Tuesday, 8 December 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament assembled. The petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with the only nation-wide, independent radio and television service; that the independence of the Australian Broadcas-ting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia; that the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the honourable senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 30 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that: There is widespread concern at the increasing breakdown of public order in the A.C.T.. This breakdown is shown by the recent increase in reports of violent assault-one of which concerned the tragic death of a young man at a school fete. The involvement of groups of youths in some of these assaults causes particular concern. Such behaviour is affected by the ready availability, to young people, of alcohol and video and films which depict extreme violence. Your petitioners therefore ask the Parliament to: make unlawful the creation of a public nuisance by loitering; ensure the enforcement of laws which prohibit the public consumption of alcohol by under-age persons, and legislate to restrict the production, distribution and sale of material which depicts extreme violence. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Harradine (from 138 citizens), Newman (from 144 citizens) and Puplick (from 132 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on underta-king destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-86 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill, which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 202 citizens), Harradine (from 119 citizens) and Newman (from 255 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. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Bishop (from nine 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 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the proposed Australia Card is an intrusion into the rights of the individual in a free and democratic country. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Government not proceed with this legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 84 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration: The central administration of the Australian Government. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That new orders 12A, 12B and 12C and Section V of the Schedule contained in the Export Control (Fees) Orders as amended (Amendment), being Export Control Orders No. 17 of 1987 and made under the Export Control Act 1982, be disallowed. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Government for its cowardly and despicable act of hiding behind the statute of limitations in its defence against claims for compensation arising out of the HMAS Voyager disaster over 23 years ago, given that: (i) the Government has previously admitted liability for injuries suffered by at least six Victorian survivors; and (ii) in 1985, the Government repeatedly agreed to waive the statute of limitations for compensation claims, which subsequently led to the awarding of damages for negligence for two survivors of the Voyager disaster; (b) further condemns the Government for the fact that its actions are effectively denying natural justice to the more than 100 survivors in their proper and just claims for compensation; (c) notes the very severe criticism by Mr Justice O'Bryan of the Victorian Supreme Court of the way the Government has acted in this matter over the past two years; and (d) calls upon the Government to urgently reconsider its position on the compensation claims arising out of the Voyager disaster and settle, in an expeditious manner, all the outstanding matters in a fair and equitable manner. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Government response to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations Report on Non-Statutory Bodies. 2. Department of Health-Annual Report 1986-87-Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 3. Department of Community Services-Annual Report 1986-87-Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 4. National Capital Development Commission-Annual Report 1986-87-Together with the Auditor-General's Report-Pursuant to sub-section 24 (3) of the National Development Commission Act 1957. 5. Independent Air Fares Committee-Annual Report 1986-87-Pursuant to section 33 of the Independent Air Fares Committee Act 1981. 6. Pipeline Authority-Annual Report 1986-87-Pursuant to section 45 of the Pipeline Authority Act 1973. 7. Australian Sports Commission-Annual Report 1986-87-Together with the Auditor-General's Report-Pursuant to section 35 of the Australian Sports Commission Act 1985 and section 63m of the Audit Act 1901. 8. Australian Film Commission-Annual Report 1986-87-Pursuant to section 44 of the Australian Film Commission Act 1975. 9. Department of Housing and Construction-Annual Report 1986-87-Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. The report also contains the annual reports required by legislation of the administration of the First Home Owners Act 1983 and the Home Deposit Assistance Act 1982. 10. Australian War Memorial-Annual Report 1986-87-Pursuant to section 36 of the Australian War Memorial Act 1980. 11. Office of Australian War Graves-Annual Report 1986-87-Pursuant to section 13 of the War Graves Act 1980. 12. Superannuation Fund Investment Trust-Commissioner for Superannuation-Annual Reports 1986-87-Pursuant to section 162 of the Superannuation Act 1976. 13. Australian Electoral Commission-Annual Report 1986-87-Pursuant to section 17 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard paper No. 1, which is the Government response to the report on non-statutory bodies of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. Leave granted. The document read as follows- The Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations tabled its report on non-statutory bodies in August 1986. The report looked at that large and diverse class of Commonwealth bodies which are neither departments nor statutory authorities. It was based on a survey conducted by the Committee, which found that some information about some non-statutory bodies was difficult to obtain or quite unobtainable. The Committee's principal recommendation was that a central register of non-statutory bodies be established and maintained by a co-ordinating department, such as the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act already requires Ministers to publish statements about certain agencies for which they are responsible, either in the agencies' or in departments annual reports. The Government has decided, instead of having a separate register established, to require that information regarding NSBs be provided in annual reports either of NSBs themselves or of their parent bodies. The information will include some already required under the FOI Act, plus additional information. This decision meets the Government's concern to streamline and devolve administrative functions, while also responding to the Committee's concerns by ensuring that public sector accountability extends to the activities of NSBs. Other recommendations of the Committee relate to the kinds of information to be made available and the need for Ministerial and administrative supervision. In considering these secondary recommendations the Government has sought to avoid imposing a large administrative burden on non-statutory bodies and their parent bodies. As a result, while the Government accepts most of these recommendations, some have been modified. The modifications are set out in the attached Schedule of Recommendations and Responses. SCHEDULE OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESPONSES Recommendation 1: The Committee recommends that, for each NSB and each NSB sub-body, a document be prepared briefly outlining essential data and that the relevant Minister be responsible for lodging the document with a co-ordinating department such as the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, to form a central NSB register. The Committee further recommends that the register be completely established by 30 June 1987 and thereafter be continuously updated. Response: The Government has decided, instead of having a separate register established, to require that information regarding NSBs be provided in annual reports either of NSBs themselves (more than one report may be published in a volume) or of their parent bodies, as the respective ministers decide. Bodies about which information will be required are those consisting of one or more members, serviced wholly or partly at Commonwealth expense (either employing staff of their own or receiving regular secretariat support from staff of parent bodies), other than bodies of the following kinds: statutory authorities Offices supporting statutory office holders sub-bodies of statutory authorities created pursuant to legislation providing for the creation of such bodies. government companies departments or parts of departments inter-departmental committees Royal Commissions bodies created for fixed periods of less than 12 months Commonwealth/State consultative bodies with high level ex-officio membership only bodies established as integral parts of labour market programs administered by DEET or jointly with State Governments bodies consisting of departmental officers and representatives of one outside organisation. The exceptions listed above are intended not to qualify the Government's commitment to public sector accountability, but to provide for cases where other forms of reporting are more appropriate (and to avoid duplication of existing reporting requirements). The kinds of information to be included in annual reports are set out below in the Government's responses to other recommendations of the Committee. Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that the date of establishment of an NSB be recorded in the document in the central NSB register. Response: The Government agrees that information provided in annual reports should include the dates of establishment of new NSBs. In relation to existing NSBs, information regarding dates of establishment should be included in as much detail as is available. Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that in future no NSB be established without ministerial approval so as to ensure full ministerial knowledge and responsibility even when the establishment of an NSB is not a ministerial initiative. Response: The Government agrees that information provided regarding each NSB should include an indication that the NSB was created or continues to exist (according to whether it is a new or existing NSB) with Ministerial approval. The NSB's functions and organisation should also be subject to Ministerial approval. Recommendation 4: The Committee recommends that a date of termination of an NSB, or a period of time by which there must be a specific review of it, be included in the document in the central NSB register. Response: The Government agrees that annual reports be required to show the date on which each NSB will cease to exist or before which it will be reviewed (whichever is the earlier). Reviews should be conducted every 3-5 years; they should address the need for the NSB's continued existence, and, if there is a continuing need for the NSB, its functions and organisation. The outcome of any review that recommends the continuation of an NSB should be submitted for Ministerial endorsement and, if that is obtained, recorded in the next annual report. Recommendation 5: The Committee recommends that clear objectives be established for each NSB and that those objectives be included in the document in the central NSB register. Response: The Government agrees that annual reports be required to show each NSB's objectives and functions. Recommendation 6: The Committee recommends that the chairperson/members of an NSB should not be appointed for an indefinite period but that their terms of office be specified and recorded in the document in the central NSB register. Response: The Government agrees that annual reports be required to show, in relation to each NSB, any positions provided for ex-officio government members, any for representatives nominated by particular non-government organisations and, in relation to other positions, the maximum terms of appointment. Except where there may be little or no continuity of membership from one meeting to the next, the names of individual members and their terms of appointment should also be shown. Recommendation 7: The Committee recommends that guidelines for the selection of members of an NSB and a statement of their duties/responsibilities be determined and recorded in the central NSB register at the time of establishment of the NSB. Response: The Government considers that the criteria for selection of NSB members and the nature of members' duties/responsibilities can best be indicated by information to be included in annual reports regarding the objectives and functions of NSBs (see response to recommendation 5) and the bases of appointments (see response to recommendation 6). It should also be noted that the Government reaffirms the application of the merit principle in the selection of people for appointment to NSBs (see response to recommendation 9). Recommendation 8: The Committee recommends that NSBs take advantage of new communications technologies such as telephone conferencing to reduce costs. Response: The Government agrees that NSBs should take advantage of new communications technologies such as telephone conferencing, wherever savings can appropriately be achieved by these means. Ministers have been asked to direct NSBs and/or parent bodies in their portfolios to ensure that the best possible use is made of technological developments. It may be appropriate for such use to be recorded in annual reports. Recommendation 9: The Committee recommends that Ministers urgently examine the marked difference between the numbers of female and male NSB members and make an increased effort towards redressing the imbalance. Response: The Government agrees that there is a need to redress the imbalance between the numbers of male and female NSB members. It also intends to seek adequate representation of Aboriginals and people of non-English-speaking backgrounds on NSBs. Ministers have been asked to ensure the application of the merit principle in the selection of people for appointment to NSBs in their portfolios. They have been reminded that the Office of the Status of Women maintains a register of women suitably qualified for appointment to statutory and other bodies, and that a similar register in respect of people of non-English-speaking backgrounds is being established by the Office of Multicultural Affairs. Recommendation 10: The Committee recommends that Ministers review the status of NSBs which have not met for an extended period and review all NSBs with a view of rationalising the number and work of NSBs. Response: The Government has agreed that the existence, functions and organisation of NSBs shall require Ministerial endorsement (see response to recommendation 3) and regular re-endorsement (see response to recommendation 4). Ministers have been asked to ensure that the review process involved in meeting those requirements includes a review of the status of NSBs which have not met for periods longer than 12 months and a review of the scope for rationalising the number and work of NSBs. Recommendation 11: The Committee recommends that the Department of Finance initiate, and each NSB adopt, a financial system to ensure that adequate accounting standards and procedures are maintained and so that accurate financial information for each NSB is available. Response: The Government agrees that all receipts and expenditures of NSBs be recorded. The Committee's report indicates that some existing NSBs maintain their own accounts. In the case of these bodies and any new NSBs which establish their own accounting systems, it is the reponsibility of the respective Ministers (in consultation as necessary with the Minister for Finance) to ensure that accounting standards and procedures are adequate. Annual reports of these bodies' activities are to include audited financial statements. In the case of NSBs that operate through their parent bodies' accounts, the Government has decided that their activities should be incorporated in the program statements given in parent bodies' annual reports, so that receipts and expenditures are accounted for and reported on a program basis. Standard program budgeting techniques are to be adopted with performance related to objectives (see response to recommendation 5) and measured in terms of stated criteria. Recommendation 12: The Committee recommends that the remuneration arrangements for an NSB be specified in the document in the central NSB register. Response: The Government agrees that annual reports be required to show how the level of remuneration (if any) paid to members of each NSB is determined. Recommendation 13: The Committee recommends that Ministers determine clear financial arrangements (including sources of funding and expenditure) for each NSB and record those arrangements in the document in the central NSB register. Response: The Government agrees that Ministers be required to determine and annual reports to show how each NSB is funded. In addition, information should be provided regarding other financial arrangements (also to be determined by Ministers) such as the kinds of expenditure that can be made from the funds provided, and the nature of secretariat services provided and the way these are funded. Recommendation 14: The Committee recommends that if an NSB is to be responsible for distributing funds to other organisations or individuals, this is included in the document in the central NSB register. Response: The Government agrees that annual reports be required to show, in relation to each NSB, whether one of the NSB's functions is to distribute funds to other organisations of individuals. The amounts of each grant should also be shown in statements of the NSB's financial activities provided in the respective annual report. Recommendation 15: While the Committee believes it would be preferable for the Auditor-General to audit the accounts of all Government companies, the Committee recommends that where the accounts of Government companies are audited by private auditors, the applicable standards followed must be those approved by the Auditor-General. Response: Government companies are not covered by the requirements relating to NSBs. Consideration is currently being given to arrangements for implementing the guidelines for statutory authorities and government business enterprises announced by the Minister for Finance on 4 November 1987. Audit arrangements are being considered in the context of this exercise. Recommendation 16: The Committee recommends that, in general, an NSB should be accountable and that for each NSB the form of its reporting and the interval of time between reports should be specified in the document in the central NSB register. Response: The Government has agreed that an account of each NSB's activities should be provided either in an annual report of its own (or in a volume containing several NSB reports) or in the parent body's annual report. Parent bodies, in their annual reports, should list any NSBs of theirs which produce their own annual reports, showing to whom they are presented and whether they are tabled in the Parliament or made public in some other way. Recommendation 17: The Committee recommends that Ministers ensure that sufficient resources are provided so that each NSB can report adequately on its activities to the Parliament and the public. Response: The Government considers its decisions regarding NSBs to be one element in its broader range of measures to improve public sector accountability. It would expect the financial reporting requirements in respect of NSBs to be met from resources already allocated for the introduction of program budgeting. With regard to other reporting requirements, the Government has been concerned to ensure accountability without substantially adding to the burden on resources. Any application for increased resources to meet the requirements of providing information for annual reports would be closely scrutinised. Recommendation 18: The Committee recommends that there be adequate procedures for recording minutes of all NSB meetings and that each NSB consider whether its minutes should be publicly available. Response: The Government considers that NSBs which are operating efficiently with informal procedures should not be required to adopt rigidly structured procedures. The requirement to provide information in annual reports, together with the provisions of the FOI Act, should ensure adequate accountability. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. Has the Government set in train the tendering process for the letting of a new long term coastwatch contract? Bearing in mind the fiasco of the last tender process, part of which was blamed on the Christmas-New Year holiday shut-down in the Public Service, can he now assure the Senate that a new contractor will be selected by the time the temporary arrangement with Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd expires in March? If not, is it the Government's intention to extend indefinitely Skywest's interim contract? When will the Government finally get in place a new long term coastwatch contract of a standard which it so disastrously attempted to do earlier this year? Senator GARETH EVANS —I answered a question on this, I think, in the course of the Senate Estimates committee debate, and I really do not have anything to add to what I said on that occasion, which is that the tendering request for the new contract has not yet been formally issued, but it is the subject of very active consideration at the moment. The difficulty is that it has become apparent that within the sponsoring department, the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, there has been in train for some time now a review on the quarantine enforcement issue which has raised questions as to whether or not there should be a renewal of the coastwatch contract on exactly the same terms as previously, or whether there should rather be some amendment to the quarantine enforcement and coastwatch regime that is applicable. That has given rise to a tricky question as to just how long the present Skywest contract should be sought to be extended while that obviously important threshold policy question is resolved. I would expect the whole question to be resolved within a very short time and some clear guidance to be given to Skywest, which of course has the major interest in this as the continuing contractor for the present, but also in order that the situation can be put on a proper footing. There are and always have been quite complex issues involved in devising the best-the most cost efficient and the most effective-regime for the coastwatch function. Those questions continue to demand careful attention by the Government, and they will be given that attention and will be resolved before we leap into any ad hoc further process of extension of the existing contract. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. It is quite clear from that answer that the Government is not about to leap into anything. In view of the temporary nature-as I understand it, until March only- of the current Skywest extension, can the Minister say whether Skywest is prepared indefinitely to carry on until this now totally laborious and probably equally disastrous exercise is completed by the Minister? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Durack always used to tell me, when he was in government and I was in opposition, that he could not be too cautious about these matters of high policy and public administration, and I have taken an appropriate leaf out of his book. In light of the difficulties which have attended this contract, obviously each step along the way is being looked at very carefully indeed in order to ensure that the best possible value is received for the public dollar in the future, in a way that unfortunately was never able to be guaranteed to be the case during his tenure of various portfolios when these sorts of matters were in issue. Senator Chaney —Come off it! Why don't you do your job occasionally and stop looking after your mates? Have you ever heard of the public interest? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am entitled, in the spirit of Christmas, to make the odd gesture of this kind when I am challenged with indolence from the grand master in that particular discipline on the Opposition benches. There has been no unwillingness to come to grips with this issue. Of course, I acknowledge that the present contract cannot be extended indefinitely. Of course, the matter will have to be resolved very quickly. Of course, it is a very high priority for me and the Government, and we are giving it attention accordingly. Senator BOLKUS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article appearing in this morning's Melbourne Age newspaper headlined `Individuals set tax example'? Does the Minister agree with the comments attributed to the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Boucher, regarding the need for tax compliance in the company tax area to be improved in line with the improvements now evident in the personal tax area? Is this a matter of great importance for macroeconomic policy? Senator WALSH —I have seen the article. The matter certainly is very important in regard to macroeconomic policy. The article reports Mr Boucher as saying: We make no apology for intensifying business audit activities . . . Last year, audits of 58 companies with annual turnovers in excess of $100m yielded $2.7m per company. Only nine of these companies were found to have a clean bill of tax health. The article further states: Companies should follow the improved behaviour of individual taxpayers in complying with income tax law, the tax commissioner, Mr Trevor Boucher, said yesterday. That view is endorsed by the Treasurer and the Government. Companies have an obligation to comply not only with the income tax law but also with the other more general provisions of the Companies Act. This was the subject of a question answered by me in the Senate on 5 November regarding Senator Stone having been listed as at that date as a director of a company called Lartron Pty Ltd. Senator Stone, quite unjustifiably, took offence and made a personal explanation, even though I had made it perfectly clear, to quote myself, that `Senator Stone might wish the management of that company to correct that oversight'-that is, his still being listed as a director. I am advised that Senator Stone, as of 8 December, is still listed as a director of that company. Clearly, the company is in breach of section 238 (7) of the Companies Act. It may have gone into receivership. That is a possibility. But as the company is, apparently, too negligent to comply with its obligations under the Companies Act, and as there are people who do know that this issue has been raised in the Senate and that Senator Stone informed the Senate that he resigned, as he put it, in either January or February of this year, Senator Stone might wish to draw the attention of the management of the company to the oversight and to its obligations, both to him in a moral sense and to comply with the law. Senator MESSNER —I ask the Minister for Transport and Communications: Is it true that the planes presently used by Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd for coastal surveillance failed to satisfy the more stringent requirements of the recent coastwatch contract tender won by Amann Aviation Pty Ltd? For instance, is it a fact that the Skywest aircraft are fitted with bubble windows which give inferior visibility compared with the windows stipulated in the defunct Amann contract? Is it true that the same planes are now being used by Skywest under its current short term contract to perform coastwatch services? If so, does this not mean that, by its own standards, the Government is now mounting a second-rate surveillance operation along Australia's northern coastline? Senator GARETH EVANS —My recollection is that it is the case that the continuation of the contract is pursuant to the previous terms and conditions rather than to those spelt out in the request for tender for which Amann was the successful contractor. Accordingly, there are some variations in the physical conditions in the two contracts. My further understanding, however, is that the particular specifications for the location of bubble windows and the degree of vision that is accessible through those windows have been enhanced under the current contract. Nonetheless, under the previous contract there is no effective inhibition on the capacity of the observers to perform their task. If there had been any question of an inability of the previous contractor to perform the tasks given it, it is a question which would have arisen during the currency of the previous contract and not just during the present term of extension. There is no doubt that there are a number of improvements built into the present contract, but there is no basis that I am aware of for any imputation that the basic task is being any less well performed as a result. Senator Messner —I seek leave to table the list of deficiencies of Skywest aircraft. Leave granted. Senator MESSNER —I table the document. Senator BLACK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Government received any advice recently on the wisdom of implementing a consumption tax? What is the nature of this advice and will the Government be accepting it and acting upon it? Senator WALSH —The Government has been getting advice from all over the place about the question of a consumption tax. For example, a National Party member of parliament, Mr Michael Cobb, who I understand is the secretary of the coalition's treasury and finance committee, has come out favouring a consumption tax at a flat rate in replacement of the present wholesale tax, which is levied at different rates. Last week we had some advice about the efficacy and appropriateness of introducing a broad-based consumption tax from a more traditional source of advice to the Government, Senator Stone. In his weekly column, while giving a few plaudits to the `Joh for PM' campaign, from which Senator Stone ultimately came into the Senate, he noted that the `Joh for PM' campaign had: Put paid to notions then current in the conservative camp in favour of a broadly based consumption tax. That notion is apparently presently being revived by one of Senator Stone's National Party colleagues, Mr Cobb. The next morning we found that the reason Senator Stone believed it was so necessary not to have a broadly based consumption tax was that a coalition government could not be trusted. I am sure not many people would disagree with him about that. In the Sydney Morning Herald of last Thursday, Senator Stone was quoted as saying: In an interview with the Herald, Senator Stone said: `I support a consumption tax in principle, but I simply have said that until we get this big government in Canberra straightened out, there is no room for increasing taxes or introducing new taxes-especially new taxes. The big job of the next government is to cut spending. The report continues: Asked if this meant that a Coalition Government, of which he would be a senior member, could not be trusted to resist using a new tax as a substitute for spending cuts, he replied: `That's right.' He is also quoted as saying: It hasn't a ghost of a chance- that is, a broad-based consumption tax- it is bad economics and bad politics. In an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's AM program the next morning, Senator Stone said: I'm simply saying that to have a broad-based consumption tax would be so crazy that no sensible person would be part of it. On the same program he was asked what he would do if, subsequent to the coalition's review of its tax policy, it adopted a proposal for a broadly based consumption tax. He said: . . . I wouldn't, of course, in that case be in the coalition. In the space of 24 hours we had Senator Stone saying that a broad-based consumption tax was `bad economics and bad politics' and `so crazy that no sensible person would be part of it', in spite of the fact that he supports a consumption tax in principle. The Government is not suffering from any shortage of advice on the question of whether there should be a consumption tax, but most of the advice comes from within the National Party. It is highly confused, highly contradictory and difficult to make any sense of at all. Senator MACKLIN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. It concerns the decision of a Cabinet committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, to dispatch Australian military forces to the Persian Gulf war. Is it not a fact that the Australian Government made its decision without requesting or receiving a formal written request from President Reagan for Australian involvement in the Gulf war? Is it also not a fact that the Prime Minister, despite advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, declined an offer from the American Secretary of State, Mr George Shultz, for the American Administration to put in writing its request to the Australian Government? Will the Minister give an undertaking that, should any written request from President Reagan for Australia's involvement in the Gulf finally arrive, it will be tabled in Parliament? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will refer the specifics of that question as to the tabling of letters, hypothetical and otherwise, to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Minister for Defence and see what responses they care to make. On the larger issue, while it is true that yesterday the Government discussed the possible deployment of a Royal Australian Navy diving and clearance team to the Persian Gulf, this matter remains under consideration. The decision whether to deploy a team of Navy divers will be guided by a number of considerations-our desire to maintain a strictly even-handed policy on the Iran-Iraq war, our commitment to the principle of freedom of navigation in the Gulf, our desire to maintain good relations with the nations of the region and our support for efforts by the United Nations Secretary-General to bring an end to the conflict. The Government's clear and continuing commitment to neutrality in the war and our support for the basic principles of international conduct being equally applicable to all countries in the region are not changed by the present consideration of the deployment of divers to the Gulf. Senator BURNS —Is the Minister for Home Affairs aware that, during the extraordinary sitting of the Queensland Parliament last Wednesday, the National Party member for Broadsound used the veil of parliamentary privilege to attack the Australian Electoral Commission? Can the Minister comment on Mr Hinton's allegations of political pressure within the Electoral Commission in connection with his prosecution and conviction under charges arising from the Commonwealth Electoral Act? Senator ROBERT RAY —Mr Hinton was reported in last Thursday's newspapers as telling the Queensland Parliament the following: I also put to the House that the timing of events and obvious political pressure applied to the Commonwealth Electoral Office and subsequently by that Office must lead one to seriously question the independence and neutrality of that organisation. If I have any complaint, it is that the Electoral Commission was absolutely and without question totally fair in this matter. The Deputy Electoral Commissioner wrote to the Australian Federal Police in Queensland on 9 September 1986. In that letter the Electoral Commission advised: In order to avoid allegations of party political bias, the investigation would need to be concluded before the announcement of the Queensland State election or left until after polling day. On 12 September the Acting Chief Superintendent of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Federal Police indicated that there would be a delay. Accordingly, the investigation was left until after the Queensland State elections in 1986. Mr Hinton also apparently finds something suspicious in the fact that the summons in this case was issued a few days after the 11 July Federal election. The Federal Police wrote to the Electoral Commission on 6 July 1987 indicating that its investigation had concluded and it was awaiting advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions in Brisbane regarding a prosecution. A complainant summons was issued by that Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions on 13 July-the Monday following the Federal election. There is no doubt that the Electoral Commission and the Federal Police acted with political impartiality. I, for one, would have very much enjoyed Mr Hinton being charged a few days before the Federal election. I would have, fairly cynically, made some political capital out of the fact. But the Electoral Commission and the Federal Police did not take that course; they acted with absolute integrity, which is more than I can say for Mr Hinton. Senator KNOWLES —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. Did the Government receive a report that a person named Spiridon Apokis was or had been a director of Continental Venture Capital-the company which financed Amann Aviation's purchase of aircraft for the coastwatch contract? Who prepared that report, which I understand was totally without foundation, and on whose information was it based? Did the Government investigate allegations that directors of Amann or Continental Venture Capital were drug users or drug smugglers? Will the Minister confirm that such allegations are totally baseless? Senator GARETH EVANS —I cannot recall, without checking the file, whether anyone of the name that Senator Knowles mentioned was the subject of any specific allegation or investigation. I will need to check that. My clear recollection is that a whole variety of allegations were made about people associated with the company and were referred to the Australian Federal Police. They were the subject of checking and the subject of conclusions that there was no foundation for any such belief. That was certainly true in the context of the allegations that I can remember having been made about drug trafficking and so on. Whether it is true of the allegation that may have been made about the person to whom Senator Knowles referred I do not know, and I will have to take that on notice. I will give her an answer as soon as possible within the next day or two. Senator JONES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I refer to the proposed meeting between the leaders of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I ask: What is the Government's assessment of the likely outcome of the forthcoming meeting in Washington between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think our assessment is that the treaty is likely to be signed. My brief states that the Australian Government warmly welcomes the decision of the United States of America (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to sign a treaty, which I assume they will consummate in the next day or so, which will eliminate all their intermediate-range nuclear weapons. This intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) treaty will be signed by President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev at the meeting taking place in Washington over the period from yesterday to 10 December. While INF weapons do not constitute a large proportion of the global nuclear arsenal, this agreement will create an historic precedent because it is the first agreement to eliminate a complete class of nuclear weapons and to reduce overall nuclear arsenals. The agreement is particularly welcomed in Australia because it includes systems deployed in Asia as well as in Europe. Although in terms of the overall number of nuclear weapons the percentage of weapons reduced is small, the number is still substantial, involving about 1,900 Soviet and 850 United States missiles deployed or held in reserves or in stocks. However, these measures should not be looked at in isolation. They are important indications of the improvements that are taking place in USA-Soviet relations. They both reflect and contribute to greater confidence and trust in each other. This in turn enhances greater faith in their own security, which improves the prospect of further arms reductions in the future. One of the really important achievements of the INF treaty, and the one which I think that Australia is keenest of all to applaud, is the advances that it did make in the very difficult area of verification. Disarmament and security cannot be treated in isolation. The Australian Government very much welcomes the progress which the United States and the Soviet Union have made in building the confidence required through their progress on verification arrangements. It is the Australian Government's hope that the INF agreement will stimulate progress in other areas of arms control, particularly of the kind that we have been pursuing through multilateral organisations and forums. In particular, we hope that it will encourage the two sides to negotiate a strategic arms reduction treaty to make large stabilising and verifiable cuts in Soviet and American strategic nuclear weapons. Senator McGAURAN —Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General aware that Mr Justice O'Bryan of the Victorian Supreme Court in his decision of 4 December was severely critical of the Government for hiding behind the statute of limitations in its defence against compensation claims by HMAS Voyager survivors? In particular, I draw the Minister's attention to a comment by Mr Justice O'Bryan, who said: This ruling is most unfortunate and reflects poorly upon the conduct of the defendant. That is, the Government. Why has the Government acted in this cowardly and despicable manner, given that it had previously admitted liability for injuries suffered by at least six Victorian survivors and that in 1985 it had repeatedly agreed to waive the statute of limitations for compensation claims? Why is the Government denying natural justice to more that 100 survivors of the Voyager disaster in their proper and just claims for compensation? Will the Government urgently reconsider its position on the compensation claims and settle all the outstanding matters in a fair and equitable manner? Senator TATE —I thank Senator McGauran for his question. I understand that notice was given of a motion covering much the same ground. Therefore, I will not engage in the debate, which I might otherwise be tempted to do, because the opportunity will no doubt arise as a result of the motion. The fact is that the HMAS Melbourne-HMAS Voyager collision took place on 10 February 1964, according to my brief, which is more than 23 years ago. The general principle invoked is that the Commonwealth should not now be presented with new claims unless there is a very good reason for the delay. Members of the Melbourne and Voyager crews, of course, were aware in 1964 that claims could be lodged against the Commonwealth. In 1964 there were 60 claims by dependants of deceased members and 232 claims for loss of kit and personal effects. Four actions against the Commonwealth had been commenced and there were three notices of intended action. The then Attorney-General publicly stated in Parliament his view that the High Court of Australia had jurisdiction to deal with such claims. There comes a time when matters are stale and fall within the possibility of being covered by the statute of limitations. I am sure that Senator Durack would know that attorneys on all sides of politics in various jurisdictions have decided to take advantage of the statute of limitations, which of course is available. Senator Alston —Then why did you admit liability? Senator TATE —Well, I am quite sure that Senator Durack invoked it at various times during his illustrious holding of that august office. As a result of the delay over 23 years, the Commonwealth has suffered prejudice in defending the recent claims and has pleaded the statute of limitations in accordance with long-standing policy of Attorneys-General. When initially acting on the basis that the above defences would not be pleaded, officials were relying on the then Government's decision in 1964. After careful consideration the Attorney-General decided, for the reasons I have given, that that decision should no longer be relied on and the Commonwealth was granted leave by the Court to amend its defences. In answer to Senator McGauran, I have not read in detail the judgment of Mr Justice O'Bryan in the Supreme Court of Victoria, although His Honour, of course, did decide that the Commonwealth had not waived the defence and was not estopped from pleading that defence. No criticism was made by the Victorian Supreme Court in earlier stages of the matter, such as before the Master and Mr Justice Vincent. Nevertheless, criticisms were made by Mr Justice O'Bryan. But, of course, it is for the Executive Government, in reliance on the statute of limitations, to make these decisions, and the decision was taken in accordance with long-standing practice and policy. Senator CROWLEY —My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. In the Budget the Government allocated $1.6m to a campaign against domestic violence. In the light of the Victorian legislation introduced last week and the South Australian Government's announcement last week about domestic violence, can the Minister say at what stage the Federal campaign is, and how it does or will fit with the State initiatives? Senator RYAN —It is the case that the Government decided at the time of the last election to respond to the very widespread concern expressed by women from all kinds of backgrounds about the incidence of domestic violence in our community. Although law enforcement and legal controls over violent partners in these cases is a matter for the States, the Commonwealth believes it is appropriate that we try to offer the community some assistance in reducing the incidence of these tragic events. Consequently, we have allocated a $1.6m appropriation for an education campaign aimed, first of all, at raising within the community a consciousness of the extent of the problem and then at providing, particularly for the victims but also for the potential perpetrators of domestic violence, information that may be of assistance to them. Agencies were invited to submit proposals to undertake market research as the initial stage in developing the campaign. That research is about to be commissioned. The campaign will have three overall objectives: to increase community awareness that domestic violence is a criminal offence; to inform victims of the options that are available; and-of course, the most difficult and most important thing to do-to change community attitudes towards domestic violence. The Prime Minister has written to State Premiers, the Northern Territory Chief Minister and the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories seeking their support in conducting the campaign on a co-operative basis so as to complement the excellent work already undertaken, including the recent legislative changes referred to in Senator Crowley's question, by the States. Further, we will seek their nominations for a national co-ordinating task force. There is no doubt that the work already undertaken by the States and Territories makes a wider-ranging multifaceted campaign timely. Of course-I know that this is something Senator Crowley will be particularly interested in-the project will include measures appropriate to all cultural groups, including Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. Senator LEWIS —My question, directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, is about the sectoral plan for the textiles, clothing and footwear industries initially announced by the Minister in a Press release late last year and expanded by him shortly prior to the last election. Does the Minister recall claiming in the Senate that the first principle which guided the Government `during its consideration of an appropriate future strategy for these industries' was that predictability and stability of policy would be essential in such complex industries if they are to restructure and rationalise operations? In view of the Minister's answer to my question yesterday, will he now give the Senate and these industries an undertaking that the Government will abide by the terms of the plan which he announced? Senator BUTTON —It is inevitable that, in the life of a plan in which continuity and predictability are seen as major objectives, there will be adjustments and changes along the way. For example, Senator Lewis will know that that has happened in respect of the motor vehicle plan, which it was announced could operate for a period of years. There have been substantial adjustments in the course of that plan. Senator Lewis —The plan hasn't started yet. Senator BUTTON —Just a minute; let me finish. I am trying to answer the honourable senator's question. No doubt, during the course of the textiles, clothing and footwear plan, adjustments will be made. So the answer to the honourable senator's question is that there may well be adjustments to the plan, but the essential elements will be maintained. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State in her capacity as Minister responsible for the drug offensive. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether the Government has, as part of the national campaign against drug abuse, set in motion any programs explaining the dangers of tranquilliser abuse? Is it a fact that more than 70 per cent of tranquillisers are issued to women and that a large percentage of these are migrant women? Finally, are any measures proposed to reduce the rate of prescribing these drugs for women? Senator RYAN —It is a distressing fact that, of tranquillisers prescribed in Australia, over 70 per cent are prescribed for women and, within that group, the majority of recipients of tranquilliser prescriptions are migrant women. In some ways, I suppose that that is understandable. It is understandable that migrant women seek the assistance that they believe-often wrongly-that tranquillisers can provide them, because migrant women are faced with even more pressures than are other women in our society. Often they find themselves working in blue collar occupations and being subjected to a lot of physical and psychological stress. Usually they have the complete responsibility for the management of their household. They have to deal with cultural and generation conflicts. Often their children have a different attitude to the home culture from that of the women themselves and their husbands. If they experience marital or family difficulties, as of course many women do, often they are isolated from an extended family network or from close friends who could give them the kind of support that they need. Consequently, they seek some sort of assistance from tranquillisers. The problem is a very great one because, in many cases, they do not understand how to use the tranquillisers safely and, in their somewhat desperate circumstances, they are very susceptible to overdosing on the tranquillisers, which aggravates their problems enormously and does not provide them with any assistance at all. In recognition of this fact, our Government made available a grant to the Leichhardt Women's Community Health Centre to develop a video which would warn migrant women of the dangers of tranquilliser abuse and to assist them to see that there are much safer alternatives available which will assist them through difficult periods. The video was also supported by the New South Wales Department of Health, with a grant of $10,000, and there was a grant of $18,205 from our drug offensive. I had the opportunity to launch the video, called Medicina Amara, at the Leichhardt town hall last week with the migrant women who had made it themselves. I must say to honourable senators who are interested in this very serious problem in our community that it is an excellent resource for any health or community workers working with migrant women. The video is available in Spanish, Italian, Polish and Turkish, with English subtitles, and it has been produced in a multicultural version, using all four languages, which is suitable for television. The video will be circulated to hospitals, health centres and rehabilitation centres for loan, free of charge, or it can be bought for $35,000 from the Leichhardt Women's Community Health Centre. Senator Puplick —For $35,000? Senator RYAN —Sorry, I meant $35. I can see Senator Puplick getting into another Estimates committee phase. I think $35 is a very reasonable price for those who can afford to pay it. This is a most practical and informative video and it addresses a very serious problem among our female migrant communities. I hope that those honourable senators who have health centres in their communities or who have particularly close relationships with the ethnic communities-as I know some honourable senators do-will avail themselves of this very important resource to help migrant women through these difficult problems. Senator PARER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy and Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer the Minister to recent reports of a proposed joint venture in the Soviet Union for an aluminium plant-I think a refinery-near Vladivostok and to remarks attributed to the Prime Minister that under the arrangements he made recently there will be a two-year tax holiday for this new investment, a 30 per cent tax on repatriated profits only and no tax on re-invested profits in Russia. I ask the Minister: Does this mean that Australian participant companies will not have to pay tax on foreign profits earned in this sort of joint venture? If so, why is the Soviet Union being given special consideration compared with the rest of the world? If not, what would be the advantage to the Australian participating company? When is it expected that this investment will take place? Senator WALSH —I have heard something about a proposal for an aluminium smelter at Vladivostok, but all the other matters that Senator Parer has raised are new to me. I do not have any information on them, and I will see whether I can get an answer. Senator CHILDS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Has the Minister seen an article by Professor Blainey in the Australian of 5 December lamenting the fact that discussion on the intake of non-English speakers has slipped from the public agenda since the comments of Senators Sheil and Stone in the Senate on 23 November? Does this reflect a greater tolerance in the Australian community than in sections of this chamber? Senator REYNOLDS —The simple answer to Senator Childs's question is yes. While Professor Blainey may be disappointed that the discussion has not taken off in the Australian community as perhaps Senator Sheil and Senator Stone would have liked, I am sure that the majority of Australians are very pleased, for very good reason. The public has more insight, and Australians generally have fewer prejudices, than has Professor Blainey. Professor Blainey writes from a minority point of view and he has very limited understanding of the bipartisan Australian immigration program. The immigration program plays an essential role in economic and social development and population building in Australia. As I advised the Senate on 24 November, the greater proportion of the Government's migration program is directed towards economic benefit and is designed to select skilled migrants to fill labour market needs immediately, business migrants to contribute to economic development and independent and concessional migrants who are immediately employable, young, skilled and educated. Selection criteria are designed to ensure immediate economic contribution. Assessing employability has regard to likely language requirements of the specific occupation of employees or employers. These categories account for 52 per cent of this year's migration program. At the same time the Government maintains its commitment to social and humanitarian programs which allow reunion with close family members and entry on refugee and special humanitarian grounds. Entry for these people is under relaxed requirements and in this context it would be quite untenable and, indeed, quite unthinkable to deny people reunion with close family members such as spouse, children or parents or relief from refugee situations or on humanitarian grounds just because of a limited fluency in English. Those without fluent English can possess many other valuable assets and skills obtained without cost to the Australian taxpayer. Furthermore, it is a very misguided view that many of those who are now arriving without fluency in English will not quickly acquire it. Senator BOSWELL —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. I refer the Minister to his statements in Estimates Committee F hearings on 22 October when he said that some $300,000 had been spent on eight consultancies investigating the effects of World Heritage listing on north Queensland. At that stage he advised that only one consultant's report had been submitted and received, that of the eminent biochemist, Dr Keto, and her non-biased rainforest conservation society! I now ask the Minister whether any of the six socio-economic consultancies appointed have made their reports and, if so, why have they not been made available to members of this Parliament for debate prior to the announcement of the World Heritage boundaries expected this Friday? Senator RICHARDSON —I thank Senator Boswell for his question. We have received preliminary reports from a number of the consultants; we have received final reports from none. They will be received in January. When they are received they will form the basis for a submission on compensation that I shall make to the Cabinet. It would be pretty ridiculous to make submissions on compensation to Cabinet before we had received the results of the consultancies; that would defeat their purpose. However, that does not affect an announcement on the boundaries because the decision to list the wet tropics for World Heritage listing is taken on the basis of their intrinsic heritage value. As Senator Boswell would well know, those magnificent forests definitely have that value and I am sure that next year the World Heritage Committee will accept the nomination. Senator BOSWELL —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Would it not be equally ridiculous for the Minister to declare the boundaries without having the reports in his hand? Senator RICHARDSON —I thought that I had answered that question but I will have another try. Apparently the honourable senator needs some assistance on this issue. Senator Sanders —Speak slowly and in one- syllable words. Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Sanders thinks I should use monosyllables. Okay, I will try to answer the question slowly. The decision to list areas for World Heritage listing was not made on economic grounds but on the heritage values of the areas. However, any compensation package for north Queensland must obviously be based on economic grounds. So we are waiting for the socio-economic reports to come in before we make a decision, or, at least a recommendation, on compensation. As Senator Boswell well knows, there are other reasons why the compensation package has been delayed. The honourable senator has not been urging the new Premier of Queensland to come to the negotiating table and consult with us on how we can help north Queenslanders. I would have thought that that is exactly what Senator Boswell's job is-and should be. The real worry I have is why the Liberal Party of Australia will not stand up against the National Party; why will Senator Puplick not tell the world where the Liberals stand? I am told that we will have to wait until next August to find out. I think that Senator Puplick should tell us right now; next August is too late. Senator COULTER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. I noted her reply a moment ago in relation to the consumption of tranquillisers by migrant women. My question relates to the Port Pirie Education Centre, where there are a large number of migrant people, including migrant women. Is the Minister aware that the Port Pirie Education Centre is to be left unfunded by her Government after December? Is the Minister also aware that the education centre, which has been operating for over 12 years with government support, is now providing an excellent, widely accepted and appreciated service to the people of the Port Pirie region, and has been successful in attracting outside grants? Does the Minister agree that to build up an organisation such as this over that length of time and then to remove its funding is a wasteful way of operating? Will the Minister attempt to provide the $45,000 base grant requested by the Port Pirie Education Centre? Senator RYAN —The Government is very well aware of the value of education centres. The education centres were actually set up as a part of the Whitlam Government's Schools Commission program back in the 1970s, and many of them have survived and flourished since that time. There is no questioning of the overall value of education centres, particularly those that operate in rural or isolated areas, as they are able to assist teachers and other people interested in education to get access to better resources. However, in the budgetary constraints of last year's Budget, it was necessary to streamline the education centres program in terms of Commonwealth funding. I should point out to Senator Coulter that education centres are able to get funding from a variety of sources. They are able to get funding from other Commonwealth agencies, and often do. They are able to get funding from State education agencies, and often do, and they are also able to take on work from the community, so they are not reliant necessarily on direct funding under the education centres program. The Port Pirie centre has received funding from other sources. For example, in 1987 it received funding from the Commonwealth, under the projects of national significance program, to conduct research concerning the education of girls in rural areas. That was a one-off grant, and it is an example of the capacity of the Port Pirie Education Centre to attract funding from sources other than the education centres program. At this stage, there are no proposals to revive recurrent funding for the Port Pirie centre, although that matter may be considered in next year's Budget. However, the Port Pirie centre is, as I said, able to get funding from other sources. It is incorporated as a community organisation and no doubt will be able to get alternative sources of support. I should point out in conclusion that there is still a good geographical spread of directly Commonwealth funded education centres. There are other centres in the Iron Triangle which have continued to be funded and the Port Pirie centre, as I said, has been able to get a one-off grant from the Commonwealth Schools Commission. It is well placed to get other smaller kinds of grants in the future. Senator PUPLICK —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women and for the Bicentenary. Is the Minister aware that there is only one personal memorial to Captain James Cook located anywhere in Great Britain, namely a family burial monument in the Church of St Andrew the Great in Cambridge? Is she further aware that this memorial is now threatened as a result of a proposal to demolish the church and build a shopping centre? What steps has her Government taken to persuade the British Government, or what steps has it directly taken itself, to ensure the preservation of this monument? Senator RYAN —As far as I am aware, the answer to Senator Puplick's question is none-no steps whatsoever. I am not aware of any, and I am not entirely sure that it would be appropriate for us to take any. After all, if it is a memorial that has been supported by the British authorities, it is up to them whether they continue to support it. I would remind Senator Puplick that the main thrust of the bicentennial program for next year in Australia is a broad-based recognition of the achievements of all the elements of this society-Aboriginal Australia, multicultural Australia and women in Australia. It does not leave out a recognition-- Senator Walters —Men, too? Or do we leave them out? Senator RYAN —I do not know why Senator Walters is interjecting in such a disorderly fashion. After all, the Bicentennial Authority has had the benefit of Senator Walters's presence for some time. She probably knows more detail about what the bicentennial program is about than I. Generally, the thrust of the bicentennial program is not historical, although there are some historical elements in it. The weight of funding for programs is for programs which will benefit the Australian people generally and then various parts of Australia-rural Australia will benefit greatly from the great travelling exhibition, remote Australia will benefit from special programs and so forth. The British Government may have some intentions with regard to the Captain Cook memorial. I will make inquiries about that, but it would not be a matter very high on our Government's agenda. Senator PUPLICK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for her answer, which once again betrays the clear prejudice which this Government has in its Bicentennial program against our British heritage in the foundation of this country. I ask her: As the memorial is not a British Government memorial, and despite the fact that as Minister responsible for the Bicentenary one would have expected her to know something about this significant memorial in Great Britain, is her answer to my previous question to be taken as an indication of the priorities which this Government has as far as the Bicentennial celebrations are concerned, particularly bearing in mind that the saving of this monument by the British Government would not be at any cost to the Australian taxpayer? Senator RYAN —I had better reply to Senator Puplick's supplementary question, otherwise he will rush out a Press release saying that the Government has placed our British heritage as the lowest possible priority. As that is not the case, I had better point out to Senator Puplick that we have placed on record our appreciation of the British Government's very generous gift to the people of Australia as a bicentennial memento, that is, the Young Endeavour sailing ship which will participate in the tall ships in Sydney Harbour on 26 January. That will be a long term gift to the people of Australia. It will be used to provide sailing experiences for school students, particularly those in disadvantaged circumstances. I am sure that all the students who have the opportunity to enjoy some sailing experiences on the Young Endeavour will be in no doubt either of the fact that it is a gift from the British Government or that it is a gift that is an appropriate recognition of the contribution made by Captain Cook in his voyages of discovery. There is also to be a loan from the United Kingdom for exhibition in Australia of the original Act by the British Parliament which set up the Australian Parliament. A facsimile copy of the Act given to us by the British Government will form a part of the travelling exhibition. I have also acknowledged that gift on behalf of the Government. One of the major art exhibitions, the Terra Australis exhibition, will contain a number of accounts of Captain Cook's voyages of discovery and a number of items in recognition of the work of Joseph Banks, the great botanist who accompanied Captain Cook on some of his voyages. So there will be no doubt at all about the historical contribution of British sailors, navigators and botanists to the early settlement and discovery of Australia and our region. Senator ARCHER —Will the Minister for the Environment and the Arts advise, as a result of the Nella Dan incident, the full extent of, firstly, any pollution damage in the sub-Antarctic, secondly, the costs to and obligations of the Australian Government to the owners of the vessel and, thirdly, the repercussions for our Antarctic program and the scientific investigations for this season? When can the Senate expect an announcement that an Australian-owned replacement vessel will be acquired? Senator RICHARDSON —All the crew and passengers on the Nella Dan, bar six of the crew and an officer of the Antarctic Division, are now being transported on the Icebird to Hobart and are expected to arrive at 12 o'clock on Friday. The crew remaining will await investigations into the possibility of salvage. However, to go to the various parts of the question-I hope that I got them all down-the first part of the question related to pollution. It is true that some light diesel oil has spilt into the sea. It is of such a nature that it evaporates and dissipates very quickly and, according to the zoologists and biologists who have been monitoring it on Macquarie Island, it has done very limited damage. I am also told that a very small amount of light oil escaped as well. I understand also that this has done the minimum of damage, but obviously I am still awaiting a full report, given the difficulties of communication that we have had. There are still some 500 tonnes of light diesel fuel on the vessel. It is, however, at this stage secure and will be pumped out when a replacement vessel arrives. The next question that I think Senator Archer asked concerned costs to the Australian Government. The cost of getting another vessel is being borne by the company which has operated the Nella Dan. As far as the costs of removing the people from Macquarie Island are concerned, I shall be talking to Lauritzen about those costs very shortly, but I think they will be borne by it as well. As for the repercussions on science, unfortunately I have to report that the critical marine science program which is essential for Australia to play its role as a leading advocate for conservation within the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources will not be able to be carried out this year. A decision on what will happen next year will depend on the availability of a suitable vessel for next season. We are, of course, at the moment examining lists in the world shipping market to try to make certain that we can get another vessel. However, as honourable senators are probably aware, the Lady Franklin has been obtained by us and will arrive in Hobart, I think on 15 January. It will then be fitted out with some extra lifeboats and accommodation modules and resume work. We believe at this stage that other programs will not be affected. However, I will give honourable senators a further report on that if anything else occurs. As far as an Australian-owned vessel is concerned, fortunately I have been working on a submission on a replacement vessel for the Nella Dan over the last couple of months and have lodged for Cabinet consideration already a proposal for that. That proposal will go before the Cabinet next Monday. I think it inappropriate to discuss the submission now, but I shall give a full report once Cabinet has considered the matter next week. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. I draw the Minister's attention to a recent article in the Australian entitled `Tourism boom faltering'. According to that article, the senior economic consultant with the Australian Tourism Research Institute, Mr Geoff Carmody, has said that smaller investors in the tourism industry could have their hands burnt as signs emerged that the growth rate in Australian tourism had peaked. Mr Carmody also said smaller operations with money tied up in areas experiencing less growth, such as Tasmania, Western Australia and South Australia, would be worst hit if their investment expectations exceeded the tourism boom. Mr Carmody suggested the Government could best serve tourism by `getting out of the way' and allowing more industry self-regulation. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether the Government intends to adopt the approach suggested-and if not, why not? Senator RICHARDSON —Whilst some indicators might show that the rate of tourism growth has levelled off in recent months, that would have to be seen in the context of the phenomenal growth we have had over the last few years. Obviously it would be impossible to expect that a growth rate of 25 per cent per annum could be sustained indefinitely. Some operators may have entered into commercial arrangements which exceed the reality of that situation, but I believe that they would be very few. Most operators in Australia do their homework, know what they are getting into and have a reasonable expectation of what the possible rate of return might be. Obviously, some areas of the country are doing better than others when it comes to tourist visitors. Senator MacGibbon —Queensland, for example. Senator RICHARDSON —Queensland does very well when it comes to tourist visitors. I go there all the time. I am a regular visitor-I love the place. I just wish it were better run, that is all. There is no evidence, however, to demonstrate that overall growth is falling. Demand in some areas-particularly accommodation-has grown at a slightly lower rate than supply. However, the important point to note is that both are growing. The rate of employment growth has fallen slightly, but it is still 7 per cent for the year ended June 1987. That again follows a period of extraordinary growth last year. That hardly constitutes evidence of a faltering industry. Honourable senators should also be reminded that it is Government policy to reduce regulation. The decision to terminate the two-airline agreement is a good example of that. However, the suggestion that the Government should get out of the way altogether fails to recognise that it has been through the Government's commitment to the industry, with substantially increased funds for tourism promotion, that we have created a favourable economic climate that has provided the climate for sustained growth. Sustained growth is what we have seen and the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Mr John Brown, can take considerable credit for it. Senator BUTTON —At Question Time yesterday Senator Vallentine asked me a question relating to United States sailors, acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and various other matters. She was particularly concerned about Customs and health checks for United States sailors and asked whether the Government did not have primary responsibility to prevent that sort of thing. I have now obtained an answer to the honourable senator's question, which is as follows: Customs is following up certain information which has now come to hand concerning the allegations made on the Four Corners program on 30 November 1987. That information will be provided in due course. Under the Status of Forces Agreement, visiting United States servicemen are subject to all Australian laws, including Australian Customs laws, which apply to persons arriving from overseas. Customs in Western Australia has been planning for this visit for some time and will apply appropriate control measures and whatever restrictions are necessary to prevent or detect illicit drugs being imported. The United States Navy screens personnel for AIDS as part of regular health checks. The implication of the question was that Australia should impose some tests on visiting foreign nationals which it does not impose on its own citizens. I stress that the United States Navy does screen personnel for AIDS; this is a condition of service in the United States Navy. In addition, United States vessels carry their own medical staff, whose responsibilities include the detection and notification of sexually transmitted diseases as well as AIDS. Persons established as having, or suspected to have, sexually transmitted diseases or AIDS are kept on board their ships. Senator BUTTON —On 26 November Senator Lewis asked me a question about the offsets policy. I now have an answer for him, which is as follows: As part of changes to the organisation structure floating from the Prime Minister's announcement on 14 July on machinery of government changes, the offsets function has been moved from the Innovation and International Division to the Industry Development Division of my Department. This will allow the operations of the offsets program to be more effectively integrated with the respective industry policy areas of the Department, particularly as regards the aerospace and information industries. There will also be improvements in the flexibility of resource allocations to the offsets program. The continuity of offsets negotiations currently under way will not be affected. These changes mean that the largest part of the offsets group has been shifted to the Light and Service Industries Division, which has policy responsibility for these areas. The changes do not result from the recommendations of the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts on the implementation of the offsets program. I anticipate responding to the Minister for Finance shortly on the recommendations of that report. In its report the Joint Committee noted that, while no one claimed that corruption had actually occurred, several people saw it as a possibility. I have given careful consideration to the Committee's recommendations, some of which will be implemented in the context of the administrative arrangements for the Australian civil offsets agreement, the signing of which was announced last week. A review of the offsets database is currently under way with a view to improving its usefulness as a source of data on offsets performance. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 26 November Senator Chapman asked me a question about aid to non-government organisations in the Philippines and I indicated a willingness to seek further information for him. I have that further information and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Government aid funds are provided to Australian non-Government organisations to subsidise their activities in the Philippines under the AIDAB/NGO Co-operation Program. The arrangements for this program have been built up as a result of many years' co-operation between AIDAB and voluntary agencies. As a result there has been a build up of knowledge in AIDAB about NGO projects: while no system can be totally foolproof, I can confirm that allocations are carefully assessed by the Joint AIDAB/NGO Committee for Development Co-operation (CDC) to ensure that projects comply with the guidelines which emphasise developmental criteria to assist the neediest sections of the community. agencies are required to properly account for subsidies and report on their projects. AIDAB monitors the submission of these project reports and examines them carefully on receipt. subsidised projects are also visited by CDC Project Review Teams, according to a schedule set by the CDC, to ensure that they comply with the description contained in the original application, as well as to assess effectiveness. additionally, NGO projects may be visited by the staff of Australia's diplomatic missions. Voluntary agencies co-operate with AIDAB to provide details of their operations and/or projects. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I seek leave to make and have have incorporated in Hansard a statement relating to the overseas visit to Singapore, the Soviet Union and Japan by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Leave granted. The statement read as follows- From 27 November to 4 December, the Prime Minister made an official visit to Singapore, the Soviet Union and Japan. I make this Report to Parliament on the issues raised during that visit. The Prime Minister's principal purpose in making the trip was to assess the nature, direction and implications for Australia of the policies being pursued by the new Soviet leadership-in particular as they affect our region-in order that we may be well placed to respond to any new political or commercial developments that may arise. On his way to the Soviet Union, he made a brief visit to Singapore, to deliver the 1987 Singapore Lecture; on the way back, he held talks in Tokyo with the new Japanese Prime Minister Mr Takeshita. During a stop-over between Singapore and the USSR he also had a useful talk with the Prime Minister of Bahrain Sheik al-Khalifa on the situation in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, and on bilateral matters. SINGAPORE In Singapore, the Prime Minister held useful discussions with Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Deputy Prime Ministers Goh Chok Tong and Ong Teng Cheong. These talks reaffirmed the close, friendly and cooperative relations which Australia enjoys with Singapore. While in Singapore, he delivered the 1987 Singapore Lecture on the topic ``The Challenge of Change in the Asia-Pacific Region''. The invitation to deliver this lecture was extended to the Prime Minister by Mr S. Rajaratnam, Senior Minister, Prime Minister's Office, on behalf of the Institute of South-East Asian Studies. In the Lecture, he discussed a number of developments likely to have an important influence on our region in the forthcoming period-principally, the emergence and modernisation of China, the current reforms in the Soviet Union and the requirement of the major Western economies to solve their fiscal and current imbalances and to resist protectionist pressures. The Prime Minister drew particular attention to the paradox that at a time when both China and the Soviet Union are, in different ways and for different reasons, giving greater recognition to the Western concepts of competition and open markets, the leading Western economies are making disturbing moves in the opposite direction. In particular, we are facing a growing threat to our collective prosperity from the pressures of protectionism in the United States, Western Europe and Japan. The Prime Minister made the point that economic reforms, however necessary, can be stalled or frustrated where they are not accompanied by a cooperative response from the whole community. The bottom line in achieving successful change is the informed cooperation of those who will ultimately be charged with implementing it and those who will be affected by it. This broad prescription is particularly valid in democratic societies whose institutions are created for the purpose of public involvement in public affairs. It is an essential task for all societies, whatever their political systems, to win the understanding and acceptance of their entire communities in the making of necessary changes. The importance of this task is, I believe well understood by the current leadership of the Soviet Union. It is the Prime Minister's visit to that country to which I now turn. THE SOVIET UNION From 29 November to 2 December, he visited Leningrad and Moscow at the invitation of the Government of the Soviet Union. This is only the second visit made by an Australian Prime Minister to the Soviet Union, although it was the fifth visit Mr Hawke had made. Since he was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Hayden, his visit in fact represents the most senior level of contact which has taken place between Australia and the Soviet Union. This high level of contact is appropriate in view of the significant global and bilateral context in which the visit took place. The policies of perestroika and glasnost which are being pursued by General Secretary Gorbachev and his colleagues are of potentially profound significance for the internal arrangements of the Soviet economy and society. Beyond that, we in the West, including Australia, may well be profoundly and directly affected by those new policies through, for example, improved Soviet economic performance and greater involvement in the world economy. Perhaps most significantly of all, we will be affected by the new directions in Soviet foreign policy which are related to the internal reforms. They include a stated intention to become more involved in the Pacific region, some greater sensitivity to Western concerns about human rights issues, and, of course, a commitment to engage in far-reaching negotiations over arms control and disarmament. Bilaterally, the Soviet Union is an important, though still unpredictable, customer for Australian primary products. Government to Government contacts have been steadily improving since 1983 including, most significantly, the valuable visit to Australia last March of the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr Shevardnadze, and the constructive preparation of the four agreements signed in Moscow by Mr Hayden and Mr Shevardnadze last week. Accordingly, the talks the Prime Minister held with Mr Gorbachev, with the Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, Mr Ryzhkov, and with other Soviet leaders, were aimed principally at exploring the style and substance of perestroika and glasnost in domestic policy and ``new thinking'' in foreign policy. His objective was to advance further the already improving relationship between the Soviet Union and Australia in trade and other contacts, and to encourage greater Soviet flexibility on humanitarian issues including family reunion and the free movement of Soviet Jews. He sought also to discuss global and regional issues including the INF agreement and the prospects for further arms control agreements, and Soviet activities and intentions in Afghanistan, Indo-China and the Pacific region. The Prime Minister made it clear, of course, that Australia's relationship with the USSR would continue to be based for our part on our continuing membership of and commitment to the Western Alliance-an alliance which is not solely of a military nature but which derives its greatest strength from a shared and enduring commitment to the values of freedom and democracy. Mr President, before I address the substance of these discussions let me take this opportunity to comment on the statements which the Federal Opposition issued during the visit. I put to one side the Opposition's apparently wilful distortion of the Prime Minister's remarks in Singapore where he said he would welcome a constructive-I repeat, a constructive-involvement of the Soviet Union in our region, and where he cautioned that we would judge them not by their words but by their actions in, for example, Indo-China and Afghanistan. Australians have paid a very high price indeed for the predilection of the conservative parties in this country to project their domestic political preoccupations onto the screen of foreign policy. One need only recall the tragedy of the Australian involvement in the Vietnam War to recall both the myopia with which the then Liberal-Country Party Government viewed our region, and its determination to derive and advance domestic political gains from the region, which it failed, or refused, to comprehend. That was more than fifteen years ago. But it seems the current leaders of the conservative parties have learned nothing of the lessons of the past. Indeed, to judge by their recent statements about the Soviet Union, one would be forgiven for assuming the Opposition yearns for the confrontationist days of the Cold War, when any issue could be judged simply in black and white terms. The essence of the Liberals' world view, which we are now seeing applied to the Soviet Union, is that we should explicitly ignore any signs of change and continue to operate on the assumptions of the past. That attitude-which not coincidentally has also coloured the conservatives' view of events in China-is at odds with that of conservatives overseas such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Nor is it one shared by significant parts of Australia's business community. Nor, I believe, is it shared by the Australian people as a whole. The Prime Minister put it to Mr Gorbachev that he would never find Australia frightened of ideas. We would always be prepared to discuss any concept or idea advanced by the Soviet Union or anyone else as to ways in which existing mechanisms for dealing with regional problems may be improved. That is a frank and constructive approach which enhances Australia's capacity to protect its own interests and influence events in the region. It is not, apparently, an approach of which the Opposition approves. But they are an isolated Opposition. In holding out against a cautious and deliberate response by the West to events in the Soviet Union, the Australian conservative parties are showing themselves as isolated from the mainstream of foreign policy thinking as their election defeat in July showed them to be isolated from relevant domestic policy. Mr President, while in Moscow the Prime Minister held more than eight hours of formal talks with Mr Ryzhkov and other Ministers and a further 3 1/4 hours with Mr Gorbachev. Despite this generous allocation of time they were not able to cover fully the fascinating and complex question of the nature of the changes underway in the Soviet Union. However, this much is clear. The Soviet leadership has embarked on a wide ranging and genuine attempt at restructuring the Soviet economy. They are motivated by a recognition that the Soviet command economy-an economy which for instance requires 200,000 separate decisions on wholesale and retail pricing-was, as Mr Gorbachev had put it, in a ``pre-crisis condition''. They recognise too, that changes are necessary if the Soviet economy is to resume its growth and if, in particular, the unfulfilled material needs of Soviet citizens are to be met. The measures suggested clearly do not amount to any renunciation of Marxist-Leninist principles. However there is an explicit acceptance that excessive emphasis had been placed on the notion of centralised planning of enterprise-level activities. As Mr Ryzhkov put it, this had led to the loss of creativity in the workforce; egalitarian tendencies, as he put it, hindered others from exercising initiative and resulted in apathy. Since the late 1970's the economy had begun to perform well below its potential. Such sentiments convince me of the genuineness of the Soviet leadership's commitment to change in domestic economic practices. They leave unresolved of course the question of whether the leaders will be prepared, or permitted, to go far enough to make a success of perestroika. Clearly, great changes of attitude are required on the part of both the government and the governed. Political pressures will undoubtedly impose their limits. Mr Gorbachev and his colleagues will mix vision with caution as they seek to implement their plans. What can be said is that the changes proposed are in the right direction and if carried through hold the potential for some improvement, perhaps significant improvement, in the efficiency of the Soviet economy. Certainly there will be no overnight transformation. Restructuring and openness have a long way to go in practice. Clearly therefore we must not be naive or complacent. But, on the whole, the talks have created a sense of cautious hope for the long term. The implications of perestroika for international trade are profound. The Prime Minister had lengthy discussions on trade with Mr Ryzhkov; the First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers and Chairman of GOSAGROPOM, Mr Murakhovsky; and the Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers and Chairman of the State Foreign Economic Commission, Mr Kamentsev. His discussions with Mr Gorbachev also ranged over multilateral and bilateral trade issues. At his meetings with Mr Murakhovsky and Mr Kamentsev the Prime Minister was accompanied by a delegation of 11 Australian businessmen. This allowed those businessmen to make direct contact with the top echelons of the Soviet leadership and to express their views to the leadership on ways of facilitating and expanding trade and other forms of economic co-operation between Australia and the Soviet Union. Mr Ryzhkov emphasised on a number of occasions that as an integral part of perestroika, the Soviet Union wanted to become, as he put it, ``organically involved in the international division of labour''. The Soviet Union was seeking to do this through both multilateral and bilateral approaches to the rest of the world. Mr Ryzhkov and the Prime Minister agreed that the Australian-Soviet trading relationship should be put on a more stable footing. One of the four agreements they signed deals with economic co-operation, which offers the prospect of expanded commercial exchanges between our two countries. The other agreements, covering space science, sport, and medical co-operation, also hold out the prospect of closer and mutually beneficial ties between Australia and the Soviet Union. Mr Ryzhkov and the Prime Minister agreed that progress towards remedying the trade imbalance between Australia and the Soviet Union-which heavily favours Australia-should be through growth in trade. In that context, Mr Ryzhkov provided a detailed list of products that the Soviets believed might find a market in Australia. The Prime Minister undertook to make the list available to the Australian business delegation and to Bill Hayden. The Prime Minister indicated that in redressing the trade imbalance the Soviet Union should play its part by getting to know the Australian market better. In that context he made an offer for a Soviet delegation to visit Australia to familiarise themselves with the requirements of the Australian market. His offer was accepted and the delegation will visit Australia at a mutually agreeable time early next year. He also invited the Soviet Government to send a Ministerial representative to Australia-the Prime Minister if he could find the opportunity-to share in our bicentennial celebrations next year. Perestroika also encompasses the concept of joint ventures between the Soviet Union and foreign companies, with a 49 per cent holding by the foreign partner. This is an area in which a number of Australian companies will have considerable interest and therefore will give us the opportunity to derive a mutual benefit from these new changes in the Soviet Union. As a first concrete step in fostering joint enterprises between Australia and the Soviet Union the Prime Minister urged the Soviet leaders to expedite the approval of a proposal by Comalco for a joint venture integrated aluminium complex in the Soviet Far East, ultimately consisting of a one million tonne per annum alumina refinery based on Australian bauxite, and a half million tonne per annum aluminium smelter. Each of Messrs Gorbachev, Ryzhkov and Kamentsev undertook to have the proposal considered as a matter of priority and expressed optimism about its approval. Other areas of potentially expanded economic cooperation identified during our meetings included agricultural machinery, food processing, sheep breeding and shearing, cattle breeding, forest products, and mineral extraction and marketing. The involvement of Western companies, including Australian firms, in the development of the Soviet economy, on mutually advantageous terms, can only have a positive impact on East-West relations. Just as the ``open door'' to China has been welcomed by us, it is in our interests to have an open mind to economic cooperation with the USSR. Let me turn now to the second of the elements of the Soviet reforms, namely glasnost. We must understand that the Soviet leadership is not trying to reproduce liberal Western democratic features within the Soviet Union. Far from it. But there are some attempts to allow greater freedom and greater diversity of expression, and these will succeed, in my opinion, to the extent that perestroika succeeds. In other words, any lifting of the dead hand of the command economy and any devolution of decision-making power in economic affairs will encourage and almost inevitably be accompanied by a greater desire and capacity to exercise the freedoms suggested, in however constrained a way, by glasnost. The Prime Minister pressed Mr Gorbachev and the other Soviet leaders firmly, but without antagonism, on the merits of a greater respect for individual human rights within the Soviet Union. Australia has been negotiating with the Soviet Union for several months on a human contacts agreement which aims to win Soviet commitments to a more liberal approach in this field. Negotiations continued during my visit, including directly between Mr Hayden and Mr Shevardnadze. Though agreement has yet to be reached, progress was made during the visit and we shall continue our efforts in the future. Mr Gorbachev understands that the differences between the Soviet Union and the West on human rights are fundamental and our capacity to have full and constructive cooperation will reflect our perceptions of progress in this area. Australia is concerned about family reunion, about the right of Soviet Jews to emigrate, about the right of entry and exit for visits and about the plight of prisoners of conscience in the Soviet Union. We have been achieving progress in family reunion and we welcome this. We also recognise and welcome the steady increase this year in the numbers of refuseniks allowed visas. Emigration approvals since April have been at a monthly rate of some 800-close to the entire year's emigration in 1986, but still well short of the 2000 approvals granted per month during the early 1970s. In his discussions with Mr Gorbachev, the Prime Minister presented a list of six cases of refuseniks-cases which were typical of a larger group, of 28 cases of which we are aware. Mr Gorbachev said that past practices on this matter were now under review and he gave me an undertaking that he would personally study the cases nominated on the list presented to him. As honourable senators will be aware, two of the groups of people raised with Mr Gorbachev were in fact given subsequent approval to leave the Soviet Union. This news was conveyed by one of Mr Gorbachev's assistants immediately prior to the Prime Minister's departure from the Soviet Union. The two cases cover five people-Pavel Abramovich and his wife Marta, and Professor Alexander and Rosa Joffe and their daughter, Anna. The Soviet Union has also granted, after seven years refusal, permission for Mr Leonid Romanovsky to be reunited with his wife Danuta, who lives in Melbourne. While too many cases remain outstanding, there is the prospect of further visa approvals-not least while East-West relations improve and countries like Australia insist that this issue be part of the dialogue with the Soviet Union. This Government will continue to make every effort to obtain a positive resolution of every outstanding family reunion case and every outstanding refusenik case. Mr President, as well as discussing these developments, the talks in the Soviet Union covered the related issue of the Soviet perceptions of and initiatives in global and regional affairs. The Prime Minister congratulated the Soviet leadership, together with the United States, for their achievement in reaching the agreement on INF. This is a treaty of truly historic proportions: it is the first time in which the superpowers' nuclear arsenals have been cut rather than simply having their rate of growth reduced. He expressed the view that the INF Treaty should be a first step, and that the cooperative approach displayed by the Soviet Union and the United States in reaching this agreement should now be turned to the search for progress in reduction of strategic weapons and chemical weapons. This was a view which was accepted by Mr Gorbachev and equally the United States has indicated that INF is only a first step. Indeed the Soviet Union expressed the hope that agreement on strategic nuclear forces could be reached in time for a possible meeting between Mr Gorbachev and Mr Reagan in Moscow in the first half of next year. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister's visit took place immediately prior to the current Reagan-Gorbachev Summit, he passed on to President Reagan a report on my talks and his views on the current situation in the Soviet Union. In his Singapore lecture, the Prime Minister made the point that the changes within the Soviet Union were likely to lead to a more subtle and imaginative diplomacy by the Soviet Union. In our own region, we have already seen some manifestations of a greater interest by the Soviet Union in the affairs of the Pacific. I refer in particular to Mr Gorbachev's Vladivostok speech of July 1986 and his interview with the Indonesian newspaper Merdeka of last July. The Soviet Union is of course a Pacific nation and it therefore has a legitimate interest in the Pacific. We recognise the fact that the Soviet Union is entitled to economic relations with Pacific countries. No amount of sabre rattling by the Opposition will change those facts. What is important is that we seek to ensure that the South Pacific not become an arena of superpower rivalry, and that the rest of the region-which paid a heavy cost for superpower rivalry in the Korean and Vietnam wars-never again be forced to pay such a cost. The Soviet Union's influence on Vietnam and Kampuchea is already significant and it has a large naval base at Cam Ranh Bay. The Prime Minister told the Soviet leadership that we would judge the Soviet's intentions in our region not by their words but by their actions in, for example, Indo-China and Afghanistan. That is in part what I mean when I say that we would welcome a constructive involvement by the Soviet Union in our region. We do not want any fishing agreement signed by the Soviet Union with an island State to be anything other than just that-a fishing agreement. To take another case, we would welcome a full and unambiguous association by the Soviet Union with the protocols of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. Mr President, what we are seeking is a businesslike and fruitful relationship with the Soviet Union which is of benefit to both nations. It comes at a time when our Western friends and allies in general are seeking to build such a relationship. I trust that the Prime Minister's visit has constituted a part in that process. JAPAN The Prime Minister took the opportunity of a stopover in Tokyo to meet the new Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Takeshita. We had a warm and constructive conversation reflecting the close ties between our two nations. In his Singapore Lecture, he dealt at some length with the emerging economic and political role of Japan, both in our region and more generally. In particular, he made the point that the real test of Japan's leadership will be its performance in the crucial area of economic adjustment. Japan's massive current account surplus and its associated accumulating wealth imposes a responsibility on Japan's economic leadership which is just as heavy as that on the United States. The Maekawa Report provides clear guidelines for Japanese economic reform which involve reduced Japanese reliance on exports and a greater willingness to open its domestic markets to imports. It is essential that Japan begin to give effect to the principles enunciated in that report-principles which will impose their own economic and social pressures on Japan but which nonetheless are an essential element in restoring global economic balance. The Prime Minister was therefore pleased in his discussions with Prime Minister Takeshita to hear him reaffirm the theme of his policy statement to the Diet-that Japan would be embarking upon a program of restructuring which would increase import penetration into the Japanese market, and which would seek to substitute domestic demand in the place of exports as the major engine of growth in Japan. We welcome this objective. While acknowledging the political difficulties which Japan's leadership would encounter, I note that we in Australia have not been afraid to confront and overcome such difficulties ourselves in our efforts to open up our economy, to make it more efficient, to diversify our economic base, to integrate our economy with our region and to improve our competitiveness in the world economy. The Prime Minister also had more detailed discussions with Foreign Minister Uno on both multilateral and bilateral trading issues. Mr Uno advised me of Japan's attitude to the new round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. Japan, like Australia, wanted an ``early harvest'' from the negotiations but had some differences with Australia and the Cairns Group on agriculture. The Prime Minister expressed Australia's deep regret that Japan did not fully support the Cairns Group proposals, noting that Japan has to face up squarely to the questions of agricultural reform in order to meet the broader national and global interest. He stressed that if there were not a substantial ``early harvest'' of agricultural trade reforms there could well be a ``bitter harvest'' in years ahead which would have disastrous consequences for all nations. He also raised with Mr Uno the particular issues of access for our beef and the state of the markets for iron ore and coal. He sought and received assurances that Japan would not allow non-commercial considerations to enter as a factor in its efforts to remedy its trade imbalance with the United States. Australia is happy to trade on our merits. We welcome free and open competition. The Prime Minister's discussions also touched upon the growing political role of Japan in the Asia-Pacific region. He welcomed Japan's perception of itself as both part of the West and of this region. In doing so, however, he registered the deep regret of the Australian Government of the stance which Japan has taken on New Caledonia in the United Nations General Assembly-a decision which does not sit easily with that perception. Mr President, the Summit now beginning in Washington is an event of historic international significance. The relations between the super-powers now present the real prospect of producing a more stable and more constructive world. We are all, I believe, both privileged and challenged to be part of this critically important and potentially rewarding point in history. We should all by our own words and actions be worthy of that challenge. If we can maintain our patience, our determination and our realism, we can yet achieve a meaningful and constructive peace between nations and a commensurate capacity for turning the world's resources more directly to meeting the material needs and aspirations of its people. Senator BUTTON —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —On behalf of the President, I present an erratum sheet relating to the explanatory memorandum to the Parliamentary Privileges Bill 1987. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(3.12) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I welcome the Government response to the report by the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, although I regret that it took 15 months to appear. Despite some reservations which I will explain in a moment, I think the response is a great advance in dealing with non-statutory bodies (NSBs). The Government has indicated that it has decided that, instead of having a register of non-statutory bodies maintained in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM and C), it will require information regarding non-statutory bodies to be provided in annual reports either of NSBs themselves or of their parent bodies as respective Ministers decide. This is fine as far as the detailed information is concerned but it still means that there is not even a central simple list naming NSBs, let alone a centrally available reasonable amount of information. I raise a query about what is meant by NSB parent bodies; whether that is intended to mean a department or whether it is something else. Even if it does mean a department or portfolio, it still means that there are at least 16 separate lists for checking on non-statutory bodies. I would have thought that the least a central department, such as Prime Minister and Cabinet, could do was to keep a list of all such NSBs in order to make it easier for those interested to keep track of such bodies, of their formation, disappearance and activities. Obviously, the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, which has replaced the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, will still have to maintain a list, as its predecessor has tried to do in recent years, by itself collating all the information from annual reports-a job which I do not think it should have to do. I think it should be a function of PM and C as the central co-ordinating Department. A further drawback of such a procedure is that even such a list as the Committee produces will effectively be out of date. It will be historical to some extent because it will be collated from departmental annual reports rather than always being an up to date snapshot of the position of non-statutory bodies existing at any one time. The Government has listed 11 exceptions to the bodies about which information would have to be provided in annual reports. I can understand the listing of the first seven. I would indicate that government companies are included amongst those. I think government companies basically need to be listed separately, but I acknowledge that that is a separate issue. As I say, I understand the listing of the first seven, but not of the other four. For instance, it is proposed that bodies created for fixed periods of less than 12 months be excluded. I would have thought that the fact that they have a life of less than 12 months does not remove the need for monitoring of their activity and of the fact that they have come into existence and then gone out of existence. Obviously the Department of Employment, Education and Training has some objection to being included fully in this process of reporting. With those reservations, I welcome the responses from the Government. On all the other matters that the Committee reported on-the sorts of information that should be recorded and so forth-the Government has generally agreed with the Committee's recommendations. I particularly welcome the response to the recommendation that ministerial approval should be obtained in every case of establishing an NSB, even when the establishment of an NSB was not a ministerial initiative. It is important that there be ministerial accountability in respect of such bodies so that they answer for their activities. As well, the Government has agreed that the existence of each NSB should be reviewed at least every three to five years so that the continuing need for any particular NSB is reviewed. As I said, with the reservations I have expressed, I welcome the Government's response to the non-statutory bodies report. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.17) —Mr Deputy President, as you would know, I have taken a great interest in statutory authorities and non-statutory authorities of the Commonwealth for many years now since I was a member of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations during my first years in the Senate. Firstly, let me congratulate once again the Committee for its report, which was made so long ago that many of us unfortunately have allowed it to go by. Secondly, having congratulated the Committee for its excellent report, let me condemn the Government, firstly, for the time it has taken to respond and, secondly, for the nature of its response. Non-statutory bodies are a most important aspect of government. Unfortunately they tend to be overlooked. There are non-statutory bodies which are not overlooked because they are incorporated associations. Aussat Pty Ltd, Qantas Airways Ltd and other companies of that nature are non-statutory bodies, but they are incorporated. Because they are incorporated we are able to read the annual reports and ascertain what they are doing. The statutory authorities which worry us most are those which are not incorporated and not created by an Act of Parliament but rather by Executive decision. They come into existence because the Government has decided simply to create some sort of a committee. There are literally hundreds of them. I think almost 600 are specifically identified in this report and they spend hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars without the supervision of this Parliament. This Committee came down with a unanimous and simple recommendation, and that was that a central register of non-statutory bodies be established and maintained by a co-ordinating department. As the Committee pointed out, it found it difficult to trace the formation details and frequent changes that occur in non-statutory bodies-those are the bodies that are not incorporated-and the Committee considered that a central register needed to be established. The Committee recommended: This register should contain brief, but essential, data on all non-statutory bodies. The Committee acknowledged that initially such a register would require some resources and then went on to state: However, there is no doubt that substantial resources will be saved in the longer term in the monitoring of non-statutory bodies. Such monitoring is not only inherently valuable, but important in principle so that a significant component of Government activity is not allowed to escape scrutiny merely because of a lack of awareness of its extent. A central register is the only effective way that this principle can be met. When this Government was in opposition, it claimed that, if elected, it would be an open government and it criticised us for not being an open government, but now that it has come into government it has closed its face to this sort of recommendation. The Government has responded by saying, `We will not do that. We will not set up a central register but, rather, we will require these bodies, either in their own annual reports or in that of the parent body, to provide details of their existence'. Senator Coates —That is a great advance. Senator LEWIS —Senator Coates says it is a great advance, and no one denies that, if at least Parliament knows something about these, it is a great advance, but it is not a patch on the recommendation of the Committee. It does not come within a bull's roar of providing us with the information which we need. We will have to search through all the annual reports of departments and other bodies to ascertain this information, whereas this information could quite easily have been gathered in a department like the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, or in Senator Walsh's Department, which should monitor the activities and expenditures of these bodies. It all could have been gathered together relatively simply and easily so that it could be provided to the Parliament in order for Parliament to know what was going on with non-statutory bodies. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.22) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report covers an enormous range of activities within the Commonwealth Department of Health and time permits me to focus upon only one of those activities. I intend to focus upon the section of the report that deals with the Government's continuing response to the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) epidemic and crisis in Australia. The report indicates that it is expected that by 1990-91 there will be more than 3,000 cases of AIDS in Australia, of whom more than 1,500 will have died, and that about 300,000 people will have been infected. This is a relatively small component of a world wide problem in which between 500,000 and three million new cases will have emerged by 1990-91. The World Health Organisation has indicated that it has already received advice of more than 53,200 cases of fully developed AIDS, but it is likely that throughout the world the real number of people who are antibody positive may be as high as five million. We are learning a great deal more about AIDS all the time. For instance, we now have to readjust our view of the nature of the disease as it becomes clearer that the AIDS virus is itself a pathogen as well as the cause of the immuno-deficiency that leads to death from other opportunistic diseases. We are discovering more information about when this disease was first identified and that our previous information may have been erroneous. The first case may have been identified in the form of a victim by the name of Robert R, a 16-year-old black Missourian, who may have died as far back as 1969. We are becoming aware of the enormous costs involved in the treatment of this disease in a purely financial sense, not to mention the enormous emotional, spiritual, personal and physical cost. I note that an article by Bruce Whyte and his colleagues in the September issue of the Medical Journal of Australia indicates that hospital based care costs, in terms of responding to AIDS, ranges from about #6,838 in England to $US147,000 in Atlanta in the United States of America. The mean figure in Australia appears to be somewhere in the vicinity of $22,000, and 95 per cent of that cost is incurred for in-patient care. We are seeing enormous problems in relation to the critical shortage of life saving drugs, such as AZT, and the need to address the virtual rationing of treatment at present because of the cost, and yet we do not ration treatment for other diseases where enormous public cost is involved, such as that related to smoking, kidney failure or major heart complaints. We are seeing a combination of a medical crisis and politics in terms of the situation in the country's gaols. Clearly the gaol system is an incubator of the AIDS virus, yet it is estimated that during the bicentennial year 1988 about 20,000 people will return to the Australian general community having previously served some time within the prison system. How many of those will have become infected with the AIDS virus in the prison system is unknown. There is no way of establishing that, yet the threat that people leaving the gaol system pose, particularly regarding the introduction of the AIDS virus into the heterosexual population, is a point of enormous significance. I must say that one of the welcome consequences of recent events in Queensland has been the appointment to the premiership of that State of a person who is prepared to bring Queensland into the national effort of tackling the enormous problem of AIDS, and clearly that was not possible under the previous regime in that State. That change is very much to be welcomed. Nevertheless, although many serious matters are raised in the annual report of the Department of Health, including evidence of enormous increases in the number of Medicare services provided in terms of technology costs and perhaps a misdirection of many financial resources into high-tech medicine rather than preventive medicine, this is an opportunity to say simply that I believe that the Commonwealth Department of Health, in relation to the AIDS program, has been doing an excellent job. The program of the Department and the Government has had the support of the Opposition. Clearly, this issue must be focused upon as a matter of extreme national urgency. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CALVERT(Tasmania)(3.28) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. These are particularly difficult times for many Australian families. The continuing pressures of high unemployment, rapidly increasing interest rates and an obvious decline in business investment have all combined to cause stress and tension for many individuals. In this type of economic climate, the work of the now Department of Community Services and Health provides an important backstop to counteract these pressures, and in commenting of this report I would like to express my appreciation to those officers of the Department who carry out their duties with such diligence and care. In particular I wish to refer to an area with which I am well acquainted, and that is the operations of the Department in Tasmania where I believe, despite regrettable economic restraints, the Department has established itself in a valuable role, particularly in its relationship with local government. I would like to think that the Department of Community Services and Health will continue to expand its support for local authorities. In addressing the year's highlights, the report mentions the 1984 election speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in which he promised 20,000 new child care places during the period 1985-88. I for one was very pleased with the Prime Minister's undertaking and I was therefore just as pleased to read that in the year encompassed by this report approximately 9,000 new child care places were approved. What does concern me and what is of concern to many others associated with the provision of child care in Australia is that 1988 is rapidly approaching. The need for child care is increasing and yet we have not heard from the Government as to what its plans for the future are. The Government needs to look at this area now. The Department of Community Services and Health and those working in the local areas need to be consulted so that the ongoing needs can be assessed and the appropriate financial planning instigated. Another area about which I have concern in relation to the provision of family day care services by the Department of Community Services and Health is the manner in which funds are allocated to local family day care schemes. Many of those children who are receiving care are doing so on a part time basis. This is for a variety of reasons. For example, the parent may not wish to leave the child all day, part time work only may be available or a family member may be assisting by looking after the child for some of the time. I see this trend continuing and yet the Department continues to allocate its funds on an equivalent full time child basis. In my home municipality of Clarence there are 161 equivalent full time child care positions; yet, because of the high demand for part time assistance, the actual number of children receiving care is 450. It is not as simple as saying that the cost of the full time position is the same as two, three or four part time positions. The figures simply do not add up; yet this is the burden under which family day care schemes must operate. Accordingly, the services provided must suffer. When the services suffer, the children who comprise the next generation of Australians suffer also. It is encouraging to see the priority of the Department in making family day care services accessible to low and moderate income families. I believe that there will also be an ongoing role in providing older children with care out of school hours and during school holidays. I now turn to the provision of equipment funding for day care schemes, which is the subject of an anomaly and is of concern to those associated with the provisions of care. Each family day care scheme receives an allocation of $2,000 to provide play equipment and similar facilities for carers. The situation at present is that, when a scheme grows to the point where the $2,000 is insufficient to meet its needs, the only course of action is to split the scheme in two and apply for additional moneys. This is an inefficient method of funding and does not provide for an ongoing input from those associated with the scheme's development. The social consequences of rehabilitation should not be underestimated by any Australians. I note with interest the emphasis the Department of Community Services and Health places on increasing its proportion of regional rehabilitation units with the aim of making social and vocational rehabilitation services more accessible for people with disabilities. What concerns me is that I am aware of individuals in Tasmania who have been refused rehabilitation care following traumatic accidents. In some cases these people had endured considerable suffering. Yet their aim was not to be a drain on society; they simply wished to return to the mainstream of life and pay their own way. These people have been denied rehabilitation assistance and, to make matters worse, have been advised that services could be made available if they were prepared to pay their own way. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(3.33) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. As an Australian Democrats newcomer to the portfolio of territories, I read the thirtieth annual report of the National Capital Development Commission with great interest. I turned first to the section entitled `Parks and Open Space' because, as honourable senators will know, there has been much debate in the Canberra Press of late about the fact that a notable open space in Canberra has recently been turned into a car park. Page 51 of the report states: An integral part of the planning and design of Canberra is the National Capital Open Space System. This consists of the mountain and bushland areas of the ACT, the local hills and ridges . . . The report continues that these areas: are an essential part of Canberra's landscape character, framing the views of the city and providing substantial recreation opportunities for residents and visitors. One delightful aspect of the Canberra scene is that between the various areas of development are areas of open space. I believe that the Development Commission has kept its word in that regard; where it appears to be falling down is within the city. I also tried to relate the aspects of this report with what I have found. I have been lobbied by so many residents of Canberra that I can hardly believe it. To name but a few, I have been lobbied by nurses, doctors, firemen, school teachers, adoptive parents, opponents to a casino, administrators, citizens concerned about redevelopment and self-government and domestic violence, market stallholders and taxi drivers. In other words, despite the glossy appearance of this report, it appears that the citizens of Canberra have a lot to contend with. I also looked with interest at the section in the report on education. Page 44 of the report states: Building for community need includes making adequate provision for education. Here the Commission works closely with the ACT Schools Authority and other ACT educational bodies to make sure that the schools and colleges are there when Canberra's children and older students need them. However, as far as the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority is concerned, there are certainly many problems. Yesterday I asked a question about the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. I wish to make the Senate aware that the major question still remains unanswered; that is, whether legally an amending ordinance is sufficient to deal with the chaos we now have-I was going to say as far as the abolition of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority is concerned but there is some doubt as to whether it has been abolished. The letters which the members of the Authority received were a sort of Clayton's sacking. They may or may not have been sacked. Finally, in the minute remaining to me, I draw the Senate's attention to the Commissioner's letter to the Minister which prefaces the report. He states: . . . the Government has continued to make progress towards self government by bringing together into a single ACT Administration virtually all aspects of the administration of the Capital Territory. I believe that self-government is essential for citizens of the Australian Capital Territory. At the moment their needs are not being looked to. Their advisory bodies for health and education have been abolished, so the people of the Australian Capital Territory do not have true representation at all. As far as the Australian Democrats are concerned, the sooner the Australian Capital Territory can move to proper self-government-I emphasise, proper self-government-the better. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.38) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.39) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. One of the matters referred to in the annual report of the Australian Sports Commission for 1986-87 is the national program on drugs in sport. Honourable senators will be aware that a dispute is under way at the moment within the Australian sporting world about the use or rather misuse of steroids by some Australian athletes. A major problem has also arisen as a result of the withdrawal of the accrediting of the drug testing facility for sports at the Royal Brisbane Hospital and the fact that at the moment Australia lacks a properly accredited testing facility for the use of drugs in sport whose results would be accepted by the International Olympic Committee. At the moment we have a situation where samples taken from athletes competing in Australia have to be sent out of the country in order to be analysed before determination about the use or misuse of drugs can be made. I think that is a scandalous situation and one which Australia's sporting authorities, the Australian Sports Commission and the department responsible, should not have allowed to occur. I wish to raise one other matter regarding the participation of Aboriginals in sport, and that is, by and large, the failure of the Government properly and adequately to address the question of access to sport and sporting facilities for Aboriginal Australians. This is an area in which a great deal more could and should have been done. Aboriginal people have been major and successful participants in sporting activities in Australia, and indeed it is one of the areas in which they have been able to compete with a marked lack of disadvantage and prejudice being displayed against them. Without going through the details of the sporting achievements by Aboriginal people, I think the Government has been quite negligent in this matter. I note that Dr Paul Wilson, the Assistant Director in charge of research at the Australian Institute of Criminology, has put forward to the Australian Institute of Sport his own views about the role of sport in overcoming the problems which are associated with juvenile delinquency and with delinquency among Aboriginal children in particular. We hear a great deal from this Government about what it allegedly had done as far as sport is concerned, but here are two major issues-the use of drugs in sport, about which the Government has been clearly negligent in terms of not ensuring that there are proper testing facilities available in this country; and the question of Aboriginal participation in sport, to which the Government could have made a significant contribution, had it been really serious either about its Aboriginal Affairs policy or its sporting policy. I believe that the Government stands condemned on both these accounts. I could go through the annual report of the Sports Commission, which we now have before us, and find a quite inadequate approach to either of these matters, other than smooth words and bold assertions. The facts are not there and as far as the Government is concerned the runs are simply not on the board in either of those areas. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allowed for the consideration of Government Papers has now expired. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-I table the report of the parliamentary delegation to the European parliamentary institutions, the North Atlantic Assembly and Finland. I seek leave to move a motion. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The parliamentary delegation to the European parliamentary institutions, the North Atlantic Assembly and Finland, to which this report refers, consisted of members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It was led by Mr Bob Brown, MP, who will be making a statement in another place. The report is fairly comprehensive and self-explanatory, covering not only the activities of the delegation, but a number of conclusions reached by the members of the delegation, together with a number of supporting appendices relating to our activities. As I said, Mr Brown will be making a tabling statement on behalf of the delegation in another place. Owing to the vagaries of parliamentary programming it is my understanding that he has not yet made that statement. Nevertheless, in order to save the time of the Senate, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of the remarks which will be made by Mr Brown. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- I present the report of the delegation. In September 1987, this delegation, representing both Houses of the Australian Parliament, visited several European Cities to attend the Autumn Sittings of the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The delegation also attended meetings of the North Atlantic Assembly, the Second Strasbourg Conference on Parliamentary Democracy and conferred with officials of the European Commission and the Council of Ministers. The delegation took the opportunity to visit the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and the Headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in Brussels. The visit commenced with an official program in Finland as guests of the Finnish Parliament. The report tabled today records the official activities of the delegation and makes recommendations and suggestions for future visits to European Parliamentary institutions by other delegations. The delegation's visit to Finland was the first extensive visit by an Australian Parliamentary group to that country, although a shorter visit was made by a previous delegation to Scandinavia in 1982. An excellent program was arranged for the visit by our hosts in conjunction with the Australian Embassy in Stockholm. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to personally and on behalf of the delegation thank the Australian Ambassador, Ros McGovern, for her very competent assistance and support during the delegation's visit to Finland. While in Finland, the delegation's itinerary included briefings and a tour of the Industrial Power Company Limited and its facilities, a nuclear power station which imports Australian uranium. As well as meeting members of the Finnish Parliament and representatives of Parliamentary Groups, including members of the Agricultural and Forestry Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee, the delegation also met the Minister for the Chancellery, the Speaker of the Finnish Parliament and the Prime Minister. The delegation also conducted discussions with representatives of the Finnish Australian Trade Association, the Finnish Australian Society, the Central Union of Agricultural Producers and visited the Helsinki shipyard of Wartsila Marine Industries Incorporated. In addition to the formal program of discussions and inspections, the delegation visited a wilderness area in Lapland, north of the Arctic Circle. As well as observing reindeer raising, which is a primary source of livelihood for the Lapps, the delegation spent time in part of the substantial wilderness area in the region and received an extensive briefing on the impact of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl on local flora and fauna. The delegation was gratified to learn that radioactive fallout in this region of Finland was not as severe as it was in other parts of Scandinavia and did not pose a major threat to reindeer herds in Lapland. The delegation would particularly like to thank the Speaker of the Finnish Parliament and his staff for making special arrangements for the delegation to visit Lapland as guests of the Salla community. As with previous delegations, issues of agriculture and trade dominated many of the discussions held with European Parliamentarians and officials of the institutions of the European Community. However, other important issues were also discussed and these are set out in Chapter 2 of the delegation's report. These include the role of the nordic countries, nuclear power, disarmament and security, the French role in the South Pacific, South Pacific security, European unity and parliamentary democracy. As well, the delegation considers that it was able to contribute to the kangaroo debate in Europe by providing a greater understanding of the issues concerned leading to the determination of a European position which is favourable to Australian export trade and earnings. In the delegation's discussions on agricultural trade and the European common agricultural policy, it was recognised that in order for Australia to have a major impact in this debate it is necessary for its representatives to adopt an Australian strategy in Europe. It became clear from individual discussions between delegation members and European politicians, that a groundswell is developing in Europe against the common agricultural policy. This derives largely from the fact that the major beneficiary of the policy is agribusiness, including large corporate farmers, fertilizer companies and other interests. The small farmers, for whom the common agricultural policy was developed, are in serious financial difficulty and are increasingly expressing their hostility. It is the view of the delegation that the political perspective of the common agricultural policy will change. This change could be accelerated if countries, such as Australia, were more aggressive in highlighting the discontent that exists. Europe needs to be made more aware that the more resources diverted to artificial support measures for an inefficient agricultural sector, the less is available for productive investment in manufacturing and service industries. Thus, the trend towards increased imports of manufactured goods and the greater need for foreign sourced capital for domestic investment will continue. Fundamental to the social implications of these issues is that not only has the common agricultural policy not been able to retain jobs in the agricultural sector but it has caused a continued loss of jobs in manufacturing. It is vital that these implications are better known and understood, not only by those Europeans involved in the manufacturing sector, but Europeans from all walks of life. In this report, the delegation also makes recommendations of a practical nature designed to ensure that the greatest amount of benefit will be derived from future visits by Australian Parliamentary delegations to these European Institutions. The delegation considers that some continuity of membership would enable greater advantage to be gained from opportunities presented during these visits and therefore recommends, in line with previous recommendations of similar delegations, that whenever possible, the leader of any future delegation should have been a member of a previous delegation. The delegation also thinks that the inclusion of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg was worthwhile and recommends that they be included in all future visits of this kind, preferably when the Courts are in session. Furthermore, the delegation considers the visit to NATO Headquarters in Brussels to be important and informative and recommends that it should be maintained as part of the program for future Parliamentary delegations to European institutions. As a matter of practical advice, the delegation recommends that a standard set of instructions for future delegations be prepared, specifically setting out the nature and scope for participation by the delegation at each of the institutions to be visited and indicating the aims of the delegation's participation at such sessions. The range of institutions visited and the number of meetings and discussion held, indicate that this was a demanding and sometimes hectic tour of the European institutions. I would like to add to the recommendations already made that a future delegation could spend more time in Brussels to gain a fuller understanding of the role and functions of the European Commission and Council of Ministers and their relationship with the European Parliament. Members of the delegation felt that not enough time was set aside to gain a thorough understanding of the complexities of these interrelationships. As I have just mentioned, the nature of this extensive program required a high level of support and assistance from host countries and Australian Missions where these institutions were situated. Reference has already been made to our hosts in Finland, particularly Mr Matti Ahde, Speaker of the Finnish Parliament, and his very competent staff. The delegation would also like to thank the staff of the European Parliament and the Council of Europe who so ably assisted the delegation during its visit to Strasbourg and Brussels. Special mention should also be made of the President of the Norwegian Storting, Mr Jo Benkow, for the hospitality extended to the delegation during its visit to the North Atlantic Assembly. The delegation is also appreciative for the assistance and excellent briefings provided overseas by representatives of the Australian Government in Brussels and Paris. On behalf of the delegation I also express our appreciation to the Parliamentary Relations Office, to officers of the Parliamentary Library and would also like to place on record the delegation's thanks to the Ambassador to Finland, Mr Slotte and Mr Juul Jorgensen, Head of Delegation, European Communities Commission for their assistance prior to the delegation's departure and friendship shown on our return. Senator PETER BAUME —It remains for me only to thank the Senate, to say that this was a very worthwhile delegation and to say also to any honourable senators who are wondering what they might care to do, in terms of learning more about the world, that there is no better trip available. I have to say that it was my first attendance on a parliamentary delegation for 13 years, but I would commend to honourable senators the opportunity which this delegation presented to learn something of Australia's relations with a very important part of the world. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(3.45) —I was a member of the parliamentary delegation and I felt quite honoured to be so. I felt that we learnt a great deal about the institutions of Europe. In fact, I think the official working title of the delegation was the Parliamentary Delegation to the European Institutions. We visited Finland for a week and it was a very extensive and intensive tour. We spent several days in Helsinki and then we went to Lapland, north of the Arctic Circle. I think Finland has a great lesson for Australia. Finland has a tradition of sisu, which means `guts' or `intestinal fortitude'. The Finns occupy a position in the world between the Soviet Union and the West, and they gave in not at all to the Soviet Union or to the Germans. In the face of tremendous adversity they have maintained themselves throughout history as a proud and independent race. We, in Australia, often say, `Look, we cannot compete on the world scene. We are a nation of only 17 million people. We have some resources, but we cannot compete with the giants; we cannot compete with the United States, Europe or Japan'. Finland, however, is a nation of some five million people and it exports all around the world, including to Australia. We buy a number of products from Finland. I think the Finns do this simply because they have sisu. They have the idea that they can do it; they have done it in the past and will continue to do it with far fewer resources than we have. They have no mineral resources to speak of and their basic resource is themselves. We have a number of Finnish people living here. In fact we have about 15,000, and they are contributing to Australian culture and to our society. But I think we should learn a lesson from the Finns and develop our own feelings about ourselves in the way that the Finns have. The Finnish Government was very keen for us to establish a diplomatic presence in Helsinki. The nearest diplomatic presence is in Stockholm, and we are represented in that area by a very able woman-or we were at the time-named Ros McGovern. I would like at this stage to thank her for her help and guidance during the time we were in Scandinavia. She has done a magnificent job and she has now moved on to Singapore. Unfortunately for the Finns and for Australia, we do not have the funds available to put a diplomatic establishment in Helsinki. As I said, this is unfortunate, but it is a fiscal fact of life. We simply cannot afford to do it. But I do think we should expand our relationships with Finland as much as possible. To this end, and as an aside, I note that I am the Press agent for the Finnish windsurfing team which will visit Australia for the Mistral world champion windsurfing epic in Sydney just before Christmas. A member of the Finnish windsurfing team will appear on Lake Burley Griffin clad in a Santa Claus suit. Senator Reynolds —You, too! Senator SANDERS —Perhaps I will wear a koala suit. All through our trip-and I am sure Senator Zakharov, who is in the chamber, will agree-we found that the professional staff of the various embassies were quite helpful and generally briefed us quite well. We were lacking in briefings in some areas, but this is included in the report, so I will not dwell on it here. We had an interesting visit to the European Parliament and to various European institutions, but we found that the common agricultural policy is a very great detriment to the development of Europe, as it is to relations between Australia and Europe. I think this is something those countries will have to work out. Another thing we found was that the Europeans, perhaps understandably, look inwards. They look at Europe and they tend to ignore the situation specifically in the Pacific area. This is another area in which we should establish greater contact and that was one of the things we attempted to do. We visited the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and had a briefing from the NATO staff. It is unfortunate to observe that NATO has a great paranoia about the intermediate-range nuclear forces agreement. It feels that somehow this will give the Soviets an advantage. It feels that the Soviets have an advantage in conventional weapons, which I do not believe is the case, but it is certainly worried about this. I had the feeling that NATO was really worried about an outbreak of peace in the world. It is going to have to learn that peace can be obtained and that NATO may not be necessary any more when we obtain peace. We went on to Oslo. The unfortunate part about our trip to Oslo was that we did not have the same type of bilateral visits we had in Finland. It would have been a great help to have seen more of Norway and to have talked to more Norwegian officials. As it was, we talked mostly to North Atlantic Assembly people in Oslo at a conference there. Any trip that goes to these institutions in the future should include more contact with the governments of the countries involved and perhaps less concentration on the convention area. In summary, I give special thanks to Bjarne Nordin who accompanied us. He was our babysitter, he found taxi cabs for us, he spoke Norwegian fluently and French with somewhat less fluency. Without him I am sure that the trip would not have been anywhere near as successful as it was. To the Finns I say: Hauska tavata teidat and Nakemiin. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(3.52) —Like Senator Sanders, I do not want to rehash the report but to add a little of my own perspective to what was in the printed report. It was a very cohesive and hardworking delegation, more so than average from what I have heard and experienced. The whole delegation participated very fully in discussions at every opportunity. It is unfortunate that all of the speeches made could not be attached to the report but transcripts from the organisations have not yet reached Australia. They are not as efficient as our Hansard. Our contributions to the various debates, particularly those relating to the circumstances of Australia, such as the compulsory voting system we have in Australia, which was of great interest, and the fact that we have to provide for a multicultural society in our education and government information processes, created a lot of interest. I am only sorry that the excellent material we have seen recently coming out of the parliamentary information service was not available for us to take with us, because we were able to talk about the sorts of services provided in that area as well. We not only learnt a lot about the issues which were current in Europe, particularly those relating to peace and security and to agricultural policies, but also we got an insight into other forms of parliamentary democracy, other sorts of electoral systems, other ways of dealing with legislation and even other parliamentary procedures, such as Question Time in the European Parliament. We were interested to find out that the people who answered the questions were the senior bureaucrats, not the Ministers. All questions were answered on considerable notice, sometimes up to three months. The only way one can ask a real question is to somehow work it in as a supplementary to a question on notice. So we learnt a lot about the formal structures and policies of the parliamentary institutions in Europe. We also learnt a great deal in a more informal way, particularly about the attitudes of members of the parliamentary institutions and of member states. I would like to read out a few quotations which I took note of while I was over there. Senator Sanders has already referred to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) perception of what was sometimes explicitly called the threat of the Gorbachev initiatives or, even on one occasion-I think this was in private, though-the `threat of peace'. On that matter, one of the NATO officials said to us, `We do not know where the Soviets are going to attack', not `if', but `where'. A Colonel Akan, an ex-military gentleman from the United States who is now working on briefing visitors to NATO, told us that it was his view that the United States should take all of its money out of the United Nations and put it into NATO. I do not know whether it would also remove the United Nations headquarters from the United States. One of the British Conservative delegates at the North Atlantic Alliance said, `Nuclear free zones could diminish the credibility of Western nuclear deterrence'-not a view which Australia would share. France, in one of many justifications of its nuclear tests in the Pacific, claimed that its nuclear deterrent gave it security at least cost. I suppose that depends on what sort of cost one is talking about. Another delegate said that `only the deployment of nuclear missiles in Europe has brought the USSR to the negotiating table'. Those like me who have been active in the peace movement for many years might as well pack up and go home in that case. A member of the British House of Lords said that peace studies in schools were `biased, lacked intellectual honesty and taught subversion'. Getting away from the security issue, which is a little too depressing, a delegate to the Council of Europe Conference on Democracy, replying to speeches about the lack of representation and participation, particularly by women and young people, in the democratic process said, `Women will first need a period of adaptation to acclimatise them to the clan', before they can participate fully in democracy. I found these insights not always pleasurable and sometimes chilling but for me they were one of the fruitful outcomes of our delegation to Europe. I come penultimately to the happiest part of our journey, also referred to by Senator Sanders. It was our first visit chronologically, our visit to Finland, where we were not only shown a great deal of genuinely warm hospitality but also had the opportunity for very open discussion on a range of issues, from trade to Finland's relationship with the Soviet Union. All of us felt very much at home. We even found that the Finns had a sense of humour very like our own. It is easy to understand why the Finnish community in Australia has been so readily integrated into our community over the last 200 years. Finally, I draw the attention of the Senate-I hope that some honourable senators will read the report-to the section at the end of the report headed `Other Administrative Matters', which should help future delegations. I would like to add to that list a plea for more thought and attention to detailed preparation before delegations leave Australia. One example which got to me was that as a female member of the delegation I was not clearly notified as such. I was on the list not as Senator Zakharov, although the other senators were labelled senator, but as Mrs Zakharov, which is not what I call myself at any time. I continually found myself being asked, `Whose wife are you?'. When I got to the North Atlantic Alliance and we were issued with tickets to get into the building I found that my ticket was for an accompanying person, not for a delegate. I had to take it back and say, `I am a delegate'. Perhaps these things could be foreseen once people understand that those biases still exist in other parts of the world, even if we hope that they are dying here. This could save embarrassment. I was not embarrassed but there was embarrassment to other people who suddenly found that they were talking to a delegate and not to an accompanying person. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ALSTON(Victoria) —by leave-I table the report of the parliamentary delegation to India and Sri Lanka. I seek leave to move a motion. Leave granted. Senator ALSTON —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I wish to speak briefly to the report of a delegation which unfortunately I became a member of at the expense of Senator Messner. Indeed, I was the only senator in the group of six. It is more than 12 months since the delegation left Australia. Given the rapid pace of events in Sri Lanka in the intervening period, the report has some of the character of ancient history. Nonetheless, it was a very worthwhile outing. I want to compare two aspects of the trip to India and Sri Lanka. In India we met, essentially, with a low level range of officials, whereas in Sri Lanka we met with all the leading Ministers in the Government from the President downwards. That opportunity gave us some real insights into the difficulties faced by the Sri Lankan Government and some of the complexities of the problems that have beset the island in recent years. The peace accord that was signed subsequent to our visit-and of course in no sense related to it-was eminently foreseeable because it involved the presence of the Indian Government and ultimately some 15,000 troops. Unfortunately, and regrettably, it had become increasingly clear to all concerned with trying to resolve the escalating violence and certainly to the members of the delegation that unless the Indians were able to be involved in the process there was little prospect of a resolution of the conflict. Since that time, despite the presence of Indian troops on the island and despite what I think were realistic, if not long delayed, proposals by the Sri Lankan Government-and particular credit should go to President Jayawardene-unfortunately those concessions have been almost too little too late in the sense that, despite the best endeavours of the Government, we have not only seen violence on the part of the Tamil Tigers, although the indications were that Prabhakaran was likely to want to reach an accommodation, but we have also seen a counter-reaction from Sinhalese extremists. The end result is that both sides are as much apart as ever. Despite the supposed surrender of arms by the Tigers, who had managed to obliterate most of their competitors, they have managed to retain sufficient weaponry, and perhaps even managed to confiscate a quantity from the Sri Lankan army, to enable them to maintain what is a very destabilising and destructive counter-attack against both the Indian and Sri Lankan troops. It is a matter of considerable regret that there does not seem to be any easy solution to the problem. Even the offer of relative autonomy for the northern and eastern provinces, which has much to recommend it, would have involved, and still does involve, the holding of a referendum in due course within 12 months to enable the eastern province, which has equal numbers of Sinhalese, Moslems and Tamils, to decide its own future. Despite all those concessions it would seem that the Tigers are intent on pursuing their goal of Eelam, which I regard as unattainable. There is much to be said for the Tamil cause, and in many ways they have had a very raw deal over some 20 years or so. At present their ultimate solution would seem to be not only unachievable but one which can only result in substantial and continuing bloodshed. I would only hope that the insights we have gained will be of some assistance in helping us in Australia understand the dimensions of the problem. More importantly, I hope that the people of Sri Lanka will have the foresight and wisdom ultimately to achieve a solution which will give something less than total independence, but nonetheless a large measure of autonomy, to the Tamils, who have much to commend their cause but who at the moment seem intent on nothing less than achieving an ultimate military solution. All those who have had the opportunity to study the problem will recognise that no such solution is available. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, the orders of the Senate relating to the times of meeting of the Senate and the routine of business be varied to provide that the Senate meet on Wednesday, 9 December, from 10 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. and from 2.15 p.m. to 7.30 p.m., and that Question Time be held at 2.15 p.m. on that day. Motion (by Senator McLean) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980. Motion (by Senator McLean) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(4.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill is an updated version of the Bill introduced by my colleague, Senator Janet Powell, last year. In introducing it, I use much of Senator Powell's second reading speech as it is still relevant and accurate. This Bill is a significant step in bringing a measure of sanity back to petrol pricing in Australia. We do not believe that Australia's irrational petrol pricing structure will be simply resolved by this legislation. More action, including legislative action, will be needed. However, we propose a simple solution to a problem which currently causes massive variations in petrol prices within cities, between States, and between metropolitan and rural areas . . . The problem is that petrol companies use their retail prices to start petrol price wars. These price wars almost never benefit rural consumers, who do, after all, travel greater distances and use more petrol. These price wars never benefit independent petrol retailers, who cannot anticipate their cash flow, and therefore have great difficulty negotiating loans, and indeed, their normal, everyday, living expenses. Many are going bankrupt. During petrol price wars, it is not unusual for petrol to be retailed below the maximum wholesale price set by the Prices Surveillance Authority. It seems strange that petrol companies who from time to time make representations to the Prices Surveillance Authority can afford to retail petrol below the wholesale price the PSA sets, having due regard to the submissions, views and profitability of the petrol companies themselves. The major determinant of petrol prices in Australia is the Federal Government. This follows the decision by the Fraser Government to introduce Import Parity Pricing. This means that despite the fact that Australia is about 90 per cent self-sufficient in petrol production, and about 80 per cent of this Australian petrol comes from Bass Strait, which has been producing since the late 1960s, the Fraser Government decided to equate the price of Australian crude oil with the price of Arab oil. As a result, the federal government was able to get billions of dollars of extra revenue because about half of a litre of petrol goes to the Commonwealth government in the form of excises and royalties. In Opposition, the Labor spokesperson for Minerals and Energy, Mr Keating, attacked import parity pricing as a ``tax by stealth-with a branch of the Tax Office at every petrol pump''. As Treasurer, he discovered that it is too hard to give up billions of dollars in revenue. When the price of petrol fell last year, Mr Keating responded by passing on ``some'' price reductions to the consumer but he increased the excise so that Commonwealth revenues were not diminished by the fall in world petrol prices. As a result: Increasing petrol prices feed into the C.P.I. and lift our inflation rate; Australia does not get a significant competitive advantage in production costs despite the fact that we are relatively self-sufficient in petroleum production; and Rural dwellers, who have greater distances to travel, are hit the hardest by high petrol prices. This Bill does not attack the problem of import parity pricing. It is true, however, that a high proportion of the price of petrol goes to the Government, and that this artificially inflates Australia's petrol prices. Our aim with this Bill is to help the independent petrol retailers and to curtail the situation where, when the most common petrol price may be 55c, but the range will be 44c-66c. We believe some of that variation is due to petrol companies, who own and operate petrol retail outlets, using those outlets to maintain market share at any cost. In their attempts to maintain this market share, they use price wars in selected areas. Consumers in those areas benefit, and the petrol companies argue that this is healthy competition in the marketplace. We are not against competition or price discounting, but we do not believe the time and place for these activities should be dictated purely by petrol companies-the decision ought to flow from market forces. The petrol companies are part of a powerful oligopoly, able to manipulate the market and the lives of independent petrol retailers in a ruthless and purely self-interested manner. It ought to be left to the small businesses, the independent petrol retailers, to decide on the competitive level of the marketplace. This legislation calls for divorcement, meaning that petrol companies would not be allowed to own and operate retail sites. This call for divorcement is based on our desire to create true price competition in the petroleum industry, with the oil companies competing at the wholesale end of the market and the retailers being responsible for competition in their own retail section. The independent petrol retailers should not have to worry about how far below the wholesale price the service station down the road, owned by one of the big oil companies, is willing to retail petrol to its customers. The Liberal/National parties in Government appeared to favour divorcement when they made a promise on 30 October, 1978, when the so-called Fife package was announced, that oil companies would be prohibited from retailing petroleum through direct sales sites. But towards the end of 1980 the Fraser government introduced its petroleum retail marketing legislation which reneged on this undertaking, and introduced a quota of sites for each integrated oil group. The initial number of sites allowed in 1980 was further reduced in 1983. Currently, while petrol companies still own only 5 per cent to 7 per cent of the total number of retailing sites in Australia, these still account for 11 per cent to 18 per cent of the volume of petrol sold in this country. The inequity of this marketing chaos becomes obvious when travelling between urban and rural areas. In certain areas of the city, petrol can probably be bought for under fifty cents a litre. In rural areas, that figure may very well be over sixty cents per litre. Commonwealth and State taxes, and freighting costs do not explain these wide variations in the same State on the same day. They certainly cannot explain why some petrol retailers can afford to retail petrol below the official wholesale price. It is time to reduce the market power of petrol companies, who are, after all, ultimately interested in maximising their profits and are not selling petrol at the lowest possible price in carefully selected areas for the good of the motoring public. In passing this Bill, we will remove a considerable part of the petrol companies' power to distort petrol prices for their own long-term advantage. This legislation would also give the small business petrol retailing entrepreneur the ability to run his own show without direct competition from those who supply him with the product he sells. Petrol companies, unlike small businesspeople, can afford to make significant short-term losses to further their long-term strategic advantage. Most importantly, this legislation will go some way to stabilizing petrol prices and giving all Australian consumers, whether they live in the city or the country, access to petrol at the best prices that can be provided by retailers subject to healthy competition from each other. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) adjourned. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. Motion (by Senator Powell) agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notices of Motion Nos 1 and 2 standing in the name of Senator Powell for this day, for the disallowance of new orders 12a, and 12b and 12c and Section V of the Schedule contained in the Export Control (Fees) Orders as amended (Amendment), being Export Control Orders No. 17 of 1987 and made under the Export Control Act 1982, and the Export Control (Fees) Orders as amended (Amendment), being Export Control Orders No. 17 of 1987 and made under the Export Control Act 1982, be postponed till the next day of sitting. Consideration resumed from 7 December. The Bill. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.07) —When this Bill was being considered in committee yesterday, I was concerned by some aspects of the attacks on radio station 3CR in relation to the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 3), which largely addresses issues concerning community radio, 3CR being the first and one of the most successful community radio stations in Australia. I believe that in substance those attacks by Senator Short are unworthy. I noticed, however, that his sentiments did receive some support from the Minister opposite at the time. Senator Gareth Evans —It was not me! Senator POWELL —Not the Minister currently in the chamber, I might add. I am afraid that in that onslaught we may have seen a rather crude attempt at a form of political censorship in an effort to silence those who do not preach the sort of New Right philosophy that Senator Short finds so endearing. I take this opportunity to remind the Senate of 3CR's own broadcasting code, which specifically excludes threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour and the promoting of hatred against or hostility towards groups of persons distinguished by their sex, sexual preference, race, religion, colour, ethnic or national origins and so on. I do not agree with everything I hear on 3CR, nor do I agree with everything I hear on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, but I do not accept an option which smacks of political censorship. I find it rather ironic that Senator Short should have taken this line, because if ever there was a section of the media which it might be argued should suffer this kind of censorship-a section of the media which is guilty of racism, intolerance and unprincipled character attacks-and which should be the target of this criticism it is the infamous excuse for a newspaper called the Toorak Times. Who has a weekly column in this newspaper but Senator Short himself, alongside other eminent social thinkers like Bruce Ruxton, Jennifer McCallum, Roger Shipton and so on. This chamber, as the upshot of all this, should remember that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is set up to assess whether stations are complying with the broadcasting guidelines, and it should be left to the ABT to rule on these matters. If Senator Short has a complaint to make about specific programs on 3CR he should make it at a licence renewal hearing. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(4.11) —I want to take up again with the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) the points that we were raising last night in relation to 3CR but before I do that, in response to Senator Powell, I say that I am not sure whether her comments were a defence of 3CR. She seemed by implication to be defending 3CR by virtue of criticising my criticisms of 3CR. I am surprised beyond comprehension if she was in fact doing that, but it appears that Senator Powell has now gone on the record as a defender of 3CR. I point out to her the inaccuracy of her statement that I have a regular column in the Toorak Times-not that I would mind having that as the Toorak Times is widely read. I do have a weekly column in a very well read and widely circulated newspaper called the Northerner, which circulates in some of the northern parts of Melbourne. I am delighted to have the opportunity to communicate to the electors and people in that area what happens in Canberra on matters of concern to them. That is a slight diversion, though. I wondered whether the Minister had had an chance to have another look at the point we were discussing when the debate concluded last night. Having today read the Hansard record of the debate I am still not clear on the situation we discussed. We were talking about the conversion of the limited commercial licence which 3CR now holds, and which the Minister said is of an idiosyncratic nature, into a special interest licence. Does the Minister feel that what we are talking about would be merely an administrative change and not a major change in the potential reach of the station? As I understand it, a special interest public licence is normally granted to a station which targets on a particular interest group and by so doing it gives it a wider geographic coverage because the members of that special interest group might be widespread; for example, through the whole of Melbourne. On the other hand, 3CR is not that type of station, as I would have envisaged it, yet it appears that giving it a special interest public licence will considerably extend its reach. May we have some clarification of that? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(4.14) —Let me try to clarify this once again. It is the case that usually community licences as they traditionally have been understood within the public radio sector have involved lower power coverage of a limited area with a demonstrated community of interest and have not been easily definable by reference to the character of the programming; rather they have been defined by reference to being a community access station for a particular locality and using, as I say, usually a low-power transmitter. Special interest licences, by comparison, which have been acknowledged in the past and whose existence is now formalised in the legislation, have generally been those that have been targeted by reference to the nature of the programming rather than the particular geographic area with which they have been associated and potentially, I suppose, if not very much in practice, have had a wider range of physical coverage than that involved in the traditional notion of the community licence as such. Where does 3CR fit within that? It was originally given, as we know, a limited commercial licence without any particular restriction upon it as to coverage. The existing service area for 3CR, which covers the area within 16 kilometres of the transmitter in Collingwood, is in fact quite close to metropolitan-wide. It was limited to the particular boundaries that it now has not for any policy reasons relating to the community it intended to serve but only because it was not possible to allow higher power transmission from the inner city site that was preferred by 3CR. In fact, the first public licences granted in other cities-cities as distinct from smaller rural communities-were given metropolitan-wide coverage. So nothing really hangs on the physical distinction at this stage. Quite independently from the issue of the conversion of the licence, 3CR has been seeking a wider physical coverage within the metropolitan area. As I have said, it already has a coverage of nearly all of the metropolitan area. A 16-kilometre radius from the Richmond studios covers a pretty substantial slab of the Melbourne metropolis. It has been seeking, however, a slightly wider area quite independently of the proposed conversion. The proposed service area for the station has already been circulated for comment in the usual way. Other licensees may lodge objections to it; whether they have or not, I do not know. In due course it will come forward for decision in the ordinary way. But that is a separate exercise from that involved in changing the character of the licence. The reason it is specifically identified in this Bill as being given a special interest licence rather than a community licence is that, whatever may have been the case in the past, we want so far as possible to get the distinction known and understood: a community licence involves essentially wide-ranging community access radio targeted on a particular geographical locality with a common interest in that sort of physical geographical locality sense, and special interest licences really involve everything else. It is not possible to define in advance with any particular precision what the range of special interest public licences may be. That is something that will evolve over time. I will finish by saying that the particular character of the special interest that 3CR is to be identified as being vested with has not yet been determined. Everyone seemed to think that it was a good idea for the Minister to determine it rather than the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. I am not sure about that but that was the view of the Tribunal, I think, and also 3CR. It is essentially a matter of recognising that 3CR is a particular kind of station that has acquired an identity, one involving accessibility to all sorts of groups and programmers with an appeal to an alternative audience, as it were. I think the view is that we will be able somehow to define that in a satisfactory way and that essential programming style will be the one that will continue in the future under this new regime. I hope that is sufficient to explain it. There are a number of different bits and pieces of this that come together and it is a bit difficult to do it all with military precision because these different licences have come together as a result of an evolutionary process. I do not know whether that is reasonably accurate-none of my departmental troops are getting too hysterical so I assume it is accurate-but that is my understanding of how the situation has evolved and where we are now. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(4.20) —I thank the Minister for that explanation. He has clarified for me that the question of extending the range of the station is not at all related to the conversion of the licence. He is therefore saying that the conversion of the licence will not affect the power output of the station or its 16-kilometre range. Senator Gareth Evans —It is a completely separate exercise; that is what I am saying. Senator SHORT —I thank the Minister. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.21) —I just come in at this point because it seems to me-I am sure the Minister will agree-from a policy standpoint, and given his apparent misgivings about having to make a decision about 3CR, that there must be some concern about the precedent which is being established by going down this track of being able to change a licence in the fashion that he has set. I will not argue the particular point about 3CR-a low-powered unit-which is the point that my colleague Senator Short has been making, and the change from that low-powered licence of a community kind towards a rather larger one which is more special interest directed but with a larger coverage. That surely opens the question as to whether other public broadcasters may well seek to apply the same argument to the Minister about the extension of their activities. One could envisage, for instance, that public broadcasters with a licence under the new arrangements that are set down in this legislation would then, having obtained a licence, seek to go to the Minister and say, `Look, I am going to change the character of our broadcasting and the special group of people to whom we are trying to appeal', and seek to have a broader coverage of their licence. That is the point on which I would like some answer from the Minister because it seems to open a possible loophole by which public broadcasters could extend their activities on a broader base than might otherwise be expected. After all, we cannot have a coding system that blocks out those who are not specially interested in what is coming forward from any public broadcasting station. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(4.22) —The answer to that is very simple. The provision that has been made for 3CR is a special one-off provision embodied in the specific terms of clause 34 of this Bill. It is specific to 3CR itself. It is not as though we are creating a regime whereby a Minister, by the stroke of a pen, can change the character of the licence. It is a one-off thing and it has to go through this legislative trial and tribulation before it can be brought into effect. In the future I will not have the capacity to change the identification of the other existing community-- Senator Messner —Those that will get licences; those that will be registered. Senator GARETH EVANS —In the future I will identify in advance whether it is to be a community type of public licence or a special interest type of licence. As I have indicated-I think this is specific elsewhere, in the second reading speech and in other policy statements-the general intention is that a community licence that is called in the future will prima facie be one for a specific confined locality. A special interest licence will be one that has a specific defined programming character but no particular geographical coverage, just whatever is appropriate to the metropolitan or rural regional area that is involved. All of those ground rules will be laid out in advance. People will make applications and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) will grant the licences according to the particular category that has been identified. This is just an ad hoc provision to deal with an anomalous situation. I should further add for the record that the reason why the legislation is written in this way, that is, with 3CR vesting the responsibility in me as distinct from the Tribunal to identify the particular licence description, is that 3CR has just been through an extensive licence renewal process. It was thought inappropriate under the circumstances to put everyone to the trouble of going through it all again. I am now indicating that it is my intention to pick up as much as possible the previous ABT description and to make the processes as policy free and as administrative as possible. The last thing I want to do is to get into a row about 3CR. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 28 October, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(4.28) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 1, clause 2, after subclause (1) insert the following subclause: ``(1A) Part IV shall be deemed to have come into operation immediately after section 13 of the Broadcasting Amendment Act 1987 came into operation''. (2) Page 7, after paragraph 9 (e), insert the following new paragraph: ``(e) by adding at the end of subsection (12)', or after the end of such further period as the Tribunal, on application to it made by the person before the end of the 6 month period, allows by notice in writing served on the person'; and'' (3) Page 8, after clause 9, add the following new part: ``PART IV-AMENDMENT OF THE BROADCASTING AMENDMENT ACT 1987 Principal Act ``10. In this Part, `Principal Act' means the Broadcasting Amendment Act 1987.3 Limitation of interests in commercial television licences ``11. Section 13 of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by omitting from subsection (3) `at any time when' and substituting `if and so long as'; (b) by inserting after subsection (4) the following subsections: `(4A) Where: (a) immediately before the commencement day, a person (in this subsection called the ``shareholder'') held a shareholding interest in the company (in this subsection called the ``licensee company'') holding a licence; (b) the shareholder held that interest because the shareholder held a direct shareholding interest in a company (in this subsection called the ``intervening company'') other than the licensee company; (c) the intervening company becomes, on or after the commencement day, the holder of a further interest (whether a direct or indirect interest and whether a shareholding interest or another interest) in the licensee company; and (d) the shareholder became or becomes, because of the circumstances referred to in paragraph (c), the holder of a further interest (whether a shareholding interest or another interest) in the licensee company; subsection (3) does not apply in relation to the shareholder by reason only of the holding by the shareholder of the interest referred to in paragraph (d) if and so long as: (e) the shareholder's shareholding interest percentage in the licensee company is not greater than: (i) the percentage that was the shareholder's shareholding interest percentage in the licensee company immediately before the commencement day; or (ii) if, at any time on or after the commencement day, the shareholder's shareholding interest percentage in the licensee company has fallen below the percentage referred to in subparagraph (i)-that lower percentage or the lowest such percentage; and (f) the shareholder is not in a position to exercise greater control of the licensee company than the shareholder was able to exercise immediately before the commencement day. `(4b) Where: (a) a licence (in this subsection called the ``consolidated licence'') is granted, pursuant to section 94zc or 94zg of the Principal Act, as part of the consolidation of 2 or more other licences (in this subsection called the ``former licences'')' (b) a person held a prescribed interest in one of the former licences immediately before the commencement day and has continued to hold a prescribed interest in that licence from that time until immediately before the grant of the consolidated licence; and (c) immediately after the grant of the consolidated licence the person holds a prescribed interest in the consolidated licence; subsection (2) applies in relation to the circumstances giving rise to the prescribed interest referred to in paragraph (c) as if those circumstances had existed immediately before the commencement day.'; and (c) by inserting after subsection (5) the following subsection: `(5a) A reference in this section to a person being the holder, before the commencement day, of interests in a company holding a licence is a reference to the person being the holder of those interests in that company before the commencement day whether or not, before the commencement day, the company held that licence. `(5b) A reference in this section to a person's shareholding interest percentage in a company is a reference to the percentage of the total amounts paid on all shares in the company represented by the person's shareholding interests in the company.'.''. This long series of amendments, which I believe are uncontroversial, has been circulated by the Government. There is an explanatory memorandum associated with these amendments, which has been circulated. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard, rather than burdening the debate, the outline of these amendments which I am now circulating. Leave granted. The document read as follows- BROADCASTING (OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL) BILL (NO. 2) 1987-GOVERNMENT AMENDMENTS OUTLINE Section 13 of the Broadcasting Amendment Act 1987 (the Television Equalisation Act) introduced in the Broadcasting Act 1942 (the Principal Act): (a) a ``one television licence in an Approved Market'' prescribed interest limit which prohibits a person from holding a prescribed interest in two or more commercial television licences within the same Approved Market (sub-section 92 (1a) of the Principal Act); and (b) a ``one television licence in Tasmania'' prescribed interest limit which prohibits a person from holding a prescribed interest in two or more commercial television licences in Tasmania (sub-section 92 (1b) of the Principal Act). Sub-sections 13 (2)-(4) of the Television Equalisation Act provided grandfathered protection for relevant interests held before commencement of that Act (4 August 1987) which would otherwise contravene sub-section 92 (1a) or (1b) of the Principal Act. The Government Amendments of the Bill amend the grandfathering provisions in section 13 of the Television Equalisation Act in an identical manner to provisions in the Bill in relation to the MCS grandfathering provisions in section 92 of the Principal Act and in relation to the transitional grandfathering provision in sections 22 (MCS) and 27 (cross-media) of the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Act 1987. The operation of these provisions is outlined in the Explanatory Notes on paragraphs 4 (a), 4 (b) and 4 (c) of the Bill. The Government Amendments of the Bill also amend sub-section 27 (12) of the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Act 1987 (the Ownership and Control Act). That sub-section provided a fixed six months period of grace for excess cross-media directorships acquired before commencement. The Government Amendment of sub-section 27 (12) will allow the Tribunal, upon application, to grant an extension of this six months period. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 19 November, on motion by Senator Reynolds: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.31) —In relation to the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1987, I move: At the end of the motion, add: ``, but the Senate notes with concern the ad hoc approach that the Government has adopted concerning recent changes to broadcasting policy which is exemplified by: (a) the decision to abandon the proposal to auction new broadcasting licences only six weeks after the proposal was announced; (b) the decision to implement an establishment fee system for new FM radio licences, which will: (i) seriously disadvantage local or community groups from obtaining the new radio licences in regional markets, (ii) result in a reduction in the competitiveness and diversity of radio services to listeners in regional markets, (iii) have a particularly deleterious effect on those applicants currently being assessed by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal for the radio licences in Geelong, Gosford, the Gold Coast and Shepparton, and (iv) lead to widespread uncertainty in the broadcasting industry about possible future changes to broadcasting policy; and (c) the Government's failure to fully consider possible alternatives to the establishment fee system and to consult with the radio broadcasting industry''. Most of the issues mentioned in the amendment have been discussed in the cognate debate on all five Bills. I point out again that the amendment highlights the confusion in the Government about its policy on radio licences. I reiterate the situation that developed following the announcement in the Budget Speech of the tendering system for radio licences. The Government abandoned that system within four weeks and adopted a new proposal of establishment fees. That proposal is now the subject of a challenge in this place in that the Opposition is seeking the reference of the question of licence fees to the Senate Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure, while I understand the Australian Democrats will move further amendments which would also change the method by which the establishment fees would be calculated and put into place. So we have a vastly confusing situation. I indicate that the Liberal and National parties believe that the only way to sort out the mess-the debacle-that has developed in the last several weeks over the licensing fees is for the Government to join with the Liberal and National parties and the Democrats in referring the whole matter to the Senate Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure for investigation and report. There is plenty of time for this investigation to be undertaken. Because of the timetables arranged for applicants for licences that have already been called to face the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and the time that would be taken to pay any fee that might be assessed for a successful applicant, it is clear that no money will be received by this Government in this financial year under any establishment fee system. Consequently, the Government will not achieve its Budget objective of $11m or whatever lower figure it has now agreed in conjunction with the Democrats, if this system were to apply. I think it is a significant point that there is plenty of time for the Senate Committee to investigate and report, because clearly this system will have no effect until the next financial year anyway. There will be plenty of time for legislation to be put in place during 1988. For all those reasons the Liberal and National parties will not support the Democrat amendment and, if we fail in our move to have this Bill referred to the Senate Committee, we will oppose the legislation at a later stage. I make one other point. We will also move a committee stage amendment to ensure that the licence fee system, whether it be as agreed to by the Democrats or otherwise, does not apply to the four areas of Gosford, Geelong, Shepparton and the Gold Coast. Applications for these licences had been called prior to the Budget being announced on 15 September and had been part heard by the Tribunal at that point. This move is in the nature of retrospective legislation, to which the Liberal and National parties are opposed. Consequently, we believe that these particular areas, for which applications had been called, should be exempted from the effect of this legislation. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.35) —The Australian Democrats will not support this amendment. We have basically outlined the reasons for this in the cognate second reading debate. However, I would like to pick up one particular point made in Senator Messner's amendment, and that is the call for consultation with the industry. I reject the claim that there has not been consultation with the industry, at least since the announcement in the Budget Speech of the auction system. Certainly that measure was an Expenditure Review Committee grab at something that was seen to be lucrative, without much due thought for the consequences down the track. Since the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) has seen the light and since a great deal more consultation with the industry has taken place, I must reject the Opposition's claim that that has not happened. All I can say is that it is quite possible that this complaint by the Opposition is genuine on the basis that it has not been consulted by the industry. If that is the case, Opposition members should ask themselves some questions about why this industry-one in which a great many genuine small business people have wanted to get involved-has not consulted them. Certainly these people have consulted the Australian Democrats and, as I understand it, they have consulted the Minister and the Department, on a daily basis and even many times a day, since the initial announcement in the Budget. So, as far as I can see, the Opposition's claim is without foundation. In fact, the end result of the successful passage of this legislation, as amended by amendments which I will move, will be due to that consultation with the industry and aspirants to the industry. For that reason at least, it seems to the Democrats that there is no justification for responding positively to this second reading amendment. In the consultations we have had with the industry one thing has been very clear; that is, that the industry wants action. There are people who want to get into the industry and there are radio listeners out in regional areas who want and deserve increased service. The worst thing that could possibly happen is any further delay resulting from the matter being shunted off to a committee when a resolution can be achieved now. It is quite clear that a resolution can be achieved. We have the option of a structured system which in part takes care of the Government's need to collect revenue-a need which we support on the basis that a radio licence is the allocation of a public resource for which there should be some recompense to the public purse. It also takes into account the needs of people at the local level to be able to get involved. It is necessary for them to set up a proper business arrangement in order to be able to pay an establishment fee, but the system which will result from the amended legislation is one which any reasonably based business organisation should be able to cope with. I am not quite sure what the Opposition hopes to achieve by referring this matter to a committee. I am somewhat surprised that a party which insists it will not amend Budget legislation is delaying and opposing in this way a piece of legislation which was originally announced in the Budget and is therefore clearly Budget legislation and which at the time of the Budget was supposed to raise $22m-a figure that went down to $11m when the Bill passed through the House of Representatives. I have some serious reservations about what a committee, made up overwhelmingly of Liberal, Labor and National party members, might do to the whole package on radio ownership and control which has resulted from negotiations over this period. I believe that the package as a whole-this Bill and the subsequent legislation which will result from the Minister's statement on ownership and control-will be to the benefit of localism and diversity of ownership in the radio medium. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(4.39) —Needless to say, the Government rejects Senator Messner's amendment, and I adopt with pleasure the remarks of my colleague Senator Powell. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Messner's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E.Calvert, P. H. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, R. Jones, G. N.Beahan, M. E. McKiernan, J. P.Black, J. R. Bolkus, N.McLean, P. A. Burns, B. R.Macklin, M. J. Childs, B. K.Maguire, G. R. (Teller) Coates, J.Morris, J. J. Collins, R. L.Powell, J. F. Colston, M. A.Ray, Robert Cook, P. S. F.Reynolds, M. E. Cooney, B.Richardson, G. F. Coulter, J. R.Ryan, S. M. Crowley, R. A.Sanders, N. K. Devereux, J. R.Schacht, C. C. Devlin, R.Sibraa, K. W. Evans, GarethTate, M. C. Foreman, D. J.Vallentine, J. Gietzelt, A. T.Walsh, P. A. Haines, J.Zakharov, A. O. Jenkins, J. A. Vanstone, A. E. Giles, P. J.Chaney, F. M. Gietzelt, A. T.Lewis, A. W. R. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.47) —The Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 relates to AM and FM conversion fees. This matter has been discussed during the cognate second reading debate and I do not expect to expand on my remarks. We will not oppose this legislation. In passing, I note that this is another example of the Government's confusion and ad hockery in the area of radio broadcasting policy, because it shows quite clearly that the Government entered the Budget phase in the broadcasting area without a properly thought through policy and without proper ideas as to what it was doing. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! These three Bills are being debated together by order of the Senate. I am putting the second readings separately so that you can move your amendment. You should do no more than formally move your amendment. Senator MESSNER —Having had that situation drawn to my attention, I move: ``, but the Senate condemns the Government for its decision to increase the fee for the conversion of AM to FM broadcasting from the level announced in the 1987-88 Budget, that is, 30 per cent of the converting station's annual gross earnings, to 50 per cent of annual gross earnings, which will impose an additional cost burden on licensees in regional areas wishing to convert to the FM frequency''. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Messner's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Alston, R. K. R. Knowles, S. C.Archer, B. R. McGauran, J. J.Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bishop, B. K. Newman, J. M.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Panizza, J. H.Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S.Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N.Beahan, M. E. McKiernan, J. P.Black, J. R. McLean, P. A.Bolkus, N. Macklin, M. J.Burns, B. R. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Childs, B. K. Morris, J. J.Coates, J. Powell, J. F.Collins, R. L. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reynolds, M. E.Cook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F.Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Wood, W. R.Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O.Jenkins, J. A. Lewis, A. W. R. Giles, P. J.Reid, M. E. Gietzelt, A. T.Puplick, C. J. G. Button, J. N.Vanstone, A. E. Crowley, R. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.56) —In relation to the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987, I move: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate notes the need for the maintenance of localism in broadcasting and the proper representations of local interests in the ownership of television licences''. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. BROADCASTING AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1987 The Bill. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.57) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 2, clause 3, lines 7 to 22, leave out proposed paragraphs 82aa (1) (c) and (d), insert the following paragraph: ``(c) if there is no licence whose service area is substantially the same as that of the proposed licence-specify a number as the population of the service area of the proposed licence; and''. (2) Page 2, clause 3, lines 26 to 43 and page 3, lines 1 to 16, leave out proposed subsection 82aa (2), insert the following subsections: `` `(2) The amount of the fee specified under paragraph (1) (e) shall be an amount calculated in accordance with the formula: F X M where: F is the amount of the fee that would be payable under subsection 6 (2) of the Licence Fees Act in respect of gross earnings in respect of a licence if: (a) the gross earnings were equal to the amount of the comparable gross earnings in respect of the proposed licence; and (b) the fee were calculated in accordance with the Licence Fees Act as in force at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is published in relation to the proposed licence; and M is the multiplication factor for the comparable gross earnings. `` `(2a) The amount of the comparable gross earnings in respect of a proposed licence is: (a) if there is one licence only whose service area is substantially the same as that of the proposed licence-an amount equal to the gross earnings of that other licence in respect of the relevant fee period for that other licence; (b) if there are 2 or more licences whose service areas are substantially the same as that of the proposed licence-an amount calculated in accordance with the formula: G N where: G is the sum of the gross earnings in respect of those other licences in respect of the relevant fee periods for those other licences; and N is the number of those other licences; or (c) in any other case-an amount calculated in accordance with the formula: P X D where: P is the service area population of the proposed licence; and D is $15, or such other amount as is fixed by the regulations.''. (3) Page 3, clause 3, line 19, leave out ``subsection (2)'', insert ``subsections (2) and (2a)''. (4) Page 3, clause 3, line 26, leave out ``overlaps'', insert ``is substantially the same as''. (5) Page 3, clause 3, line 29, leave out ``subsection (2)'', insert ``subsections (2) and (2a)''. (6) Page 3, clause 3, lines 38 to 40 and page 4, lines 1 to 3, leave out proposed paragraph 82aa (4) (c), insert the following paragraph: ``(c) if the holder of a licence whose service area overlaps that of the proposed licence fails to comply with paragraph 123 (1) (c) in relation to the relevant fee period for the licence-the gross earnings in respect of the licence in respect of the next most recent period in respect of which a fee was payable in respect of the licence under the Licence Fees Act.''. (7) Page 4, clause 3, lines 24 to 34, leave out the proposed definitions of ``overlap area population'' and ``relevant fee period'', insert the following definitions: `` `multiplication factor', in relation to comparable gross earnings, means: (a) if those earnings are less than $2,500,000-the number 30; (b) if those earnings are equal to or greater than $2,500,000 but less than $3,500,000-the number 35; or (c) if those earnings are equal to or greater than $3,500,000-the number 40; `relevant fee period', in relation to a licence (in this definition called the `existing licence') whose service area is substantially the same as or overlaps that of the proposed commercial radio licence, means the most recent period in respect of which a fee was payable in respect of the existing licence under subsection 6 (2) of the Licence Fees Act, where the 6 months referred to in paragraph 123 (1) (c) beginning at the end of the period had ended before the day on which the notice under subsection 82 (1) in relation to the proposed commercial radio licence was published in the Gazette;''. I appreciate having leave to move these amendments together as they constitute in toto the system that will be used to implement the licence fee which will be payable on grant of new FM licences. As I said previously in the debate, the amendments reflect many weeks of discussion and consultation with the industry, the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Department, and the end result is a system based on a graduated scale that will allow maximum access, in the allocation of new licences, to groups which can assemble a viable business organisation. There will be a graduated scale and to that extent it serves the Government's purposes in that, if the scale were not graduated in this way, it would be highly likely that many radio markets would go to a supplementary system very quickly, in which case an establishment fee would not have been payable. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(4.59) —For the reasons canvassed at the second reading stage, the Government will accept the Democrats' amendments. They provide for a licensing regime that is a little different from that contained in the establishment fee clause of this Bill. As Senator Powell has said, they will produce a result that is rather more progressive in character than was the case with the original Government establishment fee proposal, so that the applicants on the Gold Coast-on any view, a rich market-will pay somewhat more than would have been the case under the Government proposal. Equally, those in the other markets that will come up this year-Gosford, Geelong and Shepparton-will each pay rather less. In those numerous regional markets that will come up in the future, there is some reason to suppose that perhaps the entry barrier established by a fee calculated simply by reference to the gross revenue of the service area in question-which is the Government proposal-might have been a little high and might conceivably have resulted in the determination of the non-viability of the market in question, thus opening up the scenario that Senator Powell painted. I say-as did Senator Powell-that this whole exercise has involved a very great deal of consultation with the industry. I indicate for the most part, while not entirely selfless, the views of the different sectors of the industry that have been put to me have often been constructive and creative, and more often than not have recognised the legitimacy of the Government's seeking to set an entry price into these markets given the scarce community resource that is involved in the allocation, by government, of a commercial broadcasting frequency. Against that background the Government is, of course, a little disappointed, acting as it does on behalf of the community as a whole, that the revenue return from this new regime is likely to be a little less than that which was originally contemplated. However, we believe that the regime that the Australian Democrats have proposed is a sensible one, is a workable one, and I accordingly indicate that we are prepared to accept it. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.02) —This cheap and nasty deal which the Government has done with the Australian Democrats is just an attempt to salvage some respectability. Of course the people they are holding hostage are the local radio groups that are seeking to obtain licences in the Gosford, Geelong, Shepparton and Gold Coast areas. These licences have been issued well in advance of the proposed budgets for which people have put up quite a deal of money, and these people have committed many voluntary resources to obtaining the licence. They have found halfway through the process of getting it that the rules have been changed by the Government in its announcement in the Budget. We all recall the history of that matter. The Government announced in the Budget that it would forthwith start a tender or auction system for radio licences. That system lasted about five weeks. Then Senator Evans said: `Now we will have an establishment fee system and the formula will be based on 100 per cent of average gross earnings of the station that is applying for the licence'. That system lasted about another three weeks. Lo and behold, the Democrats have now done another little cheap deal and have sold out all their principles on localism, on local broadcasting, and have decided to ensure that people who are able to afford rather large sums of money for licences are the ones who will obtain them. The little people, the little community groups, the little organisations that have been struggling to get their resources, the applications and submissions together over a long period are the ones who will drop out of the application process. Already we have seen in Geelong, Shepparton and Gosford several applicants who have announced their decision to drop out of the application process. They have found that the money being demanded by this Government is now far too much and way beyond their resources. So local radio will suffer as a result. That is a direct result of the Democrats' involvement with the Government in this cheap and nasty little operation. Senator McLean —There is a difference of tens of millions of dollars in those two columns. Senator MESSNER —What the Australian Democrats have done is reduce the potential revenue from the Government's estimate of $11m to $9.2m, a huge saving for local interests. If that is the best that the Australian Democrats can bargain, they had better go away, get re-elected and try to do a decent job. That is what they would do if they were really concerned about the interests of local radio station broadcasters. Later in the committee stage debate I will move an amendment to ensure that retrospectivity is not imposed by this Government upon licence applicants in the Geelong, Shepparton, Gold Coast and Gosford areas. Those areas should not have to suffer having the rules changed halfway through the race-as the Government has sought to do and which action is now supported by the Australian Democrats. That is the only legitimate position for any party in the Senate to take and, consequently, the Liberal and National parties are taking that position on this very important issue. I have already pointed out that there is no likelihood that the Government will get any money during the 1988 financial year as a result of this new scheme. So why do the Democrats see fit to support the Government in introducing this legislation at this time when it will be of no value whatsoever to it this financial year. The $11m which the Government estimated it would get before June 1988 will not be obtained and, consequently, this whole measure is a farce. That is why the Liberal and National parties will at a later stage move-if we do not succeed in our endeavour to have this matter stopped dead in its tracks-to have the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1987 referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure so that it can examine the whole question of the kinds of licence fees that ought to apply where new licences are put in place. That is the only fair way to address this question. We should look at giving organisations small and local in nature the opportunity of applying for a licence in the same way as the larger, more wealthy organisations can. We must find a way in which localism can be preserved and protected. I believe, as do a large number of potential and present applicants for licences, that the only way to do this is to have an in-depth analysis. The Government should be supporting this approach because, quite obviously, it will not get any money out of this measure this year anyway. What the Government should do is try to salvage some vestige of self-respect by calling together the people who are interested in this problem and making sure that it gets it right next time. This legislation follows nearly two months of absolute disaster and confusion in the area of radio broadcasting licences. The Government ought to come to its senses. Having said that, we know that it is practically impossible for Senator Evans to come to his senses in this area but at least we might have expected something from the Democrats, that they would have stuck to their principles on this matter. Therefore, I express grave surprise at what they have done; they have sold out localism in radio right across Australia. The people of Australia will remember this and we will make sure that they remember it. Their local interests are being sold out for a mess of pottage by the Democrats. Who knows what the outcome of that little deal will be for the Democrats in future? For that reason the Opposition will not be supporting the amendment moved by Senator Powell on behalf of the Australian Democrats. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Powell's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Aulich, R. Jones, G. N.Beahan, M. E. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Black, J. R. McLean, P. A.Bolkus, N. Macklin, M. J.Burns, B. R. Maguire, G. R.Childs, B. K. Morris, J. J.Coates, J. Powell, J. F.Collins, R. L. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reynolds, M. E.Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F.Coulter, J. R. Ryan, S. M.Devereux, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Devlin, R. Schacht, C. C.Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Haines, J. Wood, W. R.Jenkins, J. A. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Sheil, G.Calvert, P. H. Short, J. R.Chapman, H. G. P. Stone, J. O.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Tambling, G. E. J.Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S.Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Button, J. N. Chaney, F. M.Cook, P. F. S. Lewis, A. W. R.Crowley, R. A. Puplick, C. J. G.Giles, P. J. Vanstone, A. E. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is that the Bill, as amended, be agreed to. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.15) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 1, clause 3, proposed new subsection 82aa (1), leave out ``1 March 1987'', insert ``28 October 1987''. (2) Page 3, clause 3, proposed new paragraph 82aa (2) (d), leave out ``, or such other amount as is fixed by the regulations''. The amendments as proposed have the effect of striking out from the effect of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 4) those applicants who have sought to obtain licences for the four areas for which applications were called prior to the Budget announcement of the change of system on 15 September. As we know, those four areas are Geelong, Shepparton, Gosford and the Gold Coast. What the Government did by announcing the changes to its system toward a tendering or an auctioning system for licences was to change the rules in midstream as they applied to those applicants who were in the course of making submissions or, as in most cases, had already made submissions to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The Tribunal had set down a timetable by which it would hear the applications that had been submitted on behalf of those various groups. It is wise to remind ourselves that those various groups represented, in the main, local community organisations and small business people in the local towns who got together to set up small companies or incorporated bodies to seek to obtain these licences. In other words, we are not talking about large corporate networks or operators in some far off capital cities seeking licences, but rather the small organisations with very local concerns, local ownership and interests in local programming. Those were the kinds of applicants who were seeking to obtain licences in this situation. Yet on 15 September the Government, without any consultation or any warning whatsoever, changed the rules by which the submissions were to be judged by the Tribunal and pulled the rug out from under the applicants' feet. The system which the Government adopted at that stage subsequently changed, as we know. We will not go through all of the procedures up to now, but we have just observed the passage of a further alternative, it being, I think, No. 3.5 of the options that the Government has considered, and which represents a deal which it did with the Australian Democrats in respect of a new system of establishment fees. Our point is simply that those four areas for which applications had been called should be exempted from the legislation. The reason is obvious: the Government chose to change the rules in midstream. The organisations concerned had already put their applications in train and made submissions to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal was ready to hear their applications at the time these changes were announced. That is the reason for our opposition to the passage of this legislation in its present form. We seek to move to have those four areas struck out of the Bill so that they will not be retrospectively affected by this Government's heavy handed legislation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(5.19) —Governments often have to be in the position of changing policy in such a way that people are affected in ways they do not fully anticipate at the time. Were governments to be constricted from ever affecting anybody, policy making, particularly at Budget time, would clearly be drawn to a halt. One has to look at whether, in all the circumstances, the disadvantage that is caused is unreasonable in terms of the reasonable expectations and the overall position of the person who is affected by the legislation in question. In the context of this legislation the Government had to look in particular at the comparative justice that would be done as between the initial applicants for the four areas, to whom Senator Messner refers, and the subsequent applicants in future years, who would be in exactly the same position but who would have the misfortune, if they were treated differently, of having to pay a substantial additional impost simply by virtue of being unlucky enough to be down the track rather than in the first year of the new process. We are talking about a new process. We are talking about a new category, a new bundle, of regional licences, the issuing of which was announced by my predecessor some little time ago and which process had barely got under way so far as the first four applicants were concerned. It is true that money had been spent in preparing the applications for an appearance before the Tribunal. In the form that the legislation now takes that appearance will still have to be before the Tribunal. It will not simply be a hurdle or threshold requirement; it will be a knock down, drag out argument of a familiar kind as to which of the applicants is the best possible. So that particular part of the argument we have heard, that the money would be wasted, has no possible application at all in the present circumstances. The only remaining issue is whether it is somehow inequitable to require this category of applicants, who will not be getting their licences until some considerable number of months from now have elapsed, on the receipt of those licences to have to pay the fee that subsequent generations of applicants will have to pay. The Government has taken the view, which I think the Senate as a whole would share, that it would be far more inequitable for the licences which have already been called to be exempt from the fee than it would be to have them subject to the fee. The Tribunal is still a long way from reaching decisions on the four areas in question. As I said, that is some months away and only the initial stages of a complex inquiry process have been completed. The imposition of an establishment fee will not change the nature of the selection process. It simply adds an extra layer of impost and, as such, is indistinguishable from any other kind of tax increase or impost increase-from $500 in this instance to a very much more substantial fee-which is borne by taxpayers and members of the community generally. This raises the whole question, which I do not want to go into, of whether we are talking about genuine commercial risk-takers here, or some special class of little Aussie battlers who ought not under any circumstances to be exposed to the responsibility, the obligation, of paying a substantial contribution to the community coffers for the right to make very substantial sums of money. I have taken the view throughout this debate that little Aussie battlers are pretty thin on the ground when it comes to applicants for commercial licences. If they are really imbued with a sense of overwhelming public spiritedness and just want to get into the radio business for the joy of communicating to their fellow rotarians, butchers, bakers and candlestick-makers in the country towns in question, they have the option of getting into public radio through community access provisions of the kind we were debating earlier. What people are talking about here, what they are clamouring for, is the right to get into the commercial radio business and to make money from it. That does not mean the fees that are imposed should be impossibly high, should constitute a barrier to entry or should operate in the way Senator Powell was describing to limit, in effect, the capacity of the market to support new entrants, new competitors. That has to be a limiting factor, but the basic principles involved here are pretty clear cut. I find it difficult to believe that any kind of credible argument can be justified for giving these first four groups of applicants a free kick in the way that Senator Messner and the Opposition would propose. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(5.25) —The Australian Democrats do not support this amendment, either. At this point it is interesting to note the series of somewhat useless amendments along this line in view of the history of the exercise. This amendment seeks to exempt the first four markets. When the first auction system was proposed, the problem that Senator Messner had-I had some sympathy with him as the new spokesperson in this area of non-policy for the Opposition-was that he could give no commitment to the applicants in those four markets. It must be a great relief to him now to be able to be so positive about this matter and about proposals to send this legislation to a committee and so on. Senator Messner is fully aware that the commitment which the Democrats gave to these very same applicants and all future applicants at that time was that we would work to ensure a system based on two fundamental principles-first, that there is a right to some recompense from the public purse for the allocation for business purposes of a public resource and, secondly, that access should be as open and as equitable as possible. We said that we would work in that direction. We gave that commitment on the very first day, the night the Budget was announced. We have pursued that commitment. As I have said, I have some sympathy for Senator Messner's position in the whole exercise, but no sympathy for this amendment or some of the other amendments which are possible only because the Democrats have taken a stance on those basic principles, a stance which has proven to be successful and which has resulted from consultation. The applicants in these four areas, who have been clamouring to get into radio-the applicants for the four markets that are addressed in this amendment-would not even be getting that far if Senator Messner's previous amendment to send this legislation to a committee had got through. I find it utterly inconsistent that this amendment should be proposed. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.28) —The second amendment I have moved concerns the regulation-making power set down in the legislation. I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills drew attention to this provision in the legislation and regarded it as not being fitting to be incorporated in the legislation. Consequently, my amendment seeks to have such fee-fixing power as determined by the Bill transferred so that legislation will be required to be passed to fix the fee on an annual or any other basis. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(5.29) —I should comment on Senator Messner's second amendment, especially as I am a member of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The Australian Democrats are concerned about this kind of legislative drafting. However, in the current instance I would not want the Committee to be deluded into thinking that this amendment refers to all aspects of the fee-setting mechanism as it is now established. It merely applies in a market where there is no operating AM station. The only market affected currently is the Ipswich market. There is a figure in the current Bill which I confidently expect is the figure which will apply to Ipswich, which is coming up in the relatively near future. So whilst expressing some reservations about this type of legislative provision, I point out that in practical terms it was not deemed sufficiently worrying, given that it is only a specific circumstance and is not prevalent in the whole exercise. So we are not supporting this amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(5.29) —Essentially for the reasons Senator Powell has articulated, the Government will be opposing the second of Senator Messner's amendments. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Messner's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Sheil, G.Calvert, P. H. Short, J. R.Chapman, H. G. P. Stone, J. O.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Tambling, G. E. J.Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Hill, R. Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Beahan, M. E. McLean, P. A.Black, J. R. Macklin, M. J.Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R.Burns, B. R. Morris, J. J.Childs, B. K. Powell, J. F.Coates, J. Ray, RobertCollins, R. L. Reynolds, M. E.Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F.Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D J. Vallentine, J.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Jenkins, J. A. Wood, W. R.Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Reid, M. E. Giles, P. J.Puplick, C. J. G. Cook, P. F. S.Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N.Lewis, A. W. R. Crowley, R. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(5.35) —I wish to take the opportunity, in the final stages of this committee debate, to respond to a fairly scurrilous attack that was made on me on 5 November by Mr N. A. Brown, a member of the Opposition in the House of Representatives. He took the occasion of the committee stage of this debate to suggest that there had been a wink and a nod given to Mr Wheatley, of the Hoyts Media Ltd organisation, indicating that the Government would make a policy decision to enable him to make a major acquisition for his organisation in such a way as to be guaranteed legislative or Government support. I indicate for the record that there is no substance whatever in that allegation made by Mr Brown. I shall not stop to debate the matter any longer, as it does not deserve to be given that degree of dignity, but as evidence for that proposition I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of a letter to Mr Brown from Glenn Wheatley, of Hoyts Media Ltd, dated 23 November, copies of which were sent, as the letter indicates, to me, to Andrew Peacock and to Tony Messner, all of whom knew the true state of affairs. The letter will set the record straight. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 23rd November 1987 Hon. N. A. Brown M.P., c/o Parliament House, King George Terrace, PARKES, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Mr Brown, I would like to set straight the events leading up to Hoyts Media Ltd, acquisition of Northern Star Holdings radio stations on October 12th. Your comments on the acquisition as reported by Hansard in Parliament on November 5th, although quite colourful, are far from factual. Hoyts Media did meet with the Minister, Senator Gareth Evans, not over whisky and cigars as you suggested, but in the Senator's Canberra office on Wednesday September 23rd. Hoyts Executive Director, Mr Peter Ivany and myself felt an obligation to the Minister to inform him that we were contemplating expansion that would take the company over the limit of radio stations able to be held at that time. It was around this time we held meetings with Andrew Peacock and Tony Messner and informed them also of our plans. When the final decision to purchase Northern Star Holdings radio stations was made, the Minister was informed before the public announcement. We were fully aware of the ramifications of our decision and I must emphasize that the Minister also reminded us of this in no uncertain terms. Senator Evans made no promises nor gave predictions of the Government's ownership position. Hoyts made an undertaking to the Minister that we would not put any pressure at all on the Government to amend the ownership laws in our favour, nor would we take our case public. We also undertook to abide by the new legislation and thereby sell off any stations if need be. It is fair to say that at this stage there was enough speculation in the press for us to assume that the radio ownership laws would be brought somewhat into line with the recently changed television ownership and control laws. Once again both Messrs Peacock and Messner were informed of our decision, and they too acknowledge the risks that we had taken. Our decision was a commercial one. Northern Star did not want the stations split up, we had to buy them all or not at all. I want to re-emphasize that this purchase was not made with a nod and a wink to anyone. At all times Hoyts Media conducted itself in a very open and business like manner. We were quite prepared to take the consequences and make any amendments necessary to stay within the law. For the record I am sending a copy of this letter to the Minister, Andrew Peacock and Tony Messner. Yours sincerely, GLENN WHEATLEY Managing Director-Hoyts Media c.c. Senator Gareth Evans Andrew Peacock Tony Messner Bill, as amended, agreed to. RADIO LICENCE FEES AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1987 The Bill. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.37) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 2, clause 4, proposed new subsection 6 (1a), leave out ``1 March 1987'', insert ``28 October 1987''. (2) Page 3, clause 6, proposed new paragraph 6b (1) (b), leave out ``1 March 1987'', insert ``28 October 1987''. I do not want to go over old ground, but these amendments are consistent with the attitude that we took in respect of the establishment fee system as a whole. With an earlier Bill we will refer the matter to a committee if we are successful in having the amendment carried. As a consequence this amendment covers that part of the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) which refers to the establishment fee system and actually imposes the fee. This is consistent with our earlier view. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(5.38) —Consistent with the position the Government took when this same amendment was moved to a previous Bill, I indicate the Government's opposition to these amendments. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(5.39) —For the reasons outlined in a previous amendment which sought to exempt the applicants for the four markets currently open for application, the Australian Democrats also will not be supporting these amendments. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. TELEVISION LICENCE FEES AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1987 Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1987 reported with amendments and Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 and Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987 reported without amendment. Adoption of Report Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the report of the Committee be adopted. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.41) —In relation to the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1987, I move: Leave out all words after ``That'', insert ``the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure for report by the first day of sitting in March 1988, and the Committee consider the following matters: (a) the effect of the Government's proposed establishment fee system on the ability of local or community interest groups to compete for radio licences in regional markets; (b) the equity of applying the establishment fee system to those licences for which applications have been received by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; (c) the practical limitations of the establishment fee system and the effect it may have on the future development of radio broadcasting services throughout Australia; and (d) possible alternatives to the establishment fee system in view of: (i) the desirability of formulating an appropriate return to the Commonwealth for the use of the radio frequency spectrum which takes account of, amongst other things, the public interest, and (ii) the need to ensure that existing objectives of radio broadcasting, including the provision of competitive and diverse radio services and the responsiveness of these services to local needs, are not compromised.''. This amendment seeks to refer the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1987, which we have been discussing at some length this afternoon, to the Senate Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure. I will not go over all the arguments again as to why the Opposition deems this to be a necessary course; I simply reiterate the point that the Government is stumbling from one shambles to another in the area of radio broadcasting licensing. Clearly there should be a Senate committee investigation of all the proposals put forward by the Government and now supported by the Australian Democrats. It should also investigate alternative schemes which no doubt are present in the minds of those in the industry who have studied these problems. The Opposition believes it is time for the Government to stop fooling around. It is time the Democrats saw their true responsibility and duty in this matter and supported the Liberal and National parties so that we can obtain a thoroughgoing investigation of the whole shambles that the Government has brought upon radio since 15 September 1987. The points at issue were canvassed in some depth during the second reading and committee stages; therefore, I will not delay the chamber any further on them. I just want to make the final point that there is time for this investigation by a Senate committee to proceed and to report with no effect upon the Government's revenue. It is highly unlikely that the Government will obtain any revenue from the issuing of new licences and therefore through the establishment fee system before 30 June 1988. That means there is no need for the passage of this legislation in any hurry whatsoever. The Democrats have chosen to support the Government in this matter even though it is not necessary for them to do so. They would serve the interests of the community best by supporting this motion, which would give the Senate the opportunity of investigating this matter in great depth to bring forward recommendations for consideration. That is the proper course and duty of the Australian Democrats. They are condemned for not supporting this motion. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(5.44) —The Australian Democrats will not support the amendment moved by Senator Messner, as we suggested earlier. However, I feel I must take this opportunity to respond to a challenge by Senator Short in the debate yesterday which relates directly to the reference of this question of radio broadcasting policy. Senator Messner referred to the shambles in radio policy. It may very well be that he could argue that that was the case: I agree with him that media policy generally has been a shambles as far as this Government and this Opposition are concerned. In the second reading stage or perhaps in the early stages of the committee Senator Short apparently got very confused when I reminded the Senate that the fact of media policy being a shambles was called to the attention of the Senate by the Australian Democrats as long ago as February this year when our leader, Senator Haines, moved for the suspension of Standing Orders in order to extend the time and the terms of reference of an already established select committee of this Senate which was charged at that time with looking specifically at television equalisation but which the Australian Democrats believed should have taken on that very shambles of media policy-not just radio but television, which is a critical area, given the absolute influence of the visual medium, and newspapers as well. That did not happen. We were not supported by anybody in this House, let alone the Liberal Party of Australia. I did remind the chamber last night that there were some internal problems with the coalition at that point which later reflected themselves in the National Party of Australia supporting the Government's legislation which, in fact, did turn the television ownership in this country over to the hands of its media mates. That was a shambles. At that time Senator Messner and his Party did not agree with the Democrats that it was a shambles. It was, and in many ways it still is. If there is one section of media policy which now is less of a shambles than it was before-I would suggest it is looking in pretty good shape-it is radio policy. That is because we have been dealing not just with one particular piece of radio policy although, listening to the Opposition, one would think we were dealing only with establishment fees. This whole exercise has been an exercise in establishing some kind of order and forward thinking for radio policy. I remind the Opposition that part of the package is the proposals which were announced by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans)-we might call it almost legislation by Press release-and which will be supported by the Australian Democrats when they come before this Parliament. They institute very strong cross-media ownership rules and quite stringent ownership levels in radio for this country. We have down the track a coherent radio policy looking to the future. The legislation does not involve just the establishment fee. One of the things which ensure that local groups-the people that Senator Messner claims to be moving this amendment in support of-will be the people who are involved in very great measure in regional radio is those upcoming restrictions, cross-media restrictions and restrictions on ownership. We would have liked a national audience reach ceiling but there are percentage limits for States and an ownership limit of only 16 stations nationally. These put ceilings on the big players, the people who would be unfair competition for the genuine local business interests who will now be getting into radio in regional Australia. I absolutely reject the suggestion that there is anything shabby or anything that has not been thought very clearly through by the Australian Democrats in this whole exercise. I remind the Senate that there was an opportunity for the Senate to increase the terms of reference of a Senate committee back as far as February. Part of the extended terms of reference which the Democrats wanted to implement was paragraph (f), which I suggested would have been relevant to the sorts of issues that we have been addressing here today. We wanted the committee to look at `the measures necessary to encourage community based and controlled media outlets designed to provide a wide variety of information and opinion and assess to what extent Government support should be given to alternative community based media'. That was amongst the extended terms of reference which we were asking the Senate to set in place. The Senate would not even allow us to suspend Standing Orders to see whether we could get a vote for that to happen. The Opposition should not talk to the Democrats about a shambles in media policy. Of course, the most embarrassing thing at the beginning of all this was on Budget night when we saw that yet another Opposition policy had been stolen by the Expenditure Review Committee, and through it by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), when he called in the Budget for a $22m auction system. I know that Opposition members get embarrassed; they get embarrassed almost daily. I totally reject the claims of Senator Messner that we do not see that there has been a shambles in media policy. There are still a lot of matters in media policy that need to be developed. The exercise since Budget night in September has been the most positive thing that has happened in the media in this country for many years. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(5.51) —There was a time in the affairs of the Senate when I would have responded to these slurs on the Government's political manhood with a very extended analysis of just why it is that the Government's media policy is not a shambles in any of its television, radio, public, commercial, regional, metropolitan or national dimensions. Being a much more laid-back and relaxed sort of person now, and bearing in mind that we still have about 58 Bills to pass in the next few days, I think my strident opposition to any such sordid suggestion from the Opposition can be taken as read. I am indebted to Senator Powell for riding in-at least partially-on her white charger to defend us so far as radio policy is concerned. There is a lot more that could be said by way of defence-I know that Senator Powell would agree-but now is not the time to do it. Let me just say that it has been a very complex and difficult policy area to develop. It has been a very dramatic year in Australian media history. There is still some more policy development to go. In the next few days I will introduce a piece of legislation which will pick up a number of aspects of radio policy to which Senator Powell referred. There are further policy issues to be resolved next year in relation to metropolitan conversion and so on. All the pieces are coming together and as a result we have a very streamlined and sensitively organised-in terms of the regulatory regime that is applicable-media industry in this country, and one of which I think any government or country would be proud. That process is proceeding without the necessity for assistance from a Senate committee, although we are indebted to Senator Messner for making the suggestion that we might need some help in that respect. For all those reasons, the Government does not intend to support the reference to a committee. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(5.53) —I want to respond briefly to Senator Powell's comments. I obviously struck a raw nerve yesterday, and that is exposed in her response today. I am interested to note from Senator Evans that, through his tiredness, laid-backness or whatever it is, he is now relying on the Australian Democrats to defend the cause, which is simply another example of what we have been talking about in terms of the deal on this latest issue struck between the two parties. I will just remind Senator Powell of a couple of things. The first thing is that her talk about our obstructing consideration of such issues in February is nonsense. What we were talking about in February had nothing to do with what we are talking about now-that is, the system of allocating licences for FM radio. I point out to Senator Powell that we are now in the fourth variation of this system of FM licensing. Pre-Budget we had a system of application for licences, on which applicants acted in good faith, which involved no auction system or related system at all. Out of the blue there came in the Budget a proposal to auction licences, to reef off $22m without, as far as I am aware, even giving the pre-Budget applicants a chance to vary their applications to take account of the changed circumstances. After six weeks of pressure from the Opposition and the industry-but basically through the work of the coalition-the Government brought out a new system, as envisaged in the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill (No. 2) 1987, which we are discussing now. That was to chop it down to $11m. Now, in the last couple of days as a result of a deal done between the Government and the Australian Democrats, we have yet another variation, the fourth, which it is said will bring in revenue of $9m. If that is not confusion-in the space of three months we have had four separate variations on the method of allocating FM licences-I would be interested to hear from Senator Powell just what is. There is no doubt that the matter has been a shambles from day one. There has been confusion in the Government's ranks and I, along with the rest of the Opposition, am very doubtful that the Government has thought its way through in terms of the logic of what it is now doing. There is a shambles-there is no doubt about it. At the rate we are going it will cause continuing confusion and cost to the industry. As I said yesterday, it will cause confusion not just to the industry but also to the users-that is, the listeners of FM radio. Senator Powell's comments today in response to what I said yesterday are just nonsense. I just wanted to make that point. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Report adopted. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) put: That the Bills be now read a third time. Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Bill The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Aulich, T. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Beahan, M. E. McLean, P. A.Black, J. R. Macklin, M. J.Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R.Burns, B. R. Morris, J. J.Childs, B. K. Powell, J. F.Coates, J. Ray, RobertCollins, R. L. Reynolds, M. E.Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F.Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Vallentine, J.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Haines, J. Wood, W. R.Jenkins, J. A. Zakharov, A. O.Jones, G. N. Alston, R. K. R. Lewis, A. W. R.Archer, B. R. McGauran, J. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Sheil, G.Calvert, P. H. Short, J. R.Chapman, H. G. P. Stone, J. O.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Tambling, G. E. J.Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Hill, R. Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Watson, J. O. W. Button, J. N. Chaney, F. M.Giles, P. J. Patterson, K. C. L.Crowley, R. A. MacGibbon, D. J.Cook, P. F. S. Reid, M. E. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a third time. Debate resumed from 23 November, on motion by Senator Richardson: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts) —Might I suggest that the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 and the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 be dealt with in a cognate debate. The PRESIDENT —Is it the wish of the Senate that this be undertaken? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(6.03) —We are cognately debating a package of three Bills-the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill. Prior to dealing with these Bills, I must make a reference to the comments of Senator Gareth Evans in the chamber in the previous debate. Yet again Senator Evans has displayed a capacity to use sexist language or speak in a sexist way that is inconsistent with the principles his Government allegedly would want to follow. In response to Senator Powell, Senator Evans, perhaps unwittingly, said that he would resist commenting on the slurs on his Government's political manhood. I think he meant to say `political capacity'. Yet again we have another example of a senior Government Minister equating manhood with capacity. I would be interested to hear Senator Ryan's comments on that matter. The Opposition will not oppose any of these Bills, but we have some serious concerns with some of them. To reflect those concerns we will move various amendments both at this, the second reading stage, and later at the committee stage. Let me first address the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill. The Bill makes some positive changes in the social security area which I will deal with shortly. But let me first outline why they are necessary. Welfare, of course, is a necessary part of government activity. It is through welfare that we can assist people in need. But the greatest assistance we can offer to people is to stop them falling into need in the first place. It is the economic management of this Government that, the coalition asserts, has resulted in more people being in need of welfare. For example, if we take the debt faced by this country on an individual basis, we find that individual Australians, putatively speaking, owe between $6,500 and $7,000 each. I am sure Australians would be stunned to realise that the corresponding amount in the United States of America is not $15,000 or $20,000 but about $1,800, a much smaller amount. Our inflation rate is about double that of Japan and the United States. Our current account deficit is the second worst in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. I mention these points because, as I say, it is all very well to make amendments in the social security area but it would be far more appropriate not to have to spend so much in the welfare area-not simply to cut as an exercise in expenditure reduction but as an acknowledgment that fewer people were in need. The coalition has a very positive record in the social security area. The relevant Ministers in the previous coalition Government, former Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and Senator Chaney, made substantial contributions. It is apparent, from reading the debates in the other place and from the general comments that have been made, that many Government members believe that they are the only ones with compassion and understanding and that they alone can care for those in the community in need. I put it to the Senate that the contributions of Senator Guilfoyle and Senator Chaney in the previous Government show how mistaken Government members are in that view. It is the coalition's view that the Government simply does not understand that the best way to help people in need is to ensure that they do not fall into need in the first place-as I have said, to ensure that the economy is sound, that business is confident and looking to expand so that individuals and their children can get jobs and not need welfare. Nonetheless, this Government consistently hides its head in the sand. Despite constant warnings, it ignores our growing debt, ignores the precarious situation of the international economy and continues to tell Australians that all is well. The Opposition supports specific initiatives in this package. This package deals, for example, with amendments to the family welfare area, providing for what is now referred to as the family allowance supplement. People with an income of approximately $300 a week who in the past would have got $17 for a child under 13 years will now get $22. Whereas children between 13 years and 15 years would have previously qualified for a family income supplement of $17 a week, they will now qualify for a payment of $28. Amendments to rental assistance and improvements in the child disability allowance are also contained in this Bill. There is a patching up job with respect to sole parents. The Government made some changes earlier in the year and, having realised their effect on sole parents seeking to complete their study, has admitted its error and made some corrections in that regard. There are changes in the carer's pension and so on. I think that future speakers will deal with certain matters that I will not go into detail about now. Suffice to say that basically the Opposition supports the details in the package of these Bills. However, there are some regrettable aspects and I will return to them. First, I will make some comments about the veterans' area. It is regrettable that, while the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 does do some things that should be done, it does not provide the extra benefits to servicewomen from Korea, Malaya and Vietnam, even though perhaps they are very few in number, and it does not address the situation of the defence service home loan scheme as perhaps it should. The Opposition is particularly concerned with the removal of the discretion in hardship cases with respect to the 2.5 per cent income deeming provisions. Our concern was reflected in the form of a second reading amendment in the other place. In this place, we will seek to refer that portion of the Bill dealing with this matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs. Accordingly, I move: At the end of the motion add: ``, and the provisions of subclause 11 (2) be referred to the Standing Committee on Community Affairs''. The reference of clause 11 (2) to that Committee will permit a further discussion of this contentious area. A large number of people believe that they would be very unfairly affected by this legislation were it passed with clause 11 (2) as it stands. The coalition understands that the Government needs to have this Bill passed in order to allow, for example, the family assistance supplements to be paid. Therefore, a satisfactory way of addressing the problem is to refer clause 11 (2), which deals with our concerns, to a committee and the rest of the Bill can be given passage and it can then go back to the other place. Having moved that amendment, I indicate that, during the committee stage, we will move that clause 11 (2) be removed. That procedure will allow the passage of the Bill while clause 11 (2) can be considered by the Committee. The second Bill in this package of three is the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, which basically deals with the extension of pharmaceutical benefits concessions to a variety of groups. Senator Puplick will canvass these matters later. There is a temptation to address the disaster of this Government's health administration across the nation and, in particular, in the Australian Capital Territory. For the benefit of all concerned, I will resist that temptation. The people affected by the disastrous health administration know how badly they are affected and it appears that when the coalition, health administrators and people with an interest in this area talk to the Government about problems with health, their comments fall on deaf ears. I noted the comments in the other place-I think they were from Ms McHugh, but they may not have been-which referred to the Opposition's use of scare tactics on social security matters. Without having the direct quote in front of me, all I can say is that the honourable member concerned basically said that with all the scaremongering that the coalition had done, pensioners were probably surprised that they still had their gold teeth. When one considers the letters that were sent to very many pensioners as part of the Government's scare campaign to get itself re-elected, this did not seem to be an appropriate course of action for a member of the House of Representatives and a member of the Australian Labor Party to take. I draw the Senate's attention to one paragraph of the letter that was sent to pensioners in marginal seats and it reads: Now Mr Howard wants to reduce pensions and services you receive so that he can pay tax cuts to the well off and restore free lunches and other untaxed fringe benefits to them. I am sure that honourable senators are aware of the fact that no suggestion was made by the coalition that pensions would be reduced. This Government took the opportunity to write to pensioners in a clear and unambiguous way saying that Mr Howard wanted to reduce their pensions. If that is not frightening pensioners and using the social security debate as a means to win votes rather than addressing the substantive issues, I do not know what is. When I read the comments of the relevant Labor Party member in the other place that we had supposedly used scare tactics to the extent that pensioners would be surprised that they still had their gold teeth, I was somewhat resentful, because those comments came from a member of a party which, at election time, chose to target the pensioners quite specifically in a fearmongering campaign. Further, it chose quite specifically to misrepresent the aims of the coalition in order to win itself some more votes without being concerned about the effect on pensioners of its scare campaign that pensions were to be cut. I now turn to the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, which deals primarily with the targeting of Commonwealth funds for hospitals and other related matters, including the requirement for the provision of information by nursing homes. The Opposition will seek to refer this Bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs. Further, I foreshadow that the coalition will move that the motion for the second reading of this Bill be amended by adding the following at the end of the motion: ``, but the Senate is of the opinion that the Hawke Labor Government's autocratic approach to aged care is jeopardising the successful implementation of its policy in Australia, and has seriously threatened stability and future improvements in this most important area, especially by- (a) its refusal to consult on this legislation with voluntary and private sector providers of aged care; (b) the removal of ministerial discretion in reviewing fees determination decisions; (c) the unnecessary, costly and excessive reporting requirements imposed by the Bill; (d) the duplication of State Government regulations relating to standards; and (e) the exclusion of private investment from the provision of hostel accommodation''. These words adequately reflect the coalition's concern about this Bill. The coalition is very much concerned with the lack of consultation on these matters and, for that matter, those in other portfolios where the lack of consultation makes an absolute mockery of the much talked of desire of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for consensus. I have canvassed the primary areas of concern for the Opposition and I will leave it to my colleagues to address other specific matters which they may choose to raise. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(6.18) —This evening we are debating a package of Bills and I wish to address my remarks in particular to the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987. As a member of the Government, naturally I support this Bill. Also I am pleased to support it because it will enable the Government to introduce its long awaited and major family assistance package. The Bill implements Government initiatives on social security which were announced in May when the economic statement was brought down by the Government and which were mentioned also in the 1987 Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). The most important initiative introduced by this legislation is the $500m family package, which is the centrepiece and the main thrust of this Government's attack on the scourge of poverty in the Australian community. The Bills provide for the expenditure in the current financial year of some $215m on the family package and that will be the opening shot in the battle against poverty. That opening shot will bring a real increase in the standard of living for many hundreds of thousands of Australian children. It is very important to note that the legislation actually targets the children of low income working families, that is, families whose head is in the work force as distinct from and in addition to those families whose head depends on social security payments. The package targets children in particular, because in Australia, regrettably, poverty is linked significantly with the presence of children. The Government recognises that low income families in Australia have shared the burden of economic restraint that was forced on us by difficult international circumstances. The family assistance package that is provided under this legislation will give a substantial boost to the disposable income of low income families in Australia, and thus it will bring about greater fairness in the Australian community; it will add to the level of social justice in our community. The family package is a major redistributive measure introduced by the Hawke Government. It will incorporate a new system of child payments called the family allowance supplement, which is to be introduced this month as a central weapon in our attack on poverty, particularly on child related poverty in the Australian community. The family allowance supplement will replace the existing family income supplement, which is at present $17 a week per child. The new family allowance supplement will total $22 a week per child and it will operate along the same lines as the former family income supplement. The family allowance supplement, in effect, will be a top-up for child payments to low income families and, as I pointed out previously, particularly to low income families whose head is actually working in the work force but is receiving a low wage or salary. The means test for the family allowance supplement will be relaxed so that thousands more low income families in Australia will be eligible for the new payments. Tens of thousands more families will be eligible for the family allowance supplement than are presently eligible for the family income supplement. The new system provides for cash payments, thus adding to the cash in hand and disposable income of low income families. By making cash payments, we will enable those parents of children to spend the money as required according to the family's priorities. Families earning less than $300 a week will receive a payment of $22 a week per child but, as was pointed out in the explanatory memorandum in relation to this Bill, families with older children will receive $28 a week for every child aged 13, 14 or 15 years. Social security pensioners and beneficiaries currently receive a child benefit payment of $17 a week, and those child payments will be increased to $22 a week in line with the payments provided under the family allowance supplement arrangements. A family earning less than $300 a week with two children aged under 13 years and one child of, say, 14 years will receive the existing family allowance payment of $23.58 a week together with the new supplement of $72, which represents a large increase in the disposable cash payments from the Government to that family. The $300 income threshold for full payment of the family allowance supplement is increased by $12 a week for every additional child. Therefore, larger families can earn more than $300 a week in wages but still qualify for the full payment under the family allowance supplement. For example, the income limit for a family with three children to receive the full supplement will be $324 a week. Some families earning more than $300 a week-in fact, well above $300 a week-will still be able to obtain some payment under the family allowance supplement; every dollar earned above the income threshold reduces the supplement by 50c. It is interesting to note that the income limit for some payment of supplement rises well into the $20,000 a year range where families have a number of children. For example, a single income working family with four young children will still be eligible for some payment under the new arrangements until its income reaches $512 a week. Therefore, we are looking at an income of about $25,000 or $26,000 a year, and that is well into the middle class in Australia, certainly in my State at least. Those families will receive some payment under this supplement arrangement. The relaxed income threshold for the new family assistance package in comparison to the old family income supplement will help to alleviate so-called poverty traps in the Australian social welfare system-that is, the high effective marginal tax rates that result from a combination of income tax rates and withdrawal rates for pensions and benefits. Families on low wages will be able to receive the full payment of family assistance supplement and maintain it until their wage goes above the income limit. In implementing this system, the Government has provided low income families with an incentive to remain, or to try to find work, in the Australian work force. The family assistance supplement is the biggest single dollar increase that has ever been made to child payments in Australia. The new payments will be tax free and will be complemented by other measures in the package, including rental assistance of up to $15 a week for low income families who rent from private landlords. As a matter of interest, I point out that this payment is the first that any government has provided to help low income families-that is, low income families whose head is in the work force-with the cost of private rent. At present parents who receive unemployment benefits and who are renting privately must wait for six months before receiving the maximum rent assistance of $10 a week. Under the family package they will be eligible immediately for up to $15 a week in rental assistance. The family package also takes heed of the costs associated with the rearing of disabled children in the Australian community. It introduces a special payment for families with disabled children. In fact, last month a new child disability allowance of $112 a month replaced the old handicapped child allowance of $92 a month. The new child disability allowance will be paid with no income test and will not distinguish between so-called severely and substantially disabled children. The family package is a significant measure to assist children in need in the Australian community. It builds upon the previous increases to child payments that have been made by this Government, that is, child payments in respect of the children of social welfare pensioners and beneficiaries. It is important to note that since this Government has been in office child payments for the children of pensioners and beneficiaries have increased by about 70 per cent. When we came to office in 1983 child payments in respect of the children of pensioners and beneficiaries amounted to $10 a week for each child; they are now $17 a week and, as a result of the family package they will be increased further from $17 to $22 a week. Therefore, in the life of this Government, child payments have risen from $10 to $22 a week, or by 120 per cent. I believe that that is a major supplement to the disposable income of social welfare pensioners and beneficiaries. In conclusion, I believe that the Hawke Government has made real progress in reversing the neglect of the poor that occurred under the Fraser-Howard Government. Labor has acted to boost, in real terms, payments to pensioners, the unemployed, the children of pensioners and beneficiaries, and other Australians in need. Unlike the previous Liberal Government, we have not turned our back on those in need in the Australian community. The Government has protected the living standards of those who depend on social welfare assistance. In addition, this family package will increase and extend financial assistance to low income working families and I believe that the family assistance package that is to be introduced under this legislation is tangible proof of the Hawke Government's commitment to ending child poverty in Australia. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(8.00) —In this cognate debate I rise to speak on the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987. My comments will be confined to the veterans' entitlements aspects of the Bill and my colleague Senator Powell will address the Australian Democrats' concerns with the social security aspect of this Bill. This Bill has evoked great interest among veterans. It has certainly attracted the attention of those who frequently legally represent veterans at several of the levels of appeal. I have been surprised at the intensity of the lobbying which as been directed at me as the Australian Democrats spokesperson on veterans' affairs. Indeed, I have been convinced that several critical amendments to this Bill are necessary. I now foreshadow that I will move amendments at the committee stage of the debate. It is a coincidence that this Bill reaches the Senate at about the same time as the annual report of the Repatriation Commission and Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA), which was tabled in the Senate yesterday and which I read with great interest. The annual report of the Repatriation Commission and Department of Veterans' Affairs understandably cites the Department's considerable achievements and the Commission's achievements in the past year, many of which are worthy of our congratulations. In presenting this report, the President of the Commission paid tribute to the outgoing Minister, Senator Arthur Gietzelt, for his `genuine concern for the veteran community and an energetic quest for improved practices and more effective delivery of services'. This sentiment has been echoed over and over again in comments that have been made to me by veterans' representatives who have lobbied me intensively in recent months. However, I think it is true to say that there is considerable ambivalence among veterans. They feel that, despite the fact that they have been represented by a Minister who truly had their interests at heart, their conditions have steadily declined under this Government and that in these demanding economic times they are seen as an easy mark. Reluctantly, I sense that I must report that there is very real suspicion that the Government has decided to save dollars in this area of expenditure. So there is very genuine ambivalence among veterans. Their suspicion that dollars are being saved in relation to their services in not without foundation. The veterans cite the fact that even a sympathetic Minister such as Senator Gietzelt was unable, because of Cabinet pressure, to fulfil critical promises such as that which he made in his address to the sixty-eighty annual New South Wales State congress on 30 May 1984, when he stated: Let me also say firmly, that it is not the intention to change the onus of proof which rests on the Commonwealth in deciding if a disability is service related. Of course, it is apparent that the changes to the standard of proof provisions were a clear breach of that undertaking regarding a most critical procedure. I think it was despite the best intentions of the Minister of the day that those changes come into effect. I refer to a brief paper which has been prepared by and circulated among veterans' groups in New South Wales and which is entitled Summary of Losses by the Veterans 1985-87. I take this summary on trust and invite the correction of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) if any of the points made in it are in error. It states, among other things, that rumours of pending erosion of veterans' benefits first became a reality in the economic statement of May 1985. Unfortunately, the veterans' fears were confirmed in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The realities of veterans' new circumstances are still unfolding, but I will state some of the realities facing veterans in 1987. Firstly, they are facing the deletion of the dependants pension and, secondly, the removal from the DVA repatriation schedule pharmaceuticals of war widows and their dependants and service pensioners-that is Red Card holders-by the transferring of these entitlements to the social security national health pharmaceuticals list. Thirdly, veterans face a reduction in dental benefits relating to expensive dental treatments such as crown and bridge work. Fourthly, beneficiaries are now obliged to have their monetary benefits paid directly into a bank or building society account. The fifth observed loss is the deletion of the 10 per cent disability pension assessment previously allowed when glasses were prescribed. The sixth observed loss is the restriction on the issue of glasses. Previously two pairs were allowed but that has been reduced to one pair, and there are also other associated losses in benefits to the partially blind veteran. The seventh observed loss is that the intermediate or special rate pension rates disability pensions are not protected by the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. If a veteran suffers a new disability which requires nursing home care, the veteran must decide whether he can fulfil all of the criteria contained in sections 23 or 24 of the Act. Either way, the veteran loses benefits, whether it be a nursing home care benefit-in which case he will incur an expense-or a reduction in pension. The eighth observed loss to veterans in this list of 18 is that veterans have lost benefits in respect of reimbursement of substantial costs incurred in obtaining medical opinion in support of a claim or an application. Paragraph 14a (1) of the abolished repatriation regulations provided for such reimbursement, but section 85 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act makes no such provision. Indeed, veterans are being refused such reimbursements, so they now incur the total expense of servicing their claim or application. Section 29 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act refers to the `guide to the assessment of rates of veterans pensions' and specifically provides that this guide is binding on the Commission, the board of review or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Veterans have lost the benefit of independent medical opinion in respect of impairment ratings. The determining authorities' hands are tied. They cannot alter an impairment rating, irrespective of how much medical evidence the departmental medical officer (DMO) might muster in support of that opinion. The tenth observed loss is that the veterans' children education scheme is now means tested. The eleventh is that the intellectually handicapped dependants allowance has been deleted and the twelfth is that the social security portion of pensions related to war widows has been frozen. I have now listed 12 of the 18 losses listed in the paper distributed by veterans' organisations. The thirteenth loss is that travelling and milage allowances have been restricted, and the fourteenth is that the defence re-establishment agricultural and loans schemes have been terminated. The automatic right of admission to a private hospital without prior approval by a DMO has been lost. A nursing home patient contribution rate will apply from 1 January 1988 for veterans who are resident in nursing homes or who are receiving psychiatric care for war-related disabilities. This is the first time in the long history of the Repatriation Commission and the Department of Veterans' Affairs that a veteran has had to contribute towards the cost of hospitalisation for war-related disabilities. It is proposed to abolish the defence service home loans scheme. There has been a reduction in the treatment of skin care, podiatry and physiotherapy. That completes a comprehensive list of 18 ways in which veterans have been disadvantaged in the period 1985 to 1987. Of the 18 examples of veterans' losses I have just cited, one stands out. I refer, of course, to the callous decision to charge totally and permanently incapacitated (TPI) veterans in nursing homes approximately $111 a week. I remind honourable senators of my recent question on this matter and of the Minister's reply that the measure was in the interests of equality between all pensioners. Those who become totally and permanently incapacitated, many for most of their lives, as a result of serving their country have always been considered as warranting special attention, and justly so. We in the Australian Democrats are disgusted by this decision, which presents these special Australians with a happy New Year present-a bill of $111 a week for the rest of their lives. To make it worse, this coincides with massive and extravagant expenditure on bicentennial celebrations commemorating achievements of the country for which they made such enormous sacrifices. Since this extraordinary and callous imposition flows from the Minister's powers under section 90 of the Act, I foreshadow that the Australian Democrats will move an amendment in the committee stage to force the Minister to apply such variation through regulation. The passage of this amendment, which will, of course, need the support of the coalition, will allow us to stop this hideous imposition upon this special and deserving group of veterans. We find it difficult to muster the words to cast judgment on the nature of the decision to impose that weekly penalty of $111 on totally and permanently incapacitated Australian veterans. The Vietnam veterans are also wary of the Government's ongoing attitude to veterans. They have much to lose from the erosion of veterans' entitlements. A recent letter from the National President of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia, which was addressed to the Minister for Veterans Affairs and circulated to all members of parliament, expressed deep concern that the vital counselling service has not got the staffing and financial support it urgently needs. This is despite six separate positive reports on the service's effectiveness and importance since its inception in 1982. The letter contrasts the reluctance to expand the counselling service from its present staff of 35 to a required 40-plus, with the extraordinary increases in departmental staff numbers in the last decade. The Hogg report, which I recently tabled in the Senate-a report on the findings of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam-cites an expanded counselling service as crucial to Vietnam veterans. In summary, veterans claim that a vastly enlarged department is administering what they see as a markedly reduced range of inferior services. One ex-prisoner of war veteran said to me recently: The trouble with this Government is that they think we oldies all suffer from Alzheimer's disease but we really only suffer from old timers' disease. I think that captures the ambivalence which many veterans feel towards the attitude of the present Government. I now turn from general objections to some of the more specific aspects of this Bill. Clauses 63 and 64 have attracted special attention from veterans' legal advocates. Amendments to these clauses are aimed at ensuring a continuation of the rights of TPI special rate pensioners beyond their 65th birthday, since legal judgments have threatened this continuity. Legal counsel of veterans' groups argue that the provisions of clause 63, which introduces the concept of the application day, fail to preserve continuity and, even worse, will make it extremely difficult to seek the special rate successfully in the future. Departmental legal opinion does not foresee such difficulties. So there appear to be two genuinely separate interpretations of the legal effect of the amendments inherent in the Bill. I find the arguments of the veterans' legal counsel convincing, and will move amendments aimed at resolving what are seen as potential serious problems. I will justify these amendments in the committee stage of the Bill. It is argued that the introduction of an application day imposes an absolute time limit, which is unjust in that it imposes a limitation of action-that is a legal term-inappropriate in this legal context and not typical of legislation at large. In almost all other areas there is provision for discretion, but the introduction of the application day amendment in fact removes discretion from appealing veterans. The Veterans Advocates Advisory Group briefly summarises its objections to clauses 63 and 64 in a letter sent to most, if not all, senators. Its first observation is: All the criteria of the TPI must be considered on only one day. You will be aware, Mr Acting Deputy President, that there are three criteria which must be fulfilled. These legal advocates argue that it is virtually impossible to fulfil them on one day, and therefore the implication of the application day provision is that it imposes a potential penalty upon applications. Its second observation is: Most veterans are unaware of when is the most appropriate time to lodge their application and may inadvertently disentitle themselves. The Group's third observation states: Even a single day's difference might disentitle a veteran; there is no discretion. There is no discretion against disentitlement. The fourth observation is: There are Sections in the Act which, by their nature, pre-suppose views up to the date of hearing/review. These clauses are inconsistent with those Sections. In other words, it observes an inherent contradiction in a legal sense between the requirements of this amendment and the requirements of the sections of the Act. Its fifth observation states: Like suffering and loss due to war service should merit like compensation. That is not achieved when compensation can depend simply on when the Department receives a piece of paper. That is, rather than upon the inherent merit of the application. Finally, it makes the observation: Under the proposed legislation, if there are two veterans otherwise equal retiring early, one lodging an application on the last day of employment, the other one month after that time, the first will be disentitled whilst the other will not. It may be years before appeals procedures for the first are concluded and further applications will fail because of increased age and length of time out of the workforce. This legislation is retrospective and is therefore grossly unfair to such veterans. There I complete my quoting of the Veterans Advocates Advisory Group. I am sufficiently convinced by these arguments to foreshadow amendments which I believe to be adequate enough and designed to rectify these foreseen difficulties. I am at a loss to see why such amendments would be unacceptable, especially to the coalition, which I have been advised is inclined to oppose them. You are probably aware, Mr Acting Deputy President, that at the moment women are discriminated against in this legislation. I will move to correct that and to give service women the same entitlement as service men. I cannot imagine that this amendment will be opposed. With reference to this anomaly, in the debate of this issue in the other place on 18 November Mr Adermann cited the cost of such inclusions as a mere $65,000 per annum. Rejection of these foreshadowed amendments must serve only to heighten suspicion among veterans as to the motives of the Government, and perhaps also of the Opposition, the alternative government. I can, of course, hear the outcry that it is all right for us Democrats who are able to be critical without having to live with the consequences. That is true to a degree. We are indeed in a unique position to keep governments, and even oppositions, honest. No doubt that is why veterans and others are now lobbying us so heavily on this issue and other issues. Of course, it is not strictly true that we do not have to live with the consequences. We will all have to live with the consequences of our stance on this Bill and the proposed amendments. I sense that the consequences will be considerable. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.20) —I rise this evening to speak on behalf of the Opposition on one of the Bills we are debating in this cognate debate, the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the definition of `pensioner', `concessional beneficiary' and certain categories of disadvantaged persons in the National Health Act and the Health Insurance Act. The amendments will extend eligibility to free or concessional benefits, that is, the $2.50 pharmaceutical benefits, from 1 September 1987 to 31 December 1988, first, of those no longer eligible for the class A widow's or supporting parent's pensions but who satisfy certain conditions for eligibility for free pharmaceutical benefits; secondly, of persons aged 16 and 17 years who from 1 January 1988 will receive a job search allowance instead of unemployment benefit; and, thirdly, of persons affected by the new family allowance supplement from 13 December 1987. Children under the age of 13 years will attract a benefit of $22 a week and there are higher rates for children aged 13 to 15 years. The cost to the Government for class A widows and supporting parent beneficiaries with full time dependent students is estimated, in the Government's own calculations, to be in the vicinity of $200,000. There is no cost, we are told, associated with the changes to the job search allowance and the family allowance supplement. An amendment to section 5b of the Health Insurance Act changes the basis for determining the level of allowable income for a person to be classed as a disadvantaged person, that is, a person on a low income. Such a person is entitled to concessional pharmaceutical benefits. With the implementation of the family allowance supplement, provision is made for the rate of additional benefit for a child to be fixed at $34 for the time being, with the power to set a differing amount by regulation. The formula for eligibility to be classified as a disadvantaged person if one is married is twice the weekly rate, plus the additional benefit for dependent children, plus $20, plus the weekly income `cut-out'. Amendments to section 5d of the Act allow for those people now included in the category of job search allowances instead of unemployment benefits to be eligible for concessional pharmaceutical benefits. The National Health Act is amended to allow for a definition of `pensioner' to include a person being paid a job search allowance under sub-section 117a (2) of the Social Security Act. Persons receiving a job search allowance will not transfer to a sickness benefit if temporarily unfit for work but will remain on a job search allowance. This will allow them to be eligible for free pharmaceutical benefits and, therefore, not to be disadvantaged compared with those in receipt of sickness benefits. The National Health Act is further amended to extend eligibility for free pharmaceutical benefits from 1 September 1987 to 31 December 1988 for class A widows and sole parents with full time students aged from 16 to 24 years who are no longer eligible for a pension. Finally, the definition of `concessional beneficiary' in section 84 is amended to cover persons in receipt of a job search allowance. Those are the primary amendments which are made to the various health legislation provisions. The Opposition does not in any way oppose the changes that are being made. I do, however, want to make one brief observation, which arises from the tabling today of the annual report of the former Commonwealth Department of Health. I draw attention to the following statement on page 35 of the report: During 1986-87 the Health Insurance Commission processed claims for 128.5 million services. That is an extraordinarily large number. The number recorded in 1985-86 was 121.4 million. In 1984-85 it was 113 million. In 1981-82 the figure was 93 million, and in 1982-83 it was 96.2 million. It is true that the 1981 to 1983 figures reflects not the entire Australian population, because at that stage approximately 1.8 million Australians who would normally have to be included in one's calculations were not covered by health insurance arrangements. But, of that 1.8 million, approximately 30 per cent chose to stay out of the scheme because they were young people under the age of 30 and, therefore, more likely to be fit and less likely to be consumers of health care services or indeed need those services. It is certainly not valid simply to compare the pre- and post-Medicare situations as far as the number of health services provided is concerned. It is relevant to compare the rate of growth of the annual utilisation of health care services over the period prior to Medicare and over the post-Medicare period. This evening I seek to draw attention to the fact that this Government has encouraged the Medicare system to operate by encouraging the uncontrolled usage of the system to the financial disadvantage of the Australian health care system and of the Australian public purse. Those 128.5 million services had a Medicare benefit cost to revenue of $2,881.8m, of which 51.8 per cent were claimed through direct billing by medical practitioners. The report of the former Department of Health goes on to claim credit for the fact that the bulk billing proportion of Medicare rebates has grown steadily since the introduction of Medicare from 45.2 per cent in 1984-85. It may be a cause of self-congratulation on the part of the Government that both the utilisation of bulk billing and the utilisation of services are increasing considerably faster than the natural rate of growth of the population, even making allowances for the aging of the population and, therefore, presumably the greater call upon health care services. I simply wish to point out in these very brief remarks indicating our support for the legislation before us that this continued burgeoning of the use of the health insurance system and of the number of services provided under the Medicare system simply cannot be allowed to continue without having enormously adverse effects upon the revenues of this country. The figure of 128.5 million services in 1986-87, as reported in the Department's annual report, is not a statistic to be proud of. It is a result of the deliberate health care policies pursued by this Government, which the Opposition believes are fatally flawed and which will have to be addressed as one of the prime matters of urgency upon our return to office. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(8.30) —I address my remarks to certain amendments to the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987. There are around the chamber tonight certain amendments which will probably emanate from the Australian Democrats and which touch on clauses 63 and 64 of the Bill, and also certain matters affecting servicewomen's entitlements to benefits under the repatriation legislation. The Opposition regards this as a Budget Bill introduced by the Government. Consequently its passage demands, and will receive, the support of honourable senators. Matters of great consequence will be raised and we in the Liberal and National parties will address those issues as a matter of policy development in the next year or two. We shall be examining the entitlements of various people such as servicewomen in present circumstances, but we do not believe that the legislation and the form of amendments proposed tonight by the Democrats are the appropriate vehicles for ensuring that those benefits are put in place. This is a matter of Budget legislation and the Government is entitled to its Budget. Therefore, we must wear the consequences. In regard to clauses 63 and 64 affecting totally and permanently incapacitated (TPI) pensions, the Opposition has been in communication with the Returned Services League (RSL). There is some legal difficulty of interpretation as to whether TPIs are being appropriately catered for in the legislation. Our advice from the RSL is that it regards the legislation as suitable for passage, and consequently the outcomes which might flow from the legislation in due course should be subject to continuing monitoring by a suitable committee to ensure that all the intended consequences of the legislation occur. For that reason we believe that the legislation should pass in its original form. Therefore, if further amendments are proposed, the Opposition will not support them in the Senate. This legislation has generated a great deal of community concern, especially among veterans. This is a matter about which all honourable senators should be concerned, particularly those in the Liberal and National parties. We note in passing that the legislation does not address the position of servicewomen who served in Korea, Malaya and Vietnam, and we believe that those matters should be examined in the course of policy development by any party represented in this Parliament. We shall certainly consider those matters in the coming months. The Government should be considering those omissions and making statements. We wonder why that is not happening. Clearly, a great deal of concern and demand have been generated on those questions in the community. Another area of concern relates to the defence service home loans scheme which has remained in limbo since May last year. It does not appear to have received any attention. Therefore, we are not sure what the Government finally intends in this regard. Finally, my colleague Senator Vanstone has addressed herself to the other parts of this legislation in respect of social security beneficiaries and those who are subject to the assets test. These provisions also affect veterans who fall within the same category. Those veterans who are subject to the new tests that will be applied by the Government hopefully will be relieved by the amendment which the Opposition has already moved. The amendment seeks to alleviate the position of such people. We hope that the Democrats will support the amendment, and indeed we implore them to do so. The point at issue is simply that we seek to refer that part of the Bill which refers to the assets test changes to the Standing Committee on Community Affairs. This relates to the social security legislation. From my reading of the amendment, I believe that it covers veterans also. I should like to hear the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) comment on this point. I shall seek to ensure that an appropriate amendment covers that aspect as well. The Government amendments regarding veterans, the assets test and social security beneficiaries need redress. The Government has been heavy-handed and has not considered the hardship to farmers and others with illiquid assets who find themselves without income and unable to do anything about those assets. Consequently, they will be caught by the new provisions whereby 2.5 per cent of the value of their assets will be taken into account as income and treated as part of the income test. I believe our amendment to be appropriate for the investigation of this matter. Clearly, this problem is generating great concern in the community, and no doubt it will receive more and more attention in the weeks and months ahead as it gains steam. The Government might consider it fair to hit with this kind of special test people who are stuck with illiquid assets and who have no other form of income. The truth is that this is unfair, unreasonable and brought in at a time when desperate situations are starting to develop in this country, especially with regard to illiquid assets. We all know that the state of the stock market and markets generally will lead to people being unable to realise assets. Consequently, this will become of greater and greater concern to the community as weeks and months go on. For that reason I have moved the amendment on behalf of the Opposition. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.41) —Tonight the Senate is debating the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill and the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2) cognately. This has been forced upon us by the Government's mishandling of the business of the Senate, which has resulted in a buildup of legislation to be dealt with before Christmas. Because of this I will be concentrating on just the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2). We were told in the second reading speech to the Bill of the wonderful record of the Australian Labor Party in the payment of money to assist families with children. We were told that that New South Wales Labor Government had introduced a form of child endowment. Of course, what we were not told was that it was the Menzies Liberal Government in 1941 that first brought in child endowment in the Federal sphere, and it was a Curtin Government which later extended it to cover Aborigines and people with custody of orphans. However, it will go down in history that it was the Hawke Labor Government that tore down the concept that all families, in recognition of the added cost of raising children, should receive an amount of money to assist with the additional financial burden. The means testing of family allowances is only one of the many steps the Government has taken that have reduced the living standards of families in Australia during the term of the Labor Government. I would like to read from the report of a review the Government commissioned. The preface states: The Social Security Review was established by the Minister for Social Security, the Honourable Brian Howe, MP in February 1986 . . . Associate Professor Bettina Cass of the University of Sydney was appointed Consultant Director of the Review . . . She was given three major aspects of social security policy to cover and the one we are dealing with tonight is income support for families with children. As I said, the Government commissioned this review. I shall read a few extracts from the report because I think it is very important for the people of Australia to understand the review's recommendations. Under the heading `Why do governments support families with children?' it says: Firstly, governments assist all families with their expenditure on children's needs, in recognition of the increased costs which they must meet. Secondly, governments provide additional assistance to low income families whose circumstances make it very hard for them to be in the workforce or whose workforce earnings are low. It must be remembered that this review was commissioned by the Government and the report was put out in October 1986, before the May mini-Budget and before the Budget decisions which did away with general family support by the Government. The report goes on: A fundamental principle of ``family equity'', meaning ``a fair share for families'', has been established through these programs. This holds that it is appropriate for the social security and taxation systems to redistribute income to families in recognition of the increased costs which they bear in carrying out the essential and socially valuable tasks of child-rearing. When dealing with horizontal equity, which means a fair share for all families, the report says: This principle recognises that at any level of family income people with children incur greater costs and have greater needs than do people without children at the same level of income. That is pretty clear and sounds pretty fair. The report then goes on to vertical equity, which means additional support for low income families. It says: The objective is to provide increased assistance to low income families so as to protect families with children from poverty. The summary says that horizontal equity is to provide a fair share for all families, while vertical equity is to provide adequate support to low income families. Intra-family equity is to provide resources to the parent primarily responsible for the child's care. So assistance is usually given to the mother. Incentives are to provide family assistance which does not discourage parents' work force participation and income earnings. I would like to go back to that at some later stage because I think that that is a very important point that Bettina Cass has stressed early in the report. The report goes on: all families have experienced a decline in their disposable incomes relative to individuals and couples without children. So the report recognises that all families have experienced a decline in their living standards compared with individuals and couples without children. Again, that is a very important acknowledgment made in the report. The report goes on: . . . some 38 per cent of recipient families- that is, families receiving family allowance- have adjusted incomes- that is, taking children into account compared with couples without children- below $16,000. So 38 per cent of recipient families have adjusted incomes below $16,000 a year. The report continues: 75 per cent have adjusted incomes below $28,000. Only 7 per cent have adjusted incomes above $40,000. Again, I think that that is very important information. It proves just what a financial burden it is for a family with children compared with couples without children. The report says: One of the key areas of concern is the deterioration in the real value of family income support which results from the non-indexation of both payments and tax measures. Again, it is pointed out that family allowance over a period of years has deteriorated because of lack of indexation. Bettina Cass stresses reducing work disincentives. The report says: Low income families with children receiving social security can face severe ``poverty traps'' and consequent work disincentives. That is very important because this is just what the Government has succeeded in doing. The report goes on: As noted previously, income-testing or taxing family allowance payments would involve redistribution of resources between families. This would not address the problem of maintaining the disposable incomes of all families with children as a form of tax equity. It is terribly important to understand that Bettina Cass has said that it is not on to means test or tax the family allowance out of the hands of the mother. In conclusion she states: In summary, when formulating future directions for reform of family income support programs in Australia we need to address the fundamental objective of redistributing income to all families with children so as to improve and maintain their position in the tax/transfer systems. As a community we need to reassess the value which we place on children and focus again on the concept of the shared parental/community obligation to recognise the increased costs which parents bear. That seems to me to be very just and very clear on the part of Bettina Cass. But what did the Government do? It ignored her recommendations completely. It ignored the horizontal equity and chose to means test the family allowance. Not only that; it also chose to go down the path of creating further poverty traps and disincentives for families on low incomes to earn additional money. I will come back to that in a few minutes. We are told by this Government that it cares about the family. What utter rubbish! It has never cared about the family; that has not been its particular priority. I will give a little proof of that by looking at what we did when in government to assist families. This can be shown by looking at how the dependent spouse rebate was increased. When we came to government in 1975 the dependent spouse rebate was $400 a year-a paltry sum. In 1976-77 we increased it to $500. In 1977-78 it was $555; in 1978-79 it was $597; in 1980-81 it was $800; and in 1981-82 it was increased to $830. We also said that that $830 would be for a dependent spouse without children. But for a spouse with dependent children we increased it to $1,030 in 1982-83. That is an indication of just how we, when in government, supported dependent spouses, particularly those at home looking after children. We also increased the family allowance. What has this Government done? It has done absolutely nothing. It has not increased the dependent spouse rebate one jot. It has not increased the family allowance, but taken away the family allowance for children of 16 years and over and told us that it will give the children-if they are dependent full time students-Austudy. It has means tested the family allowance and yet in this family support statement, the second reading speech, it tells us that it is very concerned about families. Another thing that the Fraser Government did was to introduce a family supplement. That was for low income families and was one of the great moves that the Fraser Government worked on in its last Budget. I will read from the second reading speech because I have never read anything quite so hypocritical. It states: The family package is the centrepiece of this Government's attack on child poverty, not only for families where parents depend on social security because they are sick or unemployed, but for working families who have carried the burden of economic adjustment over the past few years. We all remember Bob Hawke's election speech. What were the words he used? He said, `By 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty'. People ridiculed that comment. Now there seems to have been a complete about-face because this second reading speech, which has been changed quite a bit. It states: The measures outlined in this Bill demonstrate this Government's firm commitment to ensure that no Australian child need live in poverty by 1990. Let us look at what the Government is producing as vote-catching, off the top of the head, election comments. We have a new poverty trap. Let us take the case of a single income family with two children where the wage earner, the father, earns $330 a week and, with a little overtime-say, 7 1/2 hours work-earns an extra $90, which brings him up to $420 a week. By working an extra 7 1/2 hours a week, what will he get? If he is in public housing or owns his own home, he will get an additional $18.59 out of the additional $90 he earns for 7 1/2 hours work. But if he is in private rental accommodation-let us bear in mind that under this wonderful family package the Government is giving an additional $15 to those who are renting privately-that same father who is doing an additional 7 1/2 hours work and earning an additional $90 will get the princely sum of $8.59. Do honourable senators think for one minute that any man will work an additional 7 1/2 hours, supposedly earning $90, to get $8.59 for it? What do honourable senators think is going to happen? Senator Colston —Do you think people should work overtime? Senator WALTERS —Of course I think someone ought to be able to work overtime. If he has the incentive to do so, he ought to be able to get a just amount for it. He should not have to work 7 1/2 hours to earn $90 but get a measly $8.59 because of this ridiculous family package. This Government is creating a handout mentality in this group of people. It is succeeding in ripping off $40.39 in tax from that family earning $330 and giving it back $35 in the family package. What is wrong with the Government and the Department? Why do they not simply say to that group of people, `You do not have to pay the tax; we will not take $40.39 off you. We will not tax you that amount'? But the Government rips $40.39 off those families and then, as nothing more than a vote catcher, it gives them back $35. So all the cost of having the Australian Taxation Office taking off the tax and all the cost of having the Department of Social Security handing it out is for naught-except that it creates a handout mentality. This measure is being introduced by a government that is so cynical that it is doing it only to get votes. That is a disgrace, because people will now enter a poverty trap. That same father now cannot possibly take on extra work and get anything decent out of it, because he will lose his family allowance supplement if he does. So the Government is creating all the disincentives possible for that particular family. I would like to ask a question of the Minister in charge. Have we a Minister in charge of this Bill? Senator Colston —Have you lost your eyesight? Senator WALTERS —Who is in charge? Senator Reynolds —We have two Ministers. Senator WALTERS —Well, who is in charge of the Bill? Senator Reynolds —We are both in charge. Continue your speech. Senator WALTERS —They cannot both be in charge of the Bill. Can the Government tell me which Minister is in charge of the Bill? Is it Senator Richardson or is it Senator Reynolds? Senator Richardson —I am. Senator WALTERS —I would like to ask the Minister to explain to me why it is that the Taxation Office takes $6.81 a week too much, over and above the normal weekly tax when calculated over the year. I know it always takes some, but why does it takes $6.81 over and above the normal weekly tax? The Minister will know how the Taxation Office always takes a little too much-at least I hope he does, because if he does not he is completely-- Senator Richardson —It always takes too much from me. Senator WALTERS —It always takes a little extra just in case, and it gives it back to these poor families, very graciously, at the end of the year. Does the Minister remember that? Senator Richardson —For a rainy day. Senator WALTERS —The Minister can be as flippant as he likes, but if he were earning only $330 a week and had two children he might view this matter a little more sympathetically. At the moment the Tax Office takes $6.61 from that crowd, but people on $420 a week have only an additional $3.60 taken. Can the Minister please explain that? I am really most interested. As I have said, the Government has brought down this very cynical family package that creates shocking poverty traps. It creates a handout mentality when really all it has to do is not tax the families in that bracket-it could allow them to keep their tax rather than take $40.39 from them and then hand them back a paltry $35 as a vote-catching gimmick which it calls a family allowance supplement. This, I believe, is the difference between the two parties. The Australian Labor Party is prepared to do anything at all for a vote. It does not matter what it creates. It does not matter how it treats families, whether they are on middle or low incomes. It commissioned and received a report and then chose to ignore it completely. Not only did it ignore its recommendations but also, despite the fact that the recommendations stressed that poverty traps were the worst of all worlds, it went about creating additional ones. This is something that has concerned me greatly. I ask the Minister whether he believes that it is better not to tax a family rather than to hand it back its own tax. The Minister has not been present during all of my speech. I will tell him about the example I was giving. A family on $330 a week is taxed $40.39 and, on the Government's family allowance supplement, it is given back $35. I suggest that the Government allow these families to keep their tax rather than hand them out a sum of money. Also, if a person in private rental accommodation earns an additional $90 from 7 1/2 hours work, he makes only $8.59 from that. I believe the whole thing is a sham. It is a disgrace, and I would like the Minister to explain it to us. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(9.06) —We have just heard one of the more imaginative analyses of this whole question. I think Senator Walters would probably stand alone in her opposition to the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 which introduces, among other things, the family package. I could say, almost without contradiction, that the proposals in this piece of legislation have drawn support from around the community and from the Opposition. To try to tackle the arguments that Senator Walters proposed would, I think, take a couple of days, and the clear understanding I have is that it would not change Senator Walters's view one iota. I am very pleased to hand that principal task across to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, Senator Richardson, and the Minister for Local Government, Senator Reynolds. But, by way of comment, I do find very curious Senator Walters's suggestion in relation to that $200 for children under the dependent spouse and dependent children rebate. That $200 a year comes to $4 a week. Senator Walters wanted to say that a $50 a week Austudy payment for 16-year-olds was a nothing compared with a dependent spouse and child rebate of $200 a year-with that $200 rebate applying whether one has one child or 20-which amounts to $4 a week. I suppose that only Senator Walters's imagination would enable one to think that $4 a week was more than $50 a week. Senator Walters pleaded for an answer to the question: `Why not stop the tax rather than give the family allowance package?'. I would like to ask Senator Walters what she thinks stopping the tax is, if it is not a variety of contributions to the family. Besides that, Senator Walters did not address at all the way in which people would know how any taxpayer earning that amount of money would become eligible for tax rebates or contributions of the sort she was proposing. Her contribution, I think, betrayed a complete failure to understand the complexities of our tax system and our social security system and the way in which this Government has addressed both of those areas very comprehensively in its tax changes, through it tax cuts for low income families that it has introduced over the last three years of this Government, and now, with its family package. It has been able to target those most in need of the benefits of the changes proposed in this legislation. It is a quite extraordinary piece of legislation. It is the greatest increase ever paid by government for children. Undeniably-this is what staggers me about Senator Walters; she has found a way to object to it-it goes to targeting assistance to those most in need. It is entirely consistent with the Government's commitment to move towards removing all children in Australia from poverty by 1990. The proposals under this legislation are marvellous. I do not think that is too strong a word. Low income workers who to this point have not taken up the assistance for which they may be eligible or those low income workers who now become eligible will now be able to receive $22 a week per child under 13 and $28 a week per child between 13 and 16. The Government recognises the increased costs entailed in providing care, clothing, support, et cetera, for teenage children. I think Senator Walters will also find that in Professor Cass's document. The increase from the current $17 a week to $22 a week for under-teenage children, and from $17 to $28 for teenage children up to 16 years of age, will be paid automatically to low income recipients of social security pensions or benefits. No family that has contacted my office-and many have-has been other than delighted with the prospect of this kind of increase in family income consequent upon the family package contained in this legislation. Many thousands of people have been unaware of the family income supplement (FIS), which is now replaced by the family allowance supplement. I think it is very exciting to assist people to discover this new eligibility. They are certainly very pleased to see the prospects that exist for providing for their children. The Government recognises, very properly, that it has a contribution to make in the provision of income care for children, but the Government does not presume that it has full responsibility. It does not intend to take away the parents' principal responsibility for the care of their children; it intends, through the family allowance supplement and the family assistance package, to assist families in providing for their children. That is also very clearly documented in the social security review papers. It is estimated that about one million children will benefit from the tax free benefits of this package. It is estimated that about 440,000 children from low income working families and about 740,000 children from out of work families will receive the benefit. That is a considerable number of children to benefit from this special new payment. In addition to those payments that will go automatically to people with one child and earning $300 per week, with an extra $12 per additional child, to be phased out depending on the income above the threshold, the package also includes extended rent assistance of up to $15 per week for low income working families in private rental accommodation. This is the first time that rental assistance has been offered to low income working families. Importantly, families on unemployment or sickness benefits will be able to receive that housing assistance from the time of their first benefit payment and will not have to serve a separate waiting period for rental assistance, as has been the case in the past. Further to those two parts of the family package, the child disability allowance is to be increased to $112 per month per child for all families with disabled children. That payment will not be income tested and it is expected that approximately 10,000 extra children will come under the new eligibility criteria and be able to enjoy that assistance. The Government recognises the particular demands placed on parents in providing care, assistance, education, clothing, travel and all those things that are involved with a disabled child. Further, it recognises the importance of some assistance through this increase in the payment for disabled children. As I mentioned earlier, I think it is very important to acknowledge that the Government does not intend in this legislation in any way to take over from families the responsibility for children, but to supplement what families can and do provide themselves. Very soon we will see debated in Parliament the child support legislation, which is a clear statement of how the Government sees the importance of public and private support for children in families going along together. Any suggestion, such as that of Senator Walters in her contribution, that this Government is not committed to families, I think is a nonsense. There is nothing we can say to argue against a person who has a blind conviction-sometimes known as a prejudice-about these matters. Senator Walters hears no argument of logic about it. One can only look at this package and be astonished that she would argue that it does not contain considerable measures to assist families. Not only does this package assist families, but also it is unashamedly targeted to help those families most in need, that is, the low income working families in our community, those people who have to deal with the constraints of a small income and the consequent poverty. That poverty has many layers, which the Government recognises, and it appreciates that the best way to assist people out of that trap is to provide some income assistance. That is what this program is about. It is targeted to and on behalf of the children. As I said earlier, it is part of the Government's commitment to take steps to ensure that, by the year 1990, no child in this country is living in poverty. I think that is absolutely critical and something that this very wealthy country and this Government properly address. Other amendments in this legislation go to changes in the job search allowance, which in January will replace the unemployment benefit for 16- and 17-year-olds, making it very clear that the income support provisions under this Bill are tied to the need for young or older people to be better prepared to join the work force. I think it is important that we spell out the principles behind that. The Government is very concerned, and certainly Minister Howe has said this on a number of occasions, that we should not entitle people to benefits and then have them forgotten by society-forgotten on unemployment benefits, on supporting parents' pensions or on age pensions. It is not the aim of this Government to have those people condemned to a life of poverty on permanent pensions or long term unemployment benefits. The changes introduced in this legislation aim for the reverse position-an insistence on government care and concerned for people who, for one reason or another, find themselves unable to get work. The job search allowance not only provides the money, but also it provides assistance in helping young unemployed people to find vocational training courses, and to seek instructions on job searching skills and so on. In other words, those people are not to be forgotten or wasted. I think that this measure is another very strong commitment by government to families, to the children of families and to our young people and the contribution that they can make if they are properly assisted. One other point worthy of comment is that the legislation provides pensioner earning credits to encourage pensioners and supporting parents to take up short term work without the reduction in their pension that they previously would have had to suffer. This certainly will assist pensioners, particularly sole parents, to make a transition between relying on social security payments and becoming financially independent. It will do this by enabling people to have periods of employment without loss of pension. Those periods of employment are often very important in giving people the experience of getting back into the work force and of practising or learning skills that are very necessary for them if they want to get into the work force in a more permanent way. All those measures are very much to the heart of this Government's commitment to the less privileged and to the low income earners in our community. I am amazed, if not shocked, that Senator Walters could come in here and say what she did, I think missing the point of the legislation and the proposed changes. The family allowance supplement and the family package are achievements of considerable pride. They will benefit families enormously. As I said, it is expected that more than one million children will benefit from these proposals. To argue that a government that implements such initiatives is disinterested in the family seems to me to be odd in the extreme. If Senator Walters wants to equate $200 a year dependent spouse rebate and extra child rebate-that is, $4 a week-with the contributions that this Government is making under these direct payments or with the Austudy allowance of $50 a week for 16-year-olds to whom she referred, my case rests on the nonsense of her figures. I refer now to the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. This Bill relates to an area about which I am concerned as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes. Many of the issues in relation to standards of care and the provision of services for frail aged people were matters that we deliberated on at great length, and some of the recommendations in the Committee's report were taken up by the Minister in this Bill. Not all the recommendations have been taken up in legislation as yet, but, as the Government argues, this enabling legislation is one part of a process to improve the residential care program. The first part of the legislation enables the implementation of new hostel capital funding and recurrent funding arrangements. Until now capital funding for hostels has not necessarily been directed to those people who were less advantaged, those who were financially disadvantaged or people who had difficulty finding places in hostels. The Government is very concerned that such people should enjoy the benefits of hostel accommodation. It is particularly important that such people do not find their way, inappropriately, into nursing home care; that has been the situation in the past. Frail aged people, very inappropriately, have been placed in nursing homes. By rearranging the funding for hostels, the Government is concerned to ensure that a proper proportion of hostel places are provided for low income or financially disadvantaged people who are in need of that sort of half way, supported accommodation. The amendments under this Bill also introduce elements of, I suppose, residents' rights. In particular, it relates to people who make an entry contribution in respect of their hostel accommodation; they will now clearly understand their right to take out that contribution, should they need or desire to do so. For example, people may find that they do not need to live in a hostel if they recover from a disability to the point where they can leave. Alternatively, people may be unhappy in a particular place and may want to leave. In the past there has been a lack of understanding of the rights of people in terms of their entry contribution, but those rights are made clear under this Bill. The rights of people to recoup a proportion of their entry contribution when they depart a hostel is made clear. This Bill protects those people in their decision if they should make that move. The legislation also makes clear other residents' rights, and some of those provisions relate to the recommendations of the Committee. I suppose that indirectly people's rights are protected, but the Bill also protects those rights by enabling the officers of the Department of Community Services and Health to see records that properly account for funding arrangements in nursing homes. I guess I am moving sideways from hostel accommodation, but patients' rights is a very important point and it was referred to in the Committee's report. It is important that there is maximum protection for nursing home residents and taxpayers through the requirement for proper accounting and access to records by departmental officials so that it is clear what sort of funding arrangements are being made, what is happening to patients' contributions and the costs of staffing, provision of services, and so on. There has been evidence that some nursing homes have not acted entirely properly in the way in which they have kept their books, and, on behalf of both the taxpayer and the residents within those nursing homes, the Government has made clear that the proper keeping of records is a requirement under this legislation. There is a requirement for not only the keeping of records but also the provision of those records in a designated place so that they can be accessed for examination, if that is judged necessary or is required. Opposition members in the other place have argued that there was insufficient consultation in relation to this Bill, but I believe that that suggestion arose from a misunderstanding. There has been extensive consultation to this point. The Australian Affiliation of Voluntary Care Associations stated that it was not informed that the Bill was to be introduced in Parliament, but that misunderstanding has been cleared up and a letter to the Minister has made clear that the representatives of the Australian Affiliation of Voluntary Care Associations are not now troubled or holding to that point. The confusion has been cleared. The other area that has been a matter of some dispute is the detail that some people thought would be included in the legislation. An understanding of the legislation by those people has made clear that not only has consultation been sufficient to this point but also the points about which they were concerned-that is, some of the detail that will be introduced under regulations, which will therefore be open to disallowance in this place-will be contingent on further extensive consultation with all the providers in this area. Therefore, it is quite clear that the complaints raised by Opposition members in the other place are of no substance and it is important to lay them to rest. In reading the contributions of Opposition members in the other place I could see no other significant difficulty that they envisaged in relation to this Bill. I will be interested to hear the remainder of the debate in the Senate. I said previously that the amendments under this legislation are part of the ongoing provision of care for the elderly under the residential care program. The Bill is complementary to a number of changes in the home and community care area whereby there is better provision of community assistance so that people can remain in their own homes. It fits very closely with the establishment of assessment teams to ensure that people are not wrongly admitted to nursing homes. That is not only very expensive for the community but also disadvantageous to the optimum health and living ability of those people who are wrongly placed. Over the past few years we have seen considerable changes in this area and encouragement for people to be rehabilitated, whether they enter nursing homes or sometimes even hostels. I believe this is a very exciting change. It is certainly something that many people who work in nursing homes have asked for for years. Previous funding arrangements worked against the prospect of rehabilitation programs, but the funding arrangements have been changed so that there is now considerable incentive and encouragement for those people who work in this area to provide that kind of assistance and health care to nursing home patients. As I said, even some hostel residents can benefit enormously from all those programs in the rehabilitation area. Those changes must be borne in mind when we consider this Bill. It is part of a series of stages of a program to improve greatly the provision of care for the elderly and/or the frail aged-and I believe there is a distinction between the elderly and the frail aged-as well as hostel or nursing home care for those who can no longer remain living in their own homes. As I have said, the home and community care programs that very much assist elderly people to stay in their home for as long as possible should also be remembered. Other points in this cognate debate covering changes to the Health Insurance Act and the National Health Act, I believe, would be better left to other colleagues to speak to or for the Minister to reply to in his summing up. I conclude my remarks simply by re-endorsing the changes made in the social security legislation to the family package. I think I said earlier that the package is marvellous and that this is a monumental piece of legislation. It will benefit over one million children and it represents the greatest increase in specific payments on behalf of children ever introduced by this Government in this country, as I understand. It is a matter of great pride that the Government has introduced this legislation. I listened to the extraordinary nonsense by Senator Walters who suggested that such a package was an insult. This betrays her lack of understanding of what this legislation is about, how many people it will benefit and to whom it is targeted. It also seems that the final clear understanding that we all have that Senator Walters's insistence that this Government does nothing for families is beyond change. I think her insistence is utterly mischievous but in this case it is also splendidly wrongheaded. This piece of legislation is specifically targeted to families. Families in the community will know and benefit and they will not see it as a cynical vote catching trick. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(9.31) —We are debating cognately the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 and the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. I will deal first with the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987. I draw the Senate's attention to comments made in the Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest dated 18 November 1987 because a large number of amendments are proposed to the Social Security Act 1947. Apparently a number of the amendments will be retrospective because the Bill has been in operation since 2 July 1987, that is some six months. These extensive and detailed amendments represent the eighth time that this Bill has been amended. It has been renumbered consecutively and relettered alphabetically and this has created many problems for the people who reviewed and who have to use the Bill. In order to make sense of the proposed amendments one would have to have available a consolidated reprint of the Act. Even today no consolidated reprint of the Act is available to people such as members of parliament, professional people and members of community bodies who have to use the Bill. The penultimate paragraph of the Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest states: If it becomes difficult for the legislative scrutiny committees of the Parliament and their advisers to read and comprehend Bills without reference to a number of Acts which must be collated, re-numbered and re-lettered, it will be equally, if not more difficult for the Parliament and its members to properly examine proposed legislation. The Committee also notes that it is apparent that considerable resources are applied to the preparation and drafting of amendments to such complex statutes as the Social Security Act. It is also important that adequate resources be made available to ensure that timely printing of consolidated reprints of such legislation. I take that statement to be a damning indictment of the legislative process of the Government. Senator Powell —That has been going on since 1947-one or two governments at least. Senator SHEIL —It is the eighth rewrite of this legislation and we do not have a consolidated copy of the Act. As I have said, the Act has been in operation since 2 July this year. The Government has agreed that poverty and welfare are both increasing in this country. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) declared war on child hunger and poverty which he says he will solve. At the present time, even after the introduction of this Bill, the Government recognises that over half a million children will remain in poverty. The Government also recognises that in this legislation are built-in disincentives for people to work, that significant poverty traps in Australia still remain and that this year we have a lower level of housing commencements than we had in 1982-83. I remind the Senate that in that year Australia had a sizable drought. The Government also recognises that its investment in housing will be reduced this year and on top of that we have a declining birth rate. I wonder whether we are not attacking our welfare problems from the wrong end. I am reminded of a history book I read once in which Queen Elizabeth I said that the poor would always be with us. At one time Confucius was credited with saying that if one gives a poor man a fish he will eat for a day, but if one teaches him to fish, he will eat forever. The new welfare industry does not subscribe to that theory. It says, `If you teach him to fish, he will eat fish forever and that is no good. You have to give him money so that he can choose what he eats' and there is quite a bit of sense in that. Other countries have had problems with poverty and have tried many different systems. The welfare state blossomed in the United Kingdom after the Second World War. England was gradually reduced from being a world power to being nothing and the situation has been reversed only in recent years. The United States, under President Johnson, introduced war against poverty and went for the great society. Programs are largely in place but they are coming under increasing criticism because they have not worked. Food stamps, Medicaid, aid to families with dependent children and aid to minority groups are all programs which are coming under increasing criticism. However, those programs have not been repealed; they still exist and are still getting increasing funding although they are not working. America is faced with enormous welfare problems just as we are faced with them in Australia today. Most of the better educated analysts are coming to the stage of proving that the war on poverty is actually aggravating the problem rather than solving it. In fact the poor are being reduced to a destructive state of total dependency. America is introducing new measures such as Workfare which is a whole new concept that is being tried. If we had tried to introduce that sort of program in Australia 10 years ago we would have been howled down as making moral judgments on people, that we cannot do that sort of thing. It is now eminently acceptable that Workfare is one of the possible solutions to this problem. Senator Zakharov —Where did you get that idea from? Senator SHEIL —I did not get the idea of Workfare; it was generated in the United States of America because of its problems. It has not reached here yet but maybe it will. The honourable senator has not thought about it. Perhaps I can give a solution to the problem in a minute. There is a general view that only the Australian Labor Party (ALP) understands welfare and is prepared to do things for the poor and that the conservatives have no heart and only want the poor to become more deprived. Nothing could be further from the truth. The ALP has no monopoly on social conscience. Why has all of this welfare not eliminated poverty? We have been dishing out welfare for years, but it has not eliminated poverty; it is getting worse. As I said earlier in my speech, the welfare problem is getting worse and the expenditure is getting worse. Something is wrong. No matter how well intentioned the Government's motives might be in trying to improve people's situations, the simple fact remains that anything the Government wants more of, it subsidises. Anything it wants less of, it taxes. If the Government has high unemployment benefits, it will get more unemployment, not less. If it has high sickness benefits, it will get more sickness, not less sickness. It is happening in front of our eyes. If it has high single parent benefits, it will get more single parents, not fewer single parents. And dare I say it, if it has high Aboriginal benefits, we will get more Aborigines, not fewer Aborigines. If we are to eliminate poverty, I think we should introduce the principle that the giving of welfare benefits creates a mutual obligation. In other words, there is a duty attached to receiving welfare benefits and recipients should use part of those benefits to end the state of dependence that they are in. The current programs that we have recognise no such obligation-in a misplaced effort to protect the dignity and alleged rights of people. Able-bodied people in Australia have been able to choose not to work and to live on welfare. Of course, this has required other people to support them. We cannot blame other people for thinking that they are suckers for being exploited to support able-bodied people. On the other hand, we have not got any idea of temporary benefits. Once people get bene-fits, they get them forever. If benefits were rapidly withdrawn, that would be a big discouragement to increasing dependency on benefits. In Australia we have centralised our payments of benefits. There has been no adjustment for local factors, no innovation and no incentive for experimentation in the distribution of benefits. I know this from my own experience on the Gold Coast. I write letters to all the people newly arrived in the electorate. A young fellow arrived in my office one day and said, `You have written me a letter and said that you are willing to help. What can you do?'. I said, `What do you want?'. He said, `A job'. I said, `What can you do?'. He said, `I will do anything'. It just so happened that I had been to the yacht club for a luncheon and I said, `Will you wash down the yachts?', and he said `I will do anything'. So I rang up and got him a job washing down yachts after they came in. He worked well and within a couple of weeks he had about eight other people working for him. In fact, he used me as a reference centre. He said to other people, `Forget the Commonwealth Employment Service. Go and see Senator Sheil, he will get you a job'. Senator Powell —Jobs for the boys. Fair go! Senator SHEIL —I do not know about that. Another young fellow arrived. As luck would have it, I was just back from inspecting a cattle feeding lot up in the valley and the car was filthy. I said, `Will you clean cars?'. He said, `Yes', and I got him a job in all the high rises around the coast, and now he employs at least 10 people. He is very private enterprise oriented; he charges more for cleaning a Rolls-Royce than he does for a Mercedes. Honourable senators-Ha, ha! Senator SHEIL —Well, if you want to live on that level, live on it. If you want to get out of it, get out of it. Actually, I think I am doing better on the Gold Coast than a lot of these CES offices. Another guy came along and I said, `Do you want to clean shoes?'. Now he has a contract cleaning shoes in all the high rises. Later I got a job for someone cleaning windows on high rise buildings. All these guys are now employing other fellows. They do not need a lot of education; they just need a lot of responsibility and a bit of get up and go. I think we have slaughtered the brains of our kids by making them dependent on this welfare mentality that is all around Australia today. I think there are lots of other jobs available. We have killed our creature comforts of this world. We no longer have butlers. People used to be proud of being butlers, valets and cooks. We talk about the Chinese bringing interests into Australia. When the Chinese give their version of what are high-class qualifications, they say that they are acupuncture, massage and cooking. We have slaughtered the imagination of our people in getting jobs. I think this centralisation of welfare benefits has bred inflexibility and has inhibited economic growth. I think our national programs require eligibility criteria and assistance packages that are simple and universal purely for the convenience of bureaucratic administration. They cannot deal with an individual problem or a community problem as it occurs, so we have wound up with a whole lot of rigid rules and rigid entitlements in order to qualify for benefits. There is no flexible response to an individual. Centralisation also makes it harder to find any better approaches to the solution of the problem. Another problem that I see is one that became known as empowerment. People who are poor do not have the power to fix their own problems and, by creating a welfare industry such as we have, we have robbed them even more of any power to fix their problems or to influence the policy that fixes them. In fact, the power in Australia today has gone not to the poor whom we are trying to look after; it has gone to professional social welfare organisations. These organisations have become experts at securing and directing government funds. If we made any attempt to reduce their power in the distribution of welfare in Australia, we would find an enormous outcry. I think this is one of the major areas that we have to concentrate on. If we interfere with the power of institutions such as the Australian Council of Social Service, the Queensland Council of Social Service, any of the other councils of social service or the Brotherhood of St Laurence, we will have an outcry on our hands, because they are the experts at getting government funds and they direct how they are going to be expended. They direct the programs. The programs may be of no benefit to the poor whatsoever; they are in the minds of the do-gooders who are running these institutions, and the interests of the poor get lost. Perhaps we should assess the degree and the nature of society's present obligations to the poor. We should temper our idealism with some realism and we should link welfare with the steps taken by the recipient to improve his or her condition. We would then have a better chance of keeping a check on spending. But we must beware of massive spending programs on job training, day care and all these other enormous schemes that are funded by the Federal Government. Why should parents not be allowed to assume the responsibilities that they want to assume? Families should be relieved of most of the problems that are presently landed on their shoulders. The biggest one, of course, is tax. That is an enormous burden. For example, if the payment of welfare benefits allows a single mother to leave home and to live on her own, we are more or less condemning her to a life of poverty and hardship rather than having her supported by the family to which she belongs. I firmly believe that the poor know more about their problems than any government does. In particular, they know more about their problems than any of the middle class philanthropists who have control of the money now. Just because someone is poor it does not mean that others know better what is in their interests. My plea is that we should decentralise our welfare services. The initiative to generate welfare services should come from families, churches and service organisations. Senator McKiernan —How would you do it? Senator SHEIL —It would be very simply done. I have worked with all of them. It takes a little initiative and imagination. Honourable senators opposite just want to have a big central organisation. They will face the problem they are facing right now-increasing expenditure and increasing poverty. That is what they have delivered. One could decentralise welfare services, and with a much better result. The fundamental structure should be the family, which is what honourable senators opposite want to destroy. The family is what the Government should concentrate on. Senator McKiernan —Would you wipe out all welfare payments? Senator SHEIL —Nobody argues against society's responsibility to children, the handicapped or the infirm. They are very different obligations to society's obligations to the able-bodied. Women can be handicapped and infirm. Honourable senators opposite should not be so narrow-minded. Let me go back to Confucius. If one gives a poor man a fish he will eat for a day; if one teaches him to fish he will eat forever. The Government thinks that it is no good to eat fish forever, and gives the poor money. There is a halfway stage. If the welfare services can give the recipient a voucher he can decide whether he wants food, housing or remedial education. That would put power in the hands of the poor. They could decide what services they wanted. Poor people would have the power to determine the expenditure of welfare moneys. They would become consumers and consumer advocates, and would be much more powerful in determining what sorts of services they required. If we did that, poor people may become powerful enough to provide services not only for themselves but for their community. Perhaps they could even manage public housing projects. It would do them good. It would increase their confidence and help them get out into the world. We should reactivate the family and the local community as active agents in the attack on poverty. Most importantly, we should re-establish the principle of mutual obligation between those who give welfare and those who receive it. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(9.55) —We have just heard a very thoughtful address from Senator Sheil. Many of the things he said we take on board. This Government has done a lot of the things Senator Sheil talked about. Senator Sheil gave us the glorious picture of him on the Gold Coast throwing a fishing line and pulling out fish and more fish, rather than simply waiting for someone to come along and give him the fish. This Government, by its concentration on education and its provision of traineeships, apprenticeships and jobs, has done exactly what Senator Sheil advocates. When one is looking at our record, that is where one starts. This is a package of very enlightened legislation but it has to be seen against the background of this Government having done mightily by the poor and unemployed. The Government has created about 800,000 jobs while it has been in office. It has instituted traineeships, created apprenticeships, furthered tertiary education and provided people with the means of catching their own fish. It will continue to do so. It has done so despite the very poor circumstances it inherited from the previous Government. Senator Sheil said that this Government has been too concerned about trying to redress welfare problems by giving people money and assistance. But not only has this Government done so; previous governments have done so, and done so very well. I think we would all agree that Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, as Minister for Social Security during the Fraser Government, acted mightily in this context. It should be properly acknowledged that she did so. When Senator Chaney was a Minister for Social Security he also did well. He adorns this place now, and let us hope that he adorns the Opposition benches for many years to come. Senator Sheil said that the Australian Labor Party maintains that its members are the only ones who care for the poor. That is not so. The churches care for the poor. Bishop Hollingworth in Melbourne is an example. I hope that the community as a whole is concerned about its fellow community members who are in need of assistance. It is all very well to maintain that the poor can somehow be educated overnight, that people can overcome the effects of accidents and the sicknesses with which they are afflicted, can overcome, in many cases, generations of hardship and an inability to get on in the world as well as others. Surely as decent human beings we want to raise these members of the community to equal status. It is true that people should do all they can to help themselves, but the reality is that often they cannot. The other dangerous thing about Senator Sheil's approach is that if we go down the line of saying that in some way these people are not helping themselves, that they are deficient, that they are not equal citizens because they do not have the ability to do what we consider ordinary citizens should do, we begin to make them scapegoats. We say, `You are to blame for your own difficulties. You should go out and find a yacht to clean, or windows or shoes to clean, and if you do not do that you are to be condemned. We will give you some pittance but we make it clear that we will do so to reduce your dignity and sense of being a full citizen of the community. We will reduce your sense of self-worth'. If we get to that stage we are getting to a very sorry situation indeed. I want to say something about what this Government has done over the years, particularly during the past year. It has tackled the economic problems this nation faces. It is true that for people to get out of poverty permanently they need jobs. That has been the thrust of this Government's approach over the years. It arises out of the accord which was signed in February 1983 between the Australia Labor Party (ALP) and the unions. Both constituent parts of the movement have struggled successfully to do something about it. The Government's record this year is impressive. Senator Sheil said that this Government ignored the family. The family package shows that that statement is quite incorrect. Mark Ryan, the Director of the Australian Council of Social Service, describes the family allowance supplement as the first significant move made by any government in trying to reduce the number of families living in poverty. This Government has targeted families which are in need and has provided the needed support. It is interesting that Labor, in every Budget since the election in 1983, has increased payments to families. The child payment is 120 per cent higher than equivalent payments in March 1983, and 180 per cent higher for older children. The Social Welfare Research Centre concludes that the family package will mean a significant improvement in the incomes of poor families. It also estimates that the family package will reduce the poverty gap by $160m-from $350m to $190m. The commitment for this Government will be to set benchmarks to ensure that the family allowance supplement amounts to an enduring reform. The family package arose out of the social security review, which will continue to set new directions for the reform of social security systems in 1988. In other words, it is an ongoing review of the needs of people who cannot adequately look after themselves, and that commitment will continue. It is a targeted review that is directed by a proper alignment of need with the relief of that need. Senator Sheil said that the community should not support all those who are in need of pensions or who claim pensions to the extent that it does. The inference was that somehow those people share unfairly in the community resources. It must be remembered that the whole community shares in the resources of the community, and that the taxation that is raised in the community goes towards the protection of all, whether by way of defence spending, roads, subsidised theatres, subsidised education and so on. All the things that are subsidised or paid for from the public purse are accepted by society. It seems to me a little hard to say that, society having accepted those things, those who are in need of welfare payments should be excluded. In other words, to use a crude expression, we all have our snouts in the trough. It seems unfair that those who enjoy the trough should shoulder out in some way the people who receive welfare. I wish to refer to other advances made by this Government this year. I give particular praise to the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, who has striven grandly to achieve these things. Senator Sheil spoke of the poverty trap. It is interesting to note in that context that from 1 July this year the pensioner package increased the amount of money that pensioners can earn without reducing their pension payments from $30 to $40 a week for single pensioners and from $50 to $70 for couples. In addition, the new earnings credit, which started this month, will give pensioners the incentive to go ahead and supplement their incomes. They can earn up to $40 a week or $1,000 a year, even though that sum may be earned over a period of three or four weeks. All this goes to the relief of poverty traps. A series of amendments have been put forward by the Opposition and by the Australian Democrats, all of which go to matters which are reasonably peripheral. They show that the general thrust of this legislation has the support of everybody in this chamber, including Senator Sheil, who will be voting for the legislation. Despite the rhetoric that is heard in this chamber, we all have a heart-including Senator Sheil. I have always accepted him as a tender-hearted man, and underneath all that rhetoric he is. Senator Richardson —You are a true Christian. Senator COONEY —That is true, and this legislation has a Christian base to it. When it comes to the thrust of this legislation, Senator Sheil and everybody will support it. They realise how magnificently this Government has risen to the needs of the poor and deprived. Senator Vanstone-another very reasonable senator-in opening this debate for the Opposition said that she accepted the thrust of the legislation. An amendment has been proposed to clause 11(2) of the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2), dealing with assets. In assessing a pension for a year the pension will be reduced by an amount equal to 2.5 per cent of the value of property. That arises out of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision which provides that the question of whether a person can raise income from property is to be judged on a subjective rather than an objective test. It seems reasonable in those circumstances, where there must be a balance between financial responsibility and social responsibility, that, where people have property of considerable value, that should be taken into account in the assessment of their pension. The more one pensioner takes from the system the less that remains for others. In seeking to obtain equity, I believe that it is proper that the test should be objective. In any event, it seems that the Opposition and the Australian Democrats feel differently, but I invite them in pressing their case to take account of the balance that must be struck between social and economic responsibilities. The fact that they are seeking to amend this provision indicates that the real debate here is about how best to give pensions to those in need and how best to adjust those pensions to a proper level. This legislation has support across the chamber, as is proper. It is a tribute to this Government, which in the last four or five years has been able to take steps in this area. I think all will agree that the Government has striven mightily to do what is right and just. Clearly, as Senator Sheil said, the poor are always with us. However, that is not an excuse for doing nothing; it is a challenge to see whether we can eliminate poverty. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(10.09) -It is very interesting to note what one learns in this place. I was fascinated this evening to learn from Senator Sheil that the procreative activities of the Aboriginal community were in some way determined by the Government. I was also interested to note that he alluded to Confucius and fish. The fish is a symbol which goes back a long time in European history. Senator Cooney picked up this message when he said that the Government had provided the means of catching one's own fish. The Australian Democrats would comment that both the Government and the Opposition have pursued policies of environmental despoliation which have led to a decrease in fish stocks. While the Government may have provided the means of catching fish, there are very few fish there to catch. The first of the three Bills before us this evening, the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2), has already been dealt with partially by Senator McLean and will be further dealt with later by Senator Powell. I wish to deal with the other two Bills which are before us. The Australian Democrats are pleased to support the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill as it will continue the very necessary reform to the system of nursing homes in Australia. The last two sessions of Parliament have both seen major legislative change in nursing home care and several major reports over recent years have criticised the quality of care provided in some homes and the variations which exist between homes and between States and their funding. The Government has clearly addressed these concerns. The Nursing Homes and Hostels Review recommended that as far as possible aged and disabled people should be supported in their homes and communities and that more residential care options should be available. The Democrats support this policy direction. There is now a general recognition of the importance of aged care policies and programs. More and more people are aware that Australian society is confronting an increase in the proportion of old people and is coming to terms with providing care for these elderly Australians. The proportion of persons under 15 years of age has fallen from 35 per cent in 1901 to 23 per cent in 1986 and it is projected to decline to 19 per cent by the year 2021. Thus the number of young people requiring expensive education is falling and will continue to fall further. Some of this money saved will need to be transferred to care for the aged. At the other end of the scale, the figures show that the general population is projected to grow by 6.5 per cent in the next five years but the population between 65 and 75-that is, the young elderly-will increase by 35 per cent. The number of aged people over 74 will grow by 22 per cent; that of those aged 80 and over by 25 per cent and that of those 85 and over by 21 per cent. This remarkable growth in the older aged population in the next five years requires immediate attention from the Government. This legislation addresses this problem. What we see is not only more people over 65 but also more people in the very oldest groups. One study even suggests that the number of people in the over 85 group will eventually increase by 150 per cent. Whilst the Democrats welcome an increase in community-based support services, and no one can argue with the appropriate allocation of nursing home beds, we are concerned that the Government is being distracted in its enthusiasm from new problems which will face us. We are concerned, for instance, that the provision of increased hostel funding appears to be contingent upon less reliance on our nursing home accommodation. In fact in a population in which the percentage of older people is increasing, the need for nursing homes will not necessarily decrease along with the provision of additional hostel beds and community services. While many people may currently be inappropriately placed in nursing homes, there are also many people on long waiting lists for those places. We may also be underestimating the demand which will be faced by our acute care hospitals in future years for procedures such as hip replacements. Creative solutions to a range of such issues will be required. To give just one example, Alzheimer's is a disease usually, but not always, of the elderly and it progresses until the patient essentially becomes a living vegetable requiring 24 hours a day home care. Some patients last in this dependent stage for well over 10 years. The latest work seems to be suggesting that this disease is genetically determined, holding out no hope for a cure but hope that in the long run genetic counselling and responsible procreation may reduce the incidence. But note, Mr Acting Deputy President, that this step will take at least 60 years to implement, posing a very considerable care problem in the meantime. The provisions of the Bill before us relate to capital funding arrangements for hostels and recurrent funding arrangements for nursing homes. They are aimed, as the Government has said, at better targeting of services, enhancing equity of treatment, increasing the accountability of organisations which spend large amounts of public money, encouraging the provision of appropriate assessment and rehabilitation services and streamlining the workability of financial arrangements. These are all moves which we support. We are pleased to see that the proportion of financially disadvantaged residents to be accommodated will be appropriately taken into account in assessing funding. It is appropriate that refundable entry contributions paid by residents be considered as part of an organisation's available funds. It is sensible that guidelines be developed and tabled by the Minister for the assessment of establishment capital grants. It is interesting to see the possibility of joint ventures for provision of accommodation being opened up. The Bill contains many other particular changes which we will support. We strongly welcome the strengthening of privacy provisions in the Bill. The Opposition made reference to what it considers to be particularly arduous reporting requirements and harsh penalties applying to the industry and to proprietors. This was referred to by one honourable member in the other place as `using a sledgehammer to crack a nut'. In various social security amendments which the Democrats have opposed, the Government has introduced extraordinarily intrusive and draconian procedures and penalties. Perhaps there is a perverse sort of justice in organisations being harassed about accountability for public money to the same extent that individuals are. These proposals seem fair and equitable. Unfortunately, there is some cause for scepticism about the Government's comfortable rhetoric about needs-based planning and effecting gradual change and in particular about extensive consultation. I noticed that Senator Crowley referred to this matter of consultation and claimed that those who had complained about lack of consultation were now satisfied. Nonetheless, the fact that that complaint occurred at all indicates that consultation was in some way inadequate. In debate in another place Opposition members made numerous references to this issue of consultation. They quoted from a letter which, I guess, is the letter to which Senator Crowley referred from the Voluntary Care Association of South Australia Inc. The Democrats also received a similar letter. It is couched indeed in very strong terms and it is highly critical of the way the Government and the Department of Finance have proceeded on this matter. From their account the so-called consultation entered into by the Department was anything but extensive. Bureaucrats flying between capital cities does not constitute effective and extensive consultation. The support which this legislation is receiving in Parliament does not excuse the antics which have been recounted to us, such as the enormous discussion documents produced by the Department arriving only one or two days before they were scheduled to be discussed by the parties. Meaningless consultation is not only an enormous waste of taxpayer's money; but it is also insulting to those who are consulted. Thus, it generates a large amount of destructive ill feeling in a sector where we should be seeking to work co-operatively. The Voluntary Care Association of South Australia, for instance, said that it was surely in the best interests of Australian governments to ensure that non-profit organisations providing quality accommodation and care remained viable and that there was certainly no milage for any government that did not consult adequately. I turn now to the final Bill, Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). I noted that Senator Crowley made the remark that governments were not disinterested in people living in poverty. I was rather distressed to hear that and I hope she meant that governments were not uninterested in people living in poverty. In that case, I would like to take her up on one particular issue which is dealt with in this piece of legislation. The Bill is intended to clarify the entitlements of certain social security recipients to free and concessional pharmaceuticals. The amendments are consequential upon changes to the social security system introduced by the Government following the May mini-Budget. Many of these changes were rejected at the time by the Australian Democrats and passed only with the support of the Opposition. The Democrats considered many of the changes draconian and appallingly out of touch with the realities of life for the poor and unemployed of Australia. I notice that Senator Sheil referred to poverty traps. The concern we express about this Bill relates to what we believe is one of these quite serious poverty traps. Clause 4 of the Bill amends the formula for calculating eligibility for a health care card and therefore to pharmaceuticals at the concessional rate of $2.50 per script. This technical change is a response to the differing levels of allowable income which now attach to dependent children, varying with their age, for the purposes of the family allowance supplement. The amount of $34 set by this legislation-which will be increased by regulation-reflects the current formula of twice the weekly rate of additional benefit payable for children. It will avoid having to take the age of children into account, since the family assistance scheme provides $22 a week for children under 13 and higher rates for children between 13 and 15 years, when assessing eligibility for a card. Clause 5 of the Bill relates to the pharmaceutical entitlements of young people of 16 to 17 years of age. The May mini-Budget saw the abolition of unemployment and sickness benefits for these young people and the job search allowance put in its place. This provides young people with $25 to $50 per week depending on their parents' income. The point that I wish to make in relation to this is that this amount is extremely small. It is against that small amount of $25 to $50 a week job search allowance that the pharmaceutical benefit allowance at a concessional rate needs to be considered. The Government is not proposing any corres- ponding reduction in the cost to young people of pharmaceuticals. Those who cannot find work will still be expected to pay the concessional rate of $2.50 per script despite a reduction in the weekly income of many of them. It is precisely these people to whom Senator Sheil was referring. They are the people who are seeking work by definition; they are in a job search situation. For those many young people who suffer from disorders such as asthma, diabetes or epilepsy, which do not necessarily prevent them from seeking and actually obtaining work and holding down a job but nonetheless which can be quite debilitating and require constant medication, and whose family situation income is not such that their parents can or will pay for their pharmaceuticals, this burden of $2.50 per script can be quite intolerable. They are not expected to carry this until they reach the $250 per year safety net which applies to the rest of the community-irrespective of their income-because they would receive free pharmaceuticals under the safety net for the chronically ill once they have purchased 25 scripts per year. This amounts to a cost of $62.50 per year. This amount may not seem significant in itself but the fact remains that, under the Government's proposal these young people will be asked to pay $2.50 per script even when their income is as low as $25 per week. They are to be told that to fill a prescription it will cost them 10 per cent of their weekly income. We all know that the level of the job search allowance is hardly enough to defray in many cases even the costs involved in actively seeking employment. Most of us would not take too kindly to one prescription costing 10 per cent of our weekly income even when a so-called safety net means our individual or family pharmaceutical costs cut out at between 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 weeks income spread over a year. To put this into perspective, $62.50 a year represents between approximately 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 weeks income on the job search allowance of $25 to $50 per week. The average weekly earnings in August was $394. So, for the average worker, 1 1/2 weeks income is $491 and 2 1/2 weeks income is $985. In other words, that by comparison is what we are asking these people on the job search allowance to pay for a prescription. In this light the charge proposed to be levied by the Government on young people who suffer chronic illness yet who are actively looking for work is clearly an unreasonable and inequitable one. For this reason the Democrats would have liked to have moved an amendment to provide that all the recipients of the job search allowance receive free pharmaceuticals. We do not believe that this would be particularly expensive for the Government. The reason that we do not move an amendment simply relates to the complexity of the Bill which is being amended and which has been amended a number of times in the past. Indeed, it would have been preferable for amendments to the Bill to be moved in the Committee of the Whole to ensure that recipients of the job search allowance would be statutorily entitled to free pharmaceutical benefits without any further income test. It would have involved amending clauses 5 and 8 and substituting different amendments to the principal legislation. The task of drafting such amendments is rendered almost impossible by the chaotic state of the principal legislation. The National Health Act and the Health Insurance Act have not been reprinted since 1980 and 1981 respectively and there are a number of lengthy amending Acts to each. It is therefore a major and time consuming task simply to discover the state of the principal legislation before one even begins to ascertain what amendments are necessary. In the time available it was not possible to draft the necessary amendments and so the feeling of the Senate has been tested by way of a second reading motion on this issue. This is a further example of the great difficulties caused by the failure of the Attorney-General's Department to reprint complicated and frequently amended Acts. The lack of up to date reprints means that honourable senators cannot even ascertain the state of legislation they are amending. Clause 8 of the Bill deals with the entitlements of people who previously received particular pensions and benefits to which free pharmaceuticals attached as a fringe benefit. Due to the implementation of the Government's May mini-Budget attacks on welfare, many supporting parents and class A widows-that is, divorced or separated women with dependent children-lost their eligibility for these forms of support from 1 September. The Government anticipated that many of these people would transfer to the unemployment benefit which attracts only concessional and not free pharmaceuticals. In response to the representations of what it calls the welfare lobby, the Government has to some extent seen the error of its ways. Clause 8 provides that free pharmaceuticals should continue to be provided until-this is an arbitrary date-the end of the year for those who, even more arbitrarily, lose their entitlement prior to the end of this year. The Democrats support this amendment in as much as it is an ad hoc short term band-aid attempt to address the difficulties which are being faced by people in their transition from the widow's pension and the supporting parent benefit. However, it is clearly not an adequate response to the needs of people-primarily older women-for training in skills development and for support in the face of too few job vacancies. As I indicated earlier, the Democrats will propose many amendments-amendments concerning the Government's inadequate social security system-to the legislation being debated cognately with this Bill. I foreshadow my amendment, which was circulated to honourable senators. I will move: At the end of the motion, add: ``, but the Senate is of the opinion that recipients of the job search allowance should be entitled to free pharmaceutical benefits without any further income test''. As I have indicated, the effect of this amendment would be that those young people who are in receipt of the-- The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.30) —Today my home city of Melbourne witnessed another shooting tragedy even more appalling in terms of its carnage than the Hoddle Street massacre in Clifton Hill only four months ago tomorrow. The reports are still to be confirmed as to all the details, but it appears that at least nine people are dead and five have been wounded in the Telecom Australia office in Queen Street, Melbourne, really in the centre of the city. I wish to join with the Victorian Premier, John Cain, and the Leader of the Opposition in Victoria, Jeff Kennett, in their expressions of shock at the tragedy that has occurred. I would like also to join with them in extending my deepest sympathy to the relatives of the victims. I understand that today also happens to be the anniversary of the shooting of John Lennon in New York in, I think, 1980. If one had said six months ago to the people of Melbourne that a massacre of this type could occur, one simply would not have been believed. Now, within a space of four months, we have had two massacres. I do not know what that means in terms of the society in which we live today other than that there is obviously something dreadfully wrong. I believe that of all the problems facing our society, our community and our governments there is nothing more pressing than the need to attempt to get at the reasons for these seemingly senseless and certainly dreadful acts of violence. I believe that violence breeds violence in any community. Unless we approach these events as a matter of the greatest urgency and do so with the greatest professionalism and all the skills that we as a modern society ought to be able to bring to these issues, I really fear very seriously indeed for the future of our society. As I say, it is difficult to say much more in the absence of further information. There are many Press reports on the massacre. We will doubtless learn more of the detail. It appears to have been done by a young person, as was the Hoddle Street massacre four months ago. The person who then shot at random and killed people in Hoddle Street was approximately 20 years of age. The person who committed today's carnage was apparently a young man of 22. We do not yet know any more details about it. I just want to take this opportunity, as a Victorian and an Australian-and I am sure all members of the Parliament on both sides of the chamber will join me in this-to express our deepest sympathy and our great horror at what has happened. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.35) —I am sure that honourable senators on both sides of the chamber would share the sense of shock and horror at the massacre that has taken place. I do not have the details available to me, but I know they are as briefly outlined by Senator Short. Whilst one cannot always make allowance for the aberrations of some disturbed members of our community, nevertheless this incident brings into focus the need for a uniform approach to gun laws throughout Australia, and I believe it strengthens the case that has been made out at meetings of the Australian Police Ministers Council as recently as 12 days ago in Hobart that there ought to be a concerted effort by all jurisdictions to bring about a uniform system of licensing and granting permits for certain classes of weapons, at least as one step in trying to reduce the occasions on which lethal weapons come into the hands of persons who are really so disturbed that to put those weapons in their hands is to invite the sort of incident which tragically occurred today. In other words, it requires real political will and effort on the part of governments to achieve greater gun control. I believe it can be achieved. Indeed, the Victorian experience has been that some of the more strident elements of the gun lobby, when taken on, do in fact come to realise that they do not enjoy great public support and that, when proper allowance is made for some farming, rural, recreational and sporting uses, the community is prepared to sanction tough measures to try to reduce the occasions on which these weapons come into the hands of, as I say, some disturbed members of our community. It is not a simple issue. But I agree that it was very proper of Senator Short to raise this matter in the adjournment debate so that honourable senators from all sides of the chamber could express their condolences to the families concerned and their shock that this incident should occur in our community. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(10.37) —I would like to join my colleagues in extending condolences to the families that have tragically lost members. I do so both as a Victorian senator and as a Melbourne City Councillor. The carnage in fact took place in my ward, the central ward. I remember only too vividly the Russell Street bombing. This was probably the time when Melbourne was first exposed to a terrorist act. I was close by at the time. As a central ward councillor then I was called upon to make comment. I said that we must now realise that, due to the Russell Street bombing, Melbourne had lost its innocence-if I can use that word, although `protection' might be a better word. I said that we had to give greater support to the law courts and to the police force-two institutions that over the years have been sorely tested and sorely criticised for wanting to strengthen their positions. I believe that the next State election in Victoria should bring to light the law and order issue if such incidents as these are ever to be properly dealt with by governments. I also await further information on the incident. As I said before, I extend my expression of sympathy and shock at the tragedy of the incident. I recall the Russell Street bombing and how close I was to it, and I know the shock-no other word can really describe it-of such incidents. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.39 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders 1987- No. MQ22-Sheepmeat and/or Goatmeat to EEC-1988 Quota Administration Scheme, dated 19 November 1987. No. MQ23-High Quality Beef to EEC-1988 Quota Administration Scheme, dated 19 November 1987. No. M38-AUS-MEAT Accreditation required for slaughtering, boning, packaging and processing of meat for export, dated 20 November 1987.