Thursday, 8 October 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: The humble petition from certain citizens of Western Australia respectfully showeth that: In view of the number of expert witnesses and Government departments that have cast doubts on the cost, inadequate safeguards and purported benefits of the Health Department's claims for the proposed Australia Card, and In view of the demonstrated inability of the bureaucracy in general, and the Health Department in particular, to protect the privacy of information entrusted to them, and In view of the gross infringement of an individual's civil liberty that would be created by the proposed Card: Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will: Neither pass nor reject nor fail to pass the Australia Card Bill but rather refer the Bill to an open Senate inquiry that is held in public and that after all the facts have been considered a national referendum be held on the Australia Card Bill. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from one citizen). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card represents a grave threat to the personal privacy and civil liberties of every Australian. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Alston (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Australia Card (2) That this national identity system will be intrusive, will not appreciably combat tax or social security fraud, is authoritarian and alien to the Australian way of life. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Urge the Government to institute a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is re-submitted to Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Alston (from 29 citizens). To the President and Senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that: The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 900 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Government has no clear mandate to introduce the Australia Card. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled insist that the Government not proceed with the Australia Card without the consent of a majority of the Australian people in a majority of the States as determined in a national referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 54 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Australia Card (2) That this national identity system will be intrusive, will not appreciably combat tax or social security fraud, is authoritarian and alien to the Australian way of life. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in parliament assembled, should urge the Government to institute a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is re-submitted to parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Patterson (from 29 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the Australia Card or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unne-cessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Senator Alston (from 44 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 the proposed national ID Card and numbering system threatens the privacy of law-abiding Australians opening the door to computer matching of personal information, will cause inconvenience to rural people in particular, and will result in massive compliance costs for private business. That the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee Report of 1986 showed that the Australia Card will not be effective in combating taxation and social security fraud and illegal immigration, as its cost savings are based on faulty estimates. That accordingly the Senate and Parliament should reject the Australia Card Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 519 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. Uranium mining and processing is dangerous to health and well-being, and is dangerous to the ecology of the planet and its citizens. 2. By-products of uranium are toxic for periods of up to 500,000 years and are an intrinsic part of the production of nuclear weapons. Existing safeguards are inad-equate and not properly monitored. 3. The policy of the Australian Government permits the entry into Australian Territory of vessels and aircraft without the assurance that they are not nuclear powered or armed. Such vessels pose a threat to both the security and well-being of Australia and its citizens. 4. The presence of foreign military and communication bases on Australian soil seriously endangers the health and well-being of Australia and its citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable Senators will take cognizance of the above and take immediate action to remove the above dangers. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 72 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we consider the 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 in 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 Senator Alston (from seven citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the House assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we most strongly oppose the process of `food irradiation' by Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. That we oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process being permitted by State Governments. That we express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances for the purpose of food irradiation and disallow regulations permitting the irradiation of food in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sanders (from 332 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card; That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; That we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australia Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Alston (from 27 citizens), Bishop (from 465 citizens), Chaney (from two citizens), Messner (from 38 citizens), Panizza (from 22 citizens), Patterson (from 27 citizens), Puplick (from five citizens) and Zakharov (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the imposition of sales tax, import duties and other financial constraints on Telecom Australia will have the effects of: Increasing local and STD call charges. Increasing telephone rental charges. Increasing delays in providing services to new, rural, most small business and domestic subscribers. Decreasing service standards generally. Leading to the destruction of the Australian telecommunications manufacturing industry. Increasing the internal and external pressures for the deregulation and/or privatisation of Telecom Australia. Leading to the abandonment of the ``service to all Australians'' principle on which Telecom Australia has always operated if deregulation and/or privatisation continues further. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government revokes its recent decisions applying extra financial burdens on Telecom Australia and takes appropriate steps to ensure that Telecom Australia has the legal, and financial ability to discharge its statutory obligations to provide universal service under its present monopoly status as the national telecommunications provider. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from five citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: (1) That we condemn the Hawke Labor Government's attempt to foist on Australians a disastrous industrial relations package that will damage industry, small business and the long-term economic viability of the country; (2) That we abhor the entrenchment and increase of union power embodied in the industrial relations legislation, and the Government's failure to break compulsory unionism or to address the issue of individual rights for those who refuse to join or resign from trade unions; (3) That we are concerned that this legislation will place trade unions above common law actions, and will wreck the secondary boycott sections (45d and 45e) of the Trade Practices Act which for the past decade have protected business from union thuggery; (4) That we call upon the Hawke Labor Government to withdraw completely its ill-advised industrial relations legislation in response to the concern and alarm felt by ordinary Australians and the major business and employer groups at the direction in which industrial relations is heading in this country. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 97 citizens). Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia) —by leave-I present the following petition, from 184 citizens, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders: A group of citizens has joined together to express publicly their deep concern about the Federal Government plan to introduce the Australia Card. The Group is diverse in background, occupation and political belief. Each of the persons who has signed this declaration sought to awaken in the public mind an awareness of the long-term dangers of the national identity card system as proposed. It must be understood that the Australia Card is not simply an identification card system-it involves the collection, compilation, recording and assessment of information on the activities of every individual Australian. This system has never before been proposed in a free country in the form and extent now proposed for Australia, indeed, the U.S.A. has specifically rejected a similar identification card scheme. It is intrusive, expensive, inconvenient and will not fulfil the expectations of its proponents who propose to employ a further 2,000 civil servants and who say the system will run at a loss for four years. Neither the Federal Police not the Department of Social Security have supported the scheme. In acting to bring in this system the Government is acting against the majority report of an all-Party Select Committee of Parliament. It is beyond the Constitutional power of the Commonwealth to impose directly a requirement to have a card. Although there are provisions which avoid imposing an obligation to apply for the Card, this means nothing when the Card must be used for all employment, banking, medical and property transactions. The simple act of taking or continuing a job will be unlawful without the card. (Penalty up to $20,000). We express our deep concern that the Government proposes to require all Australians to establish identity through a national, centralised, computerised identification system which will additionally involve the collection of information about individual Australians, and the assessment and use of that information for Government purposes: that it is effectively compulsory; that it denies economic freedom; that it invades privacy' the effect of the Bill as proposed is that all Australians who wish to be employed or hold a bank or building society account must attend on the Government to be photographed and then prove their identity; that to the number of dole cheats and social security frauds will be added the card forgers and duplicators; that its principle impact will be on the lives of ordinary decent, honest Australians and the cost and inconvenience to government, business and individuals will far outweigh any potential revenue gains; that it reverses the founding principle of a free society in that it makes the innocent individual accountable to the state, instead of the state being accountable to the collection of individuals in it; that it assumes the benevolence of Government against the overwhelming historical evidence that individual liberty is only maintained through the control of the power of the state; that future denial of the card will be a weapon available for the exercise of power over individuals, groups and those who disagree with the government of the time; that the available alternatives to eliminate fraud against the revenue and the taxpayers should be considered and where appropriate pursued. Those who have signed this Declaration have done so freely and to express their concern regardless of short-term political considerations, and invite others of like mind to join in signing and supporting this document. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria) —by leave-I present the following petition, from 16 citizens, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders: To The Honourable President and members of The Senate in Parliament assembled. We the Undersigned oppose and object to the introduction of the Australia Card Bill on the grounds that it is an infringement of personal freedom, an invasion of privacy and has the potential of being abused by this and future Governments. Petitions received. Motion (by Senator Richardson) agreed to: That the following Bills be introduced: A Bill for an Act relating to the Australian Tourist Commission; and A Bill for an Act to enact a transitional provision and effect certain repeals in consequence of the enactment of the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1987 Motion (by Senator Richardson) agreed to: That the Bills may proceed without formalities, may be considered together and be now read a first time. Bills read a first time. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts) —(10.05)-I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- AUSTRALIAN TOURIST COMMISSION BILL 1987 Purpose of the Bill Mr President, the purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the restructuring and reorganisation of the Australian Tourist Commission in line with the majority of the recommendations of the Report of the Australian Government Inquiry Into Tourism (the Kennedy report) which were endorsed by the Government in December 1986. The Commission was established in 1967 by the Australian Tourist Commission Act. This Act, now 20 years old, and amended on a number of occasions, is deficient in many ways and does not reflect current legislative drafting practices. It was therefore decided that rather than introduce substantial further amendments of the current Act, it would be desirable to introduce a new Bill which would reflect not only the recommendations of the Kennedy Report endorsed by the Government, but also take into account recent Government reforms concerning statutory authorities. Background On 19 January 1986 the then Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism announced the establishment of the Australian Government Inquiry Into Tourism. The Inquiry was established in response to the rapid expansion of tourism in the previous 3 years and the industry's increasing importance to the Australian economy. In accordance with its terms of reference the Inquiry was principally concerned with the `effectiveness of Commonwealth administration of its tourism promotion functions and related issues.' In specific terms the Inquiry was asked to review: * the appropriateness of existing provisions of the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967 * funding, contracting, and staffing arrangements and structures appropriate for achieving the Commonwealth's tourism promotion objectives * relevant operational arrangement, services and systems of the Australian Tourist Commission * relationships between the Australian Tourist Commission and Commonwealth, State and other organisations with responsibilities that impact on tourism * future policies and strategies that might be adopted by the Commonwealth to achieve greater effectiveness in its tourism promotion activities overseas and in Australia * any other matters referred to the Committee by the then Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism during the period of the review. The inquiry was carried out by a committee of five. The Chairman was Mr Jim Kennedy, Deputy Chairman of the Australian Tourist Commission and Deputy Chairman of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. Other members were Mr John Donohoe, Chairman of the Tourist Commission of New South Wales; Ms Geraldine Paton, Publisher of the Australian; Mr Thomas Derry, General Marketing Manager, Ansett Airlines; and Mr Emanuel Klein, then Senior Private Secretary to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I would like to place on record at this point the Government's sincere appreciation for the untiring work of the Committee, whose members freely gave a vast amount of their own time to carry out the most thorough investigation ever undertaken into tourism in this country. The 96 recommendations of the Committee's Report were supported by a most comprehensively documented report. The Report was produced after wide consultation with the industry and State and Territory Government authorities. The large number of detailed submissions and comments received by the Committee from industry and Government bodies also reflected the growing importance of this industry's place in the Australian economy. On the 7th of May this year the then Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism outlined to the House of Representatives the contribution of tourism to the economy. In doing so the Minister detailed the spectacular growth in the last five years which is due in no small part to the solid backing the industry has received from this Government and in particular the support we have given to the operations of the Australian Tourist Commission. I do not propose to repeat in detail the areas in which this Government has laid the foundations to make this industry the fastest growing industry in Australia. Suffice to say that our achievements, spearheaded by the more than trebling of funding of the Australian Tourist Commission from $10m to over $33m. Easing of foreign investment guidelines, and encouragement of career training of people for the industry, to mention just three areas of progressive Government initiatives, have greatly assisted the tourism industry to move into its current dynamic mode. The recommendations of the Kennedy report, most of which were adopted by the Government, will make the Australian Tourist Commission a much leaner and more commercially-orientated organisation with greater emphasis on marketing, planning and evaluation. This Bill provides for a new legislative base on which the Australian Tourist Commission will meet the exciting challenges of the future to make Australia a premier international Tourist destination. Major features of the Bill I will now turn to the major features of this Bill. The function of the Commission The principal object of this Bill is to restructure the Australian Tourist Commission to enable it to perform its functions more effectively. This Bill will provide a new focus for the Commission and will update the Commission's purpose and operating methods. This will act as an important lever for development of tourism in Australia and enable the Commonwealth to obtain the best return on the resources it has allocated for this purpose. Under this Bill, the scope of the corporate mission of the Commission will be narrowed. The major thrust of the Commission's activity will now be towards promoting Australia as an attractive tourist destination in the international market place. It will withdraw from the field of promotion of domestic tourism, leaving that to the States and Territories. The Commission will, however, retain a role in enhancing the awareness of the importance of tourism to Australia. The development of tourism in Australia in relation to the inbound market requires specific planning and it is not proposed that the Commonwealth proceed down this track in isolation. We will be seeking the co-operation of all concerned. But it needs to be emphasised that rationalisation of the amount of money spent overseas by governments and industry is required to maximise the effects of those resources for the benefit of Australia's economy overall. Accordingly, the principal objects of the Commission are: (a) to increase the number of visitors to Australia from overseas; and (b) to maximise the benefits to Australia from overseas visitors. In order to achieve this the Commission's functions as set out in the Bill are: * to promote Australia overseas as a tourist destination * to enhance awareness of Australia overseas as a tourist destination * to co-ordinate the overseas promotional efforts of the Australian tourism industry, in co-operation with State and Territory tourism authorities and with the Australian tourism industry; and * to enhance awareness in Australia of the Australian tourism industry. Structure of the Board and Appointment of Members This Bill provides for a Board of Directors of the Australian Tourist Commission to consist of a Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson, a government member, who will be an officer of the Australian Public Service, a Managing Director and 5 other members. This provides for a Board of nine members as opposed to 13 members under the existing legislation. This is in line with Government statutory authority reforms requiring that boards be streamlined to a workable size. The Kennedy Report found that the current Board of 13 did not encourage efficient operations. In fact, a number of submissions, including that of the Commission itself, advocated a smaller Board. The Government's reforms to statutory authorities also express a desire for statutory board appointments to be people with the skills and experience best suited to guiding the business of the particular enterprise at the highest possible level. A number of submissions to the Inquiry reflected the desire to restructure representation on the Board including the statutory requirement for representatives from the States and Territories to sit on the Board on a rotational basis. The States themselves criticised the current rotational system, particularly on the basis that they were disadvantaged when not participating on the Commission Board and did not have ready access to agenda papers for meetings and current market intelligence. It would be impractical to have simultaneous representation of all States and Territories on the Board. This Bill removes the current formalised State representation on the Board. However, close consultations with the States is essential to the operations of the Commission and alternative and more effective consultative mechanisms are now being developed and implemented. The Bill retains the existing provision for the appointment of a Board member from the Australian Public Service, now referred to as the government member. It is appropriate that the Board continues to have the facility to draw on knowledge and understanding of public administration and statutory accountability requirements, and Government policy. The Bill provides for the appointment of the Chairperson on a part-time or full-time basis. At present it is considered appropriate for a Chairperson to be appointed on a part-time basis. However, should circumstances dictate at some future time that it would be more appropriate to appoint a full-time Chairperson, the Bill does provide that flexibility. Accordingly, and in line with the Report recommendations endorsed by the Government the Bill provides for the Board members to be appointed by virtue of their individual skills, expertise and experience relevant to the tourism industry, rather than as representatives of associations, States, Territories or other bodies which may have particular tourism interests. It is also envisaged that a Board appointee will have extensive commercial experience at a senior level, and have a demonstrated track record of successful management. Corporate Planning and Accountability A major focus included in this Bill which affects the operations of the Australian Tourist Commission, and an important area not covered under its existing legislation, concerns corporate planning and accountability as set out in Part IV of the Bill. The Kennedy Inquiry examined in detail and made a number of recommendations relating to an appropriate management framework for the Commission. Their Report stressed that adequate evaluation of marketing and operational programs is essential. The analogy was drawn that just as all elements of Australian tourism should responsibly carry on their tourism business within a strategic, co-ordinated framework, the same principle must apply to the Australian Tourist Commission. It is now intended that the Board of the Commission become more active in the establishment of corporate goals of performance. The setting of corporate priorities to enhance the strategic planning process, and in the use of its available resources. Section 25 of the Bill requires the Board to prepare a Corporate Plan. The Corporate Plan will include a statement of objectives of the Board and an assessment of the market and economic outlook for inbound tourism to Australia. The plan will span a rolling 5 year period and will be subject to review and revision each year. It will be submitted to the Minister for approval as soon as practicable after it is prepared. The Corporate Plan will provide the basis of accountability to the Parliament and the industry at large of the Commission's activities and is in accordance with the Government's reforms for statutory authorities. In addition to the preparation of a Corporate Plan. Section 26 of this Bill provides for the Board to prepare an annual Operational Plan. The Annual Operational Plan for a financial year will contain an estimate of the Commission's receipts and expenditure and specify the programs that the Board proposes to carry out and the resources that it proposes to allocate to each such program giving effect to the corporate plan for that year. Division 2 of Part IV of the Bill details the accountability of the Commission. It sets out the requirement for the Commission to prepare an Annual Report and also empowers the Minister in exceptional circumstances to give directions to the Board. It is included in accordance with standard and accepted legislative practice. The Future This Bill, the Australian Tourist Commission Bill 1987, provides a new and comprehensive legislative base for the Australian Tourist Commission to equip it to successfully meet the growth and the challenges of a dynamic tourism industry up to and into the Twenty-first Century. It is appropriate that the legislation under which the Commission has so ably performed for the last twenty years should now be replaced with new and amended legislation which more adequately provides for the future operation and direction of the Commission. These legislative changes are the result of this Government's initiative to commission a far reaching inquiry to examine the operations of the Australian Tourist Commission. On the advice received from the Kennedy Committee of Inquiry. The Government has been able to formulate this Bill confident that it will provide the legislative basis for an efficient and effective Australian Tourist Commission. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present the explanatory memorandum. AUSTRALIAN TOURIST COMMISSION (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1987 Purpose of the Bill The purpose of this Bill is to enable the existing Managing Director of the Australian Tourist Commission to continue in office in accordance with the terms and conditions of his original appointment and to repeal existing Acts to allow the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1987 to come into effect. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Minister for Transport and Communications to the generally favourable reaction from the two main domestic airlines to his aviation policy announcement with the reservation that they see Qantas Airways Ltd being afforded a privileged position in the immediate future. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact, as I have always understood it to be, that Ansett Airlines of Australia is accepting of a deregulated industry provided that it does not have to compete with a government owned and backed airline which may thereby enjoy certain advantages over private operators? Has that position been confirmed in discussions which have taken place leading up to yesterday's announcement? If so, what has been the Government's response to the Ansett position? Senator GARETH EVANS —That position, as stated by Senator Chaney, has been a long-held and certainly often restated view of the Ansett senior management. It was a view that was expressed to me in the course of discussions about the aviation deregulation package. It is not, however, a view which has in any way influenced the content of the Government's decision. There is no question of any privatisation decision having been made by the Government. There can be no question of any expectation of such a decision on the part of any of the players in the aviation industry. It is a matter that will be addressed, as is well known, by the Australian Labor Party next year. It will be done on the basis of full argument and discussion at the relevant time, and not on the basis of the kinds of suspicions and beliefs that obviously seem to inform Senator Chaney's question. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I am sorry that the Minister sees my question as being influenced by suspicions or something. I just wanted some information. I thank the Minister for confirming my impression that it has been the long-held view of the Ansett organisation that it was agreeable to deregulation provided Australian Airlines was privatised. Given the benign reception to the decision to deregulate announced yesterday, how does he explain that, in light of the very clear Ansett view that has been put forward over a long period? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have nothing whatsoever to add to my previous answer, which was a complete response to Senator Chaney's question. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Home Affairs and relates to the failure by some electors to vote at the recent Commonwealth election. The Minister will be aware that some electors have raised concerns about letters they have received from the Australian Electoral Commission alleging that they failed to vote at the recent election. Can the Minister outline the procedures followed when voters appear not to have voted and, consequently, can he assure honourable senators that mistakes are kept to a minimum? Senator ROBERT RAY —Many people would be aware that the Australian Electoral Commission is now computerised in its notification of voters who do not appear to have voted. Regrettably, in some divisions too many Australians have received notices from the Electoral Commission that they have not voted. Mistakes of this sort will always occur but we are not particularly happy about the level of those mistakes on this occasion. It appears that, for the first time ever, the Electoral Commission has used electronic scanners of the roll to determine who has and who has not voted. There have been two problems related to the use of electronic scanners. Firstly, some of the polling clerks did not use the correct pen with which to mark off the voters. Secondly, certain blips have occurred within the computer. Senator Chaney —Perhaps we won the election after all. Can we have another election? Senator ROBERT RAY —I assure Senator Chaney that if these mistakes had not occurred our margin would have been even bigger. I think most honourable senators would understand that when we are using electronic scanners to scan 10 million names some mistakes will occur. The mistakes on this occasion were greater than I would regard as acceptable. The answer to that problem will be, firstly, more intensive training of polling officials to make sure they mark the roll off in a correct manner and, secondly, further refining of the electronic scanners. I think everyone would concede that it is far cheaper to use electronic scanners than manually to check 10 million names after an election. I am sure that the divisional returning officers will accept the explanation from those who have been sent notices in error that they have already voted. There is a tearoff post-back section in the demand sent by the electoral office asking why people failed to vote. The explanation that a person has voted would be sufficient for the Australian Electoral Commission to take no further action. I have had several letters from people who did vote and who have received one of these failure to vote notices. I could imagine nothing more irritating for a citizen than to have done his duty and then to be accused of not having done it. Everyone in this chamber would know that the hardest thing even in politics is to be accused of something when one is not guilty of it. That is always hard to defend. These problems with the electronic scanners we hope to have rectified by the time of the next election. It would be a very expensive process to exercise the option to go back to the old system. The divisional returning officers are aware of the problems and have been instructed to deal with the matter with sympathy. Senator PUPLICK —Is the Minister for the Environment and the Arts satisfied with the progress to date of the Helsham Lemonthyme and Southern Forests Commission of Inquiry? Will the Minister grant financial assistance to the relevant Tasmanian authorities to make their submissions to the inquiry, as his Government has already done for other interested parties? Will the Minister now give an unequivocal undertaking to be bound by the findings and recommendations of the Helsham inquiry? If not, why not? Does the Government accept the expertise of the Helsham inquiry? If not, why not? Does the Government accept the expertise of the Helsham inquiry to establish a long term regime for the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests? Will the Minister give a guarantee that after the Helsham inquiry has reported, his Government will neither initiate nor support yet another inquiry for at least a minimum reasonable period? Senator RICHARDSON —In response to Senator Puplick's many questions might I say I would have to concede there have been a number of inquiries into those issues concerning Tasmanian forests and I would not be anxious to pursue another one. However, the Government was, I think, correct in starting off the Helsham inquiry because so much controversy surrounds Tasmanian forests, particularly the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. There has been some controversy in recent times about grants for groups to present their case to that inquiry. Mr President, as you would be aware, the Government did provide some funds to the Australian Conservation Foundation for that purpose. I have been informed that some other groups will be making submissions on that. It may have occurred while I was away. So far I have seen only one, which is from a group of timber workers, which I am currently considering. I am informed that the timber industry will be making a submission. If it has already done so I have not yet seen it. As I said, I have been away. I will undertake to check in the next few days to see whether such a submission has arrived. The Government will obviously consider any request that it receives and I will notify the Senate in due course of the results of those considerations. As for giving unequivocal undertakings about being bound by the Helsham inquiry, obviously the Government would not set up an inquiry of this stature unless it regarded it with great seriousness. I am satisfied that this inquiry will produce a result that will have come about only after considerable study by, I think, an impartial and obviously capable team. At the end of that inquiry, as with any inquiry on any other matter, the Government will consider its recommendations. I do not believe that there will be a need for another inquiry but I think we will wait to see the recommendations before we consider ourselves absolutely bound by all or any of them. Senator BEAHAN —Can the Minister for Home Affairs inform the Senate as to whether there will be a general redistribution of electoral boundaries before the next Federal election? Senator ROBERT RAY —One of the best things about being a senator, of course, is that our boundaries are not often redistributed. Three conditions are laid down in the Commonwealth Electoral Act that provide for a redistribution. Firstly, according to the Act, there will be a redistribution every seven years and, as the last redistribution occurred in 1984, on that general premise the next one will be in 1991. The Act also provides for a redistribution if more than one-third of electorates go outside the 10 per cent quota constraint. From memory, at the last Federal election only one electorate out of 148 was outside that 10 per cent variance. The way the trend lines are going for growth and decline it is very unlikely that more than two, three or four electorates Australia-wide will be outside the 10 per cent. Of course, a third provision in the Electoral Act reflects the constraints on the distribution of electoral boundaries by the Constitution; that is, that seats will be distributed according to the population of the States. Under these circumstances there will be at least one redistribution before the next Federal election. Victoria currently has 39 seats. That number will be reduced to 38 before the next Federal election can occur. I am not particularly good at reading demographic projections but I do not think there is any possibility of Victoria retaining 39 seats at the next election. However, it is much harder to predict the future of other States. There is a very outside possibility that Queensland could be granted an extra seat but, as I say, that is very unlikely. It is more likely that an extra seat will be granted to Western Australia. When the Australian Statistician reports next June, Western Australia will be very close to achieving a fourteenth seat. If the representation is implemented into legislation, as recommended by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, it may well be that the Australian Capital Territory will have an extra seat. I see that Senator Reid has put up her hand for endorsement already. Fred Chaney is already on the phone instructing his staff to draw up a proposal. Senator Chaney —I would want the better half of Fremantle. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Chaney suggests that he would want the better half of Fremantle. So almost certainly there will be a prospective Federal redistribution in Victoria; a possible one in Western Australia; an outside chance in Queensland; and a fairly good chance in the Australian Capital Territory. Of course, this will cause a lot of tension in the other place and there will be a lot of map drawing, et cetera. I can say one thing about a prospective redistribution: like nearly every Federal redistribution in the past, it will be done impartially and fairly. Senator MacGibbon —Ha, ha! Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator MacGibbon might interject but we have had this out before. He has never produced one piece of evidence, and nor could he, to prove that a Federal redistribution has in any way been questionable. If a redistribution were required in Vic- toria or those other States it would be held in the latter part of 1988 and new boundaries would probably be promulgated some time around February-March 1989. Senator HAINES —I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training by referring to the Commonwealth's assistance to government and non-government schools through the general recurrent grants program. I remind the Minister that, when the Government announced a new eight-year program in 1984, it promised to review the scheme in 1988-the year in which legislation covering the first four years of the scheme expires. In view of concern in the education community at the decline in Commonwealth participation in schools education through the specific purpose programs of the Commonwealth Schools Commission, will this review of the complementary recurrent scheme, administered by the Department of Employment, Education and Training, still take place? If so, what will be its ambit and will the reviewing body include representatives of school systems as well as parent and teacher groups? Senator RYAN —Senator Haines's question referred to the eight-year recurrent funding plan, four years of which was in legislation, providing per capita increases to government and non-government schools. This scheme is one which was universally admired and accepted by schools and school representatives throughout Australia as the most progressive decision ever made by a Commonwealth government in regard to schools funding. It was a plan that gave unprecedented security, particularly to the non-government school sector, enabling schools to plan in the long term for curriculum development, employment of teachers and so forth. Undoubtedly it was the major achievement of the previous Hawke Government in that it settled once and for all the state aid debate and gave all schools security in their future planning. Of course, the recurrent scheme is separate from the specific purposes program. I do not think it is really accurate to describe the schemes as complementary. They are both Commonwealth programs, they are both aimed at raising standards and increasing opportunities in government and non-government schools, but they do serve different purposes. As was announced prior to the last election, there will be a review of the eight-year recurrent scheme now that nearly four years of that scheme are in place. That review will be conducted by the Department of Employment, Education and Training. Of course, there will be the normal very intensive consultations with, and opportunity for participation by, all interested groups. Senator HAINES —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I would like the Minister to expand on the term `intensive consultations' and to tell me, in answer to the last part of the question, whether in fact the ambit of discussions will be wide, whether those extensive consultations will include parent and teacher groups as well as representatives of school systems, and how in fact those consultations will take place. Senator RYAN —It is the normal practice of the Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education and Training to hold regular consultations with all parent bodies and all teacher representative bodies and with State Ministers for education and representatives of State departments of education. It is normal practice also to hold consultations with special interest groups such as Aboriginal education groups, through the National Aboriginal Education Committee, groups with a particular interest in migrant education, and so on. Those consultations are a continual part of the Government's development of schools policy. All groups will have an opportunity to make submissions to the Department on the review. The actual scope of the review is still being developed within the Minister's Department. Certainly that review will be adequate to give the Government direction for the next four years of the scheme. Senator DEVEREUX —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance, who represents the Treasurer. I ask: If the National Party of Australia 1987 election tax rate scale applied instead of the present tax rate scale, what would be the reduction in tax liability of, firstly, an Australian Capital Territory doctor if the doctors union succeeded in its 69 per cent pay claim and, secondly, a retired departmental secretary who was elected to Parliament? Senator WALSH —The ACT branch of the doctors union- - Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I suggest that this is not a proper use of Question Time and that the question is not in order. It has nothing to do with the Minister's responsibility. One could ask endless questions about the policies of this or that. I simply say that this is nothing to do with the administration of this Government at all. It is no more that the use of Question Time for political game play. The PRESIDENT —I will allow the question. I think it does deal with the Minister's area of responsibility. However, I will listen carefully to the answer. Senator WALSH —Quite so, Mr President. The answer will be directly relevant to the question. I will answer it in my capacity as Minister representing the Treasurer, who, of course, has responsibility for the tax rate scale and taxation in general. As I think everybody knows, the ACT branch of the doctors union for some time has been conducting an industrial campaign based on work bans in pursuit of a claim for a 69 per cent pay increase-I repeat, a 69 per cent pay increase. Originally, the doctors were pursuing an 85 per cent pay increase. The doctors union has now modified its claim to a 69 per cent pay increase. Incidentally, it is a campaign which has the support of the Opposition. If the Australian Capital Territory doctors union were to succeed-- Senator Lewis —How does it have the support of the Opposition? Senator WALSH —I have heard the honourable senator say that he supports it. If Senator Lewis does not support it, I would certainly welcome-- Senator Lewis —That is an absolute lie. Senator WALSH —I am glad Senator Lewis does not support it. That is a different song from the one he was singing a couple of months ago. If the doctors were to succeed in their claim, they would receive, on average, an extra $20,000 income. Senator Tate —How much? Senator WALSH —They would receive an extra $20,000 income on average. Some doctors would receive very much less than that and others would receive a great deal more but that is the average figure. The National Party's taxation policy, presented by Senator Stone prior to the election, contained what was called a bonus for working whereby any increase in income in this financial year, compared with that of the previous financial year, would be taxed at a rate of only 23 per cent. If the Australian Capital Territory doctors had succeeded in their pay claim and the National Party's tax policy had applied, assuming that doctors had incomes of at least $35,000, the average saving would have been $5,400. Their after tax income would have increased by $5,400. There would also have been some lesser benefits from a lower tax rate on income below $35,000, but that is relatively unimportant. In the case of a former departmental secretary in receipt of a Commonwealth superannuation scheme pension of $35,000 a year, who also became entitled to a parliamentary salary on round figures of $46,000 a year, if there were no other changes his after tax income would have been increased by more than $12,000. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Clearly, the answer is getting into the hypothetical. The Minister is putting forward a series of `ifs' in his response. Standing order 99 clearly provides that a senator is not entitled to ask a question which contains hypothetical matter. The same standing order says that we are not allowed to ask for an expression of opinion, a statement of government policy or a legal opinion. We cannot refer to debates in the current session or proceedings in committee not reported to the Senate. I make those points because the Standing Orders are meaningless if standing order 99 does not provide a guide for what questions are supposed to be restricted to. Quite clearly, all the Minister is doing is making up a series of hypotheticals and having a nice little debate with himself, as is his custom. Mr President, I suggest that he is clearly out of order in responding to the question he was asked. The PRESIDENT —I uphold the point of order. I think Senator Walsh was dealing with a series of hypothetical questions. It was not in order to say what might happen under another administration. Senator Walsh —On the point of order, Mr President: far from being hypothetical, the case I am describing refers to Senator Stone. It would not have been a bonus for working but the result of a successful piece of double dipping. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Either the Minister must dissent from your ruling or he should be sat down. The PRESIDENT —I will allow the Minister to answer the question. I have upheld the point of order that was taken by Senator Chaney. If Senator Walsh has anything to add to his answer, he can add it. Senator WALSH —I have given the figures, Mr President. The only other thing I have to add is that the essentially fraudulent nature of the National Party's bonus for working policy is revealed by the fact that the doctors would have gained not from working harder but by using industrial muscle to exploit the public and taxpayers. In the latter case, that of a departmental secretary, the gain would have been a function not of working harder but of a spectacularly successful piece of double dipping. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. I note, for the benefit of the Minister receiving the question, the concern expressed by his colleague about the use of industrial muscle to obtain increases outside the wage fixing principles. Is the Minister aware of the settlement which followed the recent protracted strike on the North West Shelf project? Does he agree that this appears to be the case of unions using their industrial muscle to force employers to concede wage increases which are way outside the wage principles? Is the Government planning to intervene in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission hearings expected later this week to consider the settlement, in order to ensure that the wage principles are adhered to? Will the Government push the very strong views just expressed by the Minister for Finance and ensure that only wage rises which are in accordance with the wage principles are granted? Senator BUTTON —I have a note on the North West Shelf issue from the Minister for Industrial Relations, to which I will refer in a moment. Before doing so, I make it quite clear that Senator Walsh's comments about the doctors union, as he calls it, in the ACTU-- Honourable senators-Ha, ha! Senator BUTTON —If the doctors union were in the ACTU, it would be much more responsible than it is now because the Australian Council of Trade Unions has been eminently responsible in respect of wage claims. Having said that, let me make the point that I understand Senator Walsh to be saying that we have to level the playing field in attitudes to these matters. Senator Chaney —I am asking you whether you are levelling the playing field. Senator BUTTON —I understand what the honourable senator is saying. It is a good school debating point but the reality is that that is the way Senator Walsh was answering the question. The dispute in relation to the North West Shelf, as I am advised, was one in which the Government intervened in the sense that it was concerned about completion of construction work on the North West Shelf. The dispute was formally referred to the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission and also to the Federal Commission. It has been the subject of conferences with Chief Commissioner Collier, upon whom the powers of the Federal Commission have been conferred. As I understand it, and this note from the Minister is dated 6 October, negotiations are still proceeding in relation to an agreement. I will seek to get an update on that. Senator Chaney —It is an agreement. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney informs me that there is an agreement. I will seek to get an update on the basis of the nature of the agreement. I will get that from the Minister and provide an answer as soon as possible. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister for Local Government. What progress has been made in regard to the participation of women in local government, both as elected representatives and as employees? Senator Vanstone —Out comes the dorothy dix. Senator REYNOLDS —I thank the honourable senator for her question and I assure Opposition senators that a great many women in the community are interested in the answer, even if, as we know, Opposition senators are not. The Commonwealth fully supports the principle of equal employment opportunity for women in local government and is encouraging developments at the local level in a number of ways. Through the Office of Local Government it has improved liaison with the Australian Local Government Women's Association, which is, for instance, represented on the judging panel for the National Awards for Innovation in Local Government. Taken with the Australian Centre for Local Government Studies, it is a means of improving women's participation in the courses provided. The Commonwealth has provided financial support to the New South Wales Department of Local Government, which is piloting an equal employment opportunity program in five councils, at a cost of $40,000. It has sponsored an analysis of women's employment within local government, which is being undertaken by the Municipal Officers Association, at a cost of $47,000. The Commonwealth has also provided support for the documentation of the role of women in local government, including a grant for the publication of a very interesting book, which I am sure Senator Vanstone should obtain a copy of, called Getting the Numbers. It was prepared by the Municipal Association of Victoria and identifies the reasons for the under-representation of women elected representatives. It is also looking at ways of encouraging more women to stand for office. The Local Government Ministers Conference resolved in principle last year to move towards the establishment of equal employment opportunity in Australian local government. It has included equal employment opportunity matters in the National Review of Local Government Labour Markets, undertaken under the auspices of that Conference. There are some obvious examples of just how ably women are represented at the local government level throughout Australia. Indeed, there are three ministerial representatives, including the Hon. Barbara Wiese, the Minister for Local Government in South Australia, and the Hon. Janice Crosio, the Minister for Local Government in New South Wales. Furthermore, in Brisbane-the largest city council in the country-Sallyanne Atkinson is Mayor. Lecki Ord has just been elected to an equally important role as Mayor of the City of Melbourne. Whilst in Adelaide recently, I met a number of women mayors from South Australia. I can assure Senator Giles that women are indeed participating very effectively at all levels of local government and my Department will continue to support this. Senator Puplick —I ask Senator Reynolds to table the answer from which she has been reading on the ground that she said that everybody was interested in it. The PRESIDENT —Will the Minister table the document? Senator REYNOLDS —I will be happy to do so. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. I refer him to the set of documents which he tabled in the Senate on 24 September and which, as he said in his tabling statement, `relate to the tender application by Amann Aviation Pty Ltd for the Coastwatch contract and the consideration of that tender up to the time of the awarding of the contract on 13 March 1987', together with some other documents which are not relevant to my question. Is it not a fact that there were variations of that contract after the letter of acceptance of tender on 13 March 1987? I refer particularly to the change of aircraft. If I am right in believing that there were documents which related to a variation of the contract after 13 March, will the Minister table any subsequent documents which may be relevant to determining the full terms of the contract? Senator GARETH EVANS —There were a number of subsequent variations to the contract accomplished by exchanges of correspondence in the period after March and extending some number of months thereafter. Some of that correspondence and contract variation did, as I recall, relate to the question of the change of aircraft type. There is no secret about any of that nor any desire to withhold documents. As I explained to the Senate when I tabled the documents, that was the only bundle of documents that the Department at that stage had had time to work through in the context of applying freedom of information (FOI) standards in relation to issues such as commercial confidentiality. There were some subsequent documents which had been specifically pulled out for other purposes and had been worked through. I am perfectly prepared to make those other documents available when the process of FOI scrutiny is complete and I would have thought the appropriate place to make them available was to the Senate committee looking at this question. I am perfectly happy to make the documents available to that committee as soon as that task is complete. Senator BURNS —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, relates to the Queensland Cane Growers Council. Does this Council represent a form of compulsory unionism? Is it a fact that the money levied from smaller cane growers supporting the Australian Labor Party (ALP) was passed on by the Queensland Cane Growers Council to the National Farmers Federation for use in its anti-ALP campaigning in the recent Federal election? Is such a party political use of the Council's funds contrary to the Council's constitution? What will the Federal Government do to halt this disgraceful state of affairs? Senator WALSH —The Queensland Cane Growers Council was established at some time during the 1920s. Both the Council and its subsidiary bodies are funded by a levy on cane growers, based on the tonnage of cane delivered to mills. The levy is compulsory, and to the best of my knowledge there is no provision for conscientious objection to paying that levy as there is in a number of other awards, if not most industrial awards. In other words, it is a form of compulsory unionism-there is no question about that-and there is no conscientious objection clause as there is in most or many industrial awards. It certainly would be regarded, I suspect, as compulsory unionism by the H. R. Nicholls Society. I understand that the Queensland Cane Gro-wers Council did pass on money to the National Farmers Federation which it used in its specta-cularly unsuccessful anti-Labor Party campaign during the recent election. I will ask Mr Kerin to check that. If that is the case, and I believe it is, it could be regarded as part of that web of corruption which enmeshes the State of Queensland but which escapes Senator Stone's highly selective indignation, both in his capacity as a National Party senator for Queensland and as President of the H. R. Nicholls Society. I understand that the Council's constitution is supposed to preclude it from taking part in party political activity. If indeed money was passed on to the National Farmers Federation, certainly the spirit if not the letter of that constitution would have been breached. In regard to what the Commonwealth Go-vernment can do about it, I will ask Mr Kerin to check to see whether, given the compulsory nature of this particularly rigid form of compulsory unionism which exists in Queensland for cane growers and is funded by a levy on production, that could be regarded as an excise, and therefore within the legal and constitutional jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. Senator LEWIS —I address my question to the Minister for Justice in his capacity as Minister administering the Attorney-General's Department. Is the Minister aware that the Australian Federal Police Association has estimated fraud against the Commonwealth to be at least $11 billion? I refer the Minister to the statement on page 25 of the Review of Systems for Dealing with Fraud on the Commonwealth tabled in this Parliament recently: It follows from lack of accurate and timely information that the Commonwealth cannot be sure that it is devoting adequate resources to dealing with fraud. I quote from page 20: Without a clear picture of the scale and nature of fraud, it is, of course, difficult to assess the adequacy of resources deployed to deter, prevent, investigate or otherwise deal with it. Is the Minister aware that the Australian Federal Police officers who are tasked with investigating Commonwealth fraud are grossly overworked and have been for a long time? Will the Government now establish an inquiry into the extent of fraud against the Commonwealth so that, in the words of the Review, the Australian public will be able to `assess the adequacy of resources deployed to deter, prevent, investigate' the level of fraud against the Commonwealth of Australia? Senator TATE —I am aware of certain claims that have been made, particularly during the latter stage of the election campaign, by the Australian Federal Police Association as to the extent of fraud against the Commonwealth. Despite a meeting I have held with Mr Chris Eaton, the Secretary of the Australian Federal Police Association, since the election and in anticipation of my addressing its council, I think next Monday, no evidence to substantiate that claim made by that Association in various Press releases and other media contexts has been forwarded to my office. Quite frankly, the quantities of money said to have been involved have varied so much that I am not quite clear whether the Australian Federal Police Association itself would stand by any particular figure that it has bandied about in the public domain. So, whilst I am aware of certain claims made, certainly no advantage has been taken of opportunities in face to face discussion with me by the Secretary of that Association to substantiate them. I am very pleased that Senator Lewis raised at Question Time the very excellent report entitled Review of Systems for Dealing with Fraud on the Commonwealth. To my mind, it represents-certainly for the first time so extensively-a realisation by a Federal government in this country that it needs to get its own house in order to deal with fraud which may be affecting the operations of a whole range of departments. That is why the review was undertaken at a very high level, by departmental secretaries-it is not just an ordinary inter-departmental committee-drawn, I think, from 11 departments. The main objective was to try to put in place those very mechanisms which, I agree with Senator Lewis, need to be put in place to enable those agencies to become more aware themselves of the steps they might take to detect fraud being practised against them and, having detected it, to deal with it. We need to have a more preventive regime rather than, as has been the case, agencies such as those for which I am responsible, for instance, the Australian Federal Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions, and prosecution and court resources being tied up in the consequences downstream which could have been prevented by more vigilance by the upstream agencies. A classic example of that relates to social security fraud. Many thousands of police hours were consumed in this area when, as I recall, social security payments were made by way of cheque to the household letter-boxes of recipients. There were many allegations of theft on the one hand and of persons coming to the counter of Department of Social Security offices claiming that the cheque had not been received and receiving emergency payments. There was a tremendous scope for an overburdening of Federal Police resources which has been largely obviated by the direct payment into accounts of social security payments. That is a very good example of steps being taken upstream in the agencies of the Commonwealth to prevent the overburdening and overwhelming of the downstream police, prosecution and court resources for which we have to make provision. So I regard the steps already undertaken-the steps foreshadowed in this report-as being part of that process of getting that timely and effective action which will prevent fraud against the Commonwealth across a whole range of departments. Insofar as the report indicates that steps need to be taken and systems put in place, honourable senators will recall that there was also an announcement that a fraud control committee is to be established by the Government which, amongst other things, will transfer a lot of the expertise from those departments that already have a fair degree of it, such as the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Social Security, to those departments which perhaps do not have these systems in place. I believe the overall effort by the Commonwealth-a continuing effort under the aegis of this fraud control committee-will ensure that the sorts of fraud that may have been occurring will be prevented or, if not prevented, detected very early. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister for Transport and Communications aware that the Australian Federation of Air Pilots has warned that safety could be compromised by new arrangements for the control of flight standards? Is there any justification for this fear? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Australian Federation of Air Pilots has expressed some concerns about the proposed incorporation of the flight standards function-which means essentially the licensing of aircraft and air crew-into the proposed new Civil Aviation Authority. It is a matter which I had discussed with the Federation prior to the making of the statement yesterday. It is also a matter on which I have undertaken to consult further before the decision is implemented. Nonetheless, I do not believe there is any justification whatever for the concern that has been expressed. As I said in the detailed statement which was tabled yesterday, I believe that there is strong logic in the view that the task of regulating aviation safety must be regarded as an integrated system in which all elements are co-ordinated to achieve maximum reliability and effectiveness. The operation of air traffic control and the flight advisory service, both of which are functions uncontroversially proposed to be vested in the Civil Aviation Authority, are as much a part of safety regulation as the regulation of aircraft and their crew. The two areas complement each other. I am sure that the Public Service officers who have made such a splendid contribution to our aviation safety in the context of hitherto integrated safety and operational functions within the Department will continue to play that role in the new authority when it is established in some 12 to 18 months time. It is also to be noted in this respect that the United Kingdom's Civil Aviation Authority has very successfully combined safety regulation with the operation of the airways system. The United Kingdom decision was taken after a formal review-the Edwards Committee-and on the basis that the setting of standards, regulatory control and the day to day operation of the system should be under single control in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness, because of the close interrelationship involved. I made it clear yesterday, and I do so again today, that the Australian Civil Aviation Authority will be required to give primacy to safety considerations over commercial ones, notwithstanding the apparent objections of the Business Regulation Review Unit (BRRU) to that course. With enemies such as the BRRU, who needs friends? The enabling legislation will make provision for the Minister to give broad directions in relation to the safety regulatory role to ensure that that occurs. I should also mention that the name of the proposed authority has been deliberately changed from the original proposal-the Civil Aviation Corporation-as another way of reflecting and demonstrating that safety priority whenever commercial considerations and safety ones potentially come into conflict. I think that that emphasis on the primacy of safety in the context of the new authority, together with the other explanation I have given about the integrated way in which these functions operate, will satisfy the basic concerns which have been expressed by the Federation. Senator NEWMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that a review of the defence service home loans scheme was announced in May 1985 and that in answer to my question on 25 March 1987 the then Minister said that the results were with the ministry and a determination would be made by Cabinet and announced to the public. Has the determination yet been made? When will the results be made public? Senator REYNOLDS —I thank Senator Newman for her question. I know that she has an abiding interest in this issue. I will consult my colleague. I ask the honourable senator to treat this as a question on notice. Senator NEWMAN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that Senator Gietzelt, in answering that question, told the Senate that, among other things, the purpose of the review was to make additional funds available to applicants. Can the Minister tell us whether the proposals announced in the Budget will achieve that objective? Senator REYNOLDS —I have nothing further to add in response to Senator Newman's supplementary question. I will seek a response from Mr Humphreys. Senator CROWLEY —Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware of a decision handed down yesterday in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which will significantly increase the pay rates of an estimated 60,000 outworkers in the clothing trades? What, in the Minister's view, will be the effect of these changes on the costs and competitiveness of the Australian textile and clothing sector? Senator BUTTON —Insofar as the decision will significantly raise pay rates for outworkers in the clothing industry, it will reduce the international competitiveness of that section of the industry. However, I am not sure that that is a bad thing. One never wants to see competitiveness reduced; on the other hand, one does not want to see, in the terms of what was said by the Deputy President of the Arbitration Commission, a continuation of virtual sweated labour in some sectors of the textile and clothing industry. The results of the decision will almost certainly be to raise the pay of outworkers in the industry, most of whom are migrant women. Senator Stone —Most of them still have jobs. Senator BUTTON —Yes, Senator, they still have jobs. So do people in Taiwan who get pay rates like these. I do not think that the changes in pay and conditions will be damaging to the long term future of the industry. Labour costs in some sectors of the industry will rise significantly, especially where there is a high dependence on low paid outworkers and some types of manufacture will be less viable in the medium to long term. However, I make the general point about this industry that these types of manufacture, low value added activities, do not or should not have a long term future in Australia in an industry such as this. Industry has to recognise that its long term viability and success are dependent on a greater shift into higher value added manufacture, particularly in further processing of natural fibres such as cotton and wool. No industry can be sustained in the longer term on the extraordinarily low pay rates paid to outworkers prior to this new decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. While labour costs certainly need to be kept in line with those of our trading partners, this should not perpetuate continuation of the sorts of rates which are being paid to, essentially, women migrant outworkers in the major cities of Australia in the clothing trades industry. Senator KNOWLES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Would the Minister consider that the endorsement of the fine work of the Aborigi-nal Training and Cultural Institute that was given in the June issue of the Aboriginal Employment News, published by the Department of Employment, Education and Training, is an indictment of the decision of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to cease funding the Institute? Will the Minister ensure that funding for the Aboriginal Training and Cultural Institute in Sydney is resumed as soon as possible? Senator TATE —I will have to take that question on notice and refer it for an early response to the Minister, Mr Gerry Hand. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health whether she is aware of recent criticisms of the operation of the home and community care (HACC) scheme in Tasmania? Is it true, as claimed, that the HACC scheme is dogged by administrative wrangling and government buck-passing? Is the Minister aware that from the Tasmanian Budget Papers it appears that the Tasmanian Government is not making a sufficient contribution to gain the full HACC entitlement from the Commonwealth? Is it true that for the 1987-88 financial year, due to the Tasmanian Government's reluctance to fulfil its commitments of providing $1 for every $2 of Commonwealth expenditure, HACC in Tasmania will miss out on $721,000? Is this on top of the half a million dollars forgone last year by the Tasmanian Government? Similarly, is it true that the supported accommodation assistance program (SAAP) will also suffer to the tune of $331,000 because of this same reluctance by the Tasmanian Government to contribute adequately to that scheme? Can the Minister say what sort of effect this reluctance by the State Government to fulfil its obligations has on the proper operation of the HACC scheme and the SAAP in Tasmania and the care of the people who need the services? Senator RYAN —I am aware of the current criticisms in the Press of the programs as outlined in Senator Coates's question, but I hope that the situation will improve and that we shall achieve more co-operation than predicted. In regard to the HACC program, both governments have been co-operating in the development of this program in Tasmania in order to ensure its success. The benefits of the co-operation will be seen over the next few years through a very real improvement in the quality of life of those people being assisted under the program. Our Go-vernment has not yet been officially advised of the Tasmanian Government's appropriation for the HACC program in 1987-88. Confirmation of the break-up of money appropriated will not be available until the 1986-87 expenditure is acquitted in late November. The current indications are that the Tasmanian Government is providing the normal level of funding for the program's expansion, which is up to 20 per cent of the expenditure in the previous years. It appears that the Tasmanian Government may have elected not to take up the option of rolling over into 1987-88 all of the unspent portion of the $2 to $1 funds available for HACC in 1986-87. Unlike HACC, the SAAP agreement with the States and Territories provides for deferment of matching obligations until the final year of the program, which will be 1988-89. During the first year of the program Tasmania sought, and was granted by the Commonwealth, such an exemption. Tasmania was offered by the Commonwealth under SAAP a further $354,000 this year over the existing Commonwealth liability of $2.212m. In response to this offer, Tasmania has formally advised that at this stage $238,000 of this new money will be accepted. However, following discussions at officer level it now appears likely that the Commonwealth offer of $345,000 could be accepted in full. Tasmania has also advised that an additional amount of $214,000 will be contributed by the State this year, thus deferring, in accordance with the approval given under the agreement, the full matching obligation of Tasmania until 1988-89. Acceptance of the full $340,000 of new Commonwealth money this year will mean that Tasmania will be required to contribute an initial $537,000 next year in order to match, without accepting any new Commonwealth money next year. Should Tasmania also accept all new money next year, the matching obligations will increase to an additional $881,000 by Tasmania. It is the hope of the Commonwealth Government that Tasmania will make these matching arrangements so that the full benefits of the programs can be felt by Tasmanian citizens. Senator PATTERSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. In answering my question of 23 September the Minister advised the Senate that it was a fact that Department of Social Security microfiche master files were found scattered around a Melbourne suburb. Can the Minister advise the Senate whether electoral roll microfiche were also found with these Social Security master file microfiche? If electoral roll microfiche were found, could the Minister please explain the arrangements which prevail for the acquisition of electoral roll microfiche by the Department of Social Security? Can he also indicate whether the security of the current method for destruction is equivalent to that used by Australian Electoral Commission officers? Senator RICHARDSON —Some Department of Social Security microfiche records were apparently found in a Melbourne street in April this year, as I informed Senator Patterson some time ago. The records apparently included microfiche records provided to Social Security by the Australian Electoral Commission. Senator Patterson did direct a question to me on this some time ago, and this response is somewhat similar. The present regime for microfiche security was laid down in correspondence between the then Australian Electoral Office and the Director-General of the Department of Social Security, commencing with an agreement relating to magnetic tapes. Further discussions concerned microfiche, and similar procedures were agreed to in February 1983. The essence of the security arrangements is that Social Security would arrange for the collection of superseded micro- fiche, accumulate them in secured storage areas and eventually burn them in industrial incinerators. After this process, a certificate indicating the number of sets destroyed each month would be supplied to the Electoral Commission. Later in February 1983, Social Security varied the guidelines to replace Australia Post by approved contract services. This variation was accepted by the Electoral Office in March 1983. This agreement is still in force, and confirmation of it was received in a telex from Social Security as recently as 3 July 1987. As outlined in my answer before, an inquiry into the loss of the records found that it occurred due to an error on the part of the contractor responsible for their destruction. Some microfiche collected by the firm became mixed with non-security waste and were lost in transit for disposal. New arrangements with the firm have been made to ensure that such an incident does not recur. The contractor has undertaken to store the material in the firm's security vault, prior to sending it by sealed container for supervised destruction. Social Security is also investigating options for alternative collection and destruction methods. The other departments and authorities supplied with sets of electoral roll microfiche are the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; the Australian Federal Police; the Department of Resources; Supreme Court offices; the Australian Taxation Office; the Attorney-General's Department; the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office; the National Crime Authority; the Department of Administrative Services; and the Department of Transport and Communications. Similar security arrangements have been agreed on with each. Senator SCHACHT —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Has the Minister seen a letter to the editor in today's Australian Financial Review which is critical of Government policies for manufacturing? I ask the Minister whether he accepts this claim of Mr Garry White, Policy Director of the New South Wales Farmers Association: Government actions have done little to reduce protection and most policy decisions have worsened rather than improved the costs of protection. Senator BUTTON —The letter has been drawn to my attention. It is part of the perennial debate which now goes on between representatives of farm organisations and of the manufacturing sector, or other sectors of the economy upon whom protective regimes impose costs-the farm sector or the resource sector. That debate was muted for some two decades in Australian history by the activities of the then Country Party, which sought to encourage manufacturing in this country by highly protective regimes. Mr White's comments are partly legitimate and partly not in the sense that the Government, since it was elected to office, has set about a program of gradually reducing tariffs in a number of industries. I certainly agree that a lowering of tariffs and other forms of import protection is desirable and essential. Average rates of protection have fallen. The last available figures, I think, from the Industries Assistance Commission were for 1984-85, but departmental figures show a significant lowering of protection in heavily protected sectors of industry. In other sectors, programs are in place which will reduce protection significantly over the next few years. These reductions in protection from import competition have been designed not to cause upheaval in manufacturing but to assist the restructuring process essential to lifting Australia's competitiveness in world markets. I notice that Mr White in his letter also criticises certain measures which the Government has put in place to stimulate research and development, innovation and so on in parts of the manufacturing and services economy. They are measures of general application but they are particularly applicable to those sectors of the economy. I certainly do not agree with Mr White's view that these incentives simply raise costs for other sectors. I regard that as a vast oversimplification of the situation. They have succeeded in triggering substantial research and development activity. That is very important in terms of raising industry world competitiveness. I make the point, however, in passing that today at Question Time questions have been asked about statutory authorities which provide support mechanisms in the agricultural sectors. A range of measures is in place which provide highly protective and long-standing assistance to sectors of rural industry. I am not condemning that, except to say that I suspect they are rather geriatric organisations, and probably need close examination in terms of improving their efficiency and marketing performance. Very high levels of research and development funds have been made available by governments of all political persuasion to research into rural industries. That has been so over a very long period. It has sometimes been claimed that the activities of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which were largely directed towards providing a research infrastructure for Australian rural industries, were perhaps one of the few things that stopped Australia going down what is sometimes called the Argentinean route in the 1950s and 1960s. Research and development incentives paid by taxpayers' funds and so on are a burden on the community generally, as any expenditure by government is. The question is its appropriateness in terms of industry development and medium to long term benefits to this country. As I have said, I have seen Mr White's letter. The debate about these issues is alive and well, although not particularly well here in the Senate. Senator REYNOLDS Yesterday, Senator MacGibbon asked me whether I had any information relating to the application for permanent residency of Ramos Horta. I undertook to obtain the relevant information. I now provide the following answer to Senator MacGibbon's question: Jose Ramos Horta has applied for migrant entry to Australia. His application has been considered under the independent and concessional migration category on the basis of a sponsorship by his sister who lives in Australia. Under this category applicants are required to meet a points assessment which takes into account factors such as employability, skills, education, age, the degree of relationship between the sponsor and the applicant and whether the sponsor is an Australian citizen. In addition, normal health and character requirements have to be met and a satisfactory settlement assessment made. Report of Committee Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State)(11.11) —I move: (1) That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Resolution of the Senate of 23 September 1987, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 3] to the Senate on or before the next day of sitting, without further considering the Bill or the matters referred to the Committee in relation to the Bill. (2) That, upon receipt of the report of the Committee, the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 3] be laid aside, without any further question being put. It will be obvious to honourable senators why this motion is being moved. The Opposition has made it clear that it would not allow the successful completion of this legislation, that it would use its powers of disallowance to disallow the regulations which would bring the Bill into effect. The Government, therefore, has no alternative but to recognise that the Bill cannot be proceeded with. We regret this for reasons that I will not repeat to the Senate now, as I had the opportunity to point out to the Senate, during debate on a matter of urgency moved by Senator Puplick yesterday, why the Government had sought to pursue this legislative reform and why we regret that we cannot proceed with it. It would be futile and a waste of the Senate's time to go over that ground again. However, I note that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) has several times called for the withdrawal of the Bill; so I expect the co-operation of the Opposition in this matter. Senator Puplick, on behalf of the Opposition, has given notice of a very lengthy contingent motion which seeks to add an amendment to my motion which would virtually send the terms of reference requiring a full examination of the soon to be defunct Australia Card legislation and many matters associated with it back to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I put to the Senate that this is not a sensible course of action and I hope that the Senate will not agree with it. It is a case of Senator Puplick wanting to beat a dead horse. I hope that he has reconsidered the strategy which he was wedded to when he announced his amendment. Quite clearly, the Senate has within its powers the capacity to examine, by way of a special committee, a standing committee or a select committee, any legislative measure that the Government brings before the Senate. The Government has already announced that we will be pursuing a package of measures alternative to the Australia Card legislation. We will not be reintroducing the Australia Card legislation by another name. We will not be seeking to establish a measure which will be the Australia Card by another name. We recognise that the obstructionist attitude of the Opposition will prevent that. We are not about to waste the time and resources of the Senate, of the Government or of the Australian people by pursuing a course of action which we know will be futile. We have announced that we will pursue a package of alternative measures, all of which have been endorsed by the Opposition and by the Australian Democrats at various stages. The parts of those alternative measures that require legislation will come before the Senate and will be able to be considered by the Senate according to the normal powers of the Senate. In that context, and accepting the reality of the Senate's powers to examine any legislation that comes before us, it is futile and very wasteful of Senator Puplick to wish the resources of the Senate Standing Committee to be tied up examining legislation which has no life and which will not come before the Senate again. The Government has not worked out the detail of the alternative package of measures it will be bringing before us. Some measures, such as the privacy Bills and the Data Protection Agency measure, are already in a form which is close to their final form. They may require some slight amendment but the other parts of the Government's package-the implementation of the fraud report, the development of a nationally co-ordinated births, deaths and marriages register in co-operation with the States-are still to be worked out in detail. So there is no point at this stage in the Senate seeking a detailed examination of those measures. When the Government, after widespread consultation, has developed a detailed package, then, of course, we would expect that the Senate would use its powers of examination through its various committee structures to examine them. But at this stage persons on the other side of the chamber, the Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, and various Opposition senators have called for the withdrawal of the Bill. I am now taking the commonsense and practical steps necessary to get the Bill off the agenda and I hope that I will have the co-operation of the Senate in that. I also express again something I have expressed several times in the course of this very important debate on how the Government can bring in effective measures to deal with tax evasion and social welfare fraud: now that the tumult and the shouting have died down we might have constructive bipartisan consideration of an important problem facing the Australian people, and that is the massive tax evasion and fraud which still exist despite the improved measures the Government has been able to put into place. I commend the motion to the Senate and indicate that we will not accept Senator Puplick's amendment should he persist with it. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.17) —Mr President, as you and as Senator Ryan would undoubtedly know, today is the feast of St Pelegia the Penitent. It is good to see Senator Ryan come into the chamber today as a penitent on the Australia Card. As she rightly said, the Australia Card Bill is soon to be defunct. We are glad to see the end of this ghastly piece of legislation which I remind you, Mr President, was introduced despite the recommendations of a parliamentary inquiry which Senator Aulich was at great pains yesterday to praise as a good and worthy exercise. Despite the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, the Government proceeded down a track which was always doomed to failure because in essence the people of Australia did not want the Australia Card. Through the efforts of individuals, such as Mr Ewart Smith, through the efforts of those thousands of Australians who signed petitions, wrote letters and made representations against the Australia Card and, may I say, through the efforts of members of the Liberal and National parties who early in the piece set their face against this Australia Card despite what was then perceived to be the bulk of public opinion-but because they were of the belief that the Australia Card legislation should not be introduced, that the Australia Card scheme should not be introduced, they fulfilled their democratic and proper role in spearheading the opposition to this legislation-we have now come to the point where the legislation is admitted by the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan) to be at the stage of being, to use her words, soon to be defunct. We are glad of that. We believe this is a triumph both for the parliamentary process of inquiry and scrutiny and for the democratic process of making it clear that the will of the people was against the introduction of this legislation. Senator Ryan went on to say that we should not persist with seeking to have a continuing inquiry into issues raised by the Australia Card. The Opposition rejects that view. In line with Senator Ryan's request made just a few moments ago with which we are delighted to comply, that there ought to be a constructive and bipartisan examination of the issues, we will now give her a constructive and bipartisan examination of the issues by referring the matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in order to do precisely that-to examine the issues in a constructive, bipartisan fashion and hopefully to assist her and the Government in bringing forward legislation dealing with such matters as privacy which will have the support of all sides of this chamber. I therefore move as an amendment to Senator Ryan's motion: At end of motion, add: ``(3) That, while, in recognition of: (a) the overwhelming public opposition to the proposed national identity card system; and (b) the determination of the Senate to exercise its proper constitutional rights to disallow the regulations necessary to give effect to the national identification system proposed, the Government is not now pursuing the Australia Card Bill 1986, it has nevertheless not given any guarantees not to introduce the legislation in an amended form nor to establish a national identification system by some other means, and the concerns of the Senate regarding the effectiveness, cost and imposition upon personal privacy still remain, the following matters therefore be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for report on or before 1 May 1988: (a) the provisions of the Australia Card Bill 1986 considered in the light of the reports of the Joint Select Committee on the Australia Card and of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee; (b) the feasibility of any proposed national identity system operating in the event of a failure of any one or more States to co-operate on the establishment of a births, deaths and marriages register; (c) the extent to which new or updated computer systems and recent crackdown campaigns on welfare cheating and tax avoidance and evasion have obviated the need for a national identity system; (d) the appropriate responses which should be made to the recommendations contained in the various Australian Federal Police reports on fraud against the Commonwealth and the Report of the Review of Systems for Dealing with Fraud of the Commonwealth; (e) the direct cost to the private sector in establishing and maintaining any such system; (f) the capacity of the proposed Data Protection Agency to adequately safeguard and protect the privacy of the individual and to control un- authorised use of any proposed national identity card and/or individual identification numbers by commercial organisations such as credit insurance companies and unincorporated associations and clubs; (g) the desirability, timing and nature of comprehensive privacy legislation in Australia in the light of concerns raised in the debate over the proposed Australia Card legislation; (h) the extent to which any proposed system should accord with OECD guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data (1981); (i) the extent of personal data held on Australian citizens by Government Departments and Agencies and by private sector agencies, its level of accuracy, access to it and its cross-referencing within the Government sector; (j) the security of data already held by Government Departments and Agencies; (k) the physical security of dedicated land lines and other data transmission facilities currently in use or proposed; (l) the appropriate range and level of penalties on individuals and other entities, which should be imposed for the improper use or release of personal data; (m) the evidence available from overseas as to the experience of other countries with identity card systems; including the taking of evidence from overseas expert witnesses; (n) the usefulness of any card and numbering system in achieving the objectives of reducing the extent of the cash economy, organised crime and large-scale tax evasion and welfare fraud; and (o) any matters relevant to the preceding.'' The terms of reference are somewhat different from those which were originally given to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in order simply to reflect the actual absence of the Australia Card Bill from being currently in the possession of the Senate, which will be the case when the motion, as amended, is agreed to and the Bill has been formally withdrawn. Nevertheless, there are a couple of matters to which I will make brief reference in dealing with the terms of reference. In order to demonstrate the value which I believe a continuing inquiry by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee will have for the Parliament and for the united efforts on both sides of the chamber to come to grips with the problems of privacy legislation, the adequacy of the Data Protection Agency as proposed, the costs to the private sector, the value of the upgraded computer system, the recent crackdown campaign on welfare cheating and tax avoidance, the comments made by the Federal police and the review of the system dealing with fraud of the Commonwealth, I point out that it will for the first time also permit a parliamentary inquiry to take a wider look at the extent of personal data held on Australian citizens by government departments and agencies. I want to turn briefly to a couple of matters within the proposed terms of reference. Firstly, I take the question of privacy. Sub-paragraph (f), which will become term of reference (f), refers to: the capacity of the proposed Data Protection Agency to adequately safeguard and protect the privacy of the individual . . . We believe that if the Government is serious about proceeding with having a Data Protection Agency, here is the opportunity to look at what was proposed in the Australia Card Bill and to make suggestions to the Government about how that Data Protection Agency should operate, how it should be established, what its powers should be and what its effectiveness should be in achieving the shared aims of protection of individual privacy and preventing the unauthorised use of data. Similarly, the Committee will note the desirability, timing and nature of comprehensive privacy legislation. We all accept that this is long overdue. Professor Morrison's report goes back to, I think, 1973. The report of the Law Reform Commission goes back to, I think, 1983. Here is an opportunity to look at questions of privacy legislation. The terms of reference go on to suggest the extent to which any proposed system should accord with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines on the protection of privacy and transborder flows of personal data established in 1981. Then we add a term of reference which I think is most important. It reads as follows: the extent of personal data held on Australian citizens by Government Departments and Agencies and by private sector agencies, its level of accuracy, access to it and its cross-referencing within the Government sector; This will be a first opportunity for a parliamentary inquiry to examine how much data is held on Australian citizens by the Government, by its departments and its agencies and, in response to legitimate points which have been raised on every possible occasion, how much information on individuals is held by the private sector agencies. It will test the accuracy of data held by government, which is a most important aspect to look at. It will examine who has access to that information and how much it is cross-referenced within the government sector. I was interested at Question Time today-and I see Senator Robert Ray is in the chamber-to hear the answers given by Senator Richardson about the exchange of data between the Australian Electoral Commission and the Department of Social Security. In fact, that was adverted to in the Joint Select Committee report in terms of a program matching exercise which took place between the Electoral Commission, the Department of Social Security and the Department of Immigration. But people do not know-it is not on the public record-precisely what arrangements exist within government for the exchange of that data. That may be perfectly proper and perfectly legitimate, but it needs to be put on the public record so that the Parliament can decide whether the internal arrangements made between the Electoral Commission and the Department of Social Security, or the Electoral Commission and the Department of Immigration, or the Department of Immigration and the Department of Defence, or whatever it happens to be, are proper and legitimate uses of that data, bearing in mind that the same people may well appear as having quite different characteristics on different records held by different departments. For instance, it is certainly possible that for taxation purposes a person may be seen to have dependent children or not to have dependent children, depending on their age, which may not be the same record as is maintained by the Department of Social Security or the Department of Employment, Education and Training, as the authorities making payments for these dependent children. Therefore, the same person may well appear in some departmental records as having dependants and in other departmental records as not having dependants. It is important to know that if there is cross linkage of these, there is some method by which the accuracy of the data can be verified and it does not act as a detriment to the rights of the individual concerned. We are also suggesting that the Committee should have a look at the question of the security of data and the physical security both of the holding of data and of the transmission of data. Honourable senators will recall that, in a series of questions asked in this place and in the House of Representatives of the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Gareth Evans, and of his junior Minister, the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, Mr Duncan, some quite different opinions were revealed about the security of dedicated landlines over which data is transmitted around the country. An admission was made, both by Mr Duncan and by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), that it is possible, in certain circumstances, for people to have physical access to this data. Here is an opportunity for the Committee to have a look at that question to see whether steps can be taken to improve the adequacy of the security of data when it is being transmitted in that fashion. We asked for the Committee to look at the range and level of penalties on individuals and other entities which should be imposed for the improper use or release of personal data. The penalties that are currently in place, which ought to have been used against those officers in the Health Insurance Commission who were involved in quite scandalous attempts to release information for party political purposes-as revealed in the leakage of information about doctors' incomes and, subsequently, the release of information relevant to the McGoldrick case-were not a sufficient deterrent to make people think twice about undertaking those sorts of activities. The Committee will be able to look at that. The Committee will be able to look at the available information and experience from overseas in exactly the same way as the first Joint Select Committee was asked to listen to the views of Mr Lars Tegnhed, the Director of the National Swedish Tax Board. Finally, the Committee is empowered to look at the usefulness of any card and numbering system in achieving the objectives of reducing the extent of the cash economy, organised crime and large scale tax evasion and welfare fraud. I do not believe that anybody could possibly object to those terms of reference as far as that is concerned. We have had a whole series of debates over questions of organised crime. I noted, for instance, a very interesting article which appeared in the September 1987 issue of Newsweek headed `A Thriving Trade in Fake ID's'. That is a very lengthy article on the extent to which quite sophisticated identity cards are subject to organised forgery in the university system in the United States of America which indicates the massive degree of sophistication which is possible to be brought to this question-and, after all, these are only student identity cards which are being forged in this case. A whole series of issues can be looked at in terms of the way in which any numbering or identification system will reduce the extent of organised crime rather than simply provide yet another avenue for the expansion of organised criminal activities. It will allow a proper examination of the question of the cash economy-something which the Joint Select Committee had a preliminary examination of but did not have the opportunity to study in great detail. Nobody on the Government side of the Senate has effectively answered the question of how any form of national identification system will have a significant impact upon the operation of the cash economy. The Committee will also look at questions of cost. One of the other great advantages of having this Committee inquiry will be to put an end to a large number of the lies and misrepresentations being told about the Australia Card, including the degree to which it would have any financial benefit to the Commonwealth. All sorts of claims have been made. The Prime Minister has claimed that it will save $1 billion. Senator Ryan has claimed that it will save $900m. Claims were made before the Joint Select Committee that it would save about $750m. Yet, as Senator Haines very rightly pointed out yesterday, all these things are subject to revision on the basis of the fact that there have been major changes made since those estimates were made and there has certainly been a large amount of double counting as far as those things are concerned. An editorial in the Australian Financial Review of 18 September this year states in part: The Government has not presented a skerrick of evidence to support its claim of a $1 billion improvement in tax revenue. In fact, it can hardly be denied that the round figure of $1 billion stands in its own right as a denial of the Government's claims-it is an estimate, plucked out of the air by some shadowy bureaucrat. This will simply allow the Committee to look at those issues now that we have additional evidence which relates both to the new taxation scales and to the new data which we have about the benefit or otherwise of the prescribed payments system. It will have a look at the extent to which the Government's internal rearrangements of the Australian Taxation Office and its more effective policing of the welfare system have allowed a number of the problems which were advanced before the Joint Select Committee to be adequately dealt with already. Therefore, the Opposition will persist by moving this amendment to the Minister's motion. It believes that ongoing and continuing inquiry by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee will provide the basis for sound legislation to be brought forward, particularly in areas such as privacy, and that it will take on board a lot of work which the Government admits was likely to occur when it brought in privacy legislation, which might well have then been referred to a Senate Select Committee or, if it had proceeded with its cash transactions legislation, which might well have been referred to a Senate Select Committee. In line with the Minister's claim, which we accept in good faith-that there ought to be constructive and bipartisan consideration of the issues involved-we will provide that constructive, bipartisan consideration of the issues by persisting with our amendment to the Minister's motion and having this matter referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for report by 1 May 1988. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(11.39) —Today the Senate is debating a motion that was put down by the Special Minister of State, Senator Ryan, in the following terms, in part: . . . the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 3] . . . This reference was made by this chamber to that Committee some two weeks ago and that Committee was to report today. The motion continues: That, upon receipt of the report of the Committee the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 3] be laid aside, without any further question being put. That would end the investigation and discussion, not only on the national identification card system that the Government originally proposed, but also on any alternative system. Indeed, it would prevent a committee inquiring into the effectiveness of other measures that this Government has introduced, in particular in the last 10 months but in general over the last four years, to crack down on tax and social security fraud. I was a little disturbed to hear the Minister say that she thought we ought to abandon all references of this kind because it is a waste of time sending these things to a committee and having a report brought down when, as she said, the Government has no intention of coming up with a national identification card system under another name. That is all very well and good and every senator on this side of the chamber at least is very pleased to hear that. However, the amendment which was moved by Senator Puplick and which we will support in fact covers a number of areas that I think require looking into in general. In particular, I refer to item (c) of paragraph (b), which states: the extent to which new or updated computer systems and recent crackdown campaigns on welfare cheating and tax avoidance and evasion have obviated the need for a national identity system. In the speech that I made on this matter yesterday I pointed out that over the last year or so the Government has instituted a number of extensive procedures to crack down on social welfare fraud and tax cheating-measures which, on the most conservative estimates available from departments, ministerial Press releases, Budget Papers and so on, have netted this Government in the vicinity of $823m annually in excess of that netted in previous years. As I said yesterday, most of us acknowledged that it is impossible to get blood out of the same stone twice. We cannot in fact do that trick with a national ID card system and hope to get the same amount of money. Therefore, for the Minister to stand up today, as she stood up yesterday, and complain that what we are doing is denying the Government of vast amounts of revenue flies in the face of the facts available from both Treasury and the Department of Social Security. It is important that this information be on the record and that it be put on the record in a way that only a Senate investigation can do. I am disturbed too that Senator Ryan seems to think that it is a waste of the time of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to look at what may happen in regard to the feasibility of any proposed identity system operating in the event of a failure of any one or more States to co-operate in the establishment of a births, deaths and marriages register. That is an important element if the Government is contemplating imposing a national ID system by any other name, which the Minister says it is not. It is also important if we are looking at upgrading tax file numbers to any extent. I make it quite clear that, at least in my lexicon, the word `upgrade' is not a synonym for `extended'. I think it is important to make that distinction clear. Currently we have a tax file numbering system that is anything but perfect. It needs upgrading, it needs to be improved and it needs to be made more useful. We cannot proceed with any form of use of that number secure in the knowledge that people hold tax file numbers genuinely in their own name. There are people in this country who do not have tax file numbers and who should, and people in this country who have two or three tax file numbers and who should not. Unlike Mr Wilson Tuckey, I do not subscribe to the view that those people are all decent, honest and law abiding citizens. I think it is mutually exclusive to be that and also to hold two, three or more tax file numbers. However, we need to know whether there will be any impediment to improving the integrity of that tax file number if State governments refuse to co-operate as far as births, deaths and marriages registers are concerned. Unlike Senator Ryan, I do not think it is a waste of time to find out the capacity of the proposed Data Protection Agency adequately to safeguard and protect the privacy of the individual and to control unauthorised use of any proposed system. Senator Ryan —Wait until you see the legislation, then. Senator HAINES —It is no good the Minister bleating at me that I ought to wait until I see the legislation. We need to know the capacity and effectiveness of any data protection agency and, indeed, of any privacy legislation. The Government knows as well as do senators on this side of the chamber that constitutionally there are some impediments to introducing effective privacy legislation that will protect ordinary citizens from data abuse by the private sector. Therefore, it is a valid requirement of this chamber that we know the basis on which we are working. If the foundations are going to crumble even before we get started, those foundations need to be fixed before we build anything more on them. That is what lies behind the amendment moved by Senator Puplick to the Minister's motion. We also need to look at the physical security of dedicated landlines and other data transmission facilities. Most of us know that a dedicated landline is certainly more secure than an ordinary telephone line. Nobody is going to argue about that. Nevertheless, before we start on something that may depend on the security of dedicated landlines we need to know just what integrity that physical security has. We need to know also the appropriate range and level of penalties that need to be imposed on individuals and entities following the improper use or release of personal data. I think that one of the problems with the old Bill was that far smaller penalties were proposed to be imposed on individuals within departments who leaked information-assuming such individuals could be found-than was proposed to be imposed on ordinary citizens such as employers and individuals who did not use the card when it was supposed to be used. Therefore, for the Minister to argue that it is a waste of time to prepare the groundwork before the Government goes off on another frolic is, I think, rather absurd. I am pleased also to note that Senator Puplick has himself learned a lesson from the last reference we moved to have this matter looked at by a committee. With respect, his reporting date of 1 May is a much more sensible one. Indeed, with the greatest respect to Senator Puplick, it is a much better reporting date. Senator Peter Baume —We know what that paragraph means, Senator. Senator HAINES —Indeed we do. In the language of this place, with the greatest respect, I think that Senator Puplick's reporting date of on or before 1 May 1988 is a far more reasonable one than the date he proposed earlier this year, having objected to our later reporting date. On balance, I think it is important that we get the foundations of any proposed system laid down and made secure. I think it is important that the Australian public and we in this place have information on which to base our support or opposition. I have acknowledged before that a lot of the opposition to the Australia Card was couched in highly emotive, somewhat irrational and fearmongering terms. I do not subscribe to that. As far as I am concerned there was enough in the Bill on which to mount an opposition without rampaging through the fear, confusion and incitement to riot that some people did. Senator Schacht —Fanned by your mob. Senator HAINES —So the importance of this reference is to get some facts into the argument-facts which have been missing from Senator Schacht's side of the chamber. I ask Senator Schacht not to enter this argument because he is responsible for what I believe is a $1m debt in the Australian Labor Party in South Australia. I ask him not to talk to me about how to organise finances; Senator Schacht would not know how to organise his finances. Maybe if Senator Schacht had had an inquiry into the system over there-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Haines to address her remarks through the Chair. Senator HAINES —Certainly, Mr Deputy President. I point out that for Senator Schacht to be carrying on as he is runs counter to the fact that he cannot even get the finances of the South Australian branch of the Australian Labor Party in order. Therefore, I think that he does not need to be listened to. On balance, I think it is unarguable that the terms of reference included in Senator Puplick's amendment need to be addressed by the Parliament. We will be supporting that amendment. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.45) —One thing I regret when there is a major political fracas is the rather inadequate analysis that follows because myths perpetuate, and there is the brilliance of hindsight-all sorts of things come forward. I think I heard Senator Puplick say today that the majority of Australians oppose the Australia Card. I am not sure that that statement is true. I do not think there is enough empirical evidence to justify that claim. I concede that at the moment the percentage is about 50-50 because, as the honourable senator would know, many of the polls that we go by have been quick ones, for example, by telephone and so on. I put this on the record about the Australia Card: We went through due process and we cannot be criticised for that. First of all we introduced legislation which was based on the views that we had expressed at the national Taxation Summit. That legislation was defeated in this chamber. We then brought it back to this chamber, having allowed a proper amount of time to go by. A joint parliamentary inquiry looked into the matter and it brought forward all sorts of conflicting evidence. We then had a double dissolution on this issue, as is required by the Constitution when there is a conflict between the two Houses. We then reintroduced the legislation into the House of Representatives where it was passed and we brought it back to the Senate. The reason that we are debating Senator Ryan's motion today is that we would have thought, normally and historically, that the due process was for a joint sitting and that that would resolve the matter. What some people have described as a technical deficiency in the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 3]-that it needed regulations to support it and that they would be knocked back by one chamber of the Parliament-in my view abrogates those provisions in the Constitution that the founding fathers meant to apply. I do not get excited about that matter. We talk about constitutional vandalism too much but definitely, on balance, I feel more comfortable morally and on the basis of principle than those opposite should when it comes to that point. Indeed, even the hero of the hour, Mr Ewart Smith, concedes that the Bill had no technical defects, that in fact that is the way Bills should be constructed in a democracy and that we should do things not by proclamation but by regulation. In any event, we did not initially introduce the Australia Card Bill as a double dissolution measure. Of course, a government is fairly much bound to present the same Bill the second time after a double dissolution, so the Australia Card Bill could not be altered. When it was introduced into this chamber some of us optimistically hoped that it would go through. I think there were some worried views on the other side of the chamber because there was talk of two or three senators crossing the floor to prevent a possible trigger for a double dissolution. It is interesting to note that two of the three senators are no longer members of this place. The Liberal Party of Australia dropped them off. Senator Jessop and Senator Townley have been disposed of. We on this side of the chamber-I go into the byways for just a moment, Mr Deputy President-are subject to discipline and we admit it. Those opposite are free spirits; they are free to go when they do not toe the party line. Senator Puplick —Tell us what happened to Senator Georges. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Georges resigned from the Party; he was not expelled. He would have been. The base line on the Australia Card debate is not so much a civil libertarian matter. The reason that the Liberal Party so courageously opposed it and the majority of Australians were in favour of it had nothing to do with civil liberties. It was basically a strategy to prevent and to deny the Government as much revenue as possible. The underlying theory of that is that the Government is denied revenue, the heat in the pressure cooker is turned up and therefore the Government has to apply other taxes or unpopular expenditure cuts. That is the name of the game; that is the 4 1/2-year strategy so far of the Liberal Party. Senator Ryan —It has not been one of its most successful. Senator ROBERT RAY —It has not been one of its most successful ones, as Senator Ryan points out. But that basically is it. Nothing stops the Liberal Party or changes the Liberal Party's strategy. That is the basis of it: to deprive this Government of revenue and therefore force it into new revenue areas or unpopular expenditure cuts. That was the original basis of Liberal Party opposition to the Australia Card. It would be untrue to say that the argument was then just dressed up in civil libertarian arguments because enough people on the other side believed in the civil libertarian arguments to give that basic strategy credibility. I do not imply that all Liberals who opposed the Australia Card did so from base motive but the actual motive behind it for the mainstream Liberal Party is as I have stated. The Liberal Party wants to persist with having an inquiry. Within a couple of days we have seen the Liberal Party go from unctuous principle to rather grubby opportunism. Let us look at this tax file issue. I ask myself why the Liberals and the National Party of Australia-I will come to the Australian Democrats at a later point-supported the upgrading and extensive use of a tax file number in the first inquiry. Did they believe in it or did they, lacking in courage, realising that a majority of Australians supported the Australia Card, just support the tax file number as a tactic, knowing that we would not support it because we had some doubts that it was not of the highest integrity? Did they support it just as a tactic to ameliorate criticism of themselves for opposing the Australia Card? The answer has come through very clearly in the last few days and it is yes. Their support of the tax file number was bogus; it was a mere political tactic. The Australia Card Bill is now finished. We have admitted it. Senator Ryan has moved a motion to withdraw it. Will the Liberal Party support a tax file number system? Probably not. It comes back to the central strategy. Massive civil libertarian arguments are not really involved here. There is already a tax file number. Its integrity is questionable because of the lack of a national births and deaths registry but that is a completely different argument. Again the Liberal Party starts backing off. Mr Wilson Tuckey has more than backed off; he has bolted. He can hardly be restrained by the rest of the Liberal Party. This matter comes back to the Liberal Party's central strategy. It will not support an upgraded tax file number because it will bring in more revenue to this Government. Alternatively, the Liberal Party will seek to delay the implementation of an upgraded tax file number so that no fresh revenue will come in before the next election. In turn, it wants to force us into a situation of imposing new revenue measures or unpopular expenditure cuts. In many ways a further inquiry would get the Liberal Party off the hook for a long while. Whilst we on this side of the chamber maintain that we want an upgraded tax file number, what will be the Liberal response throughout October, November and December through to 1 May? I will be very surprised if the report is in by 1 May. The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs will come back to the Parliament asking for an extension of time and if we do not grant it we are claimed to be undemocratic. The report will probably be presented in June, July or August next year. The Liberal Party does not have to say one thing on what it would do. It would say, `Let the Senate inquiry decide. This marvellous, impartial body with the wisdom of Solomon will go away and make a decision on this aspect'. Therefore, once again, the Liberal Party does not have to come up with any alternative policies. Over the last three years time and time again we have asked the Liberal Party, `What is your tax policy?'. It has been so critical of the fringe benefits tax, the lump sum tax on superannuation and of putting an assets test on pensions. In those three years the Liberal Party was negative. Time and time again we asked it what its alternative was. And what happened? An election was announced and it had to scramble together an alternative that made major mathematical blunders, that had at least $2.6 billion in unspecified expenditure cuts. The whole thing was a farce. Once again the Liberal Party is asking for another seven or eight months grace in which to say what it would do on tax policy and therefore we should have an inquiry. Senate inquiries do not have the wisdom of Solomon; they are not impartial; they are partisan committees, occasionally interrupted by a co-operative approach and objectivity. They will reflect the prejudices and the bias already existing in this debate. It cannot be argued that just by sending the matter to a Senate committee we will get absolute objectivity. Of course we will not. I hope that coalition members-I am not including Senator Puplick-actually attend the hearings this time, and are not like Mr Blunt, who occasionally drops in to committee hearings, be they of the Australia Card Committee or of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. We can always formulate great views! I think that he must be a man of great intellect, not to hear the evidence but to be able to agree with so many resolutions at the end. I hope that does not happen on this occasion. I hope that the people who force this motion through attend all the committee hearings and are very diligent about the matter. A couple of other points have been made in this debate. Senator Puplick mentioned the Australian Electoral Commission. He said that that matter is not on the public record. I hasten to disagree with him. Knowledge of the Electoral Commission records being given to government departments has had wide publicity. It was subject to fairly intense scrutiny by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. That was one of the reasons why the suggestion came out that maybe all electoral records should be more publicly available, rather than to specific departments. Also, all those records are subject to freedom of information searches. I think that the matter introduced by Senator Puplick was a red herring. I just want to go to one or two other points. One of the main justifications for holding a further committee inquiry was the allegation made by Senator Puplick and Senator Haines that our estimates of revenue gains from the Australia Card probably are wildly out. They might be right; I doubt it. But I have heard such accusations made before. We were told that the fringe benefits tax would not bring in anywhere near the revenue that we claimed. We always said our claims were conservative and we put in a bottom line figure. We have been proved right. It was claimed that our approach to substantiation was wrong; that we would be hundreds of millions of dollars out; and that it would not bring in that amount of revenue. We said we were conservative. We were; it brought in more money. We said the same thing about the capital gains tax. It brought in more money. We said the same thing about tax on lump sum superannuation. Again, it brought in the money we claimed it would, or a little more. Finally, when we made the claim in 1983 that we would create 500,000 jobs within one year, the cynical laughter wafted over from the Liberal Party. Again, we were proved correct. We have not had a bad track record on some of these predictions. No government is perfect but we have never been as far out as Senator Puplick and Senator Haines would have us believe we are on the Australia Card. We have been immensely closer to our Budget targets than was the Liberal Government in its preceding seven years. Generally, again we have been on the conservative side. If we have said the deficit would be $2 billion it has generally been under what we have predicted. So I do not really place much emphasis on the honourable senators' allegation. Let me just come to the last point. I listened to Senator Haines's plaintive plea for this matter to go to a committee. She is like someone who has been given a birthday party and wants it to last six months. She had one of her very few victories in politics and it is all too fragmentary and elusive; it is about to slip away. So she wants to have a big party for another six months to enjoy that success. I can understand that. It is very hard, when one does not have much success in politics, to let that one ephemeral moment disappear into the distance. But I believe the support by the Democrats for sending this matter to a committee is totally opportunistic. I really do. I listened three weeks ago to a couple of Democrat senators extolling in this chamber the virtues of the tax file number and saying how wrong we were to persist with the Australia Card. Now we have been defeated and thwarted in that legislation we ask the Democrats for their support for the tax file number. Where are they? They are disappearing off into the sunset like a pack of Bedouins disappearing into the desert, never to be found again. I am very indebted to Senator Cooney for an anecdote he told me the other day. It sums up the Democrats' attitude on this matter. In the middle of the Federal election at the Customs House in Melbourne-this is a large government building where members are housed-a window cleaner was washing windows high up on the building. Unfortunately, the mechanical device he was standing on collapsed and he was hanging on to his life by a thread. The emergency services were rung. All the television cameras came. What was the Democrats' contribution? Two of them ran out with a big sign saying `Vote Democrat'. That sort of opportunism has again been reflected here today. My two Democrat senatorial colleagues who are in the chamber do not come from Victoria and cannot be blamed for that, but that is the sort of opportunism they have been indulging in here today. The Democrats should do what is the hardest thing in politics: having won on this issue, they should win with grace. Over the next several months they will be coming up with a range of propositions on what they believe we should do in the expenditure area. The Democrats are very good at that and always have been. The one creative thing about the Democrats is their views on spending money. I do not disagree with them all. Sometimes I disagree with the priority. The Democrats will be coming to us and saying, `You should be spending money in this or that area'. But the one thing about which they never come to us-they have not come to us over 4 1/2 years about it-is on how we raise that money. When we have put propositions in this chamber sometimes they have supported us-and we appreciate that-but at other times they have frustrated us in terms of revenue raising and in our efforts to combat tax evasion and tax avoidance. On this matter, the Democrats have an opportunity to respond quickly. I cannot give a guarantee on how long it will take the Government to get its alternative package together. But if we have it together by the end of November, we will want to put it to this chamber and have it put in place. We do not want to have to wait for some nebulous inquiry to come back, maybe on 1 May, May Day, or, with an extension of time, the following August and be frustrated out of another year's revenue. In conclusion, I remind the Democrats what the base line of all this is. We are not talking about some fancy Dan tax avoidance scheme; we are talking about blatant tax evasion that has persisted in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, by which a large range of people are criminally evading taxation. We all agree that we must deal with it. Let us get on with it. We have had enough inquiries. We know what the issues are. I ask the Democrats to give us an opportunity to develop alternative legislation. Quite obviously, if that legislation is unsatisfactory, they will dud us and send it off to a committee. But I believe that they should have given us the opportunity to put forward an alternative package. It is only about two weeks since this issue was pronounced dead-and a week later the funeral was on. Now the Dem- ocrats should give us a chance to put forward an alternative package. As I said to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, the motives for sending this matter to committees are varied. They are basically opportunistic and political humbug. The Senate should reject Senator Puplick's amendment and support Senator Ryan's motion. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(12.02) —I will not detain the Senate long on this issue but I have to say that if Australians wanted some very hard evidence that the factor governing the position of the coalition on fraud and tax cheats is nothing but common or garden politics, rather than any proper attempt to come to grips with the subject, this amendment provides that evidence. It is a classic piece of humbuggery from Senator Puplick. We need only refer to the details of the amendment that we are expected to agree with to see that. The opening shot, part (a), says: the provisions of the Australia Card Bill 1986 considered in the light of the reports of the Joint Select Committee on the Australia Card and of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee; This part of the proposed amendment shows that the Opposition wants a committee to re-examine the Australia Card. Senator Puplick, in his contribution to this debate today, said that one of the concerns this committee would be able to investigate was the question of cost. What a classic piece of humbuggery it is to put that forward and, at the same time, have it as the opening shot of the proposed amendment to re-examine the Australia Card. The Government, the Senate and the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card conducted a very extensive pre-natal examination of that legislation. We are now having a debate where the corpse is being buried with full military honours. Senator Puplick wants to spend another fortune in public money to carry out an autopsy, a post mortem, on it. What a piece of absolute nonsense that is. We do not need it. We know why the legislation died. The cause of death is right in front of us. We do not need to spend any more money carrying out a post mortem. Yet that is what is proposed in part (a) of the amendment. I go on to indicate just a few other parts of what we are supposed to be agreeing with. I must say that I am extremely disappointed that-and this has been said already by other speakers from this side of the House-the Australian Democrats are supporting this amendment because the purpose of the amendment has nothing whatever to do with the Australia Card, as Senator Robert Ray correctly pointed out. It has nothing whatever to do with examining any issues connected with the card. When one examines the amendment one finds out why. Under part (f) of the amendment we have to examine: the capacity of the proposed Data Protection Agency to adequately safeguard and protect the privacy of the individual . . . Later the amendment continues: (l) the appropriate range and level of penalties on individuals and other entities, which should be imposed for the improper use or release of personal data; (m) the evidence available from overseas as to the experience of other countries with identity card systems including the taking of evidence from overseas expert witnesses; (n) the usefulness of any card and numbering system in achieving the objectives of reducing the extent of the cash economy, organised crime and large-scale tax evasion and welfare fraud; I will not waste any more time of the Senate by reading any more sections from this amendment which we shall vote on in a few minutes. I just wish to point out to honourable senators that every single section of this amendment was canvassed exhaustively by the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, of which Senator Puplick was a member. Senator Puplick —No, it was not. Senator COLLINS —I challenge Senator Puplick on that interjection. I stand by what I have said. I have carefully read every page of the Hansard transcript of the evidence put to that Joint Select Committee, as well as the report. I might add that I also read the exhaustive addendum to the report attached by Senator Puplick himself. Every single section of this amendment that I have just read out was examined. I do not say that all the parts of every section of the amendment were examined. Of course not. How could they be when some of the parts of the amendment refer to the fact that the Australia Card is now dead? But those particular sections of the amendment that I have just read out to the Senate were all exhaustively canvassed before the Select Committee. Senator Puplick, who has great concern about the expenditure of public money, wants to do it all again. I would say from my experience during my short time in this chamber and from having read the entire proceedings before the Joint Select Committee, that all these matters have been talked to death. There is certainly no need to examine them again. But, as Senator Robert Ray so accurately pointed out and as 10 seconds examination by anyone would reveal, the reality is that this proposal and this amendment have nothing whatever to do with any genuine attempt to come to grips with fraud or tax evasion. This is a classic procedure to maintain the prominence of Senator Puplick and Senator Haines for another six or seven months and to tie up the Senate in a lot of completely unnecessary investigation. What the Opposition and the Democrats should do-and they have the numbers to do so-is wait until a specific proposal for combating fraud and tax evasion is put before the Parliament by the Government and then, if they wish, refer it to whatever committee they want for examination of the issues raised by that legislation. If the Opposition and the Democrats are serious about this they should wait until they see what the Government proposes instead of dealing with Senator Puplick's fantasies about what might need to be dealt with. As I said before, a great deal of this amendment has already been done to death by the Joint Select Committee of which Senator Puplick was a member. I have my own ideas as to why they do not follow that course. Senator Haines raised the point during this morning's debate that she wants to examine the meaning of the words `upgraded tax file number'. She said, `Oh well, we cannot have a situation in which there is an extended tax file number. What is meant by an upgraded tax file number?'. Senator Haines must have been out to lunch on the day that that matter was examined in detail by the Joint Select Committee. A Mr McDermott of the Australian Taxation Office-and I have canvassed this issue in debates here already-spent four pages of Hansard transcript explaining precisely what was meant by an upgraded tax file number. There is no need for Senator Haines to support an amendment asking for a committee to examine it; it is already there. Why do we have to waste taxpayers' money in referring that issue again when it is already there in the transcript of proceedings of a joint select committee which has already held sittings? And it did not cost peanuts to run that particular exercise. If honourable senators want to know what an upgraded tax file number is I refer them to page 3964 of the Hansard transcript of the Joint Select Committee and they will find out. A precise description of such a number is contained there-a description, I might add, with which Senator Puplick agreed enthusiastically. I shall quote from the transcript. When the question of security of the data collected by the Australian Taxation Office was raised, there was an exchange between the Taxation Office and Senator Puplick which is worthy of quoting. The transcript reads: Senator PUPLICK —Mr Brown- that is Mr Bob Brown- is quite correct. If we all trusted every department as much as we trust the Tax Office, we would not have the problems that we have at the moment. I do not disagree with those sentiments of Senator Puplick. In fact, considering the millions of files and the highly confidential information that is held by the Taxation Office, it has an impeccable record of safeguarding that information. So Senator Puplick's statement is perfectly justifi- able. As far as the upgraded tax file number is concerned, Senator Puplick does not have any concerns about the retention of information by the Taxation Office and its ability to safeguard that information. His sentiments are already expressed there. Page 3960 of the transcript says: Senator PUPLICK —Let met test you on that. If in fact one were to have all of the procedures which are proposed for the issue of the Australia Card but in fact only at the end of the day issue a `tax file number', your problem would be overcome-- that is, the problems of the Taxation Office. The transcript continues: Mr McDermott-I still do not understand. What do we do with the taxpayer who is unable to prove his identity or unwilling to prove his identity for taxation file number purposes? Senator PUPLICK —You misunderstand what I am putting to you. What I am putting to you is that if we go through the whole of this procedure- that is, the procedure for interviews and the issuing of a plastic card without a photograph, a common number and the whole bit because that is what he is referring to and that is what Mr McDermott spent four pages of Hansard describing- but instead of issuing an Australia Card and an Australia Card number we simply issue a taxation file number, your problem is solved, is it not? Mr McDermott-Yes. Senator PUPLICK —Precisely. Thank you. That is not the same section of the Hansard transcript that I referred to in the debate on the Australia Card Bill a week or so ago. That is an additional section and if honourable senators are interested enough to go back to this transcript they will find consistent evidence of Senator Puplick's support for the upgraded tax file number as, indeed, he very precisely laid out in the final three paragraphs of the report which he chose to add to the report of the Joint Select Committee. We do not need any investigation of what an upgraded tax file number means. Senator Puplick and other members of that Committee are precisely aware of that and, as I have said, they agreed to it. Senator Haines, of course, is all over the place when it comes to the Australia Card. In her contribution to the debate that we had on this matter a couple of weeks ago she really intrigued me because in the space of five minutes she contradicted herself. She asked how the Australian Labor Party could claim that the Australia Card was an issue during the election campaign. She said that the issue was not raised by the Labor Party and that it was not an issue at all. Just five minutes later-and I am referring to the Hansard record on this-she said that the Australia Card was in fact the issue that got the Australian Democrats elected in the numbers that they are here in this chamber. I refer honourable senators to the Hansard transcript of that debate-thank God for Hansard! If one wants an indication of where Senator Haines is on this issue one can see that she does not know. It is an issue and it is not an issue. Senator Stone, as a National Party senator for Queensland, has been regaling us about his concerns over civil rights, the right and proper role of the Senate in knocking back this legislation by using regulations and the great value of the Senate as a House of review and so on. Like a lot of other Labor senators, I look forward to the political reforms that are instituted in Queensland under the leadership of Senator Stone because obviously, on the basis of his argument, that must include the complete redrawing of the electoral boundaries of Queensland and the re-establishment of the Queensland Upper House with, of course, a non-government majority. Senator McKiernan —Don't hold your breath. Senator COLLINS —No, I would not, either. The saddest part of this debate-and I was interested to hear this from Senator Puplick, who spoke at length the other day-is that when Labor senators challenged Opposition senators to tell us what they would do, they would not do so. The Opposition has not done so-apart from an extraordinary contribution by the spokesperson for the Opposition, Wilson Tuckey, and I am glad the Opposition has got him and we have not. However, apart from that and apart from the totally unworkable proposal for working for the dole that has been thrown up by Senator Puplick again, I have yet to hear what the Opposition proposes instead. We have 16 million people in this country, spread over three and a half million square miles, in thousands of isolated and tiny communities, and the feasibility of instituting on a national basis the principle of working for the dole is a nonsense. It would be impossible to introduce or police. Perhaps it could be done in isolated major urban centres, but not Australia wide. In order to comply with the principles of fairness and equity, it would have to apply to everybody, not just to selected people. Therefore, I do not know how Opposition members intend to implement that proposal-and that is the only proposal that they have put forward so far. When Opposition senators were asked by Labor senators what they intended to do, there was an interesting interjection from Senator Knowles, who called out, `That's your job-that's the Government's job'. Senator Puplick expanded on that and said `That is not our job. We are the Opposition. That's the job of the Government'. I am a newcomer to the Senate and to government. I do not know much about government, but I know a very great deal about opposition. I say as a dispassionate observer that in my view the Opposition in the Senate is pathetic. Over the last couple of weeks I have been interested to observe the abysmal performance of the Opposition at Question Time. It has failed to take opportunities which, were I on the Opposition benches, I would have grabbed very quickly. The Opposition in this place is not very good. Senator McKiernan —No leadership. Senator COLLINS —That is right, and that is the problem. Opposition members are nailed by the contributions of Senator Puplick and Senator Knowles to this debate. They have become a permanent opposition because they make comments as revealing and as asinine as, `We don't have any responsibility to put forward any constructive Opposition proposal-that is the Government's job'. That is what Senator Puplick said. Opposition members see their roles as expecting the Government to do the constructive things; the Government has to put up proposals and the sole responsibility of the Opposition is to knock them down. Opposition members have the hide to talk about a preoccupation on the part of this Government with the abuse of power. The reality is that in this chamber it is the non-government senators who have the power, and in my view they have used it irresponsibly over the last couple of weeks. If Opposition members want to be nailed down firmly as a permanent opposition with an opposition mentality, they should continue to utter sentiments such as those offered in the Senate the other day. Any opposition that has aspirations of becoming the government has a responsibility to put forward an alternative to propositions, and particularly to legislation, which the government puts forward, if it wishes to oppose and defeat government measures. Senator Puplick has put his remarks on record and I am prepared to take him at his word, as I think he would want most Australians to take him at his word. I invite Senator Puplick in this debate-and he has not done it so far-to go on record in this Senate saying that, as the leading coalition spokesman in the debate, he gives a commitment that he will support whatever legislation is brought into this chamber which is consistent with the proposals that he enthusiastically supported as a member of the Joint Select Committee. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Puplick's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 10 —— Alston, R. K. R. McLean, P. A.Archer, B. R. Macklin, M. J.Baume, Michael Newman, J. M.Baume, Peter Panizza, J. H.Bishop, B. K. Parer, W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Powell, J. F.Chaney, F. M. Puplick, C. J. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Reid, M. E.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G.Haines, J. Short, J. R.Harradine, B. Stone, J. O.Jenkins, J. A. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Knowles, S. C. Teague, B. C.Lewis, A. W. R. Vanstone, A. E.McGauran, J. J. Watson, J. O. W.MacGibbon, D. J. Aulich, T. Foreman, D. J.Beahan, M. E. Gietzelt, A. T.Bolkus, N. Giles, P. J.Burns, B. R. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Childs, B. K. Morris, J. J.Coates, J. Ray, RobertCollins, R. L. Reynolds, M. E.Colston, M. A. Ryan, S. M.Cook, P. F. S. Schacht, C. C.Cooney, B. Tate, M. C.Crowley, R. A. Walsh, P. A.Devereux, J. R. Zakharov, A. O.Devlin, R. Hill, R. M. Richardson, G. F.Brownhill, D. G. C. Button, J. N.Boswell, R. L. D. Evans, GarethMessner, A. J. Jones, G. N.Walters, M. S. Maguire, G. R.Hamer, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, agreed to. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Senate do now adjourn, to enable Estimates Committees to meet. The PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee D will meet in committee rooms 1 and 2, Estimates Committee E will meet in the chamber, and Estimates Committee F will meet in committee room 6. Prior to the sittings of the committees, the bells will be rung for three minutes. Senate adjourned at 12.27 p.m. The following answer to a question was circulated: (Question No. 33) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) How many claims have been received by the Commonwealth for stress or other health disabilities caused to Bank employees and those of other financial institutions by bank robberies. (2) How many of these claims have proved successful to the applicants, and what breakdown of mental and physical illness is available in respect of the Commonwealth Bank, Australian private banks, International banks, and other lending institutions who are known to handle ready money. (3) How many claims were directly attributable to confrontations with bank robbers or would-be robbers carrying firearms in hold-up attempts. (4) How many members of the general public during the same period have claimed for stress related medical conditions in similar circumstances, and how many have proved successful. (5) In relation to (a) employees of financial institutions involved in gun-related bank raids and (b) the public similarly involved, what has been the medical recovery rate. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Community Services and Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (5) This type of information is not available from any source within this portfolio. It is not possible to establish from Medicare data whether or not a claim is for a stress related condition, and certainly not what specific circumstances may have caused the condition. The Health Insurance Commission is not privy to clinical information in the routine processing of Medicare claims.