act in the overall economic interests and for the overall economic benefit of the nation. That was the overwhelming basis on which we, as I explained yesterday, made the decision to initiate a High Court challenge to ensure as best we could, in the absence of our new industrial legislation, that it would not be possible for the Queensland Premier to employ the Queensland Act against, in particular, the Queensland mining unions. As I explained yesterday, massive economic consequences are likely to flow from any sustained disruption in the Queensland coal economy, constituting as it does an earner of some $3.2 billion in export earnings in the last calendar year alone. It is not a risk that this or any other government could possibly afford to take. It is the case that there has been a course of discussion with the unions about this matter, extending back now for a period of some weeks. I am confident that, as a result of those discussions and the further discussions that I have had since the decision was taken yesterday, there will be no further industrial action for the foreseeable future by the Queensland coal mining unions or indeed any other responsible unions in that State. They are determined not to respond to crude and vulgar provocation of the kind that we have become all too used to from not only the Queensland Premier but also our opponents opposite. They are determined to bring to bear a restrained and mature approach to this problem. As I understand it, they are satisfied that the High Court challenge that we are initiating will give an opportunity for the legislation to be tested and, hopefully, defused in the short run, pending some longer term enactment of the new legislative regime applicable to these matters. As a result, I believe that the confrontation of a kind that would be so desperately damaging will be avoided. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Senator Gareth Evans did not answer my final question, namely: Have the unions undertaken to abide by the decision of the High Court of Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —Australian unions are a law abiding group which always abide by the decisions of the courts of this land. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that in this instance they will behave otherwise. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and also concerns the role of unions in Australia. Various spokespersons of the New Right often argue and suggest that unions no longer have a legitimate role to play in the industrial relations environment. Does the Government agree with that view? Further, does the Government agree that in the late twentieth century Australia's unions should be swept away and individual employees left to negotiate their wages, hours and conditions on a one-to-one basis with their employers and, if not, why not? Senator WALSH —I think everybody would acknowledge that employers now are far more intelligent and reasonable towards employees than they were, say, a century ago. But there is still a minority of ratbag employers around, and I will be drawing attention to a particular ratbag employer in a few minutes. Those who assert that unions are anachronistic are therefore guilty of ignoring the fact that there are still some ratbag employers around. I have here copies of two letters which were circulated by a Western Australian employer to 13 of his employees. I will just quote a couple of extracts from one of them. It is headed `Policy Note: Negligence fines'. It says: As you are aware the restaurant industry is currently suffering the worst recession in living memory. I interpolate that, as a question of fact, it also happens to be wrong. Leaving that aside, it continues: The difference between survival and non-survival is cost-efficiency: This applies in all things but nowhere more so than in the `little things' e.g. electricity, ground maintenance theft, and waste of time and materials. The letter continues: Accordingly I have now introduced a system of fines as detailed below: The fines will be imposed on the basis of personal responsibility for the act of negligence, but where there is dispute as to who is responsible . . . the Staff member actually in charge will be fined as the team member ultimately responsible. Appended to the letter is a schedule of the fines. For leaving a light on, the fine is $5 for each light; for leaving an appliance on it is $5, as it is for parking on the lawn at the pavilion; for leaving indoor tables outdoors-a pretty serious offence-a $20 fine; for leaving waste in the kitchen, a $10 fine; for leaving internal doors unlocked, a $15 fine; for leaving a cool-room door ajar, a $20 fine; and for leaving the external door unlocked a $50 fine. Both letters, by the way, are dated 11 April 1987. Senator Gietzelt —Is it 1987 or 1887? Senator WALSH —I thought exactly that, that it must be a typographical error and that this is something that has come from the archives and is dated 1887, but it is dated 1987-only two months ago. I table both letters. The second one, from which I will not read because it is a bit too long, sets out a seniority ladder for sackings. It says that if theft of any of the cutlery or crockery or whatever at these restaurants continues the most junior employee will be sacked, if it still continues the next most junior will be sacked, and so on until there are no employees left. Thus one employee is to be made the scapegoat every time the employer, acting as the judge, of course, and the prosecutor, decides- Senator Lewis —Come on! You have got to be joking. Senator WALSH —No, I am not. I have the letters here. Senator Button —This is a leaked document from the Liberal Party. Senator WALSH —It may well have come to us from the Liberal Party, but I will come to that at the end. I understand that it was a practice in nazi slave labour camps that if anything was stolen one prisoner would be taken out and shot. This is not quite that but, if anything is stolen, one employee will be sacked without any evidence whatsoever that the employee sacked had anything to do with the theft. This demonstrates quite decisively that, while there are ratbag employers such as this around, no reasonable person could argue that there is not a useful role for unions. The final point that I want to make is that this employer, whose signature appears on the letter, is one James MacDonald, who is the principal of what appears to be a company called Sereaglio Park. He is perhaps better known as No. 1, the leader, on the National Party Senate ticket in Western Australia. Senator MACKLIN —I refer the Minister for Education to the recent report of the Government's higher education administration charge monitoring committee whose recommendations include, amongst other things, a system whereby part time and external students would pay no more than full time students during the duration of their studies for the same course and an expansion of the categories of students exempt from payment of the charge. It also pointed out the difficulties of women in a range of special categories. Will the Minister guarantee that if the Government is re-elected it will adopt the changes to her Party's policy with regard to the implementation of the charge, as has been recom-mended by the committee? Senator RYAN —It is the case that the monitoring committee which I established to look at the impact of the higher education administration charge on the enrolment of certain groups has reported to me. That report has been discussed with a number of groups, including the Caucus committees and other interested education bodies. The recommendations include the particular one to which Senator Macklin referred in his question. The recommendations of the committee will be considered by the Cabinet in the Budget context. Senator MACKLIN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is it not proposed during the election campaign to give any guarantee to students with regard to these proposed changes? Senator RYAN —The Prime Minister will be making the election speech on behalf of the Government, and Senator Macklin can wait until then. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Hawke Government considered the option of funding further tax cuts-that is, over and above the substantial 1 July tax cuts-by shifting Commonwealth responsibilities on to the States, as proposed by the Queensland Government at the Premiers Conference and, more recently, by the Liberal Opposition? What are the implications of such a policy proposal? Does the Government have any plans to implement such a proposal? Senator WALSH —The Government does not have at the moment any plans for major shifts of the type to which Senator Maguire referred. It is always possible, of course, that in relation to some relatively small programs a judgment could be made that it would be administratively more efficient to transfer them to the States and to roll into the normal States grants the funding that previously went to them. Indeed, a couple of fairly small programs had that done to them in the May statement. The Government does not have any plans to make major changes of the sort which were suggested by the Premier of Queensland. It is, of course, possible to make cosmetic reductions in public expenditure if such major changes are made. For example, it is being argued by some now that the Commonwealth Government should completely withdraw from health funding. There would be a cosmetic reduction in public expenditure if that were to happen, but that would be more than offset by the increase in private expenditure. Some go even further than that and argue that the State governments as well as the Commonwealth Government should withdraw from health funding, apart from funding for pensioners and similar groups. The implications of the proposals that have been put up, but not by the Government, are very hard to assess because it is difficult to know what they mean. For example, in a Press release issued today by the Leader of the Opposition it is reported that the two leaders-that is, Petersen and Howard-agreed that any important variations between their basic policies for Australia's economic recovery could be resolved co-operatively and translated into urgent legislation immediately after a new conservative government is sworn in. Mr Sinclair, who is the actual leader or the titular leader of the National Party of Australia, is not a sponsor of the Press release and he apparently was not at the meeting. Senator Button —What a wimp of an agreement it is, too. Senator WALSH —An agreement, yes. That is not surprising because Mr Sinclair said on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio on 29 April: A coalition gave us an opportunity to go into Government and to make sure that the right policies were in place to take effect as of day one. Now it will be necessary to go into the election campaign with our separate policies and then after the election to enter negotiations with the Liberal Party, form a Coalition, and then work out which of the policies that have been presented to the people are going to be in fact put in place. The policies that will be presented to the people and put in place will be worked out after the election, Mr Sinclair said. In the little private meeting that Petersen and Mr Howard had today, from which Sinclair was excluded, it was stated: . . . any important variations between their basic policies . . . could be resolved co-operatively . . . We all know what that means; it means yet another abject surrender by the Liberal Party to the National Party. That is what the resolution of policy differences means. The Liberal Party is yet again running up the white flag. The following is what Petersen said about Howard on 1 March on the Sunday program: He made an utter and complete mess of it when he was Treasurer . . . . Even Petersen is not wrong all the time. The following is what Petersen said about Howard and Sinclair: You can't have two policies in one basket; it's like having two apples-one good and one bad. Pretty soon both turn bad. I do not think anybody would disagree with that statement either. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. I hope he will not give such a long chat-up as Senator Walsh has just given. I refer the Minister to the Grassy Hill lighthouse and reserve at Cooktown which, for the information of the Senate, was the site where Captain Cook climbed to look for a way through the Great Barrier Reef in 1770 after putting into Cooktown for repairs. In view of Australia's coming Bicentenary and the enormous historical importance of this site to the people of Australia, will the Minister review the decision of his Government to sell this site at a price that the small Cooktown Shire cannot afford and instead move to ensure that this lighthouse is preserved and passed on to the Cooktown Shire Council for a nominal lease, thus guaranteeing its safe keeping? Senator GIETZELT —For a number of reasons I am very pleased to respond to Senator Bjelke-Petersen's question. I am very surprised that a person of her calibre and political maturity has not yet heard the news in respect of the area to which she referred in her question. Obviously it means that with all the toing and froing that has been going on between the Queensland Nationals and the Nationals, and the Liberals and the conservatives generally, she has not had time even to read the newspapers. The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services met with the Federal member for Leichhardt, John Gayler, and the State member for Cook, Mr Scott, when he was in Cairns last week to discuss the Cooktown lighthouse. It was decided in such august company that there would be recognition for the heritage and environment value of the property and that it should be transferred to an appropriate authority-either the State or local government entity-for a token fee. This, of course, is an indication of this Government's commitment to the protection of our heritage. This decision was announced by John Gayler, the local member, and reported widely in all of the local media on 20 May 1987. This Federal Labor initiative recognises the history of the lighthouse-as does Senator Bjelke-Petersen-and its importance to the local community. The Commonwealth has not made any money out of the deal in spite of the fact that the lighthouse was acquired from the State Government of Queensland at its market price. So we have put our money where our mouth is in respect of this important piece of our history. The National Party Government in Queensland has not given any commitment to contributing to the preservation and upkeep of this important and historic property. Therefore, I ask the honourable senator whether she would be kind enough to raise the matter with her husband, the Premier, and suggest that the Queensland Government take on the responsibility of maintaining this important property. Senator WEST —I direct my question to the Minister for Finance. Has the Government evaluated the potential savings to be made if Medicare were to be dismantled? What is the Government's assessment of this measure to the Budget? Is the Minister aware of other estimates which differ from those of the Government? Will the Minister account for any discrepancy? Senator WALSH —Senator West's question referred to the potential savings that could be made if Medicare were dismantled. I am not sure whether there is a precise definition of just what that means or whether it is possible to present a precise definition, but on the entire health function the Commonwealth is currently spending about $7.3 billion a year. That covers nursing homes, medical benefits, pharmaceutical benefits and the grants paid to the States for the operation of public hospitals or for providing free treatment in public hospitals. In addition to that, as I mentioned earlier in Question Time, the States spend a large amount of money from their resources on principally hospital maintenance but also some other health matters. If the Commonwealth and the States were to withdraw from providing any funds, other than for the support of pensioners and such groups, some $5.8 billion would be saved, about something over half of which would be savings to the Commonwealth. The effect of people then taking out private health insurance to cover their increased personal liabilities would, as I mentioned the other day, push up the consumer price index by more than 6 per cent. If governments were to withdraw their funding in that way, the CPI would be increased by something more than 6 per cent. There is considerable disagreement within the Opposition about the savings that would be made if Medicare were dismantled. I have a transcript from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation World Today of 1 June in which Michael Dodd stated: Senator Baume- that is, Senator Michael Baume- you are a very new shadow health Minister- And it shows. The transcript continued: firstly do you stand by the claims that you will save at least three billion dollars in the health area? Senator Michael Baume said: I would think there is every prospect of that . . . On the same day when interviewing Mr Howard on the same subject John Laws asked: How much of that will you save? Mr Howard said: I can only talk in the order of about $2 billion. Depending on whether one wishes to believe the shadow health Minister or the Leader of the Opposition-they reckon that $2 billion or $3 billion-- Senator Button —Like the deficit they left us-give or take a few billion. Senator WALSH —When one is presenting a prospective deficit of $16 billion, I suppose it really does not matter very much whether one is out by $1 billion in the costing of one individual policy item. If such a change were to be made-this means that the Commonwealth only would withdraw from health funding and would still leave a lot of money to be spent by the States-as Dr Blewett and Mr Keating revealed last Monday, the consequence would be a $27 a week slug for every family to cover the additional private health insurance which it would be obliged to take out. Another perspective on that underlying reality is the fact that the consumer price index would rise by more than 6 per cent in one hit. Senator ALSTON —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy and also refers to yesterday's announcement that the Federal Government, having squibbed on its own Industrial Relations Bill, proposes to squander taxpayers' money by launching proceedings in the High Court to strike down Queensland anti-strike legislation. Is it a fact that industrial legislation imposing maximum fines of $50,000 for individuals and $250,000 for associations in respect of secondary boycotts was passed by the Queensland Parliament as long ago as November 1984, and that following the South East Queensland Electricity Board dispute in 1985 the Act was further amended to require seven days' clear notice of strikes? Why, until now, has the Government not taken any action in the High Court or elsewhere to strike down the Queensland legislation? If the Government were to obtain the declaration that it now regards as so urgent, what action would it then suggest be taken to protect the $5 billion coal export industry and in particular Queensland exports of $3.2 billion which continue to be threatened by an appalling strike record, or would the Government choose to throw itself on the mercy of a labour court in a desperate plea for another dose of industrial realism to avoid the massive economic consequences, to borrow the Minister's description, which have characterised the industry for so long? Senator GARETH EVANS —The short answer in respect of taking the action we are taking now rather than having done so earlier is that the legislation in Queensland has been further amended in recent months to make it even more unnecessarily provocative in its scope and potential application. Furthermore, it has become apparent that, even more so than in previous times, we have a maniac with a match running around next to the tinder box only too determined to set it alight. In those circumstances it is not an exercise in anything other than economic responsibility for the Government to take every course of action open to it to minimise the prospects of such an eruption occurring. Senator COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, and follows an answer given by Senator Gareth Evans last week to a question asked by Senator MacGibbon. I remind the Minister that a number of Australians are currently stationed or deployed in Fiji and the surrounding area as part of Australia's contribution to the stability of the area and in case a need develops to evacuate Australians quickly. The Minister will be aware of the problems with repatriation benefits for those in other peacekeeping and occupational areas which have occurred in the past and which I personally have had to raise with his Department. Will the Minister advise the Senate of the eligibility for repatriation benefits of members of the defence forces serving in the Fijian area? Senator GIETZELT —I recall the question on this topic that was asked of Senator Gareth Evans by Senator MacGibbon one day last week. It showed a lamentable lack of knowledge of who is responsible for the treatment of injuries arising out of war service. The question was asked of Senator Evans in his capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, whereas if Senator MacGibbon had known about ministerial responsibilities he would have put that question to me. It shows his ignorance of the repatriation system and particularly of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. I am not surprised about that. I have received a large number of letters from National and Liberal Party members in both Houses making submissions to me in respect of the Government's attitude to the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Fund. That does not come within my area of jurisdiction but is part of the area of responsibility covered by the Minister for Defence. Obviously Opposition members do not know the processes of government. However, in respect of the question put to me by Senator Coleman, which flows naturally from the interest expressed by Senator MacGibbon, I would point out that there are eligibility provisions in the Veterans' Entitlements Act which would cover any personnel serving on behalf of the Australian Government in Fiji. There are three specific questions involved. If any Australian servicemen or servicewomen were sent to Fiji as part of the regular defence forces, provided that they had served for three years they would generally be covered in respect of injuries or death as a result of that service. If they had not served that period of time, the responsibility would rest with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs of the day to designate that force as part of a peacekeeping force, provided that it is gazetted by the Minister that in respect of service outside Australia such personnel would be eligible for benefits and treatment in accordance with the normal provisions of the repatriation legislation. I have done that in respect of six or seven peacekeeping operations that have taken place in years past which were not gazetted by previous Ministers for Veterans' Affairs. However, if it were determined by the Minister for Defence that it was a hazardous zone, other benefits would accrue to the person affected by involvement in Fiji. Since 1972, when the Whit- lam Government extended repatriation benefits to peacetime personnel, some 80,000 personnel have received certain benefits covered by the Veterans' Entitlements Act as a result of their peacetime service or of activities in a peacekeeping force. Those arrangements could apply to any person who, as a result of Government decision, goes to Fiji. Senator TEAGUE —I direct my question to the Minister for Education. I draw the Minister's attention to the appalling situation that currently exists with the delayed payment of allowances under the assistance to isolated children scheme. Can the Minister confirm that of the 12,339 applications received by 15 May 1987, only 4,324 applicants have been paid-that is, the great majority have already gone without payment for five months? Can the Minister also confirm that the figures for New South Wales, with 3,156 applicants but only 322 payments made so far, are correct, and that in my own State of South Australia barely a quarter of the 665 isolated children's scheme applicants have so far been processed? Can the Minister inform the Senate how much longer the parents and children who rely on this scheme must wait, and is it true that the Department has been directed to give priority to Austudy applications before assistance to isolated children's scheme applications? Will all payments be completed before 11 July? Senator RYAN —I was expecting an apology from Senator Teague, not a tirade about the late payments of this form of assistance. It is the case that there have been delays in the payment of this benefit to isolated children; it is the case that special arrangements have been made to assist where delays have occurred; and it is also the case that applications are being received, assessed and processed for payment as quickly as possible, and manual payment systems are being used to make first and second term payments. Yesterday I called for a briefing on where we were with this matter, and instructed that all outstanding payments be dealt with as quickly as possible. Now that virtually all the Austudy payments have been made, it will be possible to give very prompt settlement-- Senator Michael Baume —There must be an election in the offing. Senator RYAN —No wonder Opposition senators interject when their leader, John Howard, goes around offering to cut $8 billion off Commonwealth payments, as a result of which there would clearly be no Commonwealth funds available to assist isolated children. No wonder they want to distract attention from the fact that, although some of the payments have been delayed by us, every student eligible for payment will be paid very shortly whereas, in the highly unlikely event of the Liberals coming to government, with $8 billion of Commonwealth outlays there would be no money for children in our schools, isolated or otherwise. Senator TEAGUE —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. When will all payments be completed, and will that be before 11 July? Senator RYAN —It is my expectation that they will be completed in the next couple of weeks. Senator CROWLEY —Further to Senator West's question, has the Minister representing the Minister for Health seen the article on the front page of yesterday's Age newspaper headed `Liberals would pull Medicare apart', where it is reported that Senator Michael Baume admitted that five million people may be worse off under the Liberals' proposal to dismantle Medicare? He further added that eight million people would be better off because they would no longer subsidise Medicare. Can the Minister explain to the Senate why the Government insists on Medicare, particularly because of its emphasis on fairness and protection for those five million on lower incomes and pensions, and why the blatant intention of the Opposition, when it shamelessly claims to disadvantage five million people, is totally opposed by this Government? Can he explain how the Opposition's claims will add dramatically to the cost of health for all Australians? Senator TATE —I have been made aware of the article and the reported admission by Senator Michael Baume that five million Australians would be worse off under the Opposition's health policy. That is a very modest figure according to the calculations that have been carried out by independent public officials without any political bias in the Treasury and the Department of Health. For Senator Baume to make the concession that five million Australians would be worse off under the Opposition's health policy, is an extremely damning indictment of the proposals that have emanated from the Opposition benches in relation to the health care of Australians. As far as this Government is concerned, it is quite intolerable that Australian families faced particularly with chronic illness or the results of a traumatic accident, whether it be industrial or on the roads, should have added financial burdens of the sort brought about by Opposition policies. A detailed analysis of the Opposition's health policy which was undertaken by Treasury and Department of Health officials-and I emphasise that these are independent public officials-shows that the extra cost for families would be in the region of $27 per week. To bring about a successful shift from the Government-subsidised Medicare system to the private health insurance system, requiring a cost of some $27 a week, it is quite clear that the Opposition-and it has not mentioned this-would have to strike a Medicare levy for the remaining Australians within the Medicare system possibly as high as 5 per cent. One recalls that under Mr Fraser the Medicare levy went up to 2.5 per cent in order to try to shift Australians across to the private health insurance system. This Government believes that Australian families should not have to pay $27 a week in order to purchase protection against chronic illness and the results of traumatic accidents, as I have outlined. The Medicare system is based on the premise that people should make a contribution to the health care of all Australians in accordance with their income and the idea that poor people and those with below average incomes should pay as much as those who are wealthy-$27 per week per family, a flat rate with no equitable impact on the households concerned-is an intolerable proposition. The Opposition proposal is something that we have seen before. This attempt to shift some 60 to 64 per cent of Australians into private health insurance funds was precisely what was attempted by Mr Fraser when he introduced that scheme in 1976. That scheme, which is now being proposed by the Opposition, lasted only 21 months and was followed by a succession of changes-in July 1978, November 1978, September 1979 and September 1981. We all recall the constant hardship and confusion caused by the continual revamping of the various health schemes under the conservatives. It will be recalled that ultimately the effect of that policy, which the Opposition now wants to reinflict on the Australian people, was to have two million Australians stranded between Medicare and the private health insurance funds and quite unable to afford the sort of protection which their families deserved. Some two million people dropped out of the system without having the sort of medical and health care to which they were entitled. Now Senator Michael Baume wants to bump that figure up to five million Australians who will be worse off. This Government and, I am sure, the Australian people as well, believe that the Medicare system-it has had some imperfections along the way but these have been admitted and addressed-is far better and far more equitable than that proposed by members of the Opposition which would leave five million Australians worse off. Senator PUPLICK —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Was McKinsey and Co. recently paid $400,000 to undertake yet another internal review of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation? Did this payment have ministerial approval? Has this McKinsey review been used to justify a further internal rearrangement of the CSIRO in which no real input was allowed from any other than the directors of that organisation, and one of the consequences of which may well be the destruction of the world recognised division of mathematics and statistics in CSIRO? Have all the details of McKinsey's analysis of the administration of the CSIRO been suppressed and kept secret, especially from the CSIRO staff, and will the administration of the organisation actually increase under the McKinsey plan? When the CSIRO Board meets on 17 June, will the Federal Government make known its views on this further proposed reorganisation? Senator BUTTON —I do not know whether there is anything terribly secret about the McKinsey organisation undertaking a consultancy in respect of the CSIRO. I read it in the newspapers and it should not surprise Senator Puplick. The details of this matter are appropriately for the Minister for Science and I ask Senator Puplick to place the question on notice. Senator VALLENTINE —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy, concerns exploration by Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd for uranium, gold and diamonds in the Rudall River National Park in Western Australia. Does the Minister agree with the assessment of a senior source in the Australian Mining Industry Council that the mine is `a three-act nightmare'-that is, uranium in a national park and on Aboriginal land? Could he confirm his earlier statement quoted in the Times on Sunday of 19 April that the Government does not plan to change Australian Labor Party policy by encouraging CRA to mine the Kintyre region in order to relieve pressure for uranium mining in Kakadu National Park? Has the Minister consulted with members of the Pangurr Aboriginal community in the area, whose water bore is threatened by the mine and who have complained of fixed wing aircraft and helicopters buzzing the community? Finally, have core samples from four drilling rigs inside the park been flown direct to Melbourne and, if so, have any assessments been made or published about them? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am happy to repeat what I told the Senate on 25 March this year in relation to this matter when I said that both the Western Australian Government and CRA have discussed their interests in this deposit with me but I made it absolutely clear, and they understand and accept this, that under the Government's uranium policy, the Kintyre deposit could not proceed to development. As I have told the Senate on several occasions, the three-mines policy remains quite firm and there is no proposal to alter it. I said that in March and I repeat it now. I am not aware of the Commonwealth having consulted with the Pangurr Aboriginal community and in any case such consultations would be the responsibility of the Western Australian Government. I am not aware of whether core samples from the area have been flown to Melbourne or elsewhere, nor whether any assessments have been published about them. I do not know whether, as Senator Vallentine asserts, the Australian Mining Industry Council regards the Kintyre deposit as a nightmare. All I can say is that ALP policy does not prohibit the kind of exploration activity being undertaken by CRA. As long as this remains a purely exploration exercise, I certainly will not lose any sleep over it. Senator SANDERS —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and while she is shuffling her papers I would like to welcome back to our midst the guardians of truth and defenders of democracy, the ladies and gentlemen of the Fourth Estate. Will the Minister advise why the report compiled by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Australia, on cruelty involved in the killing of wallabies in Tasmania has not been released publicly? Will the Minister make the report available immediately? Given that it is now almost six months since the 11-member kangaroo advisory committee meeting on 10 and 11 December 1986, why have the final minutes not been agreed to or adopted? Will the Minister make available the tape recording of this meeting? Finally, when will the Queensland Government release the supporting documentation for its 1987 kangaroo management program? Senator RYAN —I will have to follow the example of my leader and suggest that Senator Sanders put those questions on notice. I am sure that Mr Cohen will answer them as soon as possible. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. What has been the response to the Government's provision of a young homeless allowance? How many young people are currently receiving this allowance? What steps is the Government taking to make the community aware of its availability? Senator RYAN —As Senator Zakharov will be aware, because she is very interested in the circumstances of disadvantaged young people, the young homeless allowance was introduced by our Government on 1 July 1986. It is a measure of the compassion that our Government has shown towards young people in desperate circumstances that it accelerated the introduction of the young homeless allowance before the other aspects of the rationalisation of youth allowances were introduced. Before the young homeless allowance-under the previous Government, in which Senator Chaney was a Minister-nothing was available to tertiary students who were homeless and secondary students had to prove a capacity for self-support, including the possession of $1,800 in assets, to qualify for the independent rate of secondary assistance. Of course, as Senator Zakharov may be aware, very few qualified under such harsh conditions. Under our Government's scheme, young people may be eligible for a payment of $73.28 a week if they have reached school leaving age and are unable to live at home because there is no family home, because they have been refused permission to reside there under any circumstances or because it would be unreasonable to expect them to return home due to domestic violence, sexual harassment or any other exceptional circumstances, and if they are not in receipt of support from their parents or any other continuous source. My Department has received 4,198 applications for the young homeless allowance so far this year. Resulting from these 2,190 applicants are receiving regular fortnightly payments. About 500 have been deemed ineligible and the remainder of applications are recently received or awaiting additional information. These figures need to be seen in conjunction with social security payments to young homeless unemployed people. The latest information I have is that 903 young homeless people were receiving payments from the Department of Social Security as at the middle of March this year. As to the promotion of this scheme and information to the community about its existence, the scheme, as I said, was launched in 1986 with substantial publicity. The launch was followed up through educational and welfare institutions and career advisers. The young homeless allowance is now administered within my Department as part of the Austudy scheme and is publicised in conjunction with that scheme. In conclusion, the scheme has proved to be successful. Thousands of genuinely homeless young people are now receiving this benefit. When Senator Chaney or his ilk like to leap on the bandwagon and say that we are not doing enough for disadvantaged youth, they conveniently ignore, as I am afraid sometimes the media ignores, the existence of this benefit. It is a substantial improvement for young people in very difficult circumstances. I for one am proud that the Government has taken this measure. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-At Question Time, Senator Tate said that I had admitted that five million Australians would be worse off under the Liberal Party health plan. I made no such admission. What I said-and it is important that this be clear in the mind of the Government if it wants to continue to misstate what I said-was that eight million Australians stood to be better off, depending on their tax position, under our health plans. I said that three million underprivileged people would be better off because they would still pay nothing but would get better access to health services, and then I said that five million may-and I stressed the word `may'-be worse off depending on their tax status, so that 70 per cent of Australians would benefit from our health scheme. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —by leave-Concerning the media package which was passed by the Senate yesterday, about which I have great regrets on the whole, I wish to make it clear that I would have supported the Communications Legislation Amendment Bill had there been an opportunity to deal with it separately. That Bill was formed in response to a request from some South Pacific neighbours for Australia to assist in the improvement of their international telecommunications systems. I believe that this kind of assistance is valuable in building good relations. It is much more useful than military aid of any kind in any direction. But I voted against the whole package because of my opposition to other Bills therein, particularly those concerning ownership and control. Democracy is not well served by the increasing monopolisation of the media, because information from a wide variety of sources is fundamental to people's ability to make sound judgments on all issues. Senator Button —Mr President, I take a point of order. I do not mind Senator Vallentine making speeches, but she should do it at the appropriate time. This speech should have been made yesterday when the communications legislation was before the Senate. This is not a personal explanation. Senator Chaney —I support that point of order. The PRESIDENT —Senator Vallentine, you sought leave to make a personal explanation. You are beginning to debate the issue that the Senate debated yesterday. Senator VALLENTINE —I just wanted to state why I could not vote for a particular aspect of that legislation because it was in a package. Debate resumed. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(3.07) —Before the suspension of the sitting I was speaking in support of the Hawke Government's Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill. The Government is taking further measures to crack down on welfare fraud in the Australian community, just as we have cracked down repeatedly on tax avoidance and tax fraud over the period that we have been in government. The measures taken on welfare fraud in last year's Budget reduced the number of unemployment beneficiaries by 27,000, saving $100m in a full year. There has been a very large reduction in the extent of welfare fraud as a result of the initiatives of this Government. The efforts taken by the Hawke Government in this area are to be expanded by tripling the number of unemployment beneficiaries interviewed. They will have to submit to personal interviews to determine their continuing eligibility for benefits. From December, the assets test will be applied to unemployment beneficiaries and sickness beneficiaries over the age of 25 years. That will close a loophole in the pensions assets test whereby some people, I regret to say, were taking early retirement then claiming the unemployment benefit. Effectively, it was a means of getting around the assets test on the age pension. Under the legislation before us an extended penalty period will apply to recipients of unemployment benefits who cannot prove that they have been actively seeking work. The Hawke Government has an impressive record in providing social welfare to those in genuine need. Redistribution of income and resources towards low income households has been significant under the Labor Government. This Government has promoted fairness in the community at every opportunity. Through tax reform and expenditure programs the Hawke Government has attacked poverty and promoted greater social justice. Since March 1983 when the Hawke Government was elected to office, it has increased social security payments by more than $1,500m above what was required to keep pace with inflation. In other words, the total allocation for social welfare in the Budget has increased by more than $1,500m ahead of cost of living increases as measured by the consumer price index. These are tremendous increases in social security payments. Unemployment has been the greatest cause of poverty-a scourge. The Hawke Government has directly attacked this principal cause of poverty by creating over three-quarters of a million new jobs since the National Economic Summit Conference was convened in April 1983. That compares with the destruction of 186,000 jobs in the last 12 months of Mr Howard's attempt at running the country as Treasurer in the Liberal Government. Some of the specific social security initiatives taken by this Government include increases in rental assistance for pensioners renting from private landlords from $10 a week to $15 a week. I am very pleased to say that from 1 July the separate income test for rent assistance will be abolished. So, a number of pensioners will receive rental assistance as a result of the abolition of the separate income test. But we have gone beyond that. We have also extended rental assistance to the unemployed. In the 1985 Budget we introduced rental assistance of up to $10 a week for persons out of work for over six months and renting in the private market. In regard to the children of pensioners and beneficiaries, the record of the Hawke Labor Government since 1983 is second to none. I refer to the additional pension or benefit which is available in respect of the children of social welfare recipients. In 1983, when this Government came to office, the additional pension or benefit for such children was $10 per week per child. That was the record, the legacy, of the Howard Treasury. By the end of 1986 the Hawke Government was not paying just $10 per week per child; it was paying $17 per week per child. That is a 70 per cent rise in nominal terms. Most importantly, it is an increase well ahead of the consumer price index or cost of living increase of 29 per cent to the December quarter last year. So, in effect, pensioners and beneficiaries with children have received an increase over and above the cost of living rise of $4 a week per child in that period under the Hawke Labor Government. Yet this morning-Senator Robertson was here to hear it-we heard absolute drivel from Senator Walters, a senator from Tasmania, who I find is increasingly out of touch with reality. When talking on this legislation this morning Senator Walters said: `This Labor Government treats children as a luxury'. Yet when Mr Howard was Treasurer and had his last go at running this country pensioners and beneficiaries received $10 per week in respect of dependent children. Under this Government the figure is not $10 per week per child; it is $17 per week per child. So, where is the luxury Senator Walters was talking about? We do not regard the children of pensioners and beneficiaries as some sort of luxury. We have given them a $7 a week rise, which is a 70 per cent increase in nominal terms and a $4 a week rise ahead of the increase in the cost of living. That is our record in regard to the children of pensioners and beneficiaries. They are not a luxury and they have not been treated as such by this compassionate and fair Hawke Labor Government. Senator Walters's nonsensical claims are once again disproved by the figures. The figures show just how out of touch is the increasingly irrelevant senator from Tasmania. There will be more assistance for families in the Government's forthcoming family package which will be announced shortly. I am sure that there will be significant increases in social welfare payments for needy families in the family package. I turn to the mother's or guardian's allowance paid to single pensioners. Not so long ago the allowance was $6 per week. This Government has doubled the mother's or guardian's allowance to $12 a week. So, once again there has been a significant increase in a social welfare payment under the Hawke Labor Government. Once again the figures disprove the nonsense talked this morning by Senator Walters, who said `This Hawke Government treats children as a luxury' and, in her convoluted use of the English language, went on to say `The family is a major hit point for this Government'. The figures clearly show that, far from being a major hit point, families have done extraordinarily well under this Labor Government. It just goes to show that the Liberal Party regards social welfare recipients as some sort of underclass. That is the Liberal Party's attitude. It does not regard them as ordinary Australian families. It regards them as an underclass and is not prepared to talk about them when considering the true position of the family. They are some of the figures I wished to put on the record today to prove to the Senate that this Government's record in regard to social welfare is second to none. I turn to the specific provision in the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill which provides for an income test on family allowances. This is a measure which I have supported for some time. It will further the promotion of fairness in the community by the Hawke Government. Again, our record of promoting fairness and social justice in the community has been very strong. It is correct and proper that high income households should be subject to an income test on family allowances. It is important to put the family allowances program into some perspective. It has become such a large program in the budgetary system that it is very difficult to know exactly how to reform it. It has become so large that some really strong decisions have to be made within the next few years. The program will cost some $1,365m this financial year. As I said, it is a very large program and requires much serious thought in future years. It provides assistance to 3.9 million children and to just under two million families-a major and very costly program. To give honourable senators an idea of the dimensions of the family allowances program, I point out that to increase the allowance per child by 25c a week would cost a staggering $50m a year. To provide a $1 a week increase in the family allowance would cost $200m a year-a very substantial amount of money. As I said earlier, the program is so large that in reforming it one has to take great care and consider very diligently indeed what is being proposed. I have said that the Government is to introduce a family assistance package. The package is on the drawing board and will be available shortly. I hope and trust that the package, which will be introduced by the Hawke Government in the next two months, will provide a further boost to the circumstances of pensioner families with children-an area of great priority in the community. Possibly there will be some scope for a boost to payments for working families with relatively low incomes. The legislation provides that the family allowance will be income tested in the case of a one-child family with an income of $50,000 a year. The allowance will be available to households above that income level because there is a tapered cut-off of 25c of allowance lost for every $1 of extra income. That is the withdrawal rate. Some family allowance will be paid to a two-child family earning up to $55,156 a year, on my calculations. That is not a low income. It is quite high. It is the absolute cut-off point for family allowances in the case of a two-child family. In the case of a three-child family, which is very close to my situation, the income cut-off point is $59,528-again, a high income. I think it is only fair and proper that families with incomes above those levels should not receive the family allowance. they are not low income families; in fact, they earn well above the middle and low incomes that are earned by many Australians. The Liberal Party of Australia continues to complain about the income test on family allowances. It wants to assist the very high income families in Australia and, once again, the conservative parties are showing their true colours by their bleatings about the family allowance when, as I pointed out earlier today, some allowance will still be available for a two-child family on an income not exceeding $55,156. In many other ways the Hawke Labor Government has promoted fairness and social justice in the Australian community. In many other instances the Labor Government has assisted the poor and needy groups in the Australian community. In that respect I refer to the indexation of pensions for the cost of living rises. The measures that we are debating this afternoon are contained in the May economic statement, and that statement maintained pension indexation for Australian social welfare recipients. It has given them continued protection from cost of living rises and it is very pleasing to note that on 25 June, which is only three weeks away, Australian pensioners and beneficiaries will receive an increase in their payments of about 5.5 per cent. I understand that that payment, which compensates pensioners for cost of living rises, will amount to about $5.95 for a single person, making the standard rate of single pension $112.15 per week and, for a couple, pensions will rise by 9.90 per week, making the combined pension rate from 25 June, $187. Those payments will be available to aged, invalid and widow pensioners as well as to supporting parents. Also, it will be available to married persons receiving unemployment and sickness benefits as well as to single persons aged 21 years and over who receive unemployment benefits and who have no dependants. It is very pleasing to note also that those increases will apply to persons receiving service, disability and war widow pensions paid through the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Government will not stop there and say that that is all we will do for Australia's pensioners. From 1 July, the Government will introduce more measures that will have a profound effect on improving the standard of living of Australians who rely on the social welfare system, because on 1 July there will be further significant increases in extra incomes allowable to pensioners before they lose part of their pension as a result of the extra earnings. From 1 July the allowable extra income for a single pensioner will be increased from $30 to $40 a week and, for a couple, the allowable extra income will increase from $50 to $70 a week. They are tremendous increases that will allow many Australian pensioners to receive substantially greater incomes before moving from a full to a part pension. We are going further than that. We are taking extra measures to improve the circumstances of the neediest Australian families who depend on social welfare. As a result of the Government's 1 July package, the amount of income that is disregarded in the case of pensioners who have dependent children also will be increased to improve the circumstances of needy pensioners. We will increase the amount of $6 per week income which is disregarded to $12 per week per dependent child in pensioner families; so, in that one move, again the Hawke Government is showing its true colours in promoting fairness, compassion and social justice in the Australian community by doubling the amount of income that is disregarded in the case of dependent children of pensioners. As a result of the changes in the basic income test for the pensions and the doubling of the income disregarded, compared with the current situation where a couple with one dependent child can have an extra income of $56 per week before they lose part of their pension, from 1 July it will increase not to $66 per week, not to $76 per week but, rather, the figure will be $82. That is a significant increase in the amount of extra earnings that are available to pensioners before they lose part of their pension. They are further examples of what the Hawke Government has done for Australian families and what it has done across the board for those who rely on Australia's social welfare system for their economic welfare. They provide further assistance and tangible benefits for those families, which again exposes the absolute nonsense mentioned earlier today by that irrelevant senator from Tasmania, Senator Walters, who said that the Labor Government did nothing for families, that it ignored families and that it regarded children as a luxury in this country. Those examples provide further tangible and substantial improvements in the amounts of money and concessions available to those needy Australian families who depend on the Australian welfare system. In relation to the bottom line of all this, the relationship of pensions to average weekly earnings, I will refer to the relativity of social welfare payments to earnings of those Australians who are in the work force. When Mr Howard was Treasurer the proportion of average weekly earnings constituted by the age pension in Australia was 22 per cent. That was the record in 1982 and, as of the past few months of 1986, under the Labor Government that figure was not 22 per cent, it was not 23 per cent, but, rather, it was 24 per cent, which shows that this Hawke Government is on track and is on target in moving pensions up to the pledged amount of 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. So, that is the record of this Government and that shows what it has done to improve the welfare of Australians who depend on the social security system. Turning to what I think is a scandal which existed under the Howard-Fraser Government, I refer to the treatment of single adult unemployed people in Australia. They were treated as an underclass in this country. The single adult unemployment benefit was held arbitrarily a long way below the aged pension in this country. It is very illuminating to note that, when Mr Howard had his last go at running the country, the single adult unemployment benefit for a person aged 21 years and over and who had no dependants was $64.40 a week. That figure compared very unfavourably with the single age pension of $77.25, so there was a gap and an unfair discrimination of $12.85 per week against those very needy Australians who depended on unemployment benefits. I am very pleased to note that, as a result of the initiatives taken by the Hawke Government, both through indexation and through discretionary increases in that benefit from time to time, that gap now has been narrowed very substantially, so that while there was a gap of $12.85 per week when Mr Howard was Treasurer from 25 June when the benefit is increased in line with pensions and so forth the gap will be reduced to $7.45 per week. So, a single adult unemployment beneficiary aged 21 years and over will receive $104.70 per week, compared with the standard age pension of $112.15 per week. That is a very substantial relative improvement in a most discriminated against category in the Australian community, the single adult unemployed, and that improvement in their circumstances has resulted from the phenomenal increase which has been granted in that benefit under the Hawke Government. Again, the Government has shown its compassion and it has demonstrated its commitment to fairness and social justice by granting a 62.5 per cent increase in that unemployment benefit up to and including June this year. That increase of over 60 per cent in the amount of benefit pay- able to those persons compares with the cost of living rise of around 30 per cent. That is a substantial real increase in the circumstances of those Australians, and it reflects benefits which have increased well ahead of cost of living rises. That is the record. These are some of the major initiatives in the social welfare area of the Hawke Labor Government. The Hawke Government has maintained its commitment to social welfare by preserving the full indexation of pensions against cost of living rises; it has introduced new initiatives, such as the young homeless allowance, to target specially disadvantaged groups in the Australian community; and it has been cracking down on welfare fraud, just as it has been cracking down on tax fraud. Cracking down on welfare fraud will help strengthen the social welfare system in Australia by giving it greater integrity. The measures introduced in the May economic statement will restructure the system of social welfare payments while protecting those Australians in genuine need. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.30) —I rise in this debate today to speak on the legislation before us to implement the May mini-Budget statement, brought down only three weeks ago. I think it is very important that the people of Australia know what is happening here today. As I said, the Government made a mini-Budget statement just three weeks ago and today we are dealing with a package of six Bills which are necessary to implement that mini-Budget statement. The Bills we are debating were presented to the Senate in a package which included other Bills, known as the media Bills, which went through the Parliament last night. In this debate we are dealing with the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 1987, the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1987, the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, the Customs Tariff (Commonwealth Authorities) Amendment Bill 1987, the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 and the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1987. The Manager of Government Business (Senator Gareth Evans) placed this package before the Senate yesterday along, as I said, with the media package of Bills, and various groups of senators had to make up their minds what to do. It is important that we look at how this occurred. The National Party group of senators were obviously unconcerned about this particular mini-Budget package in their rush to get the media package up, on and through to deliver the television services of this country into the hands of media barons. In any case, the past record of National Party senators as part of the former coalition showed that on Budget legislation they would obviously abrogate their responsibility to review and, if necessary, reject or improve legislation coming before the Senate as Budget Bills. The group of Independents in this chamber, however, appeared to fail to understand what the Government was doing in putting together these two packages of Bills, moving to declare them urgent and then having a guillotine or time limit put on those Bills. Senator Georges, Senator Siddons and Senator Vallentine-the Independents-joined the National Party senators in voting with the Government to do just that. The result is that we have six Budget Bills which we have to debate in a period of four hours, with one hour to deal with any amendments which might be moved. I would like to quote the words used by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) when he brought down his May statement to illustrate why I think it is important that the people of Australia realise what is happening here. These are not six Bills of little consequence. To quote the Treasurer's May statement, they are Bills which implement: . . . measures which will reduce next year's prospective Budget deficit by more than $4,000m. These measures mark the culmination of the most intensive and exhaustive review of Commonwealth programs in living memory. . . . . They involve a massive reordering of Government spending priorities . . . They build on the process of national economic change which the Government undertook in the Budget last year. I repeat: These are not inconsequential Bills. Yet only four hours has been provided to discuss them in the second reading debate-courtesy of this Government, which is rushing pell-mell into an early election; courtesy of the National Party here in the Senate, anxious to deliver the media legislation up to Sir Joh and his minions; and courtesy of the Independents who, for whatever reason, decided to join that unholy alliance. Before the expiry of this five hours, which is the total time given for dealing with all of this legislation, the Opposition Liberal Party members will have joined that unholy alliance and, again, will have failed in their responsibility as an Opposition in this place to do anything to review seriously, amend or even reject any of this legislation. It was bad enough in the Budget session of 1986 to see the Opposition coalition, as it was then, take such an irresponsible attitude; now we see this irresponsible attitude on the part of almost the entire Senate-with the exception of the Australian Democrats. Most of my remarks in this debate will refer to the first of this series of Bills, the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill, which clearly demonstrates-perhaps most clearly of all these Bills-the irrationality and irresponsibility of the process in which we are engaged. This Bill introduces enormous, significant and wide-ranging changes concerning responsibilities, access to information and the Department of Social Security's ability to act. It is causing enormous concern out in the community for a large number of reasons which cannot possibly, in this truncated debate, be properly canvassed. Some of the measures of the mini-Budget as a whole have already been mentioned, and no doubt they will get considerably more airing throughout the debate. These measures in a macro sense, if you like, just as the Treasurer said, have the potential to make a significant impact on the economic direction of this country. Throughout the discussions on this statement we have talked in terms of hundreds of thousands of dollars, billions of dollars and so forth. We have referred to such things as a reduction of $47.5m for recurrent funding in 1988-89 for technical and further education; a reduction in student assistance provided by Austudy of $59m; and the complete abolition of the unemployment benefit for young people under the age of 18. We have heard of figures such as a reduction of $95m in the family allowance and a reduction of $17m in the supporting parent's benefit. The list goes on. These reductions and changes are expressed in terms of millions and millions of dollars. It is true enough that, in a macro sense, they form a major part of the economic direction of this country. One of the problems with all of this is that these decisions have been made with that overall macro view, and far too little attention has been paid to the impact and effect on individuals at, if you like, the micro level. It is in that area that we believe this sort of legislation needs much more scrutiny, and that the development of this sort of policy direction needs much more scrutiny. It is an area to which the Australian Democrats have drawn, and will continue to draw, the attention of the Government and of policy makers in general. As recently as last Monday night, Senator Walsh, the Minister for Finance-who, of course, is a member of the Government committee which made the decisions on these massive changes-expressed some hope that: . . . we will hear no more of the sanctimonious sermons from Senator Powell about how the Government should have more equity in the taxation and social security systems and should collect more taxes from people who can afford to pay in order to distribute higher social security benefits to those who need them. I hope that will happen but I do not expect that it will. I decided to take pity on Senator Walsh today and not deliver another of my, as he calls them, sanctimonious sermons. I am relieved from the need to do that by the fact that just today I received a communication from a constituent from my home State of Victoria who, in fact, does the job very well for me. This person, a female, is in fact a constituent in the electorate of Batman, which happens to be the electorate of the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe. This is not a fancy, typed letter on letterhead with a reference number or anything like that but is hand written on a very inexpensive writing pad, in ink. It is a letter that does what the policy makers and the Government should do far more often, as I have suggested; it looks at the impact, in one area in particular, of the mini-Budget decision and the Bill I am debating at present on a micro, personal, individual level and in a very rational way. I would like to put on the record some of the impacts of that legislation that are drawn to the attention of the Senate not by me but by a constituent of the Minister. A covering letter pointed out that most of these measures and impacts have not received the publicity following the May statement that a great many other issues in that statement have received. This constituent's concern relates to the abolition of the supporting parent's benefit and the widow's pension for those whose dependants are over the age of 16 years, and the widow's pension class B for widows who are 45 years old or more. She refers to the fact that supporting parent beneficiaries or widow pensioners must now apply for unemployment benefit or must work if they can get it and that the unemployment benefit for 16- to 18-year-olds has gone and that, if the parent is a sole supporting parent, their benefit has gone too. It points out the difficulties for such a family. In relation to a student with a sole supporting parent on a benefit, the student is currently eligible for Austudy at the rate of $40 a week-if there is a 16-year-old at home-but the parent loses the family allowance and the family income supplement, which pays $22 to $30 for a dependent non-student. A student can get $30 a week more if he proves there is a breakdown in the relationship with the family and cannot live at home. This constituent asks: Is the breakdown of families encouraged by this measure? The job search allowance is presumed to keep 16- to 18-year-olds at home, and the loss of unemployment benefit is presumed to keep 16- to 18-year-olds at school, but for a student with a sole supporting parent, the benefit has gone and there is a drastic reduction in the income. So, this constituent asks: How can students stay at school? A 16-year-old now in year 11 has 1 1/2 years to go to complete year 12. This constituent has made a calculation regarding the family situation-a sole parent with one child-and points out that, if one is on a supporting parent's benefit or a widow's pension, the more income that that parent can earn by working, the more the income increases up to a complete cut out total of $306.40 a week. But in the changed circumstances, a person on unemployment benefit and working part time will increase his income only to a cut out point of $182.20. Therefore, only $50 can be added to the benefit through work; increasing earnings from $70 up to $182.20 gives no increase in income. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table that sets out clearly the disadvantages of the new system as against the advantages in relation to this family, a sole parent with one child. Leave granted. The table read as follows- SOLE PARENT WITH ONE CHILD: PARENT'S WEEKLY INCOME (a) Parent is unemployed: Currently on widow's pension $135.20 (b) Parent is employed part-time: Currently on widow's pension On unemployment benefit after mini-Budget ($132.20 including all allowances for child) On unemployment benefit after mini-Budget Other earnings Pension Total Benefit Total $ $ $ $ $ 30... 135.20 165.20 132.20 162.20 Pension reduces by 50c per $1 Benefit reduces by 50c per $1 earned between $30 and $70, then $1 for $1 70... 118.20 188.20 112.20 182.20 100... 103.20 203.20 82.20 182.20 182.20... 62.00 244.20 Nil 182.20 306.40... Nil 306.40 Senator POWELL —It is in this area that the communication points out very clearly the individual impacts and what is considered to be an inbuilt disadvantage system under the new process. One or two of the amendments that I propose to move address some of the specifics of this situation. A point has been made already in this debate about the impacts of, in particular, the loss of the class B widow's pension. One point that has been made to me consistently in this very short period of time- only three weeks since the statement was brought down-in relation to women in that category and also in the sole parent's benefit category is that, while many people can understand that in the long term this may be the sort of reform that can be supported as long as there are inbuilt support mechanisms and long term arrangements for those whose expectations must change, currently there is a lot of talk about retraining and about people going back into the paid work force but women just cannot see where their place is and where they can be retrained. There is a great deal of scepticism about how the system will work at an individual level. In fact, the last sentence of the letter to which I have referred states: There are no illusions left about the present government having any care for people. As I said, there are a number of amendments which, in the normal course of events, had this legislation been before us in the way in which Budget legislation is usually before us and given a reasonable amount of time, the Australian Democrats would have considered. We would have had an opportunity to discuss those amendments with the Government, the Opposition and the departments concerned. As has happened in the past with Budget and other legislation, some improvements and changes could have been made to Government thinking and some support might have been gained perhaps from the Opposition although, as I have said, in relation to Budget legislation, that has become all too rare. In this instance, it has been only about a week since this legislation was passed quickly in the House of Representatives where, of course, the Government has the numbers, and we are now faced with this truncated debate, so it will not be possible for the Australian Democrats to have a proper discussion on the amendments that the Australian Democrats wish to move; they cannot be properly debated and acted upon in any way. However, I want to place on the record some comments about the amendments which we have prepared and which we would want to move in Committee. There are 19 amendments in this package, their purpose being to address those aspects of this Bill that are seen to be giving too much increased power to the Department of Social Security. In fact, it seems that under this legislation the Department of Social Security will have more powers to act in regard to people with whom it deals than other relevant Government departments have to deal with people involved in tax fraud or even some criminal activities. The first amendment deals with the changes to the legislation relating to benefits for people who are separated but who continue to live under one roof. This is typical of the sort of impact that this legislation is having at the individual and micro level. The Government appears not to understand the circumstances of many families where the marriage might have broken down but where the couple concerned, either for economic reasons or for reasons to do with the welfare of their children, have decided to remain living under one roof. We believe that that amendment is necessary to take account of what is very often a necessary living situation, one which we do not believe has been taken into account sufficiently in the amendments proposed under this legislation. We believe that the 6-month and 12-month rules should be deleted from the legislation. A further couple of amendments that I wish to move relate to the secrecy provisions in the Bill. We believe that the Secretary should be required to certify that the release of information held by the Department is necessary in individual cases and not in classes of cases. It is of great concern to us that the proposals in this Bill provide for a far too free release of information which certainly should be available only on an individual basis. A further couple of amendments deal with the percentage of people with permanent incapacity caused by medical factors in receipt of the invalid pension. Those aspects of the legislation relating to the invalid pension are not acceptable to us; they do not take account of the realities of the situation for individuals. Our amendments are designed to address that problem. We believe that non-medical factors as well as medical factors need to be taken into account to a further extent than allowed for in this legislation. Further, the removal of access to the invalid pension from those pensioners who are living overseas is a problem. Currently 6,000 invalid pensioners are living overseas. We believe that if they are currently in receipt of that pension they should remain in receipt of it while they satisfy the necessary requirements. There is an element of retrospectivity in the proposals in this legislation, and we have an amendment appropriate to that. A further couple of amendments deal with the matter of eligibility for the class B widow's pension, and another amendment provides for a relaxed income test for persons who lose the supporting parent's benefit due to the dependent child turning 16. These are our attempts to ameliorate the problems relating to the removal of these benefits under this legislation. It is necessary to be very careful and very compassionate about the transitional provisions that are involved here. We believe that these amendments are necessary in that regard. A further amendment enables back-payment of the sickness benefit for a period greater than four weeks in special circumstances. The Democrats believe that a number of aspects of this Bill need to be improved by the implementation of a further discretionary power to take account of special circumstances for those people who are working with Department of Social Security clients on a daily basis and at the personal level and who are aware of individual needs. We believe that our amendment regarding the sickness benefit is important to the implementation of that discretionary power. Other amendments relate to the 13-week waiting period for the unemployment benefit. We can see no merit whatsoever in the extension of that waiting period, particularly as it seems to be somewhat of an anomaly, especially in the case of an unemployed person under 18 years of age, who of course can get the Jobsearch allowance after that period. It seems almost to indicate that for some reason it is considered that $25 a week needs to be paid to encourage and enable young people to seek work, but not until 13 weeks are up. We believe that there is no logic in that approach and that that part of the legislation should be deleted. There are great concerns in the community about the provisions in the legislation which have to do with debt recovery and the seeking of information on and the determination of penalties for overpayments, and a great many other punitive areas. I will propose a series of amendments to cover these matters. One of the amendments seeks to omit the clause which deals with the recovery of overpayments from third persons. In fact, it seeks to leave in place a section in the current legislation which deals with the recovery of overpayments from financial institutions, including the provision in a sub-section for a limited protection from garnishee orders. There is concern that these measures in the Bill are far too draconian, giving too much power in an area where the rights of individuals have not been taken sufficiently into account. One major problem that has been expressed is that innocent third parties are at risk, and the Democrats have amendments to cover that area as well. We have also proposed an amendment which would allow discretionary power for the payment of unemployment and sickness benefits to persons who are out of Australia on compassionate grounds. We have been made aware of a number of individual cases in that regard. We do not believe that this is a measure that would cost the Government a lot of money, although it is certainly one which, in the interests of compassion, should be taken into account. I wish to comment briefly on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, as it is part of the package of legislation that we are considering. This Bill gives effect to one of the mini-Budget health care cuts, that is, the reduction to 75 per cent of the schedule fee of the rebate which Medicare will pay towards the cost of treatment for private in-patients in hospitals and the abolition of the $20 maximum patient contribution which has applied. The Australian Democrats were pleased that in the May statement the general rebate of 85 per cent was not lowered, that the levy was not raised again and that no other moves were made which would have fundamentally undermined the Medicare scheme. However, contrary to the claims of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the mini-Budget package contains changes which threaten the concept of universal health care. While the immediate increase in costs brought about by this Bill will be borne by the private insurance funds, it is no secret that the additional expense will be passed on to consumers through increased premiums. The elasticity of demand for private insurance is a mysterious thing, but it is likely that this, especially in combination with the effects of other mini-Budget changes, will increase the demand on the public system, without the Commonwealth having made any additional money available to the States. People without private insurance who elect to be treated as private patients will now face much bigger costs than they did in the past, but those people really cannot expect as a matter of policy or equity the public system to pay for their private choice. The Australian Democrats will support this Bill, as we support a health system designed to guarantee health care to all Australians on the basis of their illness rather than on the basis of their income. However, huge problems with Medicare remain, and the mini-Budget moves contain welcome attempts to stop the rot and cost to the system of so-called entrepreneurial medicine. However, it is not enough for government to cut out high-tech diagnostic and treatment services. The money saved must be redirected into positive moves for health promotion and illness prevention. Perhaps some of the reduced cost to revenue could be seen as offsetting all that income in taxes that this Government would have to forfeit if it had the courage to take on the tobacco and alcohol companies and stop the promotion of products which cause enormous morbidity and mortality in the community. The Democrats object to the mini-Budget illness measures, such as the reduced funding for the Occupational Health and Safety Commission, given Australia's record in preventing work related injury and illness. The Democrats recognise the possible increased costs which are likely to be passed on to patients through the reduced Medicare rebates. However, the role of medical practitioners in setting their own fees is critical, and the community should be aware of the time and labour saving technology available to doctors for many procedures and that, if the medical profession were prepared to accept the financial restraint that has been imposed on others, the hardship faced by our aged and chronically ill as a result of the mini-Budget would be somewhat lessened. We are concerned at the impact on the chronically ill of the decision to reduce the consultant physician's rebate for fourth and subsequent visits. We believe this is an issue which needs considerable attention. Arthritis sufferers, diabetics and sufferers of a number of other chronic illnesses are particularly at risk here, and we would like to see the Government pay some attention to that. In the longer term the Australian Democrats want to see changes in the structure of private health insurance arrangements which will ease the burden on the ill and the funds which support them. In the absence of the sort of overall change in health service direction that we would like to see in Australia we are prepared to support this Bill. I regret the fact that the Senate will not have the time to address duly the issues in these Bills in this debate on significant Budget measures of this Government. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(4.00) —The Senate is now debating together a group of Bills of which one is the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1987. It is to that Bill that I wish to address my remarks primarily today. The Bill seeks to give effect to two sales tax measures that were announced in the Government's May mini-Budget which, I might remind the Senate, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has now described as the Budget for 1987. That is one of the reasons that he is not terribly concerned about going to an election almost a year ahead of its statutory time, at the most inconvenient possible moment that one could anticipate in terms of a government that might be wishing to seek to have economic management as part of its policies. It is quite obvious that any government that would go to an election when, instead of electioneering, it should be preparing a Budget at one of the more critical times in Australia's economic history simply does not know the meaning of the term `economic responsibility' nor its responsibilities as a government. Only one conclusion can be drawn from the fact that we are having such an early election at such an extraordinary time, and that has to be that the Government is running scared, that it is extraordinarily fearful of what it will have to do later in the year and that it quite simply does not have the guts to tell the Australian electorate before it goes to an election what it has in mind for the electorate after the election. The idea that the Prime Minister is putting around, that the May mini-Budget, of which the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill is one measure, could in any way be seen as a responsible Budget for the nation for this year is just so unbelievably stupid that one wonders how the Prime Minister could have expected any Australian to have swallowed such a story. The May mini-Budget, by definition, was not concerned with the revenue side of the Budget. It was supposed to be concerned with expenditure, but it was not even concerned about expenditure for the year ahead, other than announcing some phoney, shonky cuts off some very dubious forward Estimates. We still do not know the Government's spending program for 1987-88. We know nothing at all about its revenue program. We therefore know nothing at all about its borrowing requirement for the year ahead. We therefore know nothing about the deficit that the nation will be facing. The one thing of which we can be certain is that it will pile still further debt on top of the $105 billion of foreign debt that this nation has already stacked up-almost three-quarters of that during the four years of this Government. Nor do we know how much additional debt will be stacked on to the Government's accumulated national debt of well over $100 billion-over 35 per cent of the total gross domestic product of this country. Indeed, in the mini-Budget the Government claimed that it was chopping $4 billion off government spending in the year ahead. That was a deliberate distortion of the truth of the situation. Of the $4 billion, almost $500m constitutes not expenditure cuts but tax increases. Most of those tax increases will flow from the Bill that the Senate has before it for debate at the moment. I might point out in passing that, of the $4 billion, another $1 billion was related to the Government's proposal to sell assets. There is nothing further removed from cutting government spending than selling government assets. They are two totally different sides of the coin, yet the Government has tried to mislead deliberately the Australian people so that $1 billion worth of assets sales, which will not be achieved anyway on the Government's record, somehow or other, by a flick of the magic wand that the Prime Minister is so prone to wave in front of the public, will be seen to be $1 billion of expenditure cuts. What absolute nonsense! The Bill before the Senate gives effect to two sales tax measures announced in the mini-Budget, and collectively these two measures are designed to raise about $420m in a full year. The two measures are: Firstly, the removal of the present sales tax exemption for certain Commonwealth Government commercial authorities and, secondly, an alteration to the sales tax concessions that are available to passengers and crew members of ships and aircraft arriving in Australia. So far as the first of these two measures is concerned-the removal of the sales tax exemption for certain Commonwealth commercial authorities-the Bill lists, I think, 29 Commonwealth authorities which are not to be exempt from sales tax. Only seven of these are regarded as being able to make use of the exemption. Of those seven the two most important ones by far are Telecom Australia and Australia Post. The effect of the Bill in this area is to make Commonwealth authorities, such as Telecom and Australia Post in particular, no longer exempt from sales tax on their purchases of sales taxable items and to make them subject to the normal sales tax provisions as though they were privately owned operations. This measure adds yet another tax to the enormous litany of new taxes that the Hawke Government has introduced since it was elected in 1983. Indeed, if one looks at the amount of tax legislation that has been passed into law since the Government came into operation in 1983, one finds a staggering 800-plus pages of new tax law. That means that in the last four years alone, the Hawke Government has added 70 per cent of new tax legislation to what we had had in the accumulated history of the Commonwealth up to 1983, a period of 82 years or so. The tax law of this country has not far short of doubled in the four years in which the Hawke Government has been in office. It is very salutary, because we often forgot some of these things, to look at the new taxes that have been introduced since this Government took office. I will run through some of the main ones. It is not a fully inclusive list, but it included, in July 1983, four months or so after the Government was elected, the introduction of lump sum superannuation tax. All of those people who were subject to lump sum superannuation tax as a result of that measure remember full well the written promise by the then relevant shadow Minister prior to the 1983 election-John Dawkins-who, in writing, assured people potentially affected by such a new tax that there would be no such tax. A month later, in August 1983, we saw introduced the automatic bi-annual indexation of traditional excises, on beer, cigarettes and petroleum. This means-I will tell people in case they have forgotten-that each six months the tax on those products goes up without the matter coming before the Parliament, because the Hawke Government's automatic indexation applies each six months regardless of the wishes of the Parliament and without being made known to the Australian public. In February 1984 the one per cent Medicare levy was introduced. I remind the Senate that immediately prior to the last Federal election the Government gave a solemn promise that in the life of this Parliament the Medicare levy of one per cent would not be increased. What happened? Within 18 months of that promise being made it was broken massively, with a 25 per cent increase in the levy. In July 1984 a resource rent tax and an excise on new oil were introduced. In August 1984 a 10 per cent tax on wine was imposed, another massively broken promise. In July 1985 the concessional expenditure rebate and negative gearing provisions were abolished and the Medicare levy limit was removed. In September 1985 entertainment expenditure was disallowed and a capital gains tax was introduced. We all remember what the Prime Minister said during his election campaign about a capital gains tax. He said: `Let no one in Australia be mistaken; there will be no capital gains tax'. Within months we had a capital gains tax. In July 1986 the fringe benefits tax and the bureaucratic substantiation provisions were introduced. In August 1986 new sales taxes were introduced and wine tax went up to 20 per cent. There was a large increase in the excise on petrol. As I said earlier, in December 1986 the Medicare levy was increased to 1.25 per cent. In July 1987 the corporate tax rate was increased from 46 per cent to 49 per cent and the foreign tax credit system was introduced. Those are just some of the new taxes that this Government has introduced in four short years. They do not cover at all the increase in the tax take from taxes that had previously existed. In four short years this Government has far and away outstripped anything we have ever known in terms of the capacity of a government to rip taxes off the Australian public to the extent that Federal Government taxes alone, let alone State or local government taxes, constitute more than a quarter of the total gross domestic product of this nation. The proposal in the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill is yet another instance of this litany of new taxes. I would like to deal separately with the two elements of the Bill. The first is, as I have said, the removal of the sales tax exemption for Telecom Australia, Australia Post and one or two other Commonwealth commercial authorities. In total, approximately seven will be affected. The first thing to be said about this measure is that it will increase Commonwealth coffers by another $400m per year. The automatic effect is that the cost will be passed on to the people, because the only way that authorities such as Telecom, despite very impressive increases in their productivity record over recent years, can handle such additional imposts is to raise their prices. That, of course, feeds into the general inflationary spiral in this country. This will happen at a time when, as a result of the policies of this Government, Australia now has an inflation rate which is four or five times higher than the inflation rate of the rest of the Western world. Day by day that figure is making Australia increasingly uncompetitive. The one thing we must do in this country today, if we are to survive in an increasingly competitive world, is get ourselves in a more competitive and more productive situation. We cannot do that if more and more government taxes and charges feed into the cost system of this nation. That is precisely what is happening with this measure; it is precisely what has happened constantly over the last four years. This does not apply just to Federal Government taxes and charges but also, and equally important in many ways, this measure will increase taxes and charges of Labor State governments around this country. So the measure will increase inflation, and it will also have a very considerable effect on Telecom. I will read some extracts from a very important speech that the Chairman of Telecom, Mr Bob Brack, made in Adelaide on 25 May 1987, just a couple of weeks ago. I will quote only parts of his speech, but he pointed out: Telecom Australia is rated in the top ten of the world's telecommunications networks. Since it was set up in 1975 it has expanded the network by 75 per cent and increased customer penetrations from just over 60 per cent to more than 90 per cent of homes. It has done this with about 3 per cent growth in staff numbers. Commenting on the mini-Budget, Mr Brack stated: The Government's further demands on Telecom in the recent May Statement represent a watershed in our development. Not only is Telecom required to repay $81 million of Government loans- that is another impost on Telecom which is not part of this Bill- but it is to pay sales tax and customs duty with an estimated impact of some $400 million in a full year. As you know, Telecom has announced that it will need to increase prices significantly, cut its orders of Australian industry and reduce its staff numbers to meet the financial demands of the May Statement. Mr Brack continued: The pressure from Telecom's competitors in actions under the Trade Practices Act to force deregulation of customer premises equipment, the first phone and PABX maintenance, will undoubtedly lead to a considerable expansion of the proportion of the business under active competition. It is now imperative, in order to level the competitive playing field, that the many Government controls on Telecom to which our competitors are not subject, be removed. Only then can Telecom adequately respond to the competitive challenge and the commercial expectations. Telecom's viability as an enterprise and hence its value to its owners, all Australians, is at stake. Mr Brack was referring to two things: Firstly, the impost of the May statement and, secondly, the restrictions that are imposed on Telecom by virtue of the fact that it is a government owned enterprise. In commenting on the impact on Telecom of the May measures Mr Brack said, as I just mentioned, that amongst other things it will be forced to cut its orders to Australian industry. Elsewhere in his speech he comments on how much Australian industry participation there is in Telecom's activities. He states: Telecom is a strong supporter of Australian manufacturers and equipment suppliers. This financial year Telecom is responsible for contracts with the private sector in excess of $2000 million. Some 90 per cent of telecommunications materials and equipment purchased by Telecom is obtained from Australian suppliers, achieving around 70 per cent local content on major contracts. Telecom's purchases account for three quarters of the total output of the Australian Telecommunications Manufacturing Industry. So what does this Government-this Government that tells the Australian people that it is interested in the development of Australian manufacturing industry and will assist it to become more viable and competitive-do? It imposes a cost on Telecom that will lead it to make a major cutback in its requirements from Australian manufacturing industry. Also, this Bill and other measures will impose restrictions on Telecom that will put it at a disadvantage compared with what would happen if it were free of some of the government-imposed shackles. Let me name some of them, as the Auditor-General of the Commonwealth, Mr John Monaghan, has recently made public. He referred to ambiguity and inconsistency in specification of competing commercial and social objectives of Telecom; restrictive scope for financing investment; remuneration packages for senior staff that are not competitive with the private sector; legislative or policy requirements to maintain uneconomic services; entrenched inefficient work practices and difficult industrial relations in areas where political sensitivities hinder effective remedial action. That is a damning indictment of a government which claims that it has fostered beneficial industrial relations. But one sees from a comparison of this Government's industrial relations record with the record of the Prime Minister when he led the Australian Council of Trade Unions that this Government has hardened the divisions and difficulties in industrial relations. In six weeks' time the incoming Liberal Government will put that item at the top of its agenda to enable Australia to get back to a sensible, workable and profitable for all parties industrial relations system. Those are some of the restrictions faced by Telecom. At such a time it is unbelievable that the Government should seek to impose an additional burden of this nature on that corporation and on other Government business enterprises. The second aspect of the Bill which will alter the sales tax concessions available to passengers and crew members of ships and aircraft arriving in Australia is equally ludicrous. The proposal will bring in only about $20m in a full year, but its impact on a wide range of small business will be significant indeed. The existing customs and sales tax laws exempted from duty goods arriving with the traveller from overseas that were for personal use. These included limited quantities of tobacco and alcohol, goods to the value of $200, personal effects and goods that were otherwise duty free or dutiable at 2 per cent. In addition, a concessional duty of 20 per cent was allowed on other goods to a value of $160. In addition, migrants settling in Australia were allowed free entry for motor vehicles. This Bill will abolish the concession for migrants' motor vehicles and replace the existing passenger concessions with an across the board free entry allowance of $400, $200 for persons under the age of 18, although it will retain the existing quantity restrictions on tobacco and alcohol. The $400 limit is likely to have a significant impact on the Australian duty free industry and will cause some significant problems in other areas as well. For a start, it will cause turmoil at the customs barrier points at major airports in Australia, in particular at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, but not just at that airport. The Government is going ahead like a bull at a gate with this new proposal in advance of giving any consideration to automatic duty collection machines being installed, as has been suggested by the Australian Tourism Association. There is no doubt that congestion at the major airports will be monumental. It will have a detrimental effect on the tourism industry. Most tourists come to Australia by air and the ease of getting through the sheer mechanics of entry into a country at airports is important in creating an environment that is conducive to tourists. Therefore, by cluttering up the whole system these provisions will have a detrimental effect on tourism at a time when that industry is being promoted, and rightly so, by the Government as one of the major planks that we need to develop to correct the horrendous balance of payments problem which has accumulated inexorably over the four years in office of this Hawke Government to the stage where this country's foreign debt has increased from less than $28 billion to a figure that is now well in excess of $100 billion. To bring that figure down to understandable terms, that is a foreign debt facing every Australian family equivalent to $26,000-an almost fourfold increase in four years. It took this country 83 years to accumulate a debt of $28 billion. It has taken four years for that debt to go from that sum of $28 billion to $105 billion. With this measure, which will introduce a paltry $21m, this foolhardy Government will put the tourist industry under strain and at risk. It is not just the tourist industry that will be affected. Many other industries rely on sensible and proper procedures for entry to Australia. For example, there is the area of Australian duty free operations. The Australian Duty Free Operators Association has made representations to the Government and to others, including me, expressing extreme concern at the effects that the new system of Australian passenger concessions will have on the industry. It points to the chaos that will be caused at airports. It also points out that the problems of cost in terms of supervision and control over the entry into Australia of narcotics and quarantinable products will greatly increase. The Government's decision follows an Industries Assistance Commission report and investigation into this area carried out as recently as November 1985. In that report the IAC made several sensible recommendations, which the Government has neglected to take up. It has not only rejected the recommendations of the IAC but the recommendations of the Australian Customs Service. In view of the growth of tourism into Australia and the number of Australian tourists who go overseas, no-one would suggest that something did not need to be done about duty free concessions. The Opposition believes that the worst possible way in which that problem could have been tackled is the way in which this Government has gone about the matter. We believe that the Government should withdraw this proposal and take another look at the matter to see whether it can find other ways of saving $21m. It should be cutting another $21m out of its bloated expenditure so that this measure would not be necessary in any event. Senator Puplick, on behalf of the Opposition, will be moving amendments to the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill and other Bills in this package. I foreshadow those amendments as those items relate to various matters touching this Bill. The Opposition does not oppose this Bill because it is a Budget measure, but we feel that it is a stupid Bill and that the Government should re-examine its contents. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.30) —A test of any society is its treatment of the deprived-those who are sick, the unemployed and the injured. In this country we pride ourselves on having a compassionate society, a kindly and caring community which provides hospitals, community services and pensions. The Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 1987, the first in the package we are discussing, deals with that matter. We have just heard the usual competent and direct speech from Senator Short, the shadow Minister for Finance, whom I know personally to be a man of compassion. However, because he is a member of a `dry' shadow Cabinet, he was unable to speak in a compassionate way on these Bills. The Opposition's interest in these Bills is on the techniques of taxation. The compassion which shines forth from this side of the chamber, our great and compassionate heart, does not appear on the Opposition benches. Senator Short, whom I know personally has a great capacity for mercy and compassion, is unable to let that shine through because of the Opposition's approach to this matter. Indeed, when we have before us Bills dealing with sales tax laws, customs and excise, tariff legislation, health legislation, social security and veterans' entitlements, he is compelled to deal with such measures by considering only the hard, dry economics of the matter. It is interesting that Senator Short should berate this Government for increasing the range of taxes in the community. Of course, that is true. Under this Government there has been an increase in the range of taxation imposed upon members of the community, but it has been imposed on those who are better able to bear that taxation than those who formerly bore it. For years the wage earner who gets his or her envelope at the end of each week has had taken from that envelope a considerable sum of money, and part of that money has subsidised those who were not paying their fair share. Senator Short spoke about the increase in the rate of sales tax on cars. That is correct; the sales tax on luxury cars-and I emphasise the word `luxury'-has increased from a standard 20 per cent to a standard 30 per cent. It is the Government's proposition that those who are best able to bear the cost of running the community must do so. That is what expenditure and tax are all about. The tax that the Government levies is directed towards providing money for all that we need-roads, defence forces and the capacity to live as a community. Those things must be paid for. The proposition that is put forward from this side of the chamber-and it is a fair proposition-is that those who are able to pay and who make use of the services of the community should pay. For that reason, this Government introduced a capital gains tax with the exemption of the family home. This tax enables the Government to collect revenue from an area which people with any sense of fairness would say should have been taxed long ago. Such taxes are taken in comparable countries, such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom and in Europe. On the other hand, this Government has increased the tax-free threshold to $5,100, which means that people who are on pensions and low incomes and who would otherwise have to pay tax do not need to do so now until they have earned $5,100. This Government has done these things. When Senator Short criticises this Government's taxation policy he is criticising one of the most radical and one of the fairest reforms ever introduced in this country. That should be remembered. It ill-behoves anyone to criticise a government which has undertaken an exercise in equity, in fairness and in making sure that those who enjoy the fruits of this community pay according to their ability so that we can all go forward as a nation. This Government has devoted much attention to getting the economic balance right. This balance has been hard to establish, given the massive fall in the prices that we have been able to obtain for our goods overseas. We have always sold commodity goods overseas-wheat, wool and the products of mining. Those products have served Australia well over the years and will continue to do so, but they now need to be supplemented by income earned overseas from value added goods, manufactured goods. That is what we must turn our minds to. We do not have manufactured goods of the quantity and quality required to win overseas markets because of the history of this country. When the Opposition criticises this Government it should remember that the industrial structure of Australia as it now operates was set up by the coalition in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. This Government has had to wrestle with that massive problem and it has done so very well indeed. The Opposition has done what anyone could do-it has come along and criticised those aspects of the Government's administration which, when looked at on their own, do not perform as well as they might. But one cannot look at a particular country's history in terms of one, two or three years. One must look at it in terms of the many years that have gone to produce the present situation-those many years in which the coalition unfortunately so ordered and administered the country that it produced the present problems. This Government has massively changed that situation and it is now proceeding to bring the country to the state which it deserves, given its many resources and the great determination of its people. In this context, Senator Short talks about industrial relations. It is now recognised by all those who approach this matter fairly, whether they be unionists, business people, members of the Australian Council of Trade Unions or members of the Confederation of Australian Industry, that the accord which has been developed through the ACTU has served this country mightily. I see Senator Cook and Senator McIntosh in the chamber. They played a part in this area. It is a matter of sadness that the Opposition has indicated that when it gets into government-and that will be a long way down the line-its industrial and economic processes will be based on conflict and aggravation, so that people will be driven to desperation, instead of on maintaining the present position in which management and employees go forward together. The Opposition will take an adversary approach, one of conflict, bitter fighting and dispute, which will not serve this country well at all. That approach came from the admirable Senator Short who has compassion and insight but, because of his Party's policy, has to intone in this chamber today that plan for conflict in the community. Senator Cook —It is very sad. Senator COONEY —It is very sad indeed. Very much more in sorrow than in anger we must point out the unfortunate steps being taken. It is not yet too late for those opposite to turn back and realise the dreadful leap into the dark they are taking. There are men and women of good will on the other side. If they really think about it and look at the great achievements the accord has brought this country their position will change. The other thing that Senator Short has done is criticise the Government, saying that it has not brought down a Budget this year and that it will go to an election before doing so. He also says that it will be an early election. By the time this election comes on it will be two years and seven months since the last election. If that is early, what was it that Prime Minister Fraser visited on this country when he called elections? The time since the last election is well within what is reasonable. It has been called, no doubt, at a time that is propitious for the Government, and what is wrong with that? The Government chooses a time when it is apparent to the public that the Government's policies are working on the basis of a unified team ready and willing to go forward, a team that is well ranked behind the leaders. Senator Short says: `What will be in the Government's Budget?'. Clearly it will be a responsible Budget and at least we can promise a Budget. What about the tax policy? I am not talking about the tax policy that will come from this side of the House because people know what our tax policy is; and that is, that from 1 July this year there will be reductions in taxation across the board so that nobody has to pay more than 49c in the dollar. Senator Short says that companies have to pay 49c. That is the top rate that they have to pay. If they earn the money that attracts that rate, why should they not contribute to the community in which they operate and have been given prosperity, and a community which looks to them for some contribution towards proper functioning? But the fact is that there are just no taxation policies at all from the other side. Obviously, those opposite are still working them out. Would it not have been proper for them to have brought their taxation policies into the Parliament before it rose so that they could be debated? Our programs have been before the Parliament for years. We have brought in the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and so on. They have been debated. Why is the Opposition so reluctant to open up to the glare of the public, six weeks before the election, its tax policies? Why does it wait for the election mode to come upon us so that the tumult and shouting may disguise the many errors that no doubt will be in its policy? No doubt there will be great errors in its policy because any policy that is produced has to be tested and its difficulties have to be pointed out. No opportunity has been afforded to apply that test to the Opposition's tax policy. Maybe the tax policy can be produced on Monday because it will never be brought into operation. The Opposition may think: `We will bring in the tax policy on Monday, put it before the public, give it the razzamatazz half time talk and hope something will happen. But in our heart of hearts we know that it will never be tested because we will not be in government to put it to the test'. That is probably the situation that pertains. If not, why have we not been blessed with some sort of hint of the taxation policy? At times there has been a hint that there will be a broadly-based consumption tax, which immediately would raise the level of inflation and put this country into the rocky situation it was in before the present Government came into being to sort things out a little. I will return to the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill. This Government, I hope and trust, during its struggle to bring economic sanity to this country has not forgotten those people who are most in need. One of the problems when we talk about social security is that there is a temptation to tell little anecdotes about how people have rorted and ripped off the system. If people rort or rip off the system they deserve what they get. But it would be wrong for this country and for us to attribute what is properly attributable to those who rort the system to those who are genuinely in need. Vast numbers of people-too many, and this Government is intent upon reducing the numbers-are in need. It is wrong for the community to attribute to them the sorts of opprobrium and criticism that are properly due to those who rort the system. The reality is that in the community there are the poor, the unemployed and those who through injury at work and elsewhere are not able to work in the way they used to, to go to the shops or into offices and do a day's work-which by and large is the ambition of most people in the community. As this election campaign we are about to go into proceeds I certainly hope, from the Government side of the Parliament, that that compassion which must be held for those sorts of people becomes apparent. It is interesting in that context to see just what this Government has done while it has been in office. At times an impression is given that all the Government and the Opposition talk about in Parliament is macro-economic policies, balances of payments, interest rates, the value of the dollar and so on. So the picture is given that the whole of Parliament is consumed simply with looking at those things. But the reality is that under this Government pensions have risen. People, although still in straitened circumstances at times, have gained greatly over what was the previous situation. Perhaps some examples may be helpful. There has been an increase in the rate of the single unemployment benefit by 62 per cent between April 1983 and June 1987 for persons aged 21 years and over without dependants. Limits on extra income for unemployment and sickness benefit recipients have gone up by $10 to $30 a week before part benefits are payable. There has been a doubling of the mother's or guardian's allowance for single parent families receiving social welfare assistance, going from $6 to $12 a week. Extra income limits for pensioners with dependent children are to be doubled from $6 to $12 per child from July 1987. There has also been the job start allowance for 16- and 17-year-olds which is directed to encouraging people to get work. It was pointed out in debate earlier today that not enough work is around. Under this Government a massive number of jobs, 750,000, have been created. Although more jobs need to be created, the Government takes the approach that a person should be fitted to the job and that education, apprenticeships and training should be the order of the day. In that context Austudy is to increase by up to 33 per cent, effective from 1988. This Government has bent its intent towards helping those desperately in need. It is reversing the situation which obtained in the Fraser-Howard years. The impact of the initiatives taken so far by the Labor Government has been to increase the real disposable income of people on social security by up to 20 per cent since it came to office. The Government is reversing, not worsening, the situation under the previous Government. This Government has a proud record in the social security area. Hopefully, it will be able to do more when it is returned to office in July. Certainly it is the intention of the Government to give those who are genuinely in need, those who are entitled to pensions, those who deserve the sympathy, gentleness and compassion of this society, what they need. That will not be done if we go into a mode, as suggested by honourable senators opposite, of coming down hard on recipients, of making those least able to do so pay for the necessary adjustments that must be made in the community. This Government is about making those necessary adjustments in terms of equity, about requiring those who are able to contribute to do so according to their means and about giving help to those who deserve help because of their misfortune. This Government has done that by creating jobs-well above the 500,000 jobs it promised-by training people for the jobs that become available, by distributing tax fairly across the community, by managing the economy and the country in the way it has and by approaching industrial relations in a way which will lead to the production of goods that are more suitable for export than they are now. In all those ways the Government is trying to bring about the just, gentle and compassionate society we all so desperately seek. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.54) —The Senate has before it today a package of Bills which derive from the Government's economic statement brought down on 13 May. These Bills include two welfare Bills, the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill and the Health Legislation Amendment Bill, the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill and three tax and customs measures, the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill, the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill and the Customs Tariff (Commonwealth Authorities) Amendment Bill. Senator Cooney in his opening remarks sought to draw attention to the social impact this Government has had and to present himself, his Government and his ministerial colleagues as essentially caring people full of heart. He said that the test of a good society was what it did for the sick, the unemployed and the injured. Whilst I do not intend to dwell at length upon the social welfare aspects of this package of legislation, I do, however, intend to make just a couple of remarks about what indeed the Australian Labor Party has done for the sick, the unemployed and the injured, both in this Commonwealth Parliament and in New South Wales. You, Mr Acting Deputy President, would be particularly familiar with what the Labor Government has been doing to the workers in that State. As far as the sick are concerned, this Government has an extraordinary record in terms of the number of people it has put on the queues waiting for services in the hospital system and in terms of the extent to which it has depressed the quality of medical care available in the community while increasing its cost. In terms of what it has done for the unemployed, it has a record which the Young Labor Association has denounced and would constantly have the Government try to conceal. It has fiddled the jobless figures by withdrawing unemployment benefits from particular classes of young people and transferring people to bogus make-work schemes and has brought about a situation in which 20,000 young Australians are seeking places in higher education that they will not get as a result of this Government's policies. In terms of the injured, Senator Cooney is a member of a political party which, in New South Wales, is in the process of destroying the rights of injured workers to seek redress under common law for compensation for their injuries. Senator Cooney no longer has a direct interest in this matter but I am sure that if he had continued to be a practitioner in this field he would have been outraged, as most civil libertarians and people of real social concern and conscience in New South Wales are outraged, by what the State Labor Government has been doing to the rights of injured workers. Senator Cooney talked about the value of taxation reform, bearing in mind that the July tax cuts, so-called, will not provide real taxation benefits for the majority of the work force and, in particular, will exclude well in excess of 70 per cent of the female members of the work force from any direct benefit. Attempts have been made to portray this Government as a government of social concern and compassion. As we know, Senator Cooney is a person of great social concern and compassion, of great heart and great warmth. Unfortunately, like people on both sides of the Parliament who like to think of themselves in that light, it is evident that Senator Cooney has as little success in persuading his colleagues to adopt some of those policies as is manifestly the case with other people around the place. Senator Short —He is the senator with the warm inner glow, though. Senator PUPLICK —Senator Cooney is indeed the senator with not only the warm inner glow but also the warm outer glow, from our observations. Nevertheless, that is not quite good enough. I, however, wish to address my remarks to the three customs and sales tax Bills. The primary Bill, the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill, makes arrangements for the payment of customs duties by Commonwealth authorities, for the imposition of a $200 fee on an application for a refund of customs duty-I know Senator Cooney will be absolutely outraged that people will have to pay enormous sums of money to have their rights protected-and makes a new arrangement for strengthening the operation of the diesel fuel duty rebate system. The Customs Tariff (Commonwealth Authorities) Amendment Bill touches particularly on the position of Telecom Australia and Australia Post as far as the impact of sales tax and customs duties legislation is concerned. The Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1987 deals with a number of matters, including the attempt to destroy the duty free industry in Australia. In relation to the motion for the second reading of the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, on behalf of the Opposition I formally move: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate: (1) notes with concern the Government's measures to introduce further imposts at a time when the business community and the general public are already suffering under excessive government taxes and charges; (2) condemns the Government for the adverse impact on families, business and the farm sector of the increases in telephone and postal charges which will result from the withdrawal of the customs and sales tax exemptions for Telecom and Australia Post; (3) deplores the Government's decision to introduce a $200 processing charge for applications for a refund of duty, and (4) expresses its concern at the proposed imposition of severe restrictions on the duty-free concessions available to passengers entering Australia which- (a) is contrary to the Industries Assistance Commission's recommendations contained in report No. 374 of 1965; and (b) will result in further inconvenience to international travellers to Australia, divert attention of customs officers away from essential narcotics surveillance activities, impact adversely on the duty-free industry in Australia, and damage the tourism industry generally''. This amendment seeks to add certain words at the end of the motion because, as Senator Short mentioned, it is a series of budgetary and financial measures and we do not propose to oppose the legislation, but nevertheless we have moved this amendment which is in four parts. In relation to paragraph (3), during the Committee stage we will move amendments to specific parts of the legislation referred to. I turn now to several of those individual items. The first matter of significance deals with the impact that this package of Bills will have in imposing additional costs on people as a result of the increases in telephone and postal charges that will result as a direct consequence of the withdrawal of the customs and sales tax exemptions from Telecom and Australia Post. On 14 May, the day after the statement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), Telecom issued a Press released headed `Telecom hit in Treasurer's economic statement'. The release was issued on behalf of Mr Bob Brack, the Chairman of Telecom, and in part it stated: Telecom had advised Government that the local call fee must increase by 3c, with increases in STD rates as well. Rental charges and connection fees will also have to increase substantially. Unless these tariffs are approved by 30 June, higher increases will be necessary. Telecom is also examining the connection fees associated with high cost services which are currently provided at subsidised rates. Telecom can no longer afford to carry the extent of the subsidy it has in the past. Telecom announced that it would have to react to the increased imposts placed upon it by introducing increased charges in local and subscriber trunk dialling telephone calls. It announced also that it would deal with rental charges, with connection fees and with the policy of cross-subsidisation. Australia Post has announced that it must look at an increase of at least 1c in the cost of posting a standard letter. These are direct consequences of the Government's decisions now provided for in this package of Bills. We condemn the Government for seeking to use these statutory authorities in order to pass the costs on to Australian consumers in an arm's length fashion, that is to say, by trying to blame Telecom and Australia Post for taking the sort of steps that they have to take in order to respond to the burden now placed upon them by the Treasurer's statement. I mention this not just in terms of those imposts, but also I refer to a speech delivered in Adelaide on Monday 25 May by Mr Brack, the Chairman of the Australian Telecommunications Commission, in which he stated: The Government's further demands on Telecom in the recent May statement represent a watershed in our development. Not only is Telecom required to repay $81m of Government loans, but it is to pay sales tax and customs duty with an estimated impact of some $400m in a full year. As you know, Telecom has announced that it will need to increase prices significantly, cut its orders of Australian industry and reduce its staff numbers to meet the financial demands of the May statement. At the same time Senator Cooney tells us that this Government is concerned about the revival of the Australian manufacturing industry and that it is concerned about increasing the number of jobs available in Australia but, according to the Chairman of Telecom, the direct consequences of the May economic statement on Telecom are that it will require an increase in the taxation burden on individuals, produced indirectly; it will reduce the extent to which Australian manufacturing industry will be able to benefit from Telecom orders; and it will lead to a reduction in employment by Telecom, which is one of the major employers of labour in Australia. Even if one looks, as Senator Cooney has sought to look, at the social implications of this package of legislation and relates those not only to the welfare measures herein contained, but also to the taxation, customs and excise matters that are contained in the package, it can be seen that the impact on Australian society as a whole will be quite adverse. I turn now to the next part of the Opposition's second reading amendment which deals with the introduction of a $200 processing charge for applications for a refund of customs duty. As I have indicated, when we get to the Committee stage of this debate the Opposition will move an amendment to that part of the legislation and, in particular, it will move an amendment to clause 7, proposed sub-section 163 (1d), which deals with this matter. The $200 fee is part of the overall policy that this Government has put in place of discouraging Australians from seeking proper redress against the bureaucracy and against the Government when they feel that they have been adversely affected. The chamber will recall that the first step in this process was dealt with as a consequence of last year's Budget, and there was a massive assault on the Freedom of Information Act by way of increased charges under that Act. During its current inquiry into the three-year operation of the Freedom of Information Act, the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs has had evidence presented to it that these charges have resulted in a lower rate of public usage of the Act. Of course, that was the intention of the Government when it introduced these charges. The chamber will recall that a second step in this process was to impose a fee, I think $200 on that occasion also, for people to have their taxation assessments reviewed not by the taxation boards of review but by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Again, as a result of the imposition of a very substantial fee, people would be discouraged from seeking redress and having their taxation assessments looked at. I think that the fee rose from a nominal $2 which had to be lodged with the taxation boards of review, to a fee of $200. There has been an attempt to emasculate the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act to discourage people from seeking the judicial review of administrative decisions to which they are entitled. There is now an imposition of a $200 fee for people who seek a refund of customs duty which may have been improperly imposed upon them. As Mr John Moore, the shadow Minister, said in the House of Representatives in the debate on 27 May: Clause 7 of the Bill contains the supposed cost recovery provisions, which impose a charge of $200 upon the processing of applications for a refund of customs duty. The Australian Customs Service receives thousands of refund applications yearly. The necessity for the refund system arises as a result of an overestimation on the part of customs agents of customs duty payable. He went on to indicate that there are a number of reasons why customs refunds are repayable and that some of them resulted from error on the part of Customs officers. That is to say, from time to time, errors are made. Goods can be improperly classified under one tariff item when in fact they should be classified under another and a duty is imposed. Normally there would be a process whereby people could challenge a particular arrangement and whereby, if a person is entitled to a refund of duty, then such a refund is paid. There could be instances in which people wish to query valuations. For instance, often the case arises of unsolicited gifts being sent from overseas to people in Australia. These presents are given a particular classification and people are charged duty on that basis and there is a process whereby they may seek some refund of the duty. We in the Opposition take the view very clearly that if an error has been committed on the part of the bureaucracy, it should not fall upon the taxpayer to have to pay a fee to have the decision reviewed. When we come to our specific amendments to clause 7 of the legislation we will deal with that matter in a little more detail. The third part of the Opposition amendment relating to an item in this package to which I wish to turn is the imposition of savage cuts on the Australian duty free industry. On 6 November 1985, the Industries Assistance Commission, in its report on passenger concessions, examined this matter in very great detail. Honourable senators will recall that it made a series of recommendations, one of which was a recommendation against the introduction of a system of inward duty free shopping. In line with the recommendation of the IAC, that proposal was opposed by the Opposition. Nevertheless, the Government, as the first part of its assault upon the private sector operators who have made the duty free industry in Australia as successful as it is, went ahead and forced the introduction of inward duty free shopping with the support of the majority of the Australian Democrats. But the recommendation of the IAC inquiry was in fact that there should be a $1,000 limit. The IAC said that for persons resident overseas entering Australia for a period of six months or less there should be a series of concessions available. It said that for persons ordinarily resident in Australia the re-importation of goods under certain conditions should be allowed, and that goods in accompanied baggage-that is, what people bring back in to the country, essentially duty free-to the value of $1,000 for adults and $500 for persons under 18 should be permitted. I was a participant in the inquiry before the IAC. In fact I appeared before it. One of the things that struck me was the vehemence with which the Federal Treasury argued for the total scrapping of the duty free concessions. Its submissions to the inquiry and its presentations, both on the draft report and as a result of the final report, were in fact that the concessions should be eliminated, that the duty free industry should be wiped out in Australia. It did not succeed in persuading the IAC to that point of view. The Commission recommended the $1,000 limit. But Treasury is known, I suppose, around the place for its persistence in these matters, and one can see the hand of Treasury getting into the duty free industry in its recommendation of the reduction from $1,000 to $400. This has come as a particularly savage impost, particularly as it has come virtually out of the blue to an industry which thought that, on the basis of the IAC inquiry, it was able to undertake some long term planning about its future and about investment. This measure, of course, impacts with enormous ferocity upon the 65,000 Australian tourists who are currently estimated to be overseas at the moment and who may be especially disadvantaged when they return to Australia. If they return after 1 July in the belief that they are entitled-as, indeed, they were when they left Australia-to a concession of a certain level they may find that, having acted in good faith, a decision was made while they were overseas which means that they are to be savagely attacked on their return in terms of the value of the duty free concession. They will get hit twice if they seek some relief from the impact of the customs duty imposed upon them on the basis of natural justice. Presumably they would run into the $200 fee, which is elsewhere provided for in this legislation, if they try to defend their rights. It is perhaps typical of the cavalier attitude which this Government takes towards the rights of individuals. The shadow Treasurer, Mr Carlton, in the debate in the House of Representatives on 26 May 1987, described this particular piece of legislation as a `monumental stupidity'. He indicated that the Treasurer wanted to bring in an extra $20m or $21m in the following year in revenue by abolishing or reducing duty free concessions for travellers. But, as we have clearly indicated in our amendment, the impact of this measure not only will be unfair upon the traveller but also will impose an enormous additional burden upon the already strained resources of the Australian Customs Service. Instead of paying primary attention to the prevention of the importation of narcotics and catching the people involved in that awful trade, and the other areas for which it is responsible, it will now be turned into a revenue collector. Our airports, of course, will be choked and crowded. The IAC report drew particular attention to the difficulties already being experienced by the management of the barrier services. In section 7 of its 1985 report it drew attention to the congestion, to the difficulties and to the management problems involved. It referred to long delays, queues, aggravation, a poor image for the Australian tourist industry, and frustration which, of course, is already apparent at Australia's airports because of our time scheduling problems and because of the simultaneous arrival in Australia of a large number of international flights in a fairly short period, particularly early in the mornings, at airports such as Kingsford-Smith Airport. All of those problems will be enormously added to by this new impost which the Government has decided to place upon the industry. Let us look at the Press reports. The Sun-Herald of 24 May 1985 contained an article headed `$400 limit for travellers dismays duty free trade'. In that article a number of people in the consumer electronics area, the camera area and the jewellery area expressed their dismay at this particular decision. The Daily Telegraph of 19 May contained an article headed `Travellers in for duty free shock'. I have already alluded to the potential fate of those 65,000 Australians currently travelling overseas who may be caught by this particular problem. The Australian Financial Review of 26 May contained an article under the heading `Duty free limit to hit jewellery stores'. May I say specifically about jewellery stores that the sale of expensive items of jewellery in Australia is one of the very significant undertakings of the duty free industry in this country. We should look at what is happening with the Australian gemstone industry-the enormous discoveries and development of the diamond potential of Argyle and the Kimberleys area, the development of the sapphire industry around Inverell, in my own State, and the development of cutting and processing techniques for Australian fine jewellery. We should look at the growth that is going on in the gold industry at the moment. Bearing in mind what an earlier IAC inquiry into the development of the jewellery industry in Australia had to say about promoting the value and the quality of Australian jewellery and of using stones mined in Australia, both precious and semi-precious, one can see that this is an area that in fact we ought to be encouraging. Yet high value items of jewellery, over the value of $400, which were very much the mainstay of a number of operators in the duty free industry, will be adversely affected. This is to occur against the background of an article that appeared only last weekend in the Sun-Herald newspaper dealing with the amount of revenue being lost on jewellery smuggling into Australia, which has been estimated in terms of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Jewellery smuggling is already taking place, and it will be extremely easy in this new situation. In fact, an impetus is provided by this legislation. Simple tricks will be available. A person will be able to buy an expensive watch or piece of jewellery before he departs from Australia. He can take a watch out of the country, whether in his pocket or in the sealed duty free bag that he carries, while he is wearing the cheap and nasty watch that he picked up for $2 in the local supermarket. While he is overseas he can chuck away his cheap and nasty watch and put his expensive watch on his wrist, and he can come back and claim that it has always been in his possession, that it was the item that he took out of the country and brought back. A person can wear expensive jewellery or he can say that the camera he purchased was always in his possession. This provision will simply impose on the Customs Service a problem of recording and of knowing what was taken out of the country compared with what is brought back, and the value of such items at any stage-and all of this for the paltry sum of revenue involved, and because the Treasury has sought to impose a regime against the duty free industry in this country, its ultimate aim being to eliminate the industry altogether. I note that Mr Peter Spies, the excellent Chairman of the Australian Duty Free Operators Association-a very worthwhile organisation-has estimated that several thousand jobs could be lost in the industry as a result of these changes. Once again, Senator Cooney's plea about the social impact of legislation and the heart that this Government is supposed to bring to its decisions is exposed for the sham it is. As a result, it has been my pleasure to move this second reading amendment on behalf of the Opposition. They draw attention to the further taxes involved, to the impost on families, small business and farmers, to the increases that flow in telephone and postal charges, and to the Government's attempt to eliminate people's ability to pursue the rights of administrative review of errors made by the bureaucracy by imposing additional fees. They condemn the attack on the duty free industry both as being contrary to all the expert advice received by the Government and as being an impost on a small business, diverting Customs officers and damaging our tourist industry. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.24) — I wish to address in this gagged debate on a package of Bills the amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973 contained in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. This Bill amends the Health Insurance Act to reduce the amount of Medicare benefit payable for medical services provided to private in-patients in hospitals and day hospital facilities and removes the $20 limit on patient contributions for such services. This, of course, is a discriminatory and unfair attack on those people who have private health insurance. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in his second reading speech said that the Government gave careful consideration to the Medicare arrangements and was most concerned to ensure that these amendments did not in any way change the main principles of Medicare. Let us consider what these principles must be if these amendments do not change them. The principles surely must involve discrimination against those who are prepared to help themselves, because these amendments discriminate against those people who take out private health insurance. Unfairness must certainly be a principle to which the Government adheres, because this provision unfairly hits a special charge on those people who have private health insurance, a special charge that is not imposed, for exactly the same service, on people receiving treatment under Medicare. The legislation will involve the principle of longer queues in public hospitals, as it forces many people who have private health insurance but who are nonetheless low income earners-in fact, a large number of those with private health insurance-out of private health insurance by increasing the cost. Apparently, that is one of the essential points of the Government's Medicare proposals. It is as a result of Medicare that we now see these enormous queues at public hospitals while there are something like 9,000 empty private hospital beds. Of course, the legislation will lead to higher costs-and that obviously is one of the principles of Medicare. When we consider what has happened under this Government we see a massive increase in the health cost burden faced by this Government, and that means by the taxpayers of Australia. The Minister said that the changes in respect of professional services rendered to an in-patient in a hospital or day hospital facility will reduce the Medicare benefits from the present 85 per cent of the schedule fee with a maximum gap of $20 to a flat 75 per cent of the schedule fee. He says that this will mean a significant saving to the Commonwealth Budget of about $105m. We could transpose the words in that sentence to read: This will mean a significant added cost for patients of $105m. The Minister said that people who have private insurance may have to meet a small increase in contributions. After I pressed the Minister on the point that this would inevitably lead to a higher cost for private insurance, we now have this grudging admission from the Government that it will lead to higher private health insurance costs. We must recognise that this is in the context of an increase of a dollar or so a week in health costs as a result of last year's Budget. We are now to have an increase of up to $1 a week under this piece of legislation, depending on the level of reserves within various health insurance funds, and we must remember that many health insurance funds must have quite high levels of reserves because of the aging nature of their clientele. They must be protected against a run on their funds, their reserves, as the average age and the average health requirement increase. There are also to be cost increases of 50c to 75c as a result of the New South Wales Government's promise to increase hospital charges in that State following the Premiers Conference. The New South Wales Government said that the reduction in funding to it must inevitably lead to these enormous increases in costs. On top of that, there was a 25 per cent increase in the Medicare levy last December. We have had cost rise after cost rise in the health insurance area as a result of this Government's policies within the last six or seven months. On top of that, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has come out with figures showing that health care costs to the public have been rising at double the rate of inflation over the past 12 months-and that excludes the Medicare levy, because the Medicare levy is excluded from the cost of living index. So we see this massive assault on the pockets of people, particularly those who are privately insured, by a Government which is, in effect, admitting that health care costs have got away from it and that the Medicare system-as the whole of Australia knows-is in an intolerable mess. Let us consider what has happened to these costs since the Government came to office. In the last full year of the Fraser Government the cost of Commonwealth funding for health purposes totalled $4.4 billion. The cost for the current financial year, ending 30 June, was just under $9 billion. That is more than double. It means that under this Government health care costs have risen at the rate of $1.1 billion a year. The rate of increase under the Fraser Government was about one-third of that amount. There is no doubt that health care costs have gone through the roof, although in fact the standard of care being offered has diminished, due largely to the inability of so many people, particularly the frail and the aged, to get access to a public hospital when they need it. I will deal with the question of hospital queues later. At this stage I want formally to move an amendment to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. I move: At end of the motion add ``, but the Senate- (1) is of the opinion that the Bill unfairly discriminates against hospital patients with private insurance who will receive only 75 per cent of the scheduled fee for medical services, while Medicare patients will continue to receive 85 per cent, so forcing up the cost of private insurance and assisting the Government's objective of forcing more Australians out of private health insurance and making them wait in pain for up to two years in the 100,000-long queue for public hospital beds; (2) agrees with Mr John Singleton, who heads the Hawke Government's advertising campaign and who was sacked from the ALP-owned radio station 2KY in Sydney `for telling the truth about Medicare', that: `Medicare might be great in theory but ultimately all you get for nothing is nothing'; `Every day the media reports how Medicare is and will continue to be a disaster . . . you only have to look at the waiting list at hospitals to see that'; `Our hospitals are sick'; `Medicare will not work, cannot work and it is not working'; `If you don't have private health insurance all you can do is hope for the best . . . hope that the hospital has the bed, the facilities and the experience you need . . .'; and (3) requests the Government to withdraw the Bill and resubmit it in a form that provides fair, equitable, efficient and readily-available hospital services which do not discriminate against individual Australians and which do not push the frail, aged and chronically ill to the end of long queues for public hospital beds''. Senator Kilgariff —Very comprehensive. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Thank you, Senator Kilgariff. This matter of John Singleton's views of Medicare cannot be pushed aside by saying that they simply formed part of an advertisement. In the advertisement he says: `if I wasn't a member of a private health fund I would not write this ad'. According to Mr Singleton, that was his genuine view. The damning comments that he made about Medicare in that advertisement, following which he was sacked from 2KY, are of course accurate, and it must be a great embarrassment to the Australian Labor Party to know that the man who is trying to sell Medicare to the people of Australia, trying to encourage them to believe that it is worthwhile, is the man who said: `If I wasn't a member of a private health fund I would not write this ad'. That, quite properly, destroys the credibility of Medicare. That is further demonstrated by the fact that so many Australians, particularly those in lower income groups who have great difficulty in affording it, have in fact joined private health care. Under this Government, that is the only way they can be assured of adequate health care treatment. I want to pursue the question of the Government's trying to get its message across about Medicare. This has led the Government to make a series of deceptive and misleading statements, which can be judged by the Australian people on 11 July. The Government has released a document called `the Opposition health alternative-an analysis'. The question is posed: `Can you afford $27 a week?' It is very interesting; it was introduced at a press conference by the Treasurer, Mr Keating, who, quite frankly, on this effort should stick to trying to fill in his tax returns-he is not too good at that either-rather than trying to work out alternative health schemes and the cost of them. But the interesting thing about this paper introduced by Mr Keating and Dr Blewett is that it gives no indication of who prepared it. It was an analysis by whom? There is no name on the document. An attempt is made to pretend that it was done by officers of the Department. If so, it is a disgracefully politically prejudiced document. At whose expense was this document printed? Was it in fact another of those public relations publications by the massive Government operation aimed at encouraging people to think pure, to think clean, to think Hawke? The fact is, though, there is no name on this document. We do not know whether this is just one of the propaganda efforts of this Government. We do not know who authorised it for election purposes, as clearly it is an election document, and we do not know who should face up to the fact that it is incorrect and that it deliberately seeks to mislead. We do not know who the people are to blame for this totally phoney document. The reason that this phoney document was introduced, from which Mr Keating and Dr Blewett got some publicity the other day, is that Labor Party research shows that people, and quite properly so, are concerned about the worsening Medicare mess. The Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 demonstrates what this Government is having to do, piecemeal, to try to correct that mess. We are now into Medicare mark IV. We have had basic changes in principle: For example, when Medicare first came in it was a matter of principle that, if one were privately insured and also contributed to Medicare, then Medicare should contribute towards one's stay in a private hospital. The Government has abandoned that basic principle. Now, a private patient who pays for private health insurance gets nothing back from Medicare in respect of a hospital bill-not a cent. In other words, those people who privately insure are subsidising this Government's Medicare system, because they are being ripped off in order to help paper over the excessive costs of health that have emerged from the Medicare mess. Some eight million Australians are privately insured-that is half our population. A half of the population is being ripped off by this Government due to an unfair and discriminatory health system. This Bill makes it even more unfair by reducing to 75 per cent the amount of Medicare cover for medical assistance while one is in a private hospital, as compared to the 85 per cent that one would get as a Medicare patient. This is discriminatory and unfair. It follows precisely the Government's previous record in relation to health. I refer again to the document entitled `The Opposition health alternative-an analysis' that was released by the Government. It is a crooked, unsigned and misleading document, which is being waved around by Ministers and back benchers in the Labor Party, who probably do not know much better. There are some self-evident quaint things in it. They are claiming that Medicare has brought massive increased efficiencies to the hospital system because in the public hospital sector, for example, it says that statistics show that in 1983, prior to the introduction of Medicare, 2.38 million people received treatment in Australia's public hospitals and occupied 17.8 million public hospital bed days, but in 1986 under Medicare 2.47 million people received public hospital treatment yet they occupied only 16.9 million bed days. Quaintly enough, this document does not work out what sort of an improvement that is. I can tell the Government that I have done the sum for it, and it shows that despite massive technological improvements in our ability to get people ready for remedial and recuperative treatment, there has been only a modest 9 per cent improvement in the number of bed days required in the public hospital system. Let us now work out what it has been in the private hospital system. In that time private hospitals have increased their rate by 22 per cent. Those sums were not worked out in this crooked document. The Government did not take any notice, did it? It would not work out the sum for us; it gave us the broad figures and hoped we would skim across them. This is typical of this document. When one has a good look at it one sees what the reality is. Once again, the reality is that the private sector, the competitive sector, is outperforming the public sector. Let us now look at another Labor lie in this document. On page 14 it says: In 1983-the last full calendar year prior to the introduction of Medicare-each Australian used an average of 7.70 medical services. In the 1986 calendar year, the average was 7.68: an almost identical utilisation rate. The Minister, Dr Blewett, repeated these figures in the other place and said, as recorded in Hansard: I will not claim that Medicare is leading to less servicing of patients, but there has been no change in the pattern of servicing of patients under Medicare. That is totally false. That figure cited here for the number of services that each Australian used in 1983 is a lie. Each Australian did not use that number. Between 1.8 million and 2 million Australians were excluded from that sum by whichever person prepared this dishonest political document. Every year in the Budget we have seen evidence that utilisation of medical services under Medicare has increased. If it increases every year how can it be that this Minister and this document-this deceptive and dishonest document-can pretend that utilisation has decreased? At least the Minister had the honesty, when he was trying to mislead this place, to say that the utilisation was 7.7 services per enrolled population. This deceptive document leaves out the word `enrolled'. There is the key. This Government will do anything to deceive and pretend to the people of Australia that this disastrous health system, this Medicare system, has been wonderful. It is interesting to note, is it not, that this Government thinks so highly of this Medicare system that it is saying that it will remain the same? It will stick by it; Medicare will remain unchanged. The media asked Mr Keating: If it is to remain unchanged will the Medicare levy remain unchanged after the election? He could give no assurances of any kind that there would be no change in the Medicare levy. Once again we have the Labor Party going into an election and not giving any assurance-it is almost like its tax policy before the last election-that there will not be an increase. Senator Maguire —Where is your tax policy? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Our tax policy will be presented before the election, not like Labor's last time. The Labor Party went into the last election with no tax policy. We will be going to an election with a tax policy on which people can make a choice, not like the deceptive and dishonest effort by the Labor Party which went into the last election saying: `We don't really have a tax policy, but we will have a meeting and talk about it after the election'. We will not be doing anything as dishonest as that. We will be letting the people of Australia know, just as we will be letting them know our intentions about health in the near future, what our policy will be. All we have from this Government is a refusal to admit whether it will increase the Medicare levy after this election. That is the typical arrogance of this Government. Its record would clearly indicate that the Medicare levy under this Government is in for a big rise. After all, it cannot keep slugging the private sector, the privately insured people, in a discriminatory way. It cannot keep doing it forever the way it has over the last 12 months, adding something like $4 a week-to whom? Only to those people who are privately insured. In other words, it is a deliberate attack on the freedom of choice for health care, forcing people out of private insurance and so on. Let us look at the next Labor lie in this document. We keep on getting them. Dr Blewett states: Under the failed health schemes of the previous Government 2 million people did not have access to doctors. We heard that again from Senator Tate today in this place at Question Time. I must say that Senator Tate is a man for whom I have the highest personal regard, and it is very disappointing to see a man of his integrity being prepared to mouth the rubbish handed to him by Dr Blewett, on whose behalf he has to appear in this place, when it is self-evident that that stuff that Dr Blewett has been handing out is as deceptive, as disgraceful and as dishonest as this nonsensical booklet which has been put out and to which, as I said, no one will put his name. Senator Crowley —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: I have listened to the honourable senator and I have tolerated, as I understand the Standing Orders allow, a general claim against the Government concerning certain things, but the sheeting home of claims of dishonesty to the Minister from the other place, even with the imputation that it also applies to Senator Tate in this place, I think should be withdrawn. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Mr Acting Deputy President, to save time I am happy to withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —The honourable senator is sailing pretty close the the wind. I ask him to withdraw that. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I will withdraw any imputation against any individual senator or Minister elsewhere. All I will say about Dr Blewett is that if he did not know that what he was saying was totally false he is a monumentally incompetent Minister. Senator Kilgariff —They are afraid of you, Senator Baume. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I think the honourable senator is right. Dr Blewett said: Under the failed health schemes of the previous Government 2 million people did not have access to doctors. We heard Senator Tate say here that 2 million people were frozen out of health care under the previous Government. That is total bunkum. I will tell honourable senators what the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows about those people, but before I get to that let me give the details. I presume the Minister is referring to 1.8 million, because 1.8 million persons, according to the ABS, chose not to purchase health insurance in those days. It does not mean that they did not have access to hospital and medical services. To pretend that they had no access is deliberately misleading and totally false. Many of these-we have the statistics in case anyone wants to interject-were young and healthy but decided against health insurance on cost benefit ground. I will remind honourable senators that in those days health bills were a tax deduction. If one was fit and healthy it may well have been one's judgment that there was no benefit in joining a health fund because one would then be subsidising the heavier health bills of other people. The fact is that a large proportion of these people were in Queensland and were entitled to free hospital treatment anyway. So to say, as Dr Blewett did, that two million people did not have access to doctors is a straightforward and uncomplicated blatant mistruth. It is an attempt to deceive the people of Australia. It can be self-evidently shown by the figures of the Bureau of Statistics that 35.6 per cent of these people Dr Blewett says had no access to doctors were residents of Queensland where there is a free hospital system, a free out-patients system and people have access to doctors at any time. This is another of the Labor lies we have to put up with in the run-up to this election. Another 23.2 per cent of the people surveyed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics gave the reason for not purchasing health insurance that they were healthy enough. In other words, for financial reasons that arrangement suited them-they received a tax benefit and they considered that they would save money by not joining a health fund and they probably did. Some 14.9 per cent of the people surveyed stated that they were entitled to benefits under pensioner repatriation or health care card arrangements. Why would Dr Blewett tell the people of Australia that such people did not have access to doctors when the Government was providing 15 per cent of them with access to doctors because they had pensioner repatriation or health care card arrangements? Did Dr Blewett not know that? If he did not know it, what an incompetent Minister he is. If he did know it, why did he set out to deceive the people of Australia? The remainder of the group surveyed gave cost as a reason for not joining a health fund but, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics survey, almost half of these people were Queensland residents who were choosing to take advantage of free hospital in-patient and out-patient services. So the figures add up. Some 35.6 per cent were residents of Queensland and said that they did not have to be insured, that they had access to health care. The Minister is totally wrong on that score. Some 23.2 per cent of the people surveyed gave the reason that they were healthy enough and that they preferred to take self-insurance and 15 per cent said that they were entitled to benefits under the pensioner repatriation or health care arrangements. Here we have the continued deception by this Government in its desperate attempts to fool the people about the nature of this present Medicare disaster. The reality is that under Medicare we have had continually rising public hospital queues and no wonder when the Government does what it can to force people out of the private hospital system on financial grounds. I have a document called `An Analysis of Public Hospital Waiting Time Bulletin No. 26, March 1987' published by the Victorian Department of Health. In the last eight months there has been a doubling, across so many areas, of the monthly delays and waiting times for getting into hospitals. I will quote just some of them. In Essendon, Melbourne delays for ear, nose and throat operations increased from 10.8 months in May 1986 to 26.9 months in March 1987. The list goes on and the waiting times have doubled-I certainly picked out the biggest one. My time has almost expired but I want to stress that despite what the Government is saying, the real cost of health care in Australia will fall under the Liberals' health policy because the Labor Party's Medicare system is discriminatory: it involves people paying up to four times what they should-firstly, by the Medicare levy; secondly, through their tax which pays two-thirds of the Medicare bill; thirdly, if they are married the spouse has to pay another Medicare levy to get nothing extra and, fourthly, if they are privately insured, they have to pay for the fourth time. The Health Legislation Amendment Bill continues the discriminatory attack on privately insured people which has been maintained by this Government ever since it got into office. That attack is for one simple reason: It is self-evident that Medicare is an intolerable mess. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(5.54) —Senator Michael Baume raised points when speaking to this legislation package which includes the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 1987, the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1987, the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, the Customs Tariff (Commonwealth Authorities) Amendment Bill 1987 and the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. I intend to confine my remarks-as did Senator Baume-to the health legislation and to Medicare and try to refute the claims made by Senator Baume. I will not try; I clearly can. Senator Michael Baume stated fairly stringently what the Government understands about Medicare. I will not quote him because that might create the impression that those claims are true. He is absolutely wrong and shameless in attributing to the Government such- Senator Michael Baume —You demonstrate where I am wrong. Senator CROWLEY —I am about to-patience, sir, patience. The reason the honourable senator can claim that the country or the Government is confused about Medicare is for one reason only and that is that the honourable senator is confused about Medicare. It is clear that he does not understand what the figures mean; he does not understand what Medicare covers and he has no qualms about creating an impression in the community that his confusion is a fact. It is a fact that it is his confusion; it is not a fact that it applies to this Government. The confusion about Medicare is in his mind. His confusion is betrayed by all of his comments in a recent speech. Further, his confusion is about who is saying what about Medicare for the Opposition. The Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, in answering a question today said that there is confusion in the Opposition about who is responsible for the Opposition's health policy. There is confusion about not only the Opposition's health policy but also about what the Opposition could possibly save. Senator Walsh mentioned figures and I would be delighted to mention them again. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, was asked what he thought the savings would be if Medicare were scrapped or re-arranged according to some plan that the Opposition seems to have in mind. He estimates that it would save about $2 billion. Later the same day, Senator Michael Baume was asked: `Do you think the savings would be $3 billion?'. Senator Michael Baume said: `Yes, I think there would be every prospect of that'. So the confusion within the Opposition about the policy goes even to the savings if Medicare were abolished. The Opposition tosses off a mere $1 billion. For most of us out of approximately a $7 billion Budget, that is a very significant amount. The confusion is that members of the Opposition do not even agree amongst themselves about what their policy is. It is fairly clear that when Mr Porter was the shadow Minister for Health he was in the process of writing a health policy. It is now clearly understood that it has all been recalled and that Senator Michael Baume is charged with coming up with something that might be the Opposition's health policy. Senator Giles —Don't hold your breath. Senator CROWLEY —My goodness me, we will not hold our breath. Quite clearly, Senator Baume is so confused about what he says about Medicare that I would not hold my breath at all or have any expectations that the Opposition will have a health policy. It does not know anything even about-- Senator Michael Baume —Let us have some facts. Senator CROWLEY —That is a fact. The honourable senator said that abolishing Medicare would save $3 billion; Mr Howard says that it would save $2 billion. That seems a fairly interesting fact. The Opposition has a $1 billion discrepancy. I will get to the more substantial matters of what the honourable senator wants to talk about in terms of the items under Medicare. It certainly seems that the honourable senator not only does not understand but also does not care to be accurate in his claims or figures. Misrepresentation is clearly the name of his game. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber were saying by way of interjection: `Where is your tax policy? Where is your health policy?'. Where are any of the proposals that would make sense of why the honourable senator would want to claim a $3 billion or $2 billion saving? What is the honourable senator planning to use to fund health care and what is he planning to do to cover the five million people who the honourable senator said today may be disadvantaged under his proposal? That is a great way to go to the electorate-`I plan to disadvantage five million Australians'. That should be a vote winner wherever the honourable senator tries to take it. Of course, if he takes it to the eastern suburbs of most States-- Senator Michael Baume —I did not say that. That is a deliberate misrepresentation. Senator CROWLEY —I refer the honourable senator to Hansard. He said: `Five million people may be disadvantaged'. Senator Michael Baume —For goodness sake. Senator CROWLEY —I do not say that without quoting what was attributed to the honourable senator. In fact, that is what I said and the honourable senator repeated it so I thank him for re-endorsing what I said. The answer given by the Special Minister of State, Senator Tate, clearly dealt with that matter. Firstly, the Opposition is confused and, secondly, it has extraordinary gall to run around the country suggesting that it is prepared to stand on the issue of a dismantled Medicare package that will disadvantage five million Australians. I think that is a very curious way of trying to run an election campaign. I turn to some of the points that the honourable senator insists the Government refute. For the time I am very happy to refute the points. To start with I refer to waiting lists. The Opposition claims-Senator Michael Baume has said this in this place-that 100,000 people are on waiting lists. There is absolutely no basis for this estimate. It simply demonstrates the depths to which Senator Michael Baume will go to make a point that is quite irrelevant to the substance of a Medicare debate. But he will not let that interfere with the Opposition's claims. He has conveniently forgotten statistics from the Commonwealth Department of Health which show that, under Medicare, the average length of stay in all hospitals has fallen and the number of patients receiving hospital treatment has risen compared with the figures for 1983. Public hospitals are now treating about 60,000 patients a week. That represents a considerable productivity gain over the health fiasco under the Fraser Government. It also ignores the fact that at the recent Australian Health Ministers Conference all Ministers agreed that the States and Territories have primary responsibility for the administration and delivery of public hospital services. They also agreed that the following factors affected waiting times: Nurse shortages resulting in bed closures; supply of some specialist medical services such as orthopaedic surgery; and advances in technology allowing a greater variety of procedures, such as coronary bypass surgery and lens implants. I note that Senator Michael Baume has now retreated, no doubt with his tail between his legs. The list includes hip and other joint replacements to be more readily performed, and greater public awareness of new improved technology leading to greater demand. It was agreed that it was up to the States and Territories to develop programs to overcome waiting list problems, and the Federal Minister for Health was very supportive of all those agreements. I cannot understand why the Opposition continues to quote figures from March, as Senator Michael Baume did. Is the Opposition so behind that it does not have updated figures? New South Wales already allocated $27m, and Victoria $32m, to develop new programs such as nurse recruitment, leasing of private beds, expansion of domiciliary nursing services, increases in day surgery, and more specifically focused facilities such as, for example, special orthopaedic requirements. These programs are already making considerable inroads into waiting times. For example, the Victorian initiatives have reduced waiting times for orthopaedic surgery at the Royal Melbourne Hospital from approximately 17 months to two months. In overall terms, elective surgery capacity has increased by about 4,000 a month. In New South Wales the number of beds has risen by a figure of 356, the number of patients has increased by 5,500, and there has been a significant reduction in waiting times for ophthalmology and orthopaedic and vascular surgery in a number of hospitals. These facts are up to date, make a mockery of the Opposition's claims and show the Opposition's complete ignorance of the issues. Senator Michael Baume quoted figures from March. My figures relate to May and June. Given the problems faced by hospitals, particularly in Victoria and New South Wales consequent on the industrial changes and difficulties as a consequence of industrial action by nurses-these matters have been dramatically addressed and redressed-it is important not to continue to misrepresent grossly the figures regarding waiting lists and to claim that they contain 100,000 people. That claim is totally unsubstantiated and further amorphous claims have been made about waiting times up to March. I urge Senator Michael Baume to read the figures I have just given which will bring him up to date on his continued furphy against Medicare. Senator Walters referred to an Australian Bureau of Statistics survey of March 1983 that indicates that approximately 46 per cent of families with dependent children, with gross incomes of less than $126 a week, take out private health insurance. She used these statistics in seeking to justify her argument that everything about Medicare is wrong or that Medicare is to blame. To put the matter into perspective, I point out that these families represent less than 0.5 per cent of the population. Furthermore, families on $126 a week are exempt from paying Medicare levy under the Medicare arrangements introduced by this Government to ensure that people on low incomes are not disadvantaged financially in terms of the health cover of whatever sort they choose or need. Senator Walters has conveniently forgotten that as a result of the draconian Fraser health schemes the ABS report of March 1983 showed that 55 per cent of families with dependent children in the lowest income group had been forced to purchase private insurance. As with Senator Michael Baume's policies, the disadvantaged were squeezed between the poor card and unaffordable insurance. There was no universal and equitable system. There is now, and it is Medicare. Senator Baume seems to have no idea of what choice means. It means that people, apart from those on the lowest level of income, who contribute to the costs of health services can settle for the adequate and sufficient health care services which they can enjoy under the Medicare levy or can purchase private health insurance. But to suggest that they do not have a choice, or that if we take away the Medicare levy they will have more choice, is to misunderstand totally the difference between Medicare with a private insurance option and the options under Fraser, when the choice was private insurance or nothing. Senator Baume further confused the issues concerning bulk billing arrangements, on which he did not elaborate-he cannot continue to do that-in a number of ways. Again, I shall highlight the contradictions in his claims. The Opposition insists that bulk billing, amongst other things, is responsible for the increase in costs under Medicare and anything else associated with Medicare that seems to Opposition members to be bad and worthwhile doing away with. Curiously, though, honourable senators opposite have no evidence with which to refute the Government's figures, to prove that there has not been an increased utilisation of services under bulk billing and Medicare. In 1983, the last full calendar year prior to the introduction of Medicare, each Australian used an average of 7.70 medical services. In the 1986 calendar year the average was 7.68, an almost identical utilisation rate. Opposition senators insist that that is a false figure because it does not include those people who were not included as being insured. Well, of course not. Those figures are adjusted to take account of the fact that there is no evidence as to how those people utilised services, precisely because they were not included in insurance statistics and there could be no guesstimate of those figures. The Government's figures are utterly honourable. The Opposition seeks to suggest that, because 1,800,000 people were not included, those figures have not been adjusted properly to make adequate comparisons. That is clear evidence of a failure by the Opposition to understand the data. The Opposition also seems to suggest that those figures are false because a number of people opted out of insurance because they were healthy. That may be so, but that says nothing about those people who stayed out of private health insurance because they could not afford it. Nobody has ever claimed that all those people were forced out of private health insurance because of the costs. There was a clear understanding that some people had opted out because they had made a choice; they had taken a gamble about their own good health compared to the costs. But to suggest that somehow the Government did not understand that is a gross misrepresentation of the Minister's and the Department's clear understanding of those facts. It makes nonsense of the Opposition's claim that the Minister did not take those matters into account in putting forward the figures. In fact, they are not his figures but estimates of the medical services. They have been adjusted to take account of those differences. More importantly, there is a further contradiction in the Opposition's policy that staggers me. Those opposite insist that they will dismantle Medicare, and do away with bulk billing, except-bless me!-for people who pass some sort of means test. The Opposition will reintroduce a means test with its stigma, the poor card, which has gone under Medicare. The great advantage of Medicare is that people no longer have a mark on their forehead that says they are poor. There is no longer a poor card that says that a person will be given assistance because he or she is judged unable to be treated on an equal footing with anybody else in this country. The Opposition wants to reintroduce a stigma, a two-tier system of citizens in this country. It wants to dismantle the Medicare system which, because of its universality and equitability, has done away with all that. At present all citizens have equal access to the very adequate health services in this country, but the Opposition wants to reintroduce the means test, bring back the poor card and the stigma. But curiously enough it wants to do this so that it can continue bulk billing. I do not understand how Opposition members expect to take it away but keep it at the same time nor do I understand how they can claim that they will have bulk billing only for pensioners when about 70 per cent of all bulk billed services are actually for pensioners or health care cardholders anyhow. If Opposition members looked at the data they would clearly understand that their claims for savings and all the other gains that they think will result from the dismantling of Medicare and the doing away with bulk billing will not actually happen. Opposition members have completely misrepresented or misunderstood the argument. They claim they will do away with bulk billing in order to save costs but they will allow it to continue for those people whom they will means test and stigmatise, and that turns out to be 70 per cent of the people who are currently enjoying bulk billing services. Apart from anything else, that sort of argument seems to be the best way of refuting Opposition claims. If Opposition members are as wrong as that about a very simple matter quite clearly anything more subtle is beyond their grasp. A recent survey of Sydney general practitioners by the Australian Consumers Association showed that bulk billing works to the advantage of pensioners, welfare beneficiaries and families in less affluent areas. Presumably these are precisely the people whom the Opposition will means test and allow to be bulk billed. How it can then expect to make any of the savings that it insists it will make is beyond me. Let us turn to Opposition claims about savings. It has got those figures wrong too. Senator Giles suggested that the best way of describing Senator Michael Baume was as `innumerate and rapidly becoming non-tabulate'. I think we must agree about that because he does not understand the figures and he does not appreciate that what he proposes to do in dismantling Medicare will dramatically increase costs for Australians who will have to pay much more for their basic health cover. It is estimated that the increase will be at least $27 a week for basic health cover and possibly $37 a week for top cover. Why Senator Baume would want to campaign on a `break down Medicare and make everyone who can afford it pay more' basis seems a ridiculous position to take. That summarises exactly what the Opposition is saying about Medicare. Let us have a look at the $3 billion savings and the costs to individuals. Any attempt to remove $3 billion from the health system means that the cost of basic insurance for health will rocket to $27 a week for families. I repeat that figure-$27 a week for basic health insurance cover. Those figures are based on 64 per cent of the population opting out, as they did in 1976. The Medicare benefits for these people which currently costs $1.3 billion would be transferred to private funds resulting in an $8 a week increase, just for medical cover. But the balance of the $3 billion savings would have to come in cuts from Commonwealth funds to State hospitals. A $1.7 billion cut in budget support would add a further $9.80 a week to hospital insurance costs. To this we must add existing costs for basic private health insurance. If one adds up those figures-$9.60, $9.80 and $8.00, as I have just spelt out-the total is $27.40. I recall Senator Walsh's answer in the Senate today to a question from Senator West when he said that the Opposition had given no thought to the effect on the consumer price index of forcing all those people on to private insurance and forcing the cost of that private insurance very high. As I recall, Senator Walsh said that there would be at least a 5 per cent increase- Senator Walsh —If all government health funding were withdrawn, the increase in the CPI would be more than 6 per cent. Senator CROWLEY —It means an even more than 6 per cent increase in the CPI. How the Opposition can argue that that kind of increase in inflation from just one item-private health insurance-can be tolerated is remarkable. The Opposition has no idea what it intends to do. It insists that somehow it will save $3 billion, or perhaps it is only $2 billion, by dismantling Medicare and presumably that is because this is the only area in which it is prepared to have even some guesstimates of figures. As my colleagues have said before, it certainly has not told us anything else that it will do in the way of taxation changes. It has certainly not told us how it proposes to get the savings necessary to finance all its other claims and it has not told us what would happen if, as a consequence of all these changes, the CPI increased by 6 per cent. That, of course, would have dramatic effects on a number of items-far too many to contemplate. I do not understand how the Opposition could possibly support such a policy. Again, I think that this highlights the utter confusion in the Opposition about Medicare and the consequences of dismantling it. It also has no understanding of the benefits of Medicare or of its costs. Another area in which Senator Baume betrayed a clear misunderstanding was when he insisted that Medicare made no contribution to patients in hospital. That again shows his complete misunderstanding of two aspects. The first is that 75 per cent of medical costs of private patients in hospital treatment is covered by the Medicare return. That is a considerable amount of money. It is a contribution from Medicare to those patients who are in hospital. As well, the contribution from the Commonwealth to the States under the Medicare agreements provides a considerable amount of money to cover the costs of hospitalisation of all those patients who are treated in public hospitals. To not understand that is to not understand one of the basic tenets of Medicare and again illustrates Senator Michael Baume's complete failure to grasp what Medicare is about. It is disappointing to listen to Senator Baume who has not shifted his argument at all since he became the shadow Minister for Health. I would have thought that we could give him a period of grace so that he could learn how to spell it and understand what it was all about, but he has not done that. He has mastered nothing at all. His speech in this place today was precisely the same as the drivel he contributed to matters of public importance debates on health and the family some months ago. There is clear evidence that he has not shifted his ground at all. His only defence is to keep bagging the Government-I do not mind if he bags the Government-but he keeps bagging it with wrong figures and wrong facts. Senator Short —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. On behalf of Senator Michael Baume, who is not here at the moment for important reasons, I take exception to Senator Crowley's remarks. The figures and statistics that Senator Baume produced today were accurate and factual. It is a total misrepresentation on Senator Crowley's part. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! That is a debating point, Senator Short, not a point of order. Senator CROWLEY —I urge Senator Short to read Senator Michael Baume's contribution today on these matters. The facts are as stated in this document and put on the record by the Government in any number of places. They are not grasped or refuted in any proper or adequate way by Senator Baume. He merely repeats claims about people on waiting lists. The data that he has takes him up to March 1987. Our data goes up to the present and clearly refutes his claims about waiting lists. These claims were wicked and scandalous in the first place, but they are better refuted by the most recent data which shows a dramatic improvement as hospitals attempt to deal with the significant problems, consequent on industrial and other matters that I listed earlier. The changes in this legislation are part of the May statement by the Government and are consequent on that statement. They are part of the massive and marvellous efforts that this Government has made to turn around the economy. Despite demanding tough things of people in the community, the Government has got the economy on the right track. That kind of recovery will benefit all Australians, not only in the Medicare and health legislation areas but, as a consequence of all the other legislation in this package, in so many other areas as well. Senator Baume's contribution today did no more than to recapitulate the mistakes and errors on which he insisted in the first place and from which he does not learn and because of which he will not change. That portrays a lack of understanding of what choice is about and a confusion about the savings from bulk billing. He claims he will do away with it but then claims that he will not do away with it. That clearly indicates that the Opposition's policy in Medicare as in every other area is in total disarray. It is no threat to the Government, which will be proud and pleased to go to the people asking for yet another endorsement of Medicare which is already in place and which, on any evidence, is strongly supported by the majority of people. They have seen its benefits and know how it helps. They know too that it contributes to the maintenance of an excellent medical service, whether through our hospitals, private or public, or through our community or general practice services. Medicare is something this country is proud of and will re-endorse in the next election. I urge support for these Bills. Senator BROWNHIlL(New South Wales)(6.21) —In the short time that I have to speak I would like to address the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill and bring to the notice of the Senate the Government's ineptitude in handling the Australian economy, bringing this legislation in at such a late stage and dissolving the Parliament so quickly thereafter. This Bill gives effect to the announcement in the May statement that sales tax exemptions will be withdrawn from certain Commonwealth authorities which carry on commercial functions. I do not mind the fact that government authorities have to pay sales tax but we must remember that in bringing down this May mini-Budget this Government has not looked at the costs that will be incurred by those authorities and passed on through the community. This Government is the biggest taxing government in peacetime history, with receipts from tax accounting for some 25 per cent of gross domestic product in 1986-87. In 1984-85 spending reached something like 30.4 per cent of GDP. Under the Fraser Government, expenditure in real terms increased at an average of only 2.1 per cent; under Hawke it is something like 3.9 per cent. As a share of GDP, the average of the Hawke Government has been 29.9 per cent. Under Fraser it was only 27.7 per cent. This Government has allowed our dollar to slump to ridiculously low levels. It has lost our AAA rating. Home loans interest rates are going as high as 15 1/2 per cent, Bankcard charges as high as 22 1/2 per cent and prime lending rate up to 21 per cent. This Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill will not help the Australian people, as I have already said. This Government claims that the sales tax measures will raise something like $310m in 1987-88 in direct tax and a further $395m in 1988-89. That burden has to be placed on to the Australian people who will pay those taxes. It means that in the next little while when this flows through to the community people will be slugged once again. It is a matter of great concern to all people in the community that this is the first Australian Government that has lost the AAA credit rating given us by two international credit rating agencies. It is a government which has allowed our inflation to rise against the rates of all the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, which have falling inflation rates. So the Government stands condemned for bringing in legislation two days before the dissolving of the Parliament. It is just patching up legislation at a time when everyone must be wondering why we are having this early election. What has this Labor Government got hidden under the bed? Most probably it is the industrial relations legislation which is not under the bed but lying on the table in the other place. But this is not a time to bring on and guillotine a debate on something that will affect all people. Telecom Australia has already indicated that because of this legislation the cost of local telephone calls will rise from 18c to 21c. The maximum connection fee for country subscribers will rise from $1,380-odd to $6,250. With all that, there is an unemployment problem because there is talk of the sacking of 3,000 Telecom staff. Obviously unemployment figures will rise and the cost to the Government of paying unemployment benefits will rise as well. Senator McKiernan —Do you believe the Telecom figures? Senator BROWNHILL —I thank Senator McKiernan for his interjection. Telecom, as I have just said, will raise its charges. The Premier of New South Wales will raise charges in a lot of government instrumentalities because of the Government's May mini-Budget. So this Budget will not help people in the community to the extent that it should. Of course it was a sham anyway because it is what one calls a Clayton's Budget-a Budget when the Treasurer in Federal Parliament says `I am going to cut $1.6 billion off my spending but I expect the States to cut $2 billion off their spending'. As I said I would speak for only six minutes so that Senator Vigor could follow me in the debate, I will just say that the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill will not do what the Government intends and definitely will have far-reaching consequences for people in the community. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.27) —I wish to speak on the miscellany of Bills which the Government has put under the same header as a related package. The package includes the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill, which the Australian Democrats oppose. It includes also the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill, which seems to have stirred up a nest of hornets amongst various duty free shops and will produce quite unworkable situations in Australian Customs Service offices. The package contains also the Health Legislation Amendment Bill and a number of other measures. One of the things that I would like to raise in the last minute or so of this debate is the problem-and I do not think that the Government will be very happy about it-with the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill which is to give better cash flow to the Government. That Bill proposes to rip $27m off local government. It will result in an increase in local rates and will break the Government's promise at the last election for local government to get two per cent of income tax. The Government suddenly has become aware of the cash flow problem. From a number of submissions in the Customs area I have become aware of a number of people from quite a number of areas who had clearances through Customs for computer goods and high technology goods but said that their pre-clearances had been changed, that samples would be required and that there would be delays in delivery. This could cause a base distortion of the trade figures if it is happening on a broad scale. It is the first time that I have ever had a number of phone calls of this type from people in different quarters complaining that the Customs Service is delaying them. Underlying this matter is a possible scandal. The Government is trying to push the Customs legislation through at this stage. The negative cash flow related to holdups in customs on imports is really quite unreasonable if the Government is fast doing what has been suggested. We will pursue this during the Committee stage of the Customs legislation to check up on this matter. I warn the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) that we would like some answers. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator VIGOR —I would like to say how pleased I am to see in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill that the Government has decided not to proceed with cuts in subsidies towards training volunteer counsellors in the Nursing Mothers' Association of Australia. The Nursing Mothers' Association has a very large membership Australia-wide and makes an enormous contribution to public health through counselling services to mothers who are breastfeeding infants. The Association is self-supporting and the service is entirely voluntary. The only contribution from the Commonwealth is partial support for a professional person to provide courses to volunteer counsellors. All overheads are met by the Association through donations by, and commercial sales to, members. I would like to congratulate the Nursing Mothers' Association on its enormous contribution to the welfare of babies in Australia over the years and to its commitment to community health care. Also in this package of Bills is the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill and the Customs Tariff (Commonwealth Authorities) Amendment Bill, which proposed amendments to the Customs Act 1901 and the Excise Act 1901 to implement the announcement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the May economic statement relating to Commonwealth authorities being required to pay customs duties. The effect of requiring statutory authorities to make customs duties payments is to impose an indirect tax on consumers of their services. It is a tax on all people. It is a dishonest way for the Government to raise taxes and perpetuates its reputation of being a high taxing government. The measure is expected to raise $75m per annum, mainly from Telecom Australia subscribers and partially from Australia Post. The effect is a tax on communications services. All honourable senators were taken aback by the Press release issued by Telecom within hours of the announcement of the customs duty and sales tax arrangements. I have a copy of Telecom's Press release of that occasion and seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- TELECOM HIT IN TREASURER'S ECONOMIC STATEMENT Telecom is taking urgent action to meet the demands placed on it by the government's economic statement. Telecom has announced that it will need to increase prices significantly, cut its order to Australian industry and reduce its staff to meet the financial demands of the May economic statement. New customers in higher cost areas will experience very considerable delays in connection of service. Telecom's chairman, Mr Bob Brack, said: ``We have been forced to take these measures because of the decisions made by the Government which will cost telecom close to half a billion dollars in 1987/88''. Mr Brack expressed his disappointment that the government had hit telecommunications so heavily. He said the government had failed to recognise the importance and significance of national telecommunications to the Australian economy and the part it played in improving Australia's international competitiveness. ``As a result of the government decision removing Telecom's exemption from sales tax and customs duty we will have to significantly increase charges for basic telecommunications services which we had planned to hold constant for 1987/88.'' ``Telecom had advised government that the local call fee must increase by 3 cents with increases in STD rates as well. Rental charges and connection fees will also have to increase substantially. Unless these tariffs are approved by 30 June, higher increases will be necessary. Telecom is also examining the connection fees associated with high cost services which are currently provided at subsidised rates. Telecom can no longer afford to carry the extent of the subsidy it has in the past''. Mr Brack said that the imposition of sales tax and custom duty on Telecom signals that the government no longer considers that the national telecommunications carrier should receive certain cost advantages which, since Federation, have allowed lower prices for basic telecommunications for all people and businesses in cities and, more particularly, the bush. As the government is now viewing Telecom as a commercial operation it is imperative that the significant constraints imposed on Telecom by government controls be removed. Telecom is now carrying the costs imposed on its competitors, but no account has been taken of the additional costs which Telecom carries, but its competitors do not. If Telecom is to be able to compete then these costs must be reduced. Telecom is also required to pay back 81 million dollars of past government loans. As a result it will have to reduce its 1987/88 expenditure program ``This will happen in a year when Telecom, in keeping with community price constraints, had already slashed its programs so that its plans avoided increases in basic tariffs and absorbed the significant effects of the devaluation of the Australian dollar on basic network material'', the Chairman said. ``It should also be recognised that Telecom has achieved high levels of productivity and efficiency improvements over the years.'' He said the cutbacks would have to be made in the short lead time areas, in the customer end of the network-areas where less complex short lead time material such as cable, ducts and telephone instruments were used. This will affect Telecom's ability to service new customers where significant cable reticulation is required to connect them-areas such as new housing estates, fringe urban areas and new and fast growing recreational and tourist areas. When customers apply for a telephone service, Telecom will tell them if significant delays will occur. It is likely that the number of applicants experiencing serious delays will rise very significantly,'' Mr Brack said. The rural and remote areas program which aimed to provide modern automatic telecommunications services to rural and remote area customers by 1990 will be seriously curtailed and will not be completed by its target date. Network relief activity meant to improve congestion levels in country areas will have to be scaled down, and work to modernise switching equipment in central business districts to provide enhanced services will be put at risk. Mr Brack said that the material orders placed with Australian manufacturers will have to decrease by about 50 million dollars. He also said that there would be substantial staff reduction in Telecom over the above those already planned. This could be of the order of 3 per cent. ``Such impacts on Telecom's customers, suppliers and staff are greatly regretted by funding reductions of the magnitude announced by the Treasurer cannot be expected to be undertaken without significant effect of Telecom's ability to provide the range and quality of service that is expected of it,'' Mr Brack said. 14th May, 1987 Released by Keith Hainsworth, National Manager, Media (03) 606 5017. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. The scale of proposed increases was several times larger than what it needed to recruit the extra customs and sales tax revenue the Government wants. How this can be used as an excuse to cut Telecom's orders to Australian industry is beyond me. The changes, although they affect Telecom's ability to invest in new technologies, should encourage a greater reliance on products developed in Australia. Telecom has also signalled that it will apply pressure to the Government by creating longer delays in the provision of services to new housing areas and fast-growing recreational and tourist areas. This is a direct challenge to the Government. The Minister should demand an explanation of just what additional delays Telecom wants to engineer and make it public. I understand Telecom's disgust at this large addition to the Government's demand on its revenue. However, threats to cut back Telecom's public services are most unworthy of a publicly owned enterprise. Telecom has also threatened to cut back its provisions of new services in rural and remote areas and to reduce staff by up to 3 per cent overall. Both these threats are entirely non-productive for Australia and will exacerbate the stupidity of the Government's actions in imposing this extra charge. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted for the consideration of these Bills has expired. Is it the wish of honourable senators that the questions for the second reading of the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 and the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 be put separately? There being no objection, it is so ordered. The question now is: That the amendment moved by Senator Puplick to the motion for the second reading of the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Macklin, M. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Mason, C. V. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Newman, J. M. Collard, S. J. Parer, W. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Powell, J. F. Durack, P. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Short, J. R. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E. Jessop, D. S. Vigor, D. B. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Walters, M. S. Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. Giles, P. J. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Bolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. Button, J. N. McKiernan, J. P. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Morris, J. Cook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Walsh, P. A. Elstob, R. C. West, S. M. Evans, Gareth Zakharov, A. O. Gietzelt, A. T. Alston, R. K. R. Tate, M. C. Withers, R. G. Ray, RobertG. F.Chaney, F. M. Colston, M. A. Reid, M. E. Coleman, R. N. (Senator Michael Baume did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes.) Question so resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question now is: That the motion for the second reading of the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, as amended, be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question now is: That the amendment moved by Senator Michael Baume to the motion for the second reading of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question now is: That the motion for the second reading of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, as amended, be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question now is: That the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 1987, the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1987, the Customs Tariff (Commonwealth Authorities) Amendment Bill 1987, and the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1987 be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The Bill. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(8.13) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 2, clause 2, line 3, after ``21,'' insert ``23a,''. (2) Page 2, clause 2, line 3, leave out ``39,''. (3) Page 2, clause 3, lines 20 to 22, leave out subclause (5). (4) Page 3, clause 6, at the end of the clause insert the following subclause: ``(2) Notwithstanding the repeal of section 135td of the Social Security Act 1947, subsection (7) of the repealed section continues to apply, on and after 1 September 1987, to a garnishee order to which that subsection applied immediately before that day.''. (5) Page 11, after clause 23 insert the following new clause: Manner of payment etc. ``23a. Section 135tc of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end the following subsection: `(5) Where: (a) an order of a court in the nature of a garnishee order or an order for attachment comes into force after the commencement of this subsection in respect of an account maintained by a person (whether alone or jointly or in common with another person) with a financial institution, being an account to which money received on deposit is credited; and (b) instalments or payments of a pension, benefit or allowance that is payable to the person under this Act (whether on his or her own behalf or on behalf of another person) are being paid to the credit of that account; the order shall be deemed not to apply to an amount equal to the sum of the amounts of that pension, benefit or allowance paid to the credit of that account in the period of 4 weeks before the time when the order came into force in respect of that account reduced by an amount equal to the sum of the amounts withdrawn from that account during that period.'.''. (6) Page 15, clause 27, lines 34 to 43 and page 16, lines 1 to 4, leave out proposed new subsection 140 (3). (7) Page 19, clause 39, lines 1 to 12, leave out the clause. (8) Page 20, clause 42, lines 39 to 42 and page 21, lines 1 to 13, leave out paragraphs (d) and (e). (9) Page 21, clause 42, lines 26 and 27, leave out proposed new subsection 205 (6). (10) Page 23, clause 45, lines 35 to 40 and page 24, lines 1 to 10, leave out paragraphs (d) and (e). (11) Page 24, clause 45, lines 23 to 25, leave out proposed new subsection 55a (6). These amendments have been circulated and they were referred to in the second reading debate. I also table the revised explanatory memorandum relating to this Bill, together with a memorandum incorporating the Government's amendments. Amendments agreed to. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(8.14) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 4, clause 8, clause to be opposed. (2) page 4, clause 9, proposed paragraph 17 (4) (a), line 32, leave out ``or class of cases''. (3) Page 5, clause 9, proposed paragraph 17 (4) (c), lines 1 and 2, leave out ``or impliedly''. (4) Page 5, clause 10, proposed paragraph 23 (b), lines 11 to 13, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(b) the degree of the person's permanent incapacity for work directly caused by physical or mental impairment is not less than 40%.'.''. (5) Page 5, clause 10, at end of clause, add the following new subclause: ``(2) Notwithstanding the amendment made by subsection (1), a person who was, prior to 1 July 1987, receiving an invalid pension and who was, on that day, absent from Australia shall remain qualified to receive that pension as if that amendment had not been made for so long as that person remains absent from Australia.'' (6) Page 5, clause 12, proposed subparagraph 60 (1) (b) (ii), line 27, leave out ``45'', insert ``42''. (7) Page 5, clause 12, proposed subparagraph 60 (1) (b) (iii), line 32, leave out ``50'', insert ``47''. (8) Page 9, after clause 17, insert the following new clause: Income test ``17a. Section 114 of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by omitting from subsection (1) `sub-section (1a)' and substituting `subsections (1a) and (1aa); and (b) by inserting after subsection (1a) the following subsection: `(1aa) Where the person referred to in subsection (1) is a person who, during the immediately proceeding period of 18 months, ceased to be qualified to receive a benefit under Part IVAAA by reason only that the dependent child of the person attained the age of 16 years, the rate per week of unemployment benefit or sickness benefit payable to the person shall not be reduced by an amount greater than 50% of the amount calculated in accordance with the formula: AR-$2,080 52 where AR is the annual rate of income of the person.'.''. (9) Page 10, after paragraph 19 (d), insert the following new paragraph: ``(da) by inserting in subsection (2) `unless the Secretary is satisfied, having regard to the nature of the person's incapacity and its effect on the person's ability to manage his or her affairs, that an earlier day is appropriate' after `incapacitated';''. (10a) Pages 10 and 11, clause 21, line 32 (page 10) to line 14 (page 11), leave out the clause. (11) Pages 11 to 13, clause 24, clause to be opposed. (12) Pages 13 and 14, clause 25, clause to be opposed. (13) Page 15, clause 26, proposed paragraph 135tj (4) (b), leave out all words after ``referred to in that'', insert ``subparagraph: (i) if the Secretary is satisfied that the failure to seek the review or to make the appeal within that period was due to special circumstances-on a day not being a day earlier than the day on which the previous decision took effect; or (ii) in any other case-on the day on which the person sought the review or made the appeal;''. (14) Page 16, paragraph 27 (c), proposed subsection 140 (4), at end of proposed subsection, add ``unless the person enters into an agreement for the amount of the debt to be repaid: (d) by deduction from any pension, benefit or allowance which the person is receiving under this Act; or (e) by instalments; and the person honours that agreement''. (15) Page 21, paragraph 42 (f), proposed subsection 205 (5), at end of proposed subsection, add ``unless the person enters into an agreement for the amount of the debt to be repaid: (d) by deduction from any pension, benefit or allowance which the person is receiving under this Act; or (e) by instalments; and the person honours that agreement''. (16) Page 24, paragraph 45 (f), proposed subsection 55a (5), at end of proposed subsection, add ``unless the person enters into an agreement for the amount of the debt to be repaid: (d) by deduction from any pension, benefit or allowance which the person is receiving under this Act; or (e) by instalments; and the person honours that agreement''. (17) Page 29, Schedule, after the amendment to paragraph 107 (1) (b), insert the following amendment: ``Section 107 ``After subsection (1), insert the following subsection: `(1a) The Secretary may treat a person as qualified to receive an unemployment benefit in respect of a period during which the person was absent from Australia provided that the absence did not exceed 4 weeks and the Secretary is satisfied that there were compassionate grounds for the absence.'.''. (18) Page 30, Schedule, after the amendment to paragraph 108 (1) (b), insert the following amendment: ``Section 108 ``After subsection (1), insert the following subsection: `(1aaa) The Secretary may treat a person as qualified to receive a sickness benefit in respect of a period during which the person was absent from Australia provided that the absence did not exceed 4 weeks and the Secretary is satisfied that there were compassionate grounds for the absence.'.''. During the second reading debate on this Bill I referred in some detail to the content of these amendments. In fact, they follow a line similar to that of the Government's amendments, only covering a great many more areas. They relate to matters of concern regarding the increased powers to be given to the Department of Social Security in this legislation, ranging from the alteration in rules for people living under one roof all the way through to secrecy provisions and the various requirements for the payment of sickness benefits, the waiting period for unemployment benefit, the recovery of overpayments, and the power to seek information from third parties, as well as discretionary powers in a number of areas, including discretionary powers in relation to payments to social security beneficiaries currently living overseas. As I have said, I canvassed fairly widely the provisions of these amendments during the second reading debate. However, I say at this point that there is a great deal of concern in the community about the provisions in this legislation-concern which principally goes to the fact that the various measures that are addressed in my amendments appear to put far too much power into the hands of the Department of Social Security. These powers surpass those which are available to other Government departments, even those departments which are charged with the responsibility of ferreting out tax fraud, and those charged with the responsibility of prosecution of criminals. These amendments relate largely to this matter, but they also address some of the problems which the mini-Budget has presented to various groups in the community, from the young unemployed to women who find their circumstances dramatically changed by the removal of the supporting parent benefit and the widow's pension when their children reach the age of 16. I might point out that that is an enormous change from the age of 24, which is the current position. The Democrats do not believe that the transition provisions in the legislation are adequate, and one of the amendments addresses that issue. There is great concern, as I said, about various provisions in this legislation. Most of the amendments address the effects of this Bill on people very much at the individual level. I regret the fact-and this was indicated by several other senators during the second reading debate-that we do not have a great deal of time in the Committee stage to address these six Bills, namely, the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 1987, the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1987, the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, the Customs Tariff (Commonwealth Authorities) Amendment Bill 1987, the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 and the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1987. I know that various senators have prepared a great many amendments for the six Bills. Unlike some of my colleagues here, I do not believe that the time limit of 55 minutes which we have been given for this Committee stage should be taken in large measure by one individual senator. That is why I chose to devote most of my speech in the second reading debate to addressing these amendments. I commend the amendments to honourable senators. Finally, I make the point that in normal circumstances such significant Budget legislation could have taken two, or even up to three, months to find its way through both Houses of Parliament, during which time it would have been subject to careful scrutiny. The various parties in the Parliament would have been in a position to negotiate the various aspects of the legislation. As has occurred quite often with legislation in the past-and this is certainly the goal of the Australian Democrats-these amendments and possibly others, would have been carefully worked through, perhaps with the Government, with advice from relevant departments, and perhaps with the Opposition, to address some of the very genuine concerns that exist in the community. I refer, of course, to my amendments to the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill. My area of responsibility also encompasses a later Bill in respect of which I would have made the same comments, had there been any time available. I commend these amendments to the Senate, and although I have had an opportunity to put these amendments, I regret that, because it has been only three weeks since this mini-Budget statement and because we will all be galloping off to an early election in a day or two's time, there has not been time to address the amendments in quite the responsible way which the Australian Democrats would have preferred. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.22) —The Opposition is very concerned about the phasing out of the class B widow's pension. I believe it is a disgrace. The Australian Democrats have moved some sort of amendment that prolongs the phasing out period but does nothing at all to assist the class B widows. Class B widows are those women in our society who no longer have dependent children but who, in the majority of cases, have been out of the work force for some 20 to 25 years. These women have spent that period of time bringing up their families. They have no work force skills left. They have been dependent spouses for a period of 20 or 25 years. They have not had the luxury that all the men in this place and in Australia have had of upgrading their work skills as time went on while they were in the work force. They have chosen, in support of their husbands and in bringing up their families, to stay at home and do the job that would cost the Government a considerable amount of money to have someone else do. Many of them have cared for elderly relatives, both their own and those of their husbands. They have not forced their relatives into institutional care. They have looked after them in their homes. Indeed, some have taken them into their own homes to look after them. They have cared for the children and they have not been able, over the 20 to 25 years, to upgrade their work skills. When their husband dies, they are left without any work skills to be able to go out, as the Minister has suggested, and get a job. This Government has told us that the class B widow's pension stops the incentive for this group of women to get out into the work force. What utter rubbish. That sort of thing could come only from a male dominated group of decision-makers. It could come only from the sort of government in which the women senators have shown such a lack of interest in that group of women that the Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) did not even know that pensions for that group of women were eventually to be phased out. It could come only from a government so lacking in compassion for that group of women that it cannot see past saving a few dollars. The Government says to them: `Okay, once you are 50-or 45 if you have had dependent children up till that age-and your husband dies, go out and get yourself a job. Go down to the Commonwealth Employment Service weekly and see if you can get yourself a job'. The Government does not understand that there is no way that that group of women can possibly get themselves a job. They have not been in the work force since they were 20-odd. They gave up the security of a job to rear the children, to look after the elderly relatives and to assist their husbands, the breadwinners. But this Government has said: `Once your spouse and breadwinner dies, that's it. We will no longer give you the widow's pension. We will throw you on the unemployment heap'. That is the full extent of what this Government has done to that group of widows. It is without any question an absolute disgrace. The Government is hiding behind the fact that it is taking quite a while to phase out this scheme. It is saying to women in that group: `Don't you worry about it; it's not you lot that we'll get at, it's the lot coming up'. So anyone in that age group at the moment is quite safe. Those people will continue to get the pension; they will not even know it is going on. But the next group coming up-the next lot of women reaching that age group and suddenly becoming widows-will know what the Government has done. But this Government is so lacking in compassion and so sly that it believes that the new lot of women falling into this category will not be aware that there was ever a benefit available to them and will not be aware that this Government has taken it from them. I can assure this Government that this side of the House will continue to remind those women-that group of people who have been let down by the Government that cares so little for the traditional mother in Australia-that the Government has ripped off from them, for a few lousy dollars, the class B widow's pension. I can assure the Government that this matter will not be forgotten, because the people of Australia do indeed respect the mothers who have stayed home and cared for them. The people of Australia do respect, whether this Government does or not, the women who have given up the security of a job to look after their children, to support their husbands in their work and to look after the elderly in Australia. There will be a backlash. I assure the Government of that. I assure the Government that, now that Mr Hawke has gone for an early election saying `give us the mandate to continue the job', the Australian people will say: `Not on your life'. There will be no mandate to continue to hurt the most disadvantaged and those least able to care for themselves; and there will be no mandate to finish off the people of Australia-elderly women in particular, including war widows and B-class widows which are the two groups that this Government has attacked more than any in the whole of this society. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(8.31) —I indicate that the Government does not agree to Senator Powell's amendments. The Government estimates that the amendments would cost some $40m in 1987-88 and some $50m in 1988-89. During the course of Senator Powell's speech she said that she would like to have had the opportunity to work through her amendments with the Government rather than just moving them and having them voted on. That opportunity will certainly be accorded her by the Government prior to the Budget session of Parliament if she would like to do that. In view of the costs associated with the amendments as moved, and for other reasons, the Government cannot accept them at this stage. Senator Walters made a fervent plea on behalf of B class widows, and I understand some of the things she said. She seemed to be objecting to the Government inserting what used to be called a grandfather clause-although I suppose `grandmother' would be more appropriate in this case-as she saw that as being some sort of devilish cunning on the part of the Government. That is not so at all. It is just that people who are currently in receipt of those pensions have probably become used to receiving them, many of them having received such benefits for some years. That pattern has developed in their lives and they are reliant on those pensions, and for that reason the Government has-- Senator Walters —They will be phased out. Senator BUTTON —I understand that. Senator Walters —Obviously you have never had any understanding of women of that age-none at all. Senator BUTTON —Senator Walters made an impassioned speech redolent with hypocrisy, if I may say so, about the position of these women who in future may be required to seek employment. Senator Walters —You try to train them. Senator BUTTON —I have heard the honourable senator talking in this place again and again about 17-year-old girls from whom she would take away any support at all to make them get jobs-and the circumstances of 17-year-old-girls are no different from those of B-class widows. Senator Powell —They have had their support taken away from them, too. Senator BUTTON —That is not true, Senator; it is not true at all. Senator Walters —Of course it is. Senator BUTTON —It is not true. Is the honourable senator now relying on the views of the Australian Democrats on this issue? All I am saying to Senator Walters is that she should get her act together about these things before making these sorts of speeches, aided and abetted by Senator Boswell over there with his fervent interjections. Senator Boswell —I never said a word. Senator BUTTON —You did; you said `Ugh' on several occasions, which I interpreted as some sort of war cry in support of Senator Walters. There is no difference, in terms of the principles that Senator Walters attempts to enunciate in what she had to say, in the position of B class widows and the position of young girls forced into the labour market. Senator Walters —If you do not know the difference, it is very obvious that you have never had any experience in that area. Senator BUTTON —I do not claim for a moment to have had Senator Walters's experiences, and, if that is the result, I am extremely grateful. Senator Walters —You've had a pretty soft life. Senator BUTTON —Senator Walters should declare her interest before making a remark like that. She comes in here talking about Medicare and the medical profession every day. Senator Boswell —That is below the belt. Senator BUTTON —Not at all, Senator. I make those observations because I think that if one wants to talk on a plane of high principle about these issues, one should get the principles sorted out first. The Democrats' amendments will not be accepted by the Government for the reasons which I indicated in my earlier remarks. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(8.35) —I accept what the Minister has said and welcome any possible opportunities in future to address some of the complex issues which are raised by the Democrats' amendments. However, I take up the plight of the class B widows. Because the amendments will not be passed, those widows will face a transition period which will be tougher than we would want and they will not receive the relaxed income test which we have suggested. In my speech at the second reading stage I made it quite clear that a relaxed income test would have been of great benefit. I ask the Government to take into account an issue which is not raised directly in the amendments but is certainly related to the legislation. The Government has put money into training programs specifically, it says, for this group of women. I hope that the Department of Social Security will not wash its hands of the problems those women will have even in the transition period. I hope that it will take some interest in the way in which the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, which will receive a large sum of money in order to set up the training programs, and the Department of Community Services, which also has a role to play, go about their task and do what it can to ensure that such programs are set up, are effective and are available to all those women. It is all very well to put millions of dollars into retraining programs and, I might say, into babysitting, which will hardly be much use to this group of women, but for women in isolated areas in particular it might not be a great deal of benefit if the training programs are set up somewhere in a metropolitan or regional centre. I do not know what the Government has in mind for those women in terms of transitional arrangements, but they will be at risk. I ask the Government to ensure that the Department of Social Security, having washed its hands of these women in regard to benefits, continues to take some interest in their welfare and perhaps jog along those other Government departments whose responsibility these women now are. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.38) —What has been said by the Government and the Australian Democrats is a lot of rubbish. Both the Democrats and the Australian Labor Party have engaged in a public relations exercise. When they say, `We will try new things to retrain these 50-year-old-women', I suggest that they are talking through their hats. I raise another aspect-the income testing of the family allowance. The clause mentions an income threshold of $50,000. We have been told that full family allowance will be payable to a family with one dependent child, up to a taxable income of $50,000, gradually reducing to nil when the income exceeds $51,094. For a family with two children the figures are $52,500 and, I believe, $55,156. For a family with three children the figure is $55,000. I presume that the allowance will cut out when an income reaches about $59,528. I attempted to clarify the above figures for one of my constituents. I have a table before me, the figures of which were calculated by a member of my staff who, in the interests of accuracy, sought to have them verified by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). A member of the staff of the Minister's office, in turn, tried to obtain assistance from the Department. It advised that the final scales have not yet been drawn up and could not confirm the figures that I have been quoted. The Department said that decisions relating to the treatment of portions of dollars in salary and payment of family allowances of less than $1 had not been finalised. The Minister's office suggested that I use only the $50,000 threshold figure, as stated in the May statement, as being the maximum taxable income which could attract full family allowance for one child, and I was advised that, for every dollar of income over the threshold, family allowance would be reduced by 25c and that when a family has more than one child the threshold increases by $2,500 for the second and subsequent children. When I asked whether I could use the final cut-out that my staff had worked out for me, I was told no, that I might end up with egg over my face. I asked the Department whether it could possibly give me the figures, and it told me no. We have legislation before us, and the Department, and the Minister more importantly, cannot tell the people of Australia what the final cut-out figure is for family allowance being taken away. Can the Minister please enlighten me? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(8.41) —Senator Powell referred to training programs and the need, as she put it, for the Department of Social Security to jog other departments about the administration and availability of those programs. I understand that there have already been discussions among departments about that. Senator Powell having jogged me, I have jogged the officers of the Department here, who did not need any jogging, but the process will be taking place. Insofar as Senator Walters's question is concerned, I understand that there is a readily available answer. The calculation involves a simple mathematical formula which is clearly understood, and I cannot add to that. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.42) —I ask the Minister whether these figures are accurate, seeing it is so simple and seeing his Department informed me that a set was not available and that I had better not use these figures. For accuracy sake, the Minister has officers of the Department beside him. Is it a fact that for one child the threshold for family allowance starts at $50,000 and finally cuts out at $51,094; for the second child $52,500 and finally cuts out at $55,156; for the three children $55,000 and finally cuts out at $59,528; for the fourth child $57,500 and finally cuts out at $63,900; and for the fifth child $60,000 and finally cuts out at $68,587? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(8.43) —I am advised that it is a simple arithmetic formula. No scale of the kind that the honourable senator has suggested in her question is yet prepared, but it just involves the application of a formula to income. If the honourable senator has a particular set of figures that she wants to put to officers of the Department they will quickly tell her exactly what the cut-out point is. The honourable senator could throw up examples all night, but I think she would probably be wasting the time of other honourable senators who want to speak on these Bills. Certainly the Department will provide her with answers if she wishes. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.44) —That answer is not sufficient. My officer has spoken to the Department which told him that it could not give him the accurate figures for which we asked. I was trying to respond to one of my constituents, and I was assured by the Department that it could not give me the answers. As it is a simple arithmetical calculation why can the Minister not tell me whether I am right? Are my figures correct, seeing that it is so simple? Why is the Minister hedging the question? Why can the Minister's departmental officers, who are sitting beside him, not tell me whether at least the first two or three figures are correct? During telephone conversations, departmental officers continually refused to give me the information. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(8.45) —I do not want to quibble about this, but it is not my Department. I guessed from the honourable senator's earlier question that she might have consulted the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce about this matter and had not been able to get an answer. Senator Walters —Don't be silly. I am talking about the Department of Social Security. Senator BUTTON —I am not being silly. I am advised that the first figure cited by the honourable senator is correct. Senator Walters —What about the next figure. Senator BUTTON —I am not going to go through all these figures with the honourable senator. Senator Walters —But the Department will not give them to me. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator should try again. I am not going to spend the whole night going through a set of calculations with the honourable senator. The Department has indicated that it will check the figures she has put to them. I am told that the first one is correct. I am not going to go through them all. That offer has been made to the honourable senator and I hope that she avails herself of it. In the Senate I cannot rely on conversations which allegedly took place between a member of the honourable senator's staff and an unnamed officer of the Department of Social Security. I am telling her as Minister representing the Minister for Social Security here that if she goes back to the Department and asks for verification of the figures she has compiled and whatever else she wants to know about them, the answers will be given to her. That is the best I can do. Amendments negatived. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(8.47) —I move: (10b) Page 11, clause 21, after proposed subsection 120a (2a), insert the following new subsection: `` `(2b) The Secretary may, in his discretion, treat a person as having been unemployed throughout a particular period for the purposes of subsection (1) notwithstanding that the person undertook paid work during the whole or a part of that period if the Secretary is of opinion that, taking into account the nature and duration of the work and any other matters relating to the work that the Secretary considers relevant, the work should be disregarded.'.''. This amendment relates to the 13-week waiting period which amendment 10a sought to remove. That amendment having been negatived, amendment 10b would permit the Secretary to disregard any brief periods of employment during the 13-week waiting period, therefore not necessitating the beneficiary going back to the beginning of the 13-week waiting period an that case. It is obviously an area of great injustice. The 13-week period seems to us to be inordinately long. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(8.48) —The amendment is not acceptable, essentially for the reasons indicated earlier. Amendment negatived. Bill, as amended, agreed to. SALES TAX LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The Bill. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(8.48) —We have received a large number of submissions from duty free shops, from photography equipment manufacturers, from Customs officers, and from jewellery producers within Australia protesting at the removal of the discretionary duty free allowance for travellers entering Australia. This is, in fact, in contradiction to the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission in December 1985 which led to the establishment of duty free shopping within Australia for Australians leaving the country. The Australian Democrats strongly supported these moves because of the increased trade within Australia and the increased ease of surveillance by Customs people of the regulations. This allowance has encouraged a considerable expansion of Australia's enterprises which have been manufacturing jewellery and photographic equipment, and it has led to the increase in the number of duty free shops throughout Australia. Customs officers pointed out to us the difficulty of policing people entering Australia with personal effects from overseas and that attempts to police people will divert efforts away from the effective policing of quarantine and drug laws, which are of greater importance. The Australian Democrats will move an amendment to the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1987 to leave unchanged passengers' concessions on sales tax exemptions for personal items. At the same time, we will move a set of amendments to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1987, which by some strange organisational arrangement is in another package of Bills which the Government is guillotining, which will make the whole proposition revenue neutral. When we consider this legislation, I will move a motion to disallow the current free allowance of alcohol and cigarettes for incoming passengers. This measure represents quite a large amount of money and, as we understand it from the figures we have, it would be to the advantage of the Government. We have received a number of submissions from various shops. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter from A. E. Sharkey and Co. Pty Ltd, Banksmeadow, to Senator Haines, which I think puts the point very clearly. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 1 June 1987 The Right Honourable Senator Janine Haines, Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 My Dear Senator, As discussed with your secretary, set out below is a submission in relation to proposed changes to sales tax provisions relating to duty free goods imported by passengers (Item 114 (2) of the Sales Tax Assessment Act). These notes are dictated for the sake of saving time, so may not be as fluent as I should have liked them to be. This change is linked to the restriction of passenger's allowances resulting from the by-law amendment which will withdraw recognition of personal effects, etc. and confining the passengers' allowance to goods to the value of $400. 1. Restriction of passengers' allowances as proposed will materially and adversely affect the Australian duty free store industry. This industry makes export sales valued at $750 million per annum and generates some 3,000 jobs in Australia. It provides a major attraction to overseas tourists but requires the business diverted to Australia, by way of sales to outgoing Australians, for the maintenance of its low cost structure. 2. The changes proposed will create a very substantial administrative work load for little or no net return. Whereas currently very few outgoing Australians provide lists of goods in their possession, in future most will need to do so. Wristwatches, cameras, personal jewellery, binoculars, fur apparel and so on must be listed on departure or run the risk of attracting duty on return. Obviously, new, if any , additional staff will be provided to customs to meet this work load and resources will need to be diverted from the vitally important quarantine and anti-narcotic functions of Customs at airports. The flow of incoming passengers is likely to be congested by the necessity to value items currently admissable without these processes being required. Our attractiveness as a tourist destination is likely to be diminished by congestion at airports. 3. Although the sales tax aspect of passengers' allowance has come before Parliament, the critically import allowance provisions have been materially amended by administrative decision. This change in this instance has not even required the signature of the Minister. A copy (attached) of the first page of the gazette notice (S82) of 14 May 1987 shows this. Parliament ought to express its opposition to this process by rejecting such parts of the package as come before it. 4. The passengers' allowance in nominal dollars has remained unchanged for some seven years. Clearly, the value of a duty free $200 today is considerably less than it was when it was introduced. A concession relating to goods to the value of $400, but including personal effects formerly non-dutiable is a major contraction of the already eroded passengers' allowance. 5. The new requirement to account for the incoming personal effects of overseas visitors on arrival and departure, aside from the diversion effect mentioned above, will inevitably lead to harassment and upsetting of visitors in relation to whom the Government has spent millions of dollars to attract to Australia. Yours Faithfully, A. E. Sharkey on behalf of Australian Duty Free Operators Association Senator VIGOR —by leave-I move: (1) Page 1, subclause 2 (2), lines 9 and 10, leave out the subclause. (2) Page 5, clause 28, lines 25 to 33, leave out the clause. (3) Page 6, paragraph 29 (d), line 15, leave out the paragraph. (4) Page 6, subclause 31 (1), lines 34 to 36, leave out the subclause. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(8.52) —On behalf of the Opposition, I say formally-I have conveyed this to the Australian Democrats-that the Opposition will not be supporting these amendments. We fully understand the reasons why the Democrats are seeking to make these changes which, as far as the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill is concerned, returns sales tax exemptions to the status quo that existed before the Government's May mini-Budget statement. As I said earlier in the second reading debate, the Opposition thinks this is a very ill-considered measure of the Government. We believe that it does not take full account of all the circumstances that should have been taken account of, including the Industries Assistance Commission report which earlier recommended various changes to the arrangements relating to duty free entry by visitors or other incoming passengers. The Government has chosen to ignore the advice of the IAC and the Australian Customs Service in the decisions it took in the May statement context. Earlier today I requested the Government to withdraw this proposal, to have another look at it and, if it must find another $21m to squeeze out of taxpayers in some shape or form, to do it in another way if it is unable to cut its coat to suit its cloth by reducing expenditure by an equivalent amount. I hope that the Government will have another look at this proposal. We take great account of the views that have been expressed by various groups which are concerned about the financial and other impacts of the proposal. Considerable concern is being expressed by the Australian duty free industry about its impact on duty free operators. There is concern about the employment factor. There is a particular concern in the tourism industry about the impact of the automatic congestion that this change will involve at major airport terminals. We sympathise with and understand all those reasons. We think that the Government's measure is stupid, but as a responsible party we had to take a decision at the outset- Senator Button —Is that the new line, that you are a responsible party? Senator SHORT —We took that view on all the Budget Bills, as Senator Button well knows, both in the 1986 Budget and in the package of Bills that make up this putative, so-called mini-Budget of May 1987. For that reason, we will not support the amendment of the Australian Democrats. However, I repeat to the Minister-especially as he has responsibilities for commerce and the development of Australian industry, including tertiary industries-that we want him to look again at the proposal because we are convinced that the decision that he has taken-which goes against the advice of his own Department-is contrary to what the proposal constitutes. I urge him to have another look at the legislation and, if he must raise revenue, to come up with a more efficient way of raising it. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.57) —As Senator Short said, we find ourselves unable to support these amendments, despite the fact that we believe that they should not have been introduced by the Government because of the constraints imposed on us by the Government's decision to treat this as a revenue raising measure. After the forthcoming Federal election we hope to be in a position to review the matter and to deal with it appropriately at the first available opportunity. With regard to Senator Vigor's remarks, I draw attention to the attitude of the Australian Democrats towards the question of duty free shopping. The greatest threat that has been posed to the viability of the duty free shopping industry was the introduction of inward duty free shopping. A monopoly is granted at Australian airports, to the great disadvantage of all the small business operators off airport. That legislation was passed only because the Australian Democrats voted for it-all except their leader, Senator Haines, who voted against it. The debate on 5 December 1985, was led by Senator Sanders on the basis that the measures were `not considered by us to be tax or Customs measures'. He said that the measures were aviation measures, and that the Democrats would allow the duty free shopping legislation to pass. What is more, in the Committee stage on the same day, he said that he envisaged no problems that the people in the Australian Customs Service could not solve, despite the fact that that was untrue at the time, is untrue now, and has been claimed to be untrue by the Democrats during this debate. They voted for the introduction of inward duty free shopping despite the fact that it was confined to only three items-tobacco, alcohol, and perfume. So for all of the waffle about the terrible effects of tobacco and alcohol, the Australian Democrats voted to introduce inward duty free shopping on the basis that only those three items-tobacco, alcohol and perfume-would be sold. In that debate, Senator Sanders read into the record, on page 3058 of Hansard, a letter written to Senator Chipp by Senator Button, which stated: As previously discussed, I write to confirm that the Government will not under any circumstances move to extend these provisions to include further categories of goods other than those already announced to be covered, namely, tobacco products, alcohol and perfume. The Australian Democrats think that they can pick up the duty free operators' votes-the 3,000 people in the industry. They come here and bleat, all of a sudden, that they want us to support the duty free industry when it was their vote that produced the most significant attack on the industry-prior to this Government's-by bringing in inward duty free shopping. Despite the fact that Senator Haines voted against it, every other Democrat voted for it on that occasion. It was not a tax measure or a customs measure. It was an aviation measure, because Senator Sanders was in charge of the legislation at the time. What is more, the only things that were to be introduced to increase sales and revenue were tobacco, alcohol and perfume. Now the Australian Democrats are saying that they want to rip tobacco and alcohol products out of the duty free classification because they are now wicked and evil; they have become wicked and evil since 5 December 1985. Senator Teague —The perfume is all right. Senator PUPLICK —The perfume remains all right. It is a clear indication of the way in which the Australian Democrats approach any issue, group or lobby, that they think they can pick up along the way, despite their own track record. I want to put clearly on record that if the duty free industry has anything to complain about, apart from the Government's taxation measures, it is the Democrats' support of in- ward duty free shopping in December 1985. If the Democrats want to tell us how evil tobacco and alcohol are, they have a great deal of explaining to do as to why they introduced a new monopoly for the sale of those two products, plus perfume, at inward duty free stores only 18 months ago. It exposes the whole sham of the way in which, suddenly, the Democrats have become supporters of the duty free industry when they have done so much to damage it in the past. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(9.02) —I would make the point that in the Bills concerned the Australian Democrats were not given the option of getting rid of tobacco and alcohol. The option that was given to us was that they should be in Australian shops under the control of Australian Customs officers rather than having a situation that was quite out of control. I believe that the matter can be better solved by the measures we are putting forward. There is no inconsistency in our operation. Senator Puplick, with his eloquence, has managed to present an unreasonable picture. The two operations are quite independent one from the other. We shall continue to fight against the evils of people who want to import drugs into Australia, even if they are ordinary people. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. CUSTOMS AND EXCISE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1987 Clauses 1 to 6-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 7 (Refunds etc. of duty). Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.04) —There are four amendments to this clause, two of which have been circulated in the name of the Opposition. One will be moved by my colleague Senator Boswell of the National Party, and another amendment will be moved by the Australian Democrats. I seek leave to move Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 together. Leave granted. Senator PUPLICK —I move: (1) Page 3, clause 7, proposed subsection 163 (1c), line 12, leave out ``the regulations referred to in''. (2) Page 3, clause 7, proposed subsection 163 (1d), lines 16 and 17, leave out the proposed subsection, insert the following subsection: `` `(1d) A fee is not payable under subsection (1c): (a) in the circumstances specified in paragraphs 126 (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (ga), (h), (j), (k), or (m) of the Customs Regulations as in force at the commencement of this subsection; (b) where an officer assisted in making up the entry in respect of which the application for a refund of duty is made; (c) where an officer assessed the duty payable; (d) where the duty was paid under protest; (e) where the duty was paid as a consequence of advice given, or a ruling made, by an officer; (f) where all duty amounts were paid in good faith; (g) where the overpayment of duty was beyond the control of the applicant for the refund; or (h) in such other circumstances as may be specified in the regulations.'.''. The purport of these amendments is to provide that in certain circumstances the $200 fee required for lodgment in order to have an assessment made as to whether a refund of duty is due should not in certain circumstances be required. I am conscious of the fact that we have about four minutes to deal with the remainder of this section of the Bill. Therefore, rather than try to explain the details of the amendments I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a copy of Customs Regulation No. 126, which indicates the circumstances referred to in sub-paragraph (a) of amendment No. (2) moved by the Opposition. Leave granted. The regulation read as follows- Circumstances under which remissions, rebates and refunds are made 126. Where- (a) the goods on which duty has been paid or is payable have deteriorated or been damaged, pillaged, lost or destroyed during the voyage or flight; (b) the goods on which duty has been paid or is payable have been landed in a deteriorated or damaged condition; (c) the goods on which duty has been paid or is payable have deteriorated or been damaged, pillaged, lost or destroyed while subject to the control of the Customs; (d) the goods on which duty has been paid or is payable have deteriorated or been damaged or destroyed while undergoing treatment pursuant to the provisions of the Quarantine Act 1908-1973, the deterioration, damage or destruction being directly or indirectly attributable to that treatment and the goods having been ordered into quarantine directly from the control of the Customs; (e) duty has been paid through manifest error of fact or patent misconception of the law; (f) after duty has been paid on goods, a by-law or determination is made under Part XVI of the Act, or a Commercial Tariff Concession Order is made under Part XVa of the Act, the effect of which is that duty is not payable on those goods or duty is payable on those goods at a rate which is less than the rate which was applicable when the goods were entered for home consumption; (fa) the price of goods for the purposes of Division 2 of Part VIII of the Act was taken into account in determining under that Division the customs value of the goods and a rebate of, or other decrease in, that price accrues to the importer of the goods and the rebate, or decrease- (i) was not taken into account in determining that customs value; and (ii) is not a rebate, or decrease, referred to in paragraph (g); (fb) the price of goods for the purposes of Division 2 of Part VIII of the Act was not taken into account in determining under that Division the customs value of the goods and a rebate of, or other decrease in, the price paid, or to be paid, for the goods accrues to the importer of the goods and the rebate, or decrease- (i) was not taken into account in determining that customs value; and (ii) is not a rebate, or decrease, referred to in paragraph (ga); (g) the price of goods for the purposes of Division 2 of Part VIII of the Act was taken into account in determining under that Division the customs value of the goods and a rebate of, or other decrease in, that price accrues to the importer of the goods by reason- (i) of a fault or defect in the goods; or (ii) that the goods did not conform to contract specifications furnished by the importer to the manufacturer or supplier, and the rebate, or decrease, was not taken into account in determining that customs value; (ga) the price of goods for the purposes of Division 2 of Part VIII of the Act was not taken into account in determining under that Division the customs value of the goods and a rebate of, or other decrease in, the price paid, or to be paid, for the goods accrues to the importer of the goods by reason- (i) of a fault or defect in the goods; or (ii) that the goods did not conform to contract specifications furnished by the importer to the manufacturer or supplier, and the rebate, or decrease, was not taken into account in determining that customs value; (h) the customs value of goods has been determined under Division 2 of Part VIII of the Act and a decrease in the value of the goods that would have resulted in a decrease in that customs value occurred before that determination by reason- (i) of a fault or defect in the goods; or (ii) that the goods did not conform to contract specifications furnished by the importer to the manufacturer or supplier, and that decrease in the value of the goods was not taken into account in determining that customs value and all reasonable steps available to the importer have been taken by him to obtain redress from the manufacturer or supplier but without success; (j) diesel fuel on which duty has been paid has been sold to a person who is the holder of a certificate within the meaning of the Diesel Fuel Taxation (Administration) Act 1957-1973 for use otherwise than in propelling road vehicles on public roads and- (i) the price at which the diesel fuel was sold to that person was a price that did not include an amount in respect of duty; or (ii) if the price at which the diesel fuel was sold to that person was a price that did include an amount in respect of duty, an amount equal to the amount of duty has been refunded or credited to that person; (k) duty is payable on the importation of leaf tobacco that is to be manufactured in Australia into tobacco, cigarettes or cigars; or (m) the following circumstance relating to fuel oil (being fuel oil on which duty is payable) exists, namely, the fuel oil is delivered for home consumption by virtue of a permission given under section 71b of the Act being a permission that is subject to a condition that the person to whom the permission is given- (i) will use the fuel oil at a place that is not a natural gas area within the meaning of section 3a of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act 1980; and (ii) will use the fuel oil in the chemical reduction in herreshoff-type roasters of oxides and other compounds of nickel and cobalt in lateritic nickel ore to produce elemental nickel and cobalt, that circumstance is a prescribed circumstance for the purposes of section 163 of the Act. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(9.06) —The Government does not accept the amendments moved by Senator Puplick. There is no problem in principle with the spirit of the amendment which recognises that there are legitimate circumstances in which an exemption from the proposed $200 fee should apply. Indeed, regulations have been drafted to provide for exemptions from the fee. Senator Puplick has referred to these. These regulations are scheduled for presentation to the Governor-in-Council and the Federal Executive Council on Friday. The regulations will have a commencement date of 14 May 1987, the same commencement date as the proposed $200 fee. The Australian Customs Service has already given notice of the exemptions to the fee that will be set out in the regulations. I do not think I need to refer to the number of the notice. The exemptions cover a number of situations in which overpayment of duty could not be avoided. As to whether regulations are an appropriate vehicle in which to place matters such as those covered by the proposed amendments, it is noted that the Customs Regulations already carry all the administrative provisions concerning refund of duty in a variety of regulations. I note in closing that paragraph (h) of one of the Opposition amendments acknowledges the appropriateness of specifying exemptions by regulation. The Government therefore sees no problem in proceeding in the way in which it has indicated in this matter and it is not prepared to accept the proposed amendments. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 9.07 p.m., in accordance with the provisions of standing order 407b, I put the question: That the two amendments moved by Senator Puplick be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Archer, B. R. MacGibbon,D. J. Baume, Peter Macklin, M. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Mason, C. V. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M. Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R. Carrick, Sir John Powell, J. F. Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Sanders, N. K. Haines, J. Sheil, G. Hamer, D. J. Short, J. R. Hill, R. Teague, B. C. Jessop, D. S. Vanstone, A. E. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Vigor, D. B. Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S. Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. Gietzelt, A. T. Black, J. R. Giles, P. J. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coates, J. McKiernan, J. P. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Morris, J. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Walsh, P. A. Evans, Gareth West, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. Tate, M. C. Withers, R. G. Ray, RobertDurack, P. D. Richardson, G. F. Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N. Messner, A. J. Robertson, E. A. Townley, M. Sibraa, K. W. (Senator Michael Baume did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes.) Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause 7, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my amendments in Hansard. Leave granted. The amendments read as follows- (1) Page 3, paragraph 8 (b), proposed subsection 164 (4), lines 27 and 28, leave out all words after ``litres'', insert ``if: (a) the application is the first application by the person for rebate under this section; or (b) a period of not less than 12 months has elapsed since the person last made an application for rebate under this section.''. (2) Page 8, paragraph 13 (b), proposed subsection 78a (4), lines 27 and 28, leave out all words after ``litres'', insert ``if: (a) the application is the first application by the person for rebate under this section; or (b) a period of not less than 12 months has elapsed since the person last made an application for rebate under this section.''. Page 3, clause 7, proposed subsection 163 (1c), line 13, leave out ``$200'', insert ``$50''. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I seek leave to have my amendment incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The amendment read as follows- Page 3, clause 7, proposed sub-section 163 (1c), at end of proposed sub-section, add `entered for home consumption after 13 May 1987'. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Customs Tariff (Commonwealth Authorities) Amendment Bill 1987, Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 and Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1987 agreed to. Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 1987 and Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 reported with amendments and Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1987, Customs Tariff (Commonwealth Authorities) Amendment Bill 1987, Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 and Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1987 reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(9.14) —I move: That the order of the Senate of 29 April 1987 relating to the introduction of Bills into the Senate after 1 June 1987 not apply to the following Bills: Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill 1987 Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill 1987 Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987 Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1987 I understand that all of those Bills have been the subject of discussion around the chamber and that there is no disagreement with the course proposed. Senator Macklin —We totally disagree. Did you give notice? Senator GARETH EVANS —No-the Minister for Community Services, Mr Hurford, discussed it with Senator Haines. Senator Macklin —She said no. Senator GARETH EVANS —She said yes, provided that we did not include them in a guillotine motion. We will debate them separately. But I have to introduce them. Well, I have moved the motion and I understood that it was the subject of agreement. The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill has certainly been the subject of agreement. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(9.17) —I regret that I have not been informed of the nature of this introduction of Bills. If it has been agreed with the leaders, I have not been informed. I ask the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans): Has he obtained the agreement of the leaders for this move? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —by leave-The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill has been the subject of widespread discussion and I certainly understand that I obtained the agreement of the leaders for that to be introduced, and hopefully to be incorporated as part of the guillotine motion. I propose to move a subsequent motion to that effect. As to the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill, I have not personally had discussions with honourable senators opposite but the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, Mr Hurford, advises me that he has had discussions with Senator Haines, the Leader of the Australian Democrats-- Senator Haines —And got precisely nowhere. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sorry, but let me finish. I understood that he had discussions with the Opposition and that in the case of the Democrats there was an agreement to introduce the Bills but not to incorporate them as part of the guillotine motion. That was the way in which it was conveyed to me. Senator Haines —Oh Gareth, I sent a letter to Hurford halfway through the afternoon, a copy of which you should have received from his office. Senator GARETH EVANS —Well, perhaps I may seek leave to withdraw the motion and move it in two parts. I am sorry, but it was in perfect good faith that I have done all this, because I thought that agreement had been reached. Senator Archer —May I suggest that the motion be withdrawn and submitted at a later hour this day? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am overcome by the wafts of charm coming at me from Senator Archer and the Democrats front benchers. If it will make it easy for honourable senators I will amend the motion. I seek leave to do so. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: That the order of the Senate of 29 April 1987 relating to the introduction of Bills into the Senate after 1 June 1987 not apply to the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1987. Question put. The Senate divided (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes ... 28 Noes ... 32 Majority ... 4 AYES Aulich, T. Gietzelt, A. T. Black, J. R. Giles, P. J. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller) Coates, J. McKiernan, J. P. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Morris, J. Cook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W. Elstob, R. C. Walsh, P. A. Evans, Gareth West, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. NOES Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter Macklin, M. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Mason, C. V. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M. Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R. Carrick, Sir John Powell, J. F. Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Sanders, N. K. Haines, J. Sheil, G. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Townley, M. Jessop, D. S. Vanstone, A. E. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Vigor, D. B. Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S. Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. PAIRS Tate, M. C. Alston, R. K. R. Ray, Robert Withers, R. G. Button, J. N. Durack, P. D. Robertson, E. A. Messner, A. J. (Senator Michael Baume did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes.) Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed from 29 May, 1 June, 17 March and 5 May on motions: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.26) —The Senate now has before it under a two-hour guillotine a package of seven Bills dealing with various changes in customs and excise matters. The seven Bills as listed are the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill, the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill, the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill, the Customs Tariff Validation Bill, the Excise Tariff Validation Bill and the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill. Because there is a two-hour guillotine operating on this whole package of Bills and there are seven speakers listed to speak on this package, it appears unlikely that we will be able to get into the Committee debate on these pieces of legislation. I therefore propose to indicate in my remarks the areas in each of the Bills in which the Opposition would have moved amendments if in fact we had had the opportunity to move into Committee. These seven Bills can in fact be broken into four groups of Bills, and I want to say something about what is contained in each of the four groups. In the first group we have the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill and the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill. The main provisions of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill are to bring about changes associated with the Government's policy for the manufacture of motor vehicles and changes to rate of customs duty applicable to certain refined petroleum products, to implement the Government's decisions on the Industries Assistance Commission report on the chemicals and plastics industry, to bring about various changes associated with the Government's decision on the post-1988 assistance arrangements for the textiles, clothing and footwear industries and amendments made in the context of the current TCF sectoral policy, to implement the Government's decision on the IAC report on the power electronics industry and to implement the Government's decision on the IAC recommendations on citrus fruits. In the second category of legislation we have the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill, which provides a series of amendments to specific bounty measures. Amendments are proposed, first, to the Bounty (Textile Yarns) Act arising from the Government's decision in November 1986 concerning the textile, clothing and footwear industry, and secondly, to the Fertilisers Subsidy Act to give effect to the Government's intention that locally produced fertiliser should be subject to the new assistance arrangements set out in the Act from 20 August 1986. Amendments are proposed, thirdly, to the Subsidy (Cultivation Machines and Equipment) Act to correct the Act's provisions for eligibility for a subsidy, and, fourthly, to the Bounty (Books) Act, among other things to acquit undertakings given to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills that certain determinations by the Comptroller-General of the Australian Customs Service would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. In the third group of Bills we have the Customs Tariff Validation Bill and the Excise Tariff Validation Bill, which give effect to the Government's recent announcements on tariffs and bounties. The three principal areas of the Customs Tariff Validation Bill arise, first, from the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission report on vegetables and vegetable products; secondly, from the Government's decision on the IAC report on luggage, handbags and similar containers; and, thirdly, from consideration by the Australian and New Zealand Governments of the duty free status of gas barbecues, including a recommendation that gas barbecues be allowed into this country duty free. We know that in this package a very considerable issue arises over the recommendation for changes in the tariff level on vegetable products. I will be saying something shortly about an amendment which we would have moved, had we had the opportunity to do so within the framework of the guillotine, drawing attention to the continued anti-rural stance taken by this Government in relation to the vegetable industry, which is the second or third largest crop enterprise and the fifth or sixth largest sector of the agricultural industry. The seventh Bill in this package is the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill, which increases the duty imposed on exported uranium concentrate mined in the Alligator Rivers Region from 11c per kilogram to 80c per kilogram. This is a very considerable package of Bills and, therefore, I want simply to indicate the areas of primary concern to the Opposition on these pieces of legislation. In relation to the Customs Valuation Amendment Bill, we are concerned primarily with clause 9, which we would have sought to delete. Clause 9 provides that the time framework specified within section 161d (1) of the Customs Act 1901 should be altered. At the moment section 161d (1) of the Customs Act provides: At any time within 12 months after the making of a determination or other decision by an officer under this Division, the Comptroller may review the determination or other decision and may- It then lists a series of specified things. The amendment before us leaves that an open-ended commitment by removing the time limit specified-namely, within 12 months. We would have moved an amendment to seek to delete that in order, we believe, to facilitate greater certainty and operation for the assessment of payments which need to be made properly under the Customs Valuation Act. As to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, I move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading: At end of motion, add: ``, but the Senate is of the opinion that the uniform general tariff rate of duty on power electronic goods under reference should be further reduced in the medium to long term''. The Opposition has clearly established a belief that all reasonable steps should be taken to wind back levels of tariff and protection on goods which are currently subject to various rates in a controlled and sustained fashion. Over the last couple of years the Opposition has taken the view that a consistent attack upon tariff levels needs to be mounted. That would be a practical indication of our concern about this matter. We would have moved to eliminate Part V of the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill which amends the Fertilisers Subsidy Act, and about which I do not propose to go into great detail. It was, however, made abundantly clear in Mr Moore's speech during the second reading debate in the House of Representatives that the Opposition is very concerned about the clauses of the legislation which relate to the Fertilisers Subsidy Act, giving effect to the Government's decision last year to remove the subsidy payable on imported fertilisers, which is a subsidy on consumption, and reallocate those savings by increasing subsidy payments on locally produced phosphatic fertilisers. This has been a matter for debate on a number of occasions in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. We have expressed our view on the matter and, in particular, on the subsidy which we believe in large part is being directed in entirely the wrong direction. We believe that the amendments proposed to the legislation should be opposed. I also draw attention to the amendments which are made in this legislation to the Bounty Books Act. There are a couple of things to be said here. The first is that the legislation continues the chopping and changing which has occurred in regard to the arrangements under the Bounty Books Act, which has been the subject of fairly consistent amendment over quite a number of years. Once again, it is an attack upon the way in which the Act operates. However, on this occasion the legislation is responding to concerns which were expressed by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in relation to the powers of the Comptroller-General to make certain determinations which were not subject to proper review and scrutiny by the Parliament. As you would know, Mr Acting Deputy President, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has been particularly active in ensuring that delegated legislation is subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. When the legislation was before us on the last occasion, making changes to the long term protection arrangements for the book printing industry, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee indicated its concern. Correspondence went backwards and forwards between the Committee and Minister, and the Minister gave certain undertakings that the legislation would be amended to enforce the principle of parliamentary scrutiny which had been of concern to the Committee. This legislation now gives effect to the undertaking given by the Minister at the time. We are very pleased to see that that undertaking has been honoured and that the work of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has once again proved valuable to this chamber. I might also mention that the amendments to the Bounty Books Act continue to increase the range and type of books which are to be excluded from the bounty by amending section 5 of the Act to insert a new paragraph 11 (5a): a book whose printing and publishing by a person, or whose sending by a person through the post, constitutes or would constitute an offence by a person against the law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory. It may be recalled that some years ago-I think it was when I was first in this chamber in 1978 or 1979-amendments were moved by me and others to provide that the bounty for book production should not be paid on pornographic books which, if they had been sought to be imported, would have fallen foul of what was then Regulation 4a of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. We were concerned that a very considerable amount of bounty had been paid on pornographic books which, because they met the description under the Act, namely that they were more than 49 pages long, were casebound, et cetera, attracted bounty under the Act. A considerable amount of the bounty was paid. I well remember getting into very considerable difficulty with a firm called Griffin Press in Adelaide which, despite having all sorts of knights of the realm on the board and doing worthy things like publishing the Adelaide Advertiser, also had some subsidiary companies which were making a very considerable sum of money out of the government by publishing pornographic books and getting the bounty for them. The old section 8 of the Book Bounty Act was amended to provide for a test involving the department and the Attorney-General's Department deciding whether a book would have been a prohibited import under regulation 4a, in order to exclude it from the operation of the Act. When the Act was substantially rewritten a few years ago that provision became paragraph (1) (s) of the legislation, and the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 now tidies up a further loophole that has been clearly identified. Ordinarily the Opposition would not have proposed any amendments to the Excise Tariff Validation Bill 1987 or to the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1987. We would have specifically sought to address ourselves to some matters arising under the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendments Bill 1987 in relation to amendments proposed by the Australian Democrats. I will refer further to that matter in a moment. In relation to the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1987, I formally move an amendment circulated in the name of the Opposition. I move: At end of motion add '', but the Senate is of the opinion that the long term tariff rate in respect of processed vegetable products should initially be phased down to 15 per cent rather than 10 per cent as proposed by the Government''. As I said earlier in my remarks, the vegetable industry is a very important industry in Australia. It was the subject of an Industries Assistance Commission report of 29 April 1986 concerning vegetable products. Although it must be conceded that the recommendation of the IAC was that the import of certain classes of processed vegetables be dutiable at a general rate of 10 per cent we acknowledge that that is a long-term objective to be achieved, and that in fact at this stage the dutiable rate should be 15 per cent rather than 10 per cent, with further consideration of what should occur being delayed until the effect of the introduction of a 15 per cent rate is assessed. We believe that the Minister was initially disposed to the 15 per cent interim rate but that he was unable to persuade his Cabinet colleagues to adopt that point of view. The vegetable and vegetable processing industry is well spread out throughout Australia. For instance, Victoria produces some 27 per cent of all vegetables grown in Australia, Queensland about 25 per cent and New South Wales 18 per cent; the other States account for 30 per cent in total. This industry is particularly significant for Tasmania. The Tasmanians, for instance, have a very particular problem with the protection of their potato industry. It is a very important industry as far as that State is concerned. I must say that my good friend in the other place, Mr Miles, was roundly abused the other day by the Minister for Science, Mr Barry Jones, who referred to his comments on this matter as rendering him subject to the description of being `potatocentric'. Of course, potatoes are very important to Tasmania; they are very important to Mr Miles's electorate, and he is very assiduous in protecting that industry. Indeed, in the past there have been total prohibitions on the importation of potatoes. We are concerned that the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission in this matter are moving events a little too speedily, and I indicate that if the decision had been in our hands we would have phased down the tariff to 15 per cent rather than 10 per cent. That is why I have moved an amendment to that effect to the second reading motion. The other matter-a matter of some significance-relates to the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill. Of course, this Bill would have given the opportunity for a fairly wide-ranging debate on the nature of the Australian uranium industry. We have made it quite clear that we support the development of the Australian uranium industry. I note that my colleague Senator Kilgariff is in the chamber at the moment. As honourable senators know, Senator Kilgariff will be leaving us at the end of this session-voluntarily. I think it would be churlish not to record the fact that Senator Kilgariff has been one of the outstanding proponents and defenders of the rational development of the uranium industry in Australia. He, together with members of the Opposition, has sought to bring about the balanced development of a mining and extractive industry, which has become one of the principal foreign exchange earners for this country. He has been very assiduous in ensuring that the interests of the balanced development of the uranium industry in the Northern Territory are properly and adequately protected. When we have had the opportunity to debate matters regarding the uranium industry itself-such as land rights questions or environment and conservation questions-he has ensured that the Senate's attention has been properly focused upon the development of that industry and the unreal restrictions which have been imposed upon it by the Australian Labor Party in government. His outstanding contribution as a senator for the Northern Territory stands in marked contrast to the records of other senators who have ignored the interests of the Territory. I have no doubt that Senator Kilgariff's successor, Mr Tambling, when he comes into this chamber will be able to pick up on the very fine work that Senator Kilgariff has done over a large number of years. Nevertheless, the whole question of the development of the uranium industry is of very considerable importance. This particular piece of legislation proposes a change in the payment regime to increase the duty imposed upon exported uranium concentrate mined in the Alligator Rivers region from 11c per kilogram to 80c per kilogram. We would have clearly made the point that the fostering and developing of the industry, particularly in the Northern Territory, is a matter of considerable national significance. We would have had the opportunity had the operation of the guillotine not prevented it, to discuss that matter in some considerable detail. As I said, we will not be able to go into the Committee stages of these Bills because of the operation of the guillotine. I have therefore indicated our concerns on the principal items within this package of seven pieces of legislation, and the amendments that we would have moved had we been going into the Committee stages. I have moved two amendments to the second reading motion, one of which relates to the tariff rate of duty on power electronic goods, while the other relates to the phasing down of the assistance provided to the vegetable industry. Nevertheless, the Opposition does not intend to oppose any of the Bills or to vote against them. However, we believe that the Government's overall approach to the way in which it manages customs and tariff bounty and subsidy arrangements is increasingly ad hoc and increasingly related to its political prejudices particularly in relation to industries like the uranium industry. When we come to government after the forthcoming Federal election we are very keen to ensure that a greater degree of certainty, a greater degree of rationality, a greater degree of predictability and a greater degree of sense as to what is truly in the national interest is brought into debates on excise, tariff, bounty and subsidy matters. I hope that my remarks in relation to this package of Bills clearly indicated the general thrust of policy that the Opposition will adopt when we occupy the treasury bench after the forthcoming election. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(9.52) —I do not want to intrude into this debate for any length of time. I am very grateful that Senator Puplick is not opposing the legislation, as I understand it. I remind him that since this Government has been in office the Opposition has not opposed, I think with one exception, any tariff changes made by this Government. Since this Government has been in office, the whole Opposition policy on tariffs and industry policy has been a classic example of me-tooism of the first kind-and that cannot be screamed loud enough. In relation to the Bills being debated tonight I will draw attention to some of the things said by Senator Puplick. He kept talking about principle. It is always a matter of great concern when that word is bandied about by a politician. The principle here tonight is that the tariff on power electronics should be lower and the tariff on frozen potatoes-and I take it that the honourable senator was referring to frozen and not processed potatoes-should be higher. That is not a principle; it was dictated, or suggested, to him by his colleague from Tasmania for reasons of political expediency. I find it very strange that in considering the principles involved Senator Puplick did not consider the whole package brought forward by the Government in relation to the vegetable industry. The simple fact of the matter in regard to that package is that some tariffs have been raised to a 10 per cent rate, some tariffs are at a zero rate, and a third group of tariffs will be phased down. The purpose of all that is to encourage growth in those sectors of the industry previously inhibited by tariff considerations. The whole thing is put up as a package which I assure honourable senators is rational and sensible. Senator Puplick went off on a flight of fancy to talk about what a Howard led government-and I remind the honourable senator that it would be a Howard led government, which is something he has had a few things to say about on television-would do in respect of these matters. It would introduce rules of certainty and rationality, which is the expression Senator Puplick used, into the consideration of industry protective regimes, or barrier protection. I point out that there is no rationality or certainty about what Senator Puplick said tonight. The honourable senator would know that the largest importer of frozen potatoes in this country is the company that has been kicking up the most fuss about the lowering of the tariff. He would know that imports are coming into this country because demand cannot be satisfied. I hope the honourable senator knows these things; he should know them, because he happens to belong to a more sensible faction of the Liberal Party which has now been relegated to the back bench. The shadow Minister is not here tonight because he is in some room on the other side of the building helping to work out the Opposition's tax policy. Senator Kilgariff —Just getting organised. Senator BUTTON —Getting organised, you call it, Senator. I wish him every bit of luck. It is a cruel fate to befall a senator of Senator Puplick's ability to be relegated to exile to the back bench with the rest of the talent in the Liberal Party. It is a cruel fate that tonight Senator Puplick has to be in here debating something that he does not quite understand. He was told to talk about principle and so on-but there were no principles in his speech-while his own shadow Minister, the person who should be here-I will not remind anybody of his name because nobody else knows it-is downstairs working out a tax policy scrabbled together for the Opposition for the forthcoming election. Senator Kilgariff —He is choosing his office for when he is in government. Senator BUTTON —I would not be surprised if that is what he is doing. I see people reeling out of the tax policy decision-making room, white, shaken and mopping their brows. He is probably going round looking at furniture and so on, because that is about all he is fit for. I rose only to say that I am disappointed in Senator Puplick. The package in relation to the vegetable industry is a very forward looking and sensible one. It is not part of this Government's attack on rural industries. I draw the honourable senator's attention to the fact that rural industry protection has been rising-- Senator Boswell —Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: Can you give me some assistance? I cannot work out why the Minister is speaking when he is not on the speakers list. Is he closing the debate? It seems very irregular that a Minister should get up during speeches at the second reading stage. It is normal for Ministers to close debates. Can I have a ruling on that? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —There is no point of order. The Minister is quite entitled to enter into the debate. Senator BUTTON —I think that the honourable senator was dozing when I got up to speak. I just wanted to respond briefly to what might euphemistically or charitably be described as the points made by Senator Puplick and to point out that they were rendolent with inconsistency and uncertainty. Senator Haines —Redolent. Senator BUTTON —Redolent-I am scared to say `red'; that is the problem, Senator. Senator Boswell —You have used that word twice today and you got it wrong twice. Senator BUTTON —Every time I stand up in this place I get terrorised by Senator Boswell. I cannot even speak the language properly. I apologise to honourable senators. I want to tell Senator Puplick something: Potato was deep in the dark underground, tomato above in the light; the little tomato was ruddy and round, the little potato was white. The honourable senator knows the rest. They finally end up in an Irish stew-and that is what his speech was about. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.58) —At this stage I wish to speak to only one Bill in this package of legislation, the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, and to refer to some amendments about which I will not be able to speak at great length at the Committee stage. However, if we run out of time in this debate, which has been guillotined, I will seek to use the contingency notices of motion that we have on the books to move a batch of amendments dealing basically with new clause 25a. That series of amendments would put on the statute book an operation which I believe is vitally necessary in terms of Australia's trade, particularly with the United States of America. While a 2 : 1 imbalance has existed since 1952, the United States Congress is moving in a whole range of areas further to cut off current access to the United States market and ultimately to restrict or exclude a number of our exports to the United States in total. As honourable senators are aware, the current political situation in the United States is that the Administration is relatively powerless. It is totally pre-occupied with the Contragate hearings, and the focus of decision-making within the United States has now moved to Congress. The omnibus trade Bill which has been passed by the House of Representatives in the United States had in its debating procedures an amendment referred to by the name of the person who moved it, the Gephardt amendment. Essentially this amendment means that, where the United States has a trade deficit, if a number of other procedures which I will go into in a moment are there, that will trigger a mechanism whereby the United States will impose higher and higher tariffs until the other country tries to do something about its surplus. In terms of Australia's deficit of trade with the United States I think there is general agreement of all parties in Australia that we can wear that deficit, but what we cannot wear is a continuing weakening of our access to the United States markets. I can give as an example sugar. In 1980 Australia exported to the United States 800,000 tonnes of raw sugar. In 1985 terms that amounted to about $US100m. This year our quota is 74,000 tonnes. So 800,000 tonnes has been restricted to 74,000 tonnes-that is, a loss of nearly $US60m in revenue to Australia. The current operation in the United States will mean that the quota that we are selling to it will disappear in two years, according to Secretary Ling, so that we will lose an additional $US38m in the next two years. At the end of that two-year period we will be exporting no sugar to the United States. When one considers that the United States is the largest sugar market in the world we will have suffered a combined loss in terms of our sugar market alone of $100m. When one considers that sugar is one of the major products of Queensland and that indeed it is the sole support for a large number of our regional economies that is an absolutely devastating blow-certainly one of the most serious blows, if not the most serious blow, to an agricultural product that has been suffered by Australia in the last 10 years. Of course, we have had enormous problems with regard to wheat, but we have been able to sell all of our wheat. The difficulty with sugar is in creating new markets. The only growing markets for sugar happen to be in underdeveloped countries, and almost every one of those countries has its indigenous and expanding sugar industry. The Australian sugar industry has suffered an enormous blow as a result of the European Community's subsidised exports of sugar. We now face losing our total market to the United States. The duty drawback operation, while it technically comes under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, will be in violation of the spirit and I believe the letter of GATT. Essentially, the duty drawback operations will mean that the duty payable on all raw sugar imported into the United States to be processed by the United States refineries and re-exported will not be for the last two years as is normal under the GATT agreement but for the last 10 years. We will give to the United States industry a $US200m export subsidy. So we can look forward in two years time to the United States sugar industry exporting heavily subsidised sugar on to the world market and again driving the world sugar price through the floor. We are still expected to look kindly on the United States and its arrangements with us. Two weeks ago I was part of the all-party delegation to the United States Congress. We spent a number of days in Washington talking with congressmen and senators on the half hour. We got a single unified message from them that they were going to respond to the political imperatives within the United States political system. A number of those congressmen and senators said to us that it really does not matter because we will not do anything. We ought to have on the books the ability for the Minister to do something if we are backed into a corner not only on sugar but also on casein, on lamb, on wheat, on barley, on rice, and on so many other agricultural product markets that have been devastated. Let us look at barley, for example. Our $4.3 billion barley exports to Saudi Arabia, the largest barley market in the world, were slashed in half in one year because the United States sold into a market in which it had rarely sold before, in direct competition with our producers. The United States knew that it was only our producers who were selling barley in quantity on the Saudi Arabian market. Senator Boswell —Was that subsidised? Senator MACKLIN —That was subsidised. Anything produced in the United States ends up being subsidised. Our farmers are not competing against United States farmers. In fact, our agricultural production in almost every commodity is at least twice as efficient as United States agricultural production. For example, we produce wheat for exactly half the cost in United States dollars per bushel that the United States farmers produce it for. So we have no worries about competing against United States farmers on a fair market internationally because we will beat them every time. But we cannot afford to compete against the United States Treasury. In the current circumstances we are being asked to continue to import from the United States twice as much as we are able to export to that country, and then to sit by while it cuts off the meagre exports we have to its market-to sit by while it cuts off our exports to the United States of sugar, casein, which the United States does not even produce, and for some absurd reason, lamb. In fact, our lamb producers have offered to assist the United States industry. When one considers the fact that the average American consumes less than one pound of lamb a year, and an Australian consumes about 40 pounds, one realises that there is an absolutely enormous market to be developed in the United States. Our Meat and Livestock Corporation people have been to the United States and have offered to go into joint partnership with the United States lamb industry to promote lamb and to promote the industry within that country. We can benefit from this development. The United States lamb producers can benefit also, but they will not even talk to our people. The Americans are intent upon destroying our markets there but still expect to export to us. While we were in the United States the Government announced its submarine purchase. We know that $1.3 billion worth of that submarine purchase for our defence systems comes from the United States-another $1.3 billion worth of goods we are buying from it. We are the world's second largest cash buyer-we are not buying on loans that the United States provides- of United States defence equipment. This situation cannot go on indefinitely. How can we possibly afford to continue to buy from the United States when it plunders our markets within its own operation? I believe we should support the amendments which I will move-they are written in identical terms to the Gephardt amendment which is attached to the United States legislation-and have a go at those markets that stand in surplus to the United States, in other words the Japanese market. We should be following the terms of the Gephardt amendment. In those bilateral trading arrangements which are $3 billion out of kilter, our trade with the United States is $3 billion out of kilter; where that market is worth at least $7 billion, our bilateral trade with the United States is worth $7.2 billion; where the value of foreign goods is at least 75 per cent greater than that of domestic goods, which happens to be the circumstances between Australia and the United States, and where the United States is engaging in massively unfair trading practices, which are directed, so it says, at the European Economic Community, our markets are affected. Unfortunately, this affects almost solely our markets because the European Economic Community has the money to continue to subsidise its products, but we do not. It is shooting at the United States and we are getting the bullets. This amendment would not place a mandatory power on the Minister; the power would be discretionary and it would have exactly the same effect as the Gephardt amendment. In other words, it would give the Minister power, on a yearly basis, to put a 10 per cent surcharge on all American goods coming into this country until America sees that it cannot engage in those types of tactics with a country which has moved very rapidly not to a totally free trade operation, but to one of the most fair trade positions of any of the trading nations in the world. It seems extraordinary that we should be able to continue operating with the United States and yet sit by while it continues to restrict our access to its markets and continues to demand expanding entry to our markets. On a per capita basis, a United States citizen buys $11 worth of Australian goods while Australian citizens buy $350 worth of United States goods. That imbalance cannot continue indefinitely. We cannot afford that type of imbalance in our trading relations. We ought to be able to give the Government the discretionary power to retaliate against the United States if it continues the types of policies which are so destructive to Australia's rural industries. As I have said before-I emphasise it now-Australian producers have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever in engaging in a fair trading operation with the United States producer. In almost every one of our primary production areas we would always be able to sell ahead of the United States producer. However, the extent of support given to the United States farmer is staggering from our viewpoint. On average the United States farmer receives 50 per cent of his income direct from the taxpayer. How can we possibly fight against that type of operation? The notion of complete equity in bilateral trade is absurd. Essentially, Australia could wear the imbalance with the United States of America, provided that it could operate in a trading surplus with other countries-as, of course, it does. The ultimate judgment on international trade should be made on a multilateral, not a bilateral basis. However, there are maximum and minimum points for that, and the minimum requirement with the United States of America must surely be that it does not further restrict our access to that market. We are already suffering all sorts of tariffs and subsidy arrangements in going into that market, yet 75 per cent of the goods that come into Australia from the United States of America come in at less than a 5 per cent tariff-almost free entry. That situation is weighted most favourably towards the United States of America. We cannot afford an operation whereby it is allowed to restrict our markets without retaliation. I have foreshadowed the amendment because, in the meetings that I had with congressmen and senators as part of the delegation, the message that came through clearly was that unless Australia shows some sort of retaliation, that will hit the United States of America in some way, our friends in the United States of America congress will not have an argument to kill the amendment that is attached to the Senate trade bill and which, when it goes to the conference floor, is likely to end up in the finally agreed version. Whether President Reagan will have sufficient power to veto it when it reaches him some time towards the end of September is anybody's guess. I do not believe that we can afford to wait on that factor. We must give a signal to the United States of America Congress, and this amendment would give such a signal. It is vital for the Government to have that sort of power. I have made it not mandatory, but discretionary. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) can say that the Government would never use the power, but having it in our legislative armoury would give some support to him. I must say that he has probably done as good a job as, if not a better job than, most of our trade Ministers during the past 30 years, for example, in getting together the Cairns group and working very hard for the establishment of free trade operations throughout the world. However, I do not believe that the Minister can be successful unless we show some determination to retaliate when we are pushed against the wall. This amendment is a shot across the bows and we should pass it. If we at least do that, we will show the United States of America Congress that, ultimately, when we reach a certain point we will retaliate and take our trade elsewhere. Practically every item that we import from the United States of America could be imported from some other country. We are not helpless in that regard. We do not want to do that; we want to continue and expand our trading relationships with the United States of America as a country with which we have always had the most friendly and cordial relationship. I think that that is the generally agreed position of all parties in Australia. However, as someone said recently, and as Ralph Hunt is wont to tell a number of congressmen, with friends like the United States of America, who really needs enemies? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Macklin, are you referring to Committee stage amendments rather than second reading amendments? Senator MACKLIN —I am sorry. They are Committee stage requests. If we do not have time I shall seek to move a contingency motion, through the suspension of Standing Orders. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —An amendment has been circulated by the Australian Democrats relating to uranium exports. Will that be moved by someone else? Senator MACKLIN —As I said at the beginning of my speech, the amendments relate to the customs tariff legislation. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.19) —I am addressing the remainder of the Bills in this package on behalf of the Australian Democrats. I point out that a number of the Bills, although they have been termed urgent, are in fact not urgent. Indeed, some of them have been hanging around for quite some time and have not come up on the Notice Paper. In regard to the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill 1987, an Opposition amendment to clause 9 will be moved to disallow the change to the Act which gives unlimited time for the Comptroller-General of Customs to review decisions or determinations of officers concerning the amount of duty that is to be levied or refunded to people going through Customs. This will require people and agents to keep an inordinate amount of paperwork over a long time and will add costs and red tape to customs operations. It will also be difficult for agents to recover moneys or reimburse clients over a quite long period, and the Australian Democrats will be supporting that amendment. There is a proposed amendment to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1987 which will retain the existing level of exemption from customs duties for incoming international travellers. The Opposition did not support our amendment to the Sales Laws Amendment Bill on the wimpish ground that it is a Budget measure. I trust that the Opposition will have no reservations in this case where we are continuing this measure which will return the normal travel arrangements to what they were. Another proposed amendment seeks to remove the right to import duty free alcohol and tobacco. Senator Puplick has already made an unwarranted attack on the Democrats concerning our previous support of the inward bound duty free shops. Indeed, the Government brought in legislation in this context and sold it to the Democrats on the basis of safety on aircraft. It was argued that it was preferable to have those types of goods, which are not unique, actually stored in Australia and not carried on aircraft thus producing extra weight. Senator Puplick was way off course, as he sometimes is. Even though he has great eloquence, the content is sometimes very fanciful. Senator Macklin has dealt with our amendment to this Bill to reciprocate against the unfair trading practices by the United States of America and by other countries which might export large volumes of goods to Australia, or to countries where such goods compete with goods produced in Australia. This is an important amendment if we are to mature in trading relations with the rest of the world and be prepared to move not only in the use of terms and conditions of trade to influence our trading position in the world but also perhaps to indulge in a little bit of resource diplomacy from time to time to make certain that the larger countries do not walk over us completely. The next Bill is this package is the Bounty Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. One part of the Bill makes clear that locally produced fertilisers will receive new assistance from 20 August 1986; it will not cut out subsidy at the old rate on imported fertilisers which were already contracted for at that date. We see no problem with this part of the Bill. However, the Opposition proposes to move an amendment to disallow this part of the Bill. We feel that this is a cynical political move which we will not be supporting in any way. We would, however, like to see a subsidy to all farmers in compensation for the heavy tariff costs which they meet on equipment and chemicals, while they are forced to compete for sales on the open world market where other countries heavily subsidise their agriculture and rural exports. Such a subsidy could be paid from duty received on imports of this type. We could phase out tariffs on those products simultaneously. I believe a system of bounties rather than tariffs would be much better. The fertiliser subsidy could then be treated honestly according to the needs of the local fertiliser industry. We would then not have to be dishonest about the way in which we use the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which produces bad reactions amongst our trading partners and does not help the people we are trying to help. The Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1987 is intended to validate the Customs Tariff Proposals in three main areas-vegetables and vegetable products; luggage, handbags and similar products; and giving gas barbecues made in New Zealand duty free entry. The vegetable proposals are quite unacceptable in that they have a detrimental effect on industry which is struggling to restructure. I have heard Senator Button speak on the subject. The industry seems to have real problems currently which have be exacerbated by the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand, but it will have to live with this. The vegetable industry has developed a central plan which will bring a remarkable degree of co-operation between unions, growers and processors. I hope this plan will bring some measure of stability to the industry, which has suffered desperately for many years from low prices, high costs and, at best, only marginal viability. The industry went to the Government asking for co-operation; in particular, it asked for a stable domestic environment with a sufficient tariff to ensure this. It is estimated the necessary level to be 15 per cent. The Government will phase the level down to 10 per cent in 1992. This is much below the level which should be accepted. Tomato growers in the Riverland in South Australia, potato and onion growers in cooler regions of the State, and particularly growers in Tasmania, are fearful about the future. Tomato paste imports, for example, will have the tariff lowered from the current level of 48 per cent to 10 per cent. Potato products have also had their protection drastically cut. We are not happy with the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill and will propose some amendments to it. We do not believe that the duty is sufficiently high. The Bill seeks to raise the export duty on uranium produced in the Alligator Rivers region in Kakadu National Park from 11c to 80c a kilogram to cover half the costs of the environmental monitoring and research in that area. The Bill comes into effect as from the date of announcement; that is, 19 August 1986, except for any loadings or consignments which were under way at that date. Also exempted is a contract for 800 tonnes between Queensland Mines Ltd and Electricite de France whose delivery was delayed under the 1983 embargo on uranium exports to France. Queensland Mines later bought back this uranium after the embargo was lifted but it is to be exempt from the increased levy. This is scandalous. The levy is expected to raise an extra $2.6m per annum, which will cover around half of the annual cost of the relevant duties of the Office of the Supervising Scientists. We believe that it should cover the total cost of the Supervising Scientist. The Australian Democrats are opposed to the mining and export of uranium and particularly to mining of uranium in the Kakadu National Park. Furthermore, uranium is a national resource and it seems it is being mined and sold with no payment to the people of Australia for the loss of the resource which they own. It seems reasonable that any such mines should at least carry full responsibility, not only for all on-going costs of environmental supervision but also for full and unlimited liability for any damage caused to the environment or people and for the final clearing up and restoration of the area. We will move an amendment to put some money into a trust fund. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.30) —On 9 December last year I asked the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs a series of questions on the Hawke Government's policy regarding the entry to Australia of what are known as `controversial visitors'. I asked the Minister what the Government's policy was on the entry of such visitors and whether any changes had been made to that definition and policy. Today I received a response from the present Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) for which I am grateful, which I believe indicates an alarming shift in the Government's policy towards controversial visitors. This is a shift which, in many ways, could be seen as giving the green light to the entry of terrorists to this country. The Government has revised its policy on controversial visitors. The response that I received from the Minister today said that the Government's policy on such visitors sought to balance its support for human rights, including the freedom of speech and movement, with its desire to keep Australia free from international terrorism and violence. The Minister said: The primary criteria applied in deciding whether to accept or reject a visa application are: Whether the person has planned or participated in, and/or has been active in promoting, acts of politically-motivated violence or criminal violence, including acts of terrorism in particular; Whether the person is likely to propagate or encourage such actions during a visit to Australia and/or pose some threat or harm to the Australian community; and Whether the person seeks to enter Australia as the representative of a government not recognised by Australia. I also asked for the categories of controversial visitors-both individuals and representatives of organisations-under existing policy. The Minister's response was that the controversial visitor policy was applied on a case by case basis and that there were no categories of controversial visitors except, as noted in the earlier response, persons claiming to represent governments not recognised by Australia. My third question last December was: Has the Government taken any steps to liberalise or change the policy regarding the entry of `controversial visitors' into Australia in recent months; if so, what are the changes that have been made. The response to that today was: The Government considered its policy on controversial visitors last December. That is, December 1986. It continued: The Government adopted the policy formulated above. That is, the policy that I have just read. The response continued: Now mere membership of, or an association with, an organisation which has at any time in the past advocated violence as a means of achieving political goals, will no longer constitute sufficient reason to refuse a visa. Cases are now decided on their individual merits. That is the response that I received from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. This admission must be of concern to all Australians. Foreigners who have advocated violence will not, for that reason alone, any longer be refused entry into Australia. Foreigners who are members of well-known terrorist organisations or officials of countries which have sponsored terrorism, will not, as a matter of normal practice, be refused entry into Australia. The Minister said that cases are now decided on their individual merits. Further, the Minister in his response to my question indicated what this amounted to. In the case of the visit of the Palestine Liberation Organisation advocate and member Ms Mysoon Shaath late last year, the Minister confirmed that his Department, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, was unaware of her membership of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. She did not indicate on her visa application her membership of the General Union of Palestinian Women or that she was a representative of Palestinian women on the Palestinian National Council. Because she had not done that, this was enough for the Immigration Department to conclude that there was no problem with her application, and so it passed and she came in. At the time of her visit I brought that matter up in the Senate. Reliable sources who contacted the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs after she had arrived-this is why I did bring it up on the Senate-were told that the Department had indicated that it was unaware of Ms Shaath's visit. But communication with the Department of Foreign Affairs revealed that that Department did know of Ms Shaath's visit, and six months later this disturbing revelation has now been confirmed by the responsible Minister, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Senator Kilgariff —No co-ordination. Senator SHORT —There was no co-ordination at all. I ask: Just what is the Immigration Department doing? Why did it fail to check the credentials of Ms Shaath? After all, she is a well known member of the PLO and it would not have taken too much effort for the Department to ascertain this. Senator Michael Baume —And a friend of the Socialist Left in Victoria. Senator SHORT —Very much so. Her visit was connected with that. But this is not the first time that advocates of violence as a legitimate form of political activity have slipped into Australia unbeknown to the responsible government authorities. In November last year, Abdul Akhbar Mohammad, a radical white racist preacher, slipped into Australia. Again, the Immigration Department did not know that he was in the country. Indeed, the then responsible Minister, Mr Hurford, explicitly informed this Parliament that Mr Akhbar would be refused entry into Australia. But do honourable senators know what happened? The following day he appeared on the Ray Martin Show advocating violence as a legitimate political weapon. Senator Michael Baume —No doubt also invited by the Socialist Left. Senator SHORT —No doubt. The toing and froing that went on in the corridors of the Department of Immigration and the the Department of Foreign Affairs over the transit of eight South Pacific islanders on their way to Libya last year is yet another instance of this Government's slack security arrangements. Despite the production of the necessary docu- ments to show their travel arrangements, the group was initially refused transit visas. Yet, two days later, transit rights were allowed. An article entitled `Pacific Delegation to Libya Obstructed', appearing in the socialist newspaper Direct Action, reported: . . . the Australian authorities were forced to allow the eight islanders through on 15 November. Why did the Government change its mind? According to an Australian Broadcasting Corporation report of 12 November, the eight islanders were on their way to Libya to be trained as bodyguards for top Vanuatu Government officials. Given the links that Libya has forged with that Government, it would appear that the islanders were really on their way to Libya for terrorist training. These events and the change in the Government's policy on controversial visitors have alarming and disturbing implications for the security of Australians. Surely now is not the time, when the once placid and stable South Pacific region-Australia's own backyard, of which Australia is a very important part and in which it wishes to play an important part in co-operation with its neighbours-has undergone a rapid transformation with events in Fiji and increasing involvement of troublemakers of the likes of Libya's Colonel Gaddafi, for the Australian Government to relax its controversial visitors policy. It is imperative that the Australian Government take every step to reassure Australians that it is taking measures to ensure that they will be protected from the ravages from unwanted and troublesome visitors. The Minister's response to my question demonstrates the hollowness of the assurances of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the Australian people-that he would not go soft on terrorists and that he would act swiftly and decisively on the threats of terrorism in our region. The visits of Mysoon Shaath and Abdul Akhbar Mohammad were organised by an Australian group called the Australian People's Congress which is closely linked to Colonel Gaddafi. Mr Robert Pash, the Director of this Congress-he was until recently, but I am not sure whether he is now-in addition to now being the Director of the Libyan Arab Cultural Centre in Victoria, has had a lot of publicity lately. It was his organisation which organised the recent Australian delegation to the Matabah Conference in Libya. Mr Mansell, who is an Aboriginal activist and director of the Commonwealth funded Tasmanian Legal Aid Centre, was a member of that delegation. He stirred up much controversy-as we are well aware-because of his outrageous comments at that Conference. They included his willingness to accept financial support from Libya to pursue his aim of creating a separate Aboriginal nation, with violence if necessary. This incident quite rightly severely embarrassed the Government. It prompted the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) to reprimand Mr Mansell and initiate an inquiry into the affairs of the Tasmanian Legal Aid Centre. A fundamental responsibility of any government is to maximise the security of its people. It appears that both through a deliberate policy shift and inefficient intelligence and administration, the Government is not adequately fulfilling its vital responsibility. It has been a bipartisan policy for many years that members of known terrorist organisations, including the Palestine Liberation Organisation and its affiliates, should not be allowed entry into Australia. The Hawke Government's decision to reverse this policy can only serve to put at risk the security of Australians and world leaders and notable figures who frequently visit Australia. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.42) —I wish to raise a few matters which come out of Estimates committees and which were curtailed and could not be examined at that stage because of the guillotine. Senator Button —You should be sticking up envelopes for the election. Senator VIGOR —I care about the country. I wish to raise a point which the honourable senator might find of interest. It relates to Senator Button's portfolio. The Inglis report of the Committee of Review on Government High Technology Purchasing Arrangements observed that Telecom Australia is responsible for 31 per cent of Commonwealth purchases in the area of high technology. Time after time Telecom has taken the view that it must protect monopolies in the market place. Indeed, woe betide the small Australian company which wants to do business with Telecom but will not agree to assigning to Telecom complete rights to a product. Tender specifications indicate that this willingness to give Telecom exclusivity is a major factor in tender decisions. Undoubtedly, that suits Telecom and its multi-national suppliers. Telecom continues to con people into believing that it supplies all the equipment. The multi-nationals have an extra outlet and are able to prevent an indigenous research-based industry from taking any hold. These multi-national companies are also able to decide where they take their profits, whether here or abroad, by using transfer pricing arrangements which they can set up by using the value ascribed to assembly work in Australia as a means of changing the price of their product. They are able to offer high Australian content because Australia-based competitors have to use the cost of purchase in Australia for foreign-made components rather than freight-on-board prices overseas which other suppliers can use. The Telecom tender system is wholly against Australian-controlled technology and export earnings. It is not surprising to find that Telecom refused to tell Estimates Committee C what it had been doing to improve the lot of Australian-based industries in the last year. Of all the government departments and instrumentalities, Telecom alone replied to our Buy Australian question: This question relates to matters raised by the report of the Committee of Review on Government High Technology Purchasing Arrangements, (Inglis Committee), which Telecom management has under examination prior to providing advice and recommendations to the Commission and the Minister. Consequently, it would not be appropriate for Telecom to respond to these questions prior to informing the Minister of its position. This arrogant non-answer was indeed trotted out in relation to what Telecom was doing to minimise any tendency to favour overseas products, the question about what contacts there had been with industrial supplies officers, also to the question about when whole of life costings are in fact made on products which are being purchased or used by Telecom, and even to the questions about how often Telecom has failed to pay an account within 60 days and what Telecom is doing to improve its payments to small business, I do not find it difficult to believe people when they say that they have been treated in an offhand manner by Telecom. The evasions supplied to Estimates committee C reinforced that belief and indeed the impression that Telecom believes that it is a law unto itself. The same uncompromising arrogance was in evidence over Telecom's response to problems with its Viatel system. The Australian Federal Police have indicated that they were not called in to investigate unauthorised use of code names in the Viatel system. The fact that it was possible for hackers to succeed in the first place is an indictment of the managerial methods of Telecom. The specifications for the computer phone and other Telecom approved products were in fact supposed to prevent the 10-digit password to the Viatel system from appearing on the screen, and yet these things have happened because of software faults. In addition Telecom was alerted about a deficiency in its Page 924 facility, which makes it possible for someone with the four-digit code of a user to obtain the 10-digit password and hence unauthorised access to the system. Unfortunately telecom itself became a victim of this practice. It appears that someone styling himself Robin Hood was able to write down the four-digit codes for the Prahran and Camberwell business offices in Melbourne and then to get access through the passwords, which the Page 924 facility provided during the months of February and March 1986. Just as Telecom has strict rules for unauthorised phone usage and who is held responsible for the bill, it issues this warning to Viatel users: If you let anyone else use your customer identity number, you will be charged for their use of Viatel. However, judging by what happened to a constituent of mine, Brett Stokes, in the Robin Hood case, this stricture applies to everybody but Telecom. The Robin Hood character used the passwords for two Melbourne Telecom business offices to access a variety of services including those provided by the Henley Computer which was operated by Mr Stokes. However, Telecom is apparently saying that the password was used fraudulently, and so Telecom should not bear any responsibility for these matters. Although Telecom management threatened to call in the Federal Police, investigations remained internal to Telecom through its own Security and Investigation Branch. The heat was taken off media inquiries by a statement that matters regarding Mr Stokes had been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. On 18 December the Victorian Director's office wrote as follows: As you are aware this office received material from the Australian Telecommunications Commission concerning the possible defrauding of the Commission. I have decided not to institute any prosecution action based on that material. Yet in February 1987 Telecom public relations staff were apparently saying the matter was still before the Director of Public Prosecutions. I would like to get an explanation from Telecom about this whole episode. Would the same have occurred if another service user had been in the place of the two Telecom business offices and the password had been used without authority? If so, what standards of proof would have been required about the unauthorised use? Has Mr Stokes been cleared of all possible wrong-doing, or is Telecom continuing its own investigations? What efforts have been made to establish the identity of this `Robin Hood' who sent Mr Stokes a letter from an unknown Melbourne address in terms which question the diligence and technical competence of Telecom? I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter postmarked 1.30 a.m., 9 April, Melbourne, 3000. Leave granted. The letter reads as follows- I am writing in response to the article `Telecom's Men far from merry over `Robin Hood'' that appeared in the Australian on Tuesday the 8th of April 1986, page 23. As I am the Hacker in question I would like to shed some light on my `Donation' of $500 from a Telecom Viatel Account to the `Henley Computer' a Service Provider on Viatel. Through using Viatel I had become aware of a bug in Viatel's security. This enabled me to find out a person's 10 digit ID number by watching them key in their 4 digit password. All I had to do then was use their terminal alone for less than a minute to obtain the 10 digit number. This technique only works on a few types of terminals, among them the Telecom Computer Phone. After using Viatel free of charge for a while, which was nice considering how expensive it is to use, I soon became bored with it as there is little of interest on it so I decided to liven things up a bit by donating some money to the `Henley Computer' which is one of the very few interesting things on Viatel. By this time I had also decided to inform Telecom of this bug in their security because I did not like the idea of people ripping off small businesses or private individuals. Much to my surprise, when I did inform Telecom they were already aware of both the bug in Viatel's security and the fault in the Computer Phone, but were not going to do anything about either. Now that Telecom have become aware that such bugs in security can increase their own Viatel bills and not just other peoples, which would be to Telecom's financial advantage, they seem to be in a hurry to plug the gap in their security. Unfortunately, Telecom has not reacted well to my use of their funds and have victimised the potential recipient of the $500, Mr Brett Stokes of the Henley Computer. Telecom will not accept that there is no connection between myself and Mr Stokes, despite talking on the telephone with both of us on separate occasions'. Further, they have threatened Mr Stokes with action by the Federal Police for a crime he did not commit or even benefit from, as he has not received any of the money I donated and is not likely to, as Telecom have broken their contract to pay him 95% of all frame revenue he receives from Viatel. If Telecom remove `The Henley Computer' from Viatel they will be judging Mr Brett Stokes as guilty without a scrap of evidence and setting an unhappy precedent for all other Viatel Service Providers. Also, they will be removing one of the few Service Providers that provide information of interest to the residential users of Viatel, and as residential users make up about 60% of all Viatel users, Telecom should be trying to increase the number of Service Providers who cater for them, not decrease them. The way Telecom have plugged the gap in this security is very crude and has resulted in thousands of Viatel users no longer being able to program their terminals with their ID number by using page 924. If Telecom had given it any thought, they would have come up with a very simple and obvious solution to the problem without disadvantaging thousands of users. I know of people who have suggested such solutions to them. Telecom are also incapable of following their own guidelines for the design of Viatel terminals. In their publication `Viatel Terminal Specifications', issued 1st July 1984 section 6.2, they stated ``The Terminal shall not display the customer identity number''. The Telecom Computer Phone is designed to be used as a Viatel Terminal but does not come up to the required specifications, and will display the customer ID number when used with page 924. People who have bought Viatel Terminals have the right to program in their own ID numbers if they wish, and owners of Computer Phones should not be disadvantaged by sub-standard equipment potentially costing them hundreds of dollars. Instead of victimising Mr Stokes, Telecom should accept responsibility for their own lack of security. Robin Hood, Melbourne Australia. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. I would like to know whether, during February or March 1986, Viatel messages to and from the Henley computer were being monitored automatically. If that happened, and certainly Telecom has been able to produce print-outs of various messages involving the Henley computer, I would like to know in what circumstances the privacy of Viatel users may be violated, and upon what authority this can happen. Who decides whether any security measures are to be applied, and what criteria have to be met before such action can be contemplated? Similarly, if Telecom receives complaints that messages are offensive, under what circumstances will it take action to have the perceived offensive messages removed? I note that some Telecom spokesmen have said that Telecom does not interfere at all in these areas, yet some service providers in the past have been told that material was unacceptable. Who is responsible for making sure that State legislation in relating to gambling or lotteries has not been infringed? Mr Stokes has drawn my attention to months of apparent inaction by Telecom while large corporate interests remained in breach of the South Australian legislation. If any revenues were collected as a result of breaches of the law, what efforts did Telecom make to ensure that those who may have acted illegally did not profit from these activities? Did Telecom itself refund its proceeds from the access people made to Viatel lotteries which contravened the South Australian Lottery and Gaming Act? In other words, have the same standards of conduct been applied to everyone? I hope that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) who is at the table, will refer these matters to his colleague in the other place so that Telecom management will provide a detailed response to the various points which I have raised tonight. I look forward to receiving some answers, or to these answers being made available which will be more in keeping with a proud Australian outfit which values the skills and talents of its staff. I commend this matter to the Minister and ask him to provide this information to his colleague. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.53) —I will not weary the Senate with any great response to matters which were raised in the Parliament by Senator Lewis in this chamber and by Mr Tim Fischer in the House of Representatives regarding the Australian War Memorial and the ceremony to mark the proclamation of the Veterans' Entitlements Act, Mr Tim Fischer having made his contribution last week and Senator Lewis having made his contribution last evening. An attempt was made in both contributions to suggest that the proclamation of the Veterans' Entitlement Act at the Australian War Memorial a year ago was somehow significant in the subsequent decisions of the Federal Government, of Cabinet, to recommend to the Governor-General the termination of services of the Director of the Australian War Memorial. The Veterans' Entitlements Act is the most important legislative initiative in my portfolio since the Repatriation Act 1920. It ensures that those who serve Australia in wartime receive the care and support they were promised when they went off to war. An information campaign to advise veterans of their entitlements under the new act was planned by the Department of Veterans' Affairs during the parliamentary debate prior to the passage of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. I remind the Senate that that took several months from the time that the House of Representatives dealt with the original Bill. However, once the Act was passed the public relations section of Veterans' Affairs found that it had insufficient resources to implement the campaign to advise veterans of their entitlements. I stress that a departmental officer suggested that the War Memorial was a suitable venue for the launch of the Act, on the grounds that there was no more suitable way to commemorate veterans' sacrifices than to ensure that their dependants and survivors received the assistance they needed by means of the new Act. However, my Department's public relations director requested that the Minister's office write to the Secretary endorsing a campaign so that the Secretary would make extra resources available to the public relations section to conduct the campaign. These resources included recalling my Department's public relations section's executive officer, Mr Bright, from his secondment to the ACT Fire Brigade inquiry. I am told that in planning the launch there was an initial verbal indication by Mr Bright to my media secretary of qualified reservation from the then Memorial Director, not the detailed memorandum which appears to have been entered in the departmental file which were made available as a result of the freedom of information legislation. My media secretary asked Mr Bright to assure the Director that the purpose of the launch was to ensure that all veterans would learn of the new legislation and their entitlement to benefits, and was not in any sense a political event. To that extent members of the parties were invited to the function. Sir William Keys was an important participant in the launching of the Act. When no further objections were raised by the Director, my departmental officers and media secretary assumed with good reason that the Director had accepted the genuine intent of the launch-that is, to inform veterans of their entitlements. Some publicity arose out of that proclamation. My staff handle their responsibilities every day without referring routine matters to me. This is the only way that I am able to concentrate on my responsibilities and take the major decisions in my portfolio. No effective Minister could function any differently. I have selected my staff with care and have confidence in their ability to operate on my behalf. I think I can say with absolute assurance that members of my staff enjoy the confidence of the members of my Party as well as the confidence of many, if not most, members of the Opposition for the way in which they deal with matters referred to them. As no further objections were raised by the director, my office was entitled to believe that it was proper to go ahead with the ceremony. Had the Director raised any further objections, they would certainly not have been overridden, and the matter would have been referred to me. This whole issue is trivial and of no consequence. My staff have acted properly in accordance with their responsibilities. I repeat: At no time did I take any part in the decision to hold the function at the Memorial, nor did any member of my staff instruct or cajole the Director, or anyone else, to hold the function at the Memorial. Finally, on 27 May I presented in Parliament the report of a management survey conducted by John White Associates in association with a representative of the Public Service Board. John White Associates is a very reputable and capable organisation which was able to make a proper evaluation of the administrative functions of the Australian War Memorial. Mr John White is the brother of the shadow Minister for Defence, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). He indicated that information to me when he accepted the brief to conduct the management survey. The survey showed without any doubt that the administration of the Australian War Memorial is my concern. I suggest, therefore, that members of the Opposition, particularly vocal members in their capacity as shadow Ministers for Veterans' Affairs, read the report before they make any further comment on the Australian War Memorial. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.59 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1576) Senator Short asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 9 December 1986: (1) What is the Government's policy regarding the entry to Australia of `controversial visitors'. (2) What are the categories, in terms of individuals and organisations, of `controversial visitors' under existing policy. (3) Has the Government taken any steps to liberalise or change the policy regarding the entry of `controversial visitors' into Australia in recent months; if so, what are the changes that have been made. (4) Would any foreigners who have been permitted entry over recent months, not have been allowed entry under the previous definition of `controversial visitors'. (5) Does the Government have any plans for further changes to the definition of `controversial visitors'. (6) Which persons, who are either members of the PLO or any of its affiliated organisations, have been permitted entry into Australia since the ALP National Conference in Hobart in July 1986 and who have been refused entry over the same period. (7) Which persons who are members of other organisations whose members were either, before July 1986 classified as `controversial visitors', or are no longer so classified, have been permitted entry into Australia since July 1986, and how many have been refused entry over the same period. (8) What are the names of the organisations to which these people belong. (9) Has Mr Faris Glubb, member of both the Palestine Liberation Front and the General Union of Palestinian Writers reapplied for a visa entry to Australia since July 1986. (10) Would Mr Glubb be denied visa entry into Australia under existing policy. (11) Has the Government any plans of permitting Mr Glubb to visit Australia in the future. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government's policy on controversial visitors seeks to balance its support for human rights-including freedom of speech and movement-with its desire to keep Australia free from international terrorism and violence. The primary criteria applied in deciding whether to accept or reject a visa application are: Whether the person has planned or participated in, and/or has been active in promoting, acts of politically-motivated violence or criminal violence, including acts of terrorism in particular; Whether the person is likely to propagate or encourage such actions during a visit to Australia and/or pose some threat or harm to the Australian community; and Whether the person seeks to enter Australia as the representative of a Government not recognised by Australia. (2) Controversial visitor policy is applied on a case-by-case basis. There are no categories of controversial visitors except, as noted above, persons claiming to represent governments not recognised by Australia. (3) The Government considered its policy on controversial visitors last December. The Government adopted the policy formulated above. Now mere membership of, or an association with, an organisation which has at any time in the past advocated violence as a means of achieving political goals, will no longer constitute sufficient reason to refuse a visa. Cases are now decided on their individual merits. (4) No. (5) No. (6) No person who is a representative of the PLO has been refused or granted entry since July 1986. Mr Abu Lughod, a U.S. citizen, Head of the Political Science Department at North Western University in Illinois and a member of the Palestine National Council, was permitted entry in August 1986 to deliver the keynote address at the Australian-Middle East Studies Association Meeting in Canberra. Mrs Mysoon Shaath who was reported by the Australian media as a member of the General Union of Palestinian Women and a representative of Palestinian Women in the Palestinian National Council did not give any indication in her visitor visa application that she was other than an Egyptian citizen, resident of Egypt, and employed as an office manager, planning a private visit to Australia. (7) Nil. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) and (11) Any application would be considered on its merits against prevailing policy at the time of lodgement. (Question No. 1637) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 20 February 1987: I refer to an article in the National Times on Sunday, 5 October 1986 entitled ``Secretive group infiltrates leftist unions'', (1) Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware that officials of the Federated Clerks Unions travelling overseas receive expense payments of up to $230 per day. (2) Is it appropriate that officials of organisations registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act should grant themselves such expense payments. (3) Will the Government impose restraints on such expense payments. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am not aware of the level of overseas travelling expenses paid to officials of the Federated Clerks Union. (2) It is appropriate and usual for officials of all organisations to be reimbursed for expenses incurred in relation to the performance of their job. The level of such reimbursement is a matter for determination by the organisation concerned. (3) The imposition of such restraints would be an unwarranted interference in the democratic administration of organisations of employers and employees. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act has, as one of its objectives, to ensure the democratic control of registered organisations. The Act contains detailed provisions for the financial and non-financial administration of such organisations. Provided that such an organisation is complying with those provisions and with its rules, and is not otherwise acting unlawfully, there are no grounds for the Government to interfere in its internal management. (Question No. 1659) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 17 March 1987: Has Australia ratified International Labour Organization Convention No. 107 on Tribal and Indigenous Populations; if not, why, and will the Australian Government consider doing so in 1987, the 30th Anniversary of this Convention. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Australia has not ratified ILO Convention No. 107 on Indigenous and Tribal Populations. It has not done so because the Convention, adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1957, is based on the concept of integration as the principal objective of dealing with indigenous and tribal populations which is now outmoded and the subject of criticism in various world fora. The ILO has itself regarded the Convention as requiring urgent revision. In September 1986, it convened a Meeting of Experts to examine its provisions. Australia was represented at the Meeting. The Meeting recommended that the Convention be revised to replace its present focus on integration by one of respect for the identity of indigenous populations, and that its revision be placed on the Agenda of the International Labour Conference in 1988. In November 1986 the ILO Governing Body accepted the recommendation of the Meeting of Experts and decided to place the revision of Convention No. 107 on the agenda of the 1988 International Labour Conference for the first of two discussions leading to its revision. Australia's representative on the Governing Body supported the recommendation of the Meeting of Experts. Once a revised Convention has been adopted by the International Labour Conference, Australia will give urgent consideration to its ratification. (Question No. 1674) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 18 March 1987: (1) Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of reports that an improved accident reporting scheme introduced by the NSW Joint Coal Board has improved safety and appears likely to reduce accidents and Workers Compensation costs. (2) Does the Minister believe that the success of this scheme demonstrates that the best way of reducing Workers Compensation costs is to improve safety monitoring and thereby reduce accidents. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Yes. The NSW Joint Coal Board introduced a new accident reporting scheme on 1 July 1986. Advice has been received that the main features of the scheme are: The collection of information on all injuries rather than only injuries involving a compensation claim. This has increased the annual number of incidents reported from approximately 9 000 to about 29 000; and, The emphasis is on collecting data that is oriented towards prevention rather than towards compensation and insurance related data (as was the case under the old scheme). The aim of the scheme is to provide better information to assist in the development of strategies directed at reducing the number of accidents, the severity of injuries and workers compensation costs. Accident reporting schemes are essential for the identification of major problem areas, for the development of preventive strategies and for monitoring the success of strategies put in place. The more detail that can be provided on each accident the greater will be the chances of developing strategies which are successful in the reduction of accidents, the severity of injuries, and costs. The efforts made by the Joint Coal Board in improving their information base should therefore be supported. At this time it could be said that the scheme, which is prevention oriented, appears to have the potential to reduce accidents and workers compensation costs. However, this will depend to a large extent on how the collected information is utilised. (Question No. 1688) Senator Hill asked the Special Minister of State the following question, upon notice, on 23 March 1987: (1) What would be the cost to the Commonwealth of supplying the proposed scale of issue of Divisional maps and Electoral rolls, contained in Recommendation 16 of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, Report No. 2. (2) What would be the cost of implementing the Recommendation in each State. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) On the basis of average printing costs of approximately $14 for Electoral Rolls and $2 for Divisional Maps the cost to the Commonwealth of the scale of issue proposed in recommendation 16 of the Joint Select Committee Report No. 2 would be $133,196. (2) The estimated costs of implementing the recommendation in each State are as follows: $ New South Wales... 46,584 Victoria... 35,640 Queensland... 21,936 South Australia... 11,904 Western Australia... 11,904 Tasmania... 4,584 Northern Territory... 216 Australian Capital Territory... 428 Actual printing costs will not be determined until updated Rolls are produced following completion of the current Roll Reviews. Senator Walsh —On 12 November 1986 (Hansard, page 2009), Senator Peter Baume asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice. Is it a fact that public hospitals will be subject to the fringe benefits tax on the difference between the amount allowed for accommodation in nursing awards and the assessed value of that accommodation? Why has the Government decided to reduce further the ability of public hospitals, for example in my State of New South Wales, to cope with the health care crisis in the community by imposing on those hospitals a substantial extra tax burden? Does the Minister suggest that the hospitals should now cash out the benefit by increasing nursing salaries? Senator Baume also asked the following supplementary question: Is the Minister telling me that the accommodation provided for nurses in public hospitals is in the nature of a fringe benefit and therefore will attract the tax? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions: Public hospitals are not subject to fringe benefits tax. They qualify as public benevolent institutions and benefits they provide to an employee are exempt from fringe benefits tax. Senator Walsh —On 3 December 1986 (Hansard, page 3254), Senator Parer asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: Is it a fact that as from 1 July any tax liability arising from receipt of travel allowance payments will be assessed under the Fringe Benefits Tax Act? Does this mean that any excess of travel allowance remaining after responsible expenses have been deducted will be taxed in the hands of the employer, not the employee? In a case such as that of the Treasurer, is it true that any tax liability will be incurred not by the individual receiving the travel allowance but by the Commonwealth Government? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: A travelling allowance is not a fringe benefit within the terms of the fringe benefits tax law. A travelling allowance forms part of an employee's assessable income against which appropriate deductions may be claimed. Senator Button —On 6 May 1987 (Hansard, page 2388), Senator Watson asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Trade, the following question without notice: My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Given the importance of the opium poppy industry in Tasmania, is the Minister aware that major producers, India and Turkey, have disregarded international convention provisions against stock build-up in excess of that required to meet current trading needs? Acknowledging the existence of this excess stock will the Minister assure the Senate that the Government will not relax its policy of banning codeine imports so that excess stock will not find its way into Australia? Can he also explain why Australia did not call for the vote during the February 1987 United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna on implementing previously approved resolutions, and assure the Tasmanian opiate producers that Australia's position was not, as was alleged in some quarters, used as a trade off or negotiation for the entry of Australian products into Turkey? The Acting Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The 1986 Report of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) estimates that currently world supply and demand of opiate raw material for licit purposes are approximately in balance. I am however aware that India and Turkey accumulated excess raw material stocks in the late 70's and that these stocks have been carried forward. I understand that from informal discussions, Turkey has indicated that it is determined to deal with its excess stocks and we understand further that India is significantly reducing its excess stock to a reasonable working level. I am confident that full adherence by all parties to the provisions of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs will prevent the recurrence of the problem in the future. The connection in the Senator's question between excess stocks and codeine imports seems to imply a concern that India and/or Turkey might dump their stocks on the international market in order to clear them. In turn, overseas codeine manufacturers might obtain an unfair price advantage, which would enable them to displace domestic production if they were allowed into the domestic market. I have received no information to support concerns about such a connection despite the presence of these stocks since the beginning of the 1980's. At present, Australian production of codeine phosphate satisfies both local demand and substantial export orders. Policy towards the import of codeine will continue to be determined by reference to normal policy considerations such as general trading policy, health and safety factors, international treaty obligations and our overall narcotic control objectives. The Australian government at the February 1987 UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs sought to safeguard the interests of the Australian licit opiates industry in a way consistent with Australia's national interests both commercially and in the field of narcotic drugs. In the Government's judgement the most effective way to achieve this was to seek consensus on the issue through the negotiation of a resolution which does not threaten Australia's interests in licit opiates and to further define the principles underlying our position in a statement to the session. The Government considers the outcome to be the most acceptable achieved for some time. The Government also notes the moderate and co-operative approach taken by India and Turkey in seeking agreement on the draft text of the resolution. The approach adopted at the February CND session is not new: Australia has only called for a vote on 4 occasions and has joined in consensus resolutions in the 1970's and each year in the period from 1982 to 1984. Despite adverse resolutions on those occasions on which Australia was forced to call for a vote, the Australian licit opiates industry has continued to grow. With reference to the Senator's concern about allegations of a possible trade-off for other products, he may be assured that there was no such consideration in Australia's position at the Commission on Narcotic Drugs.