Wednesday, 9 December 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To 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 Bjelke-Petersen (from 134 citizens), Chaney (from 148 citizens), Knowles (from 130 citizens), Lewis (from 150 citizens), Macklin (from 136 citizens), Robert Ray (from 134 citizens) and Reid (from 179 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 Polychlorinated Biphenyl High Temperature Incinerator threatens to damage agriculture and with subsequent effects on trade in the Shire of Vilgarn, Western Australia, and could have possible adverse effects on the health of the residents of the area. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Senate request the Commonwealth Government to use its influence with the Western Australian State Government to prevent the building of PCB High Temperature Incinerator at Koolyanobbing, Western Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Panizza (from 50 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 we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. This cut has reduced the base for future adjustments. The Government has promised to restore the base as soon as economic circumstances permit. Having regard to the state of the economy as portrayed by members of the Government in recent months and the interaction between Social Security pensions and the above mentioned adjustment, your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to restore the pension base for the calculation of future adjustments and that the restoration be effected in conjunction with the Social Security adjustments in November 1987. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 39 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card; that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; that we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card; that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; that we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life; that we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 17 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: We consider the Federal Government's decision to have Telecom charge for the cost of `Directory Assistance' enquiries will greatly disadvantage the sick, elderly and the handicapped. Specifically, it will impose an unjustified financial burden on those with sight impediments and reading difficulties, such as the elderly. It will also disadvantage physically handicapped people and persons confined due to illness. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should urge the Government to: Reverse its decision to have Telecom charge for `Directory Assistance' enquiries. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 39 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 Senators Michael Baume (from 206 citizens) and Chaney (from 19 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: 1. We oppose the introduction of metering of local telephone calls by Telecom; 2. We believe the introduction of metering local telephone calls would severely disadvantage the sick, elderly and handicapped, who often rely heavily on the telephone for social contact, to conduct business, and obtain domestic and other services; and 3. We believe that the metering of local calls would add an additional financial burden to an already disadvantaged section of the community. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: Reject any move by the Federal Government to introduce the metering of local telephone calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 49 citizens). To the President and senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed submission of areas of north Queensland for World Heritage listing is not in the best interests of the people and should be rejected. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 164 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: 1. The decision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation not to televise the Jack High Bowling Tournament in 1988 is cause for distress to the 500,000 bowlers and many non-bowlers who, for years, have enjoyed this interesting program for television. 2. The unilateral decision was taken after verbal assurances had been given that the 1988 event would be televised. This action is deplored and we feel should be reversed by the Parliament in the interests of your many constituents. by Senator Vallentine (from 1,513 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia; and 2. Ban the import of Cobalt-60 and Caesium 137 and Caesium 134 to be used to irradiate food products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 1,632 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The $6.00 per week fee imposed on Government preschool parents is inequitable. We feel the fee will cause genuine hardship to many families of young children and it ignores the contribution that parents make financially to preschools at the moment. It will affect the enrolment of children at preschools next year, with a likely outcome being the closure of some ACT preschools. It will also affect the voluntary financial commitment parents already make to preschools, without which they could not function on a day to day basis. We believe that preschools are very cost effective in respect to their multi faceted role in educational, social, health, emotional and physical development. We envisage the long term effects of the fee to be a reduction in the quality and frequency of preschooling with the preschool sector degenerating into a user pays system for those who can afford it. We call on the Senate to urge the Hon John Brown to abolish the fee. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Senator Reid (from 1,770 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Government has no clear mandate to introduce the Australia Card. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled insist that the Government not proceed with the Australia Card without the consent of a majority of the Australian people in a majority of the States as determined in a national referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 20 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 24 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 Knowles (from 21 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 Hawke Labor Government's Australia Card proposal is the most far-reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever and on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient manner tax and social security fraud. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: reject the Labor Government's Australia Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the A.C.T. respectfully shows- That X-rated videos denigrate true human values and lower community standards. That the continued availability of this pornography is contrary to the wishes of the majority of Australian citizens. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to take action to bring about the prohibition of X-rated videos in the A.C.T. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 318 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: 1. The people want to make laws independently of politicians, 2. consequently there is an urgent need for constitutional reforms. Your Petitioners ask that the Senate in Parliament should support the Constitutional Alteration (Electors Initiative) 1987 Bill to alter the constitution so as to vest in the electors power to propose laws and to approve or disapprove such proposed laws. by Senator Macklin (from 16 citizens). Senator BISHOP(New South Wales) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form, from 1,354 citizens praying that broadcasters of ethnic Russian programs in New South Wales continue to serve the Russian Orthodox religious community by continuing to include in such programs a large component of presenters and content provided by and for members of the Russian Orthodox Faith: Mr. B. Johns, Executive Director Special Broadcasting Service, 4 Cliff Street, MILSON'S POINT. N.S.W. 2061 17th November 1987 From: Group of concerned listeners of ethnic broadcasts in Russian Dear Sir, We are listeners of ethnic broadcasts in Russian in the cities of Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong. These broadcasts have been headed and co-ordinated for the past 12 years or so by the highly respect Doctor Igor Galitsky and his able assistants-the Russian Orthodox priest, father Mikhail Konstantinov, and Miss Natalia Koudrin, and we would like to express our thanks to them for the interesting and informative programs during this entire period. Likewise we wish to confirm our complete satisfaction with the contents of these programs, which conform with and are entirely in keeping with the spiritual and cultural needs of the majority of the Russian community. As with any other truly ethnic radio-transmission, ethnic Russian broadcasts demand that its co-ordinators (or head of the section) and their staff be original Russians, both by birth and by their national historical roots. Likewise, as the Russian Orthodox religion pre-dominates in the overwhelming majority of Russian ethnic community, it is vital that in addition to being Russian by birth the co-ordinator (or head of the section) and his assistants be of Russian Orthodox faith to enable them to satisfy the spiritual needs of the Russian community. Any other candidates, irrespective of how well they know Russian language, would be unable-by virtue of their nationality and religion-to adequately express and satisfy the needs of the Russian ethnic community in their programs. It is especially important for the co-ordinator (or head of the section) and his staff to be Russian by birth and to belong to Russian Orthodox faith because of the coming Jubilee in 1988-One Thousandth Anniversary since Russia was baptised and became Christian. The Jubilee celebrations will be universally conducted by Russian Orthodox churches throughout the world. Illustration of the essence and importance of this big event in the Christian world, as well as the essence and importance of celebrations connected with it in different countries, will naturally be reflected in the contents of Russian ethnic radio-transmissions by illustrating the specific character of the same and by singling out Christian Orthodox thematics. It is self-evident, therefore, that the compiling of such radio transmissions, co-ordinating them to illustrate and depict Russian Orthodox thematics, can best be achieved by a co-ordinator (or head of the section) and his staff belonging to Russian Orthodox faith, who are familiar not only with the religion but with its influence on the life and consciousness of overwhelming majority of Russian ethnic community. In view of the above, we would request that the co-ordinator (or head of the section) and his assistants of Russian ethnic radio-transmissions be chosen from Russian people belonging to Russian Orthodox faith. This will meet the cultural needs founded on moral Christian principles and satisfy spiritual and cultural needs of all members of Russian ethnic community. We would also like to point out that other national ethnic broadcasts (e.g. Polish and Jewish) are headed, as a rule, by people belonging to the same faith as the majority of their listeners, and this fact gives us hope that you will not allow the Russian community to be discriminated against on grounds of religion. Unfortunately, many members of the Russian community misunderstood the advertisements the way they appeared in the press and on radio. They understood that S.B.S. required additional staff and did not realize it was a radical re-structuring of the entire broadcasting group, and therefore not many people reacted by sending in applications and expressing interest in the positions advertised. We feel that to have a fair and equitable representation these positions should be re-advertised to allow the Russian community an opportunity to express interest and take part in the re-structuring of the Russian broadcasting group, which, after all, concerns in the first instance the Russian community and Russian community only. As in any other ethnic broadcast, the Russian ethnic program has as its aim the servicing of cultural, religious, national historic and linguistic needs of the Russian ethnic community, fundamentally and overwhelmingly composed of Ethnically Russian Orthodox People. We appreciate that many nationalities also listen to the Russian program, but the main purpose of this program is to satisfy the cultural, religious and linguistic needs of the Russian Community. The program is also to inform and entertain and to be sensitive to the Russian community needs, as well as to inform and entertain all the other listeners to the Russian language program. We therefore request that the broadcasters, and especially the head of the Russian broadcasting section be selected not only on the basis of their linguistic knowledge of the Russian language, but mainly on the basis of their belonging to and representing the Russian Ethnic Christian Community, which undeniably represents the predominant part of Russian speaking listeners of the Russian ethnic radio-transmissions. Yours faithfully, Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form, from 529 citizens, praying that the Senate defer the Live-Stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1987 until appropriate amendments can be made to the Bill: If you the primary producer are in favour of the amendments as stated below to the A.M.L.C. motion relating to the levies for pesticide control and related marketing initiatives, If you are also in favour of the Senate deferring the Livestock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1987 until appropriate amendments can be made to the Bill Would you please indicate by signing below. Amendment (1) to the A.M.L.C. motion The pesticide levy should be collected voluntarily at point of sale on a state basis and controlled by a State Industry Committee Amendment (2) to the A.M.L.C motion Any further costs for chemical residue testing and any related marketing initiatives associated with the Livestock Slaughter Levy and Export Inspection charges be funded by the Federal Government. Petitions received. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts) —On behalf of Senator Gareth Evans, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act 1942 and for related purposes. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I give notice that, two sitting days after today, I shall move: That 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 COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, 10 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 247 and made under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, be disallowed. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —Today is the last day on which a protective notice can be given to protect the freedom of action of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, recreation and the Arts while it considers Administrative Appeals Tribunal review rights, strict criminal liability and the clarity of drafting in these regulations. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short statement of our specific concerns. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The Committee has raised 5 matters with the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, Senator the Hon. Graham Richardson. Firstly, certain applicants for permission to use a Marine Park in a way that might restrict reasonable public use of the Park, may be required to advertise that fact. The provisions do not set out what this requirement might entail and they are, therefore, somewhat inadequate. The Minister has been asked if they require amendment. Secondly, some information demands imposed by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority are limited to requirements that are expressly ``reasonable''. Other provisions are not so limited on their face. While all such requirements would be read down to reasonable limits by a court, the express inclusion of this qualification has an important and useful declaratory and presentational effect. The Minister has been invited to consider this. Thirdly, an unusual strict vicarious criminal liability is imposed on any master, owner or shareholder of a ship or aircraft which is involved in any infringement of the law in the Marine Park. The relevant provision (regulation 19A) states that such a person ``shall be deemed to be guilty . . . and punishable . . . whether or not the person did the act that constitutes the offence''. The Committee has sought the Minister's advice on the necessity for the very wide scope of this provision which could fix innocent persons with serious criminal liability. Fourthly, no right is given to review a refusal to grant permission to take certain fish (regulation 14). Possibly analogous review rights are conferred elsewhere (regulation 18 (2A)). The Committee has sought an explanation. Fifthly, the Committee has sought the Minister's advice on whether relevant provisions are adequate to provide for proper notification of review rights. Such notification is dependent on a prior obligation to notify a person of the relevant decision. That prior obligation appears to be missing from regulations 15, 18 and 21B concerning reviewable discretionary decisions to permit the discharging of waste, to permit the use of diving equipment for research purposes or to permit animals (other than guide dogs for the blind) to be taken onto Marine Park islands. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the release of United States Department of Defense documents showing that American forces in the Pacific are prepared to fight both limited and prolonged nuclear wars; (b) notes that the documents show that CINCPAC pays special attention to the development of capabilities to fight limited nuclear wars and that the nuclear armed Missouri battle group visiting four Australian ports this month comes under the authority of CINCPAC; (c) requests the Government to confirm or deny that couriers of the United States armed forces courier service transit through Australia with the computer instructions which give orders to ships to fire their nuclear weapons; and (d) asks the Government to explain why cruise missiles are allowed into Australian ports when Pacific Command in Hawaii, which controls them, is involved in plans for fighting limited and prolonged nuclear wars in the Pacific as well as post-nuclear war strikes, all of which run contrary to the Government's commitment to deterrence. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate: (a) notes with concern and regret the reported decision of the Australian government to dispatch Australian armed forces to the Persian Gulf war; (b) notes that the decision breaches Australia's declared policy of neutrality in the Iran-Iraq war, and that the Persian Gulf is thousands of kilometres from Australia's regional and legitimate sphere of interest; (c) further notes the incapacity of the government to identify how Australia's strategic and economic interests have so far been damaged or threatened by events in the Gulf, and because of this failure, the inability of the government to offer a credible reason to the Australian people why this country's armed forces should be sent to a war zone for the first time since the Vietnam war; and (d) calls on the government to re-consider its ill-conceived and short-sighted decision. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts) —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. International Labour Conference-72nd Session-Geneva, 4-25 June 1986-Australian delegation report-together with instruments, as required under article 19 of the International Labour Organisation constitution adopted by the conference, relating to Convention No. 162 and recommendation No. 172 concerning safety in the use of asbestos and the text of a statement relating to the instruments. 2. Automotive Industry Authority-Annual Report 1986-87-pursuant to section 27 of the Automotive Industry Authority Act 1984. 3. Australian Manufacturing Council-Annual Report 1986-87. 4. Department of Local Government and Administrative Services-Annual Report 1986-7-pursuant to Sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 5. Australian Customs Service-Annual Report 1986-87-pursuant to Sub-section 17 (2) of the Customs Administration Act 1985. 6. Australian Children's Television Foundation-Annual Report 1986-87. 7. Australian Film, Television and Radio School-Annual Report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's report-pursuant to section 63m (3) of the Audit Act 1901. 8. Australia Council-Annual Report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's Report-pursuant to section 38 of the Australia Council Act 1975. 9. Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region-Annual Report 1986-87-pursuant to section 36 of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978. Motion (by Senator Messner) agreed to: 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 H.M.A.S. Voyager disaster over 23 years ago, given that: (i) the Government has previously admitted liability for injuries suffered by at least 6 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 2 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 2 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. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill. 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, be postponed until two sitting days after today. Motion (by Senator Lewis) agreed to: That Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 4 standing in the name of Senator Lewis, be postponed until two sitting days after today. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(10.12) —I move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration: the central administration of the Australian Government. The purpose of this reference is to vest the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration with the necessary mandate to fulfil its responsibilities to the Senate properly. The Committee's three existing standing references relate largely to the non-departmental sphere of public administration-statutory authorities, et cetera. The new standing reference will enable the Committee to conduct inquiries in the departmental field of public administration. In framing the new reference, the Committee has had special regard for its particular responsibility to oversee the central departments of the Government, namely, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance. Important agencies covered by the portfolios include the Auditor-General's Office and the Public Service Commission, the roles and responsibilities of which are integral to central administration. Following implementation of the Administrative Arrangements Act 1987, involving inter alia the abolition of the Public Service Board, there is now a new structure for the management of the Australian Public Service. Functions previously the responsibility of the Public Service Board are now performed by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Finance, the Department of Industrial Relations and the Public Service Commission. Some have also been devolved to departments. The new term of reference will allow the Committee to monitor the working of the new arrangements and to conduct under its umbrella those relevant inquiries which may from time to time be necessary. Amongst the issues which the Committee might consider investigating are the equal employment opportunity program, the Senior Executive Service, the use of consultants and the role of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet as a co-ordinating department. I inform the Senate that the first matter which the Committee intends to deal with under this reference is the scrutiny program, which is referred to in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's 1986-87 annual report at pages 35 to 38. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 23 November, on motion by Senator Richardson: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Vanstone had moved by way of amendment: At end of motion, add ``, and the provisions of subclause 11 (2) be referred to the Standing Committee on Community Affairs''. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(10.15) —I had almost completed my remarks on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 last evening, but, in view of a procedural matter that was brought to my attention after the conclusion of business, I wish to reiterate the point of the amendment of which I now give notice. This amendment will be moved when the second reading of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) is formally put. It relates to those young people who receive the job search allowance of $25 to $50 a week and the Government's requirement that these people pay $2.50 per prescription, which amounts to roughly 10 per cent of their average weekly earnings if they are on the lower end of that scale and receiving $25 a week. Yesterday I drew attention to the fact that, while these costs relate to those who are seeking work, some of these people may be suffering from diseases which require constant medication but which are not inhibitory to their working, provided they have that medication. I refer to such diseases as asthma, diabetes, epilepsy and others. I pointed out the cost of $2.50 per prescription was 10 per cent of weekly income for those of $25 a week. Given the limitation on the number of scripts, this amounts to $62.50 per year, or approximately 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 weeks of income. I drew a parallel between this situation and that faced by someone on average weekly income which, in August, was $394 a week. Under comparable circumstances the average worker would be paying either $491 of $985 for yearly prescriptions if he were expected to pay 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 weeks of those earnings for a prescription. In the light of the charge which the Government proposes to levy on young people who are suffering these chronic illnesses, I foreshadow the Australian Democrats motion which will be put at the second reading of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). As I explained last evening, we are doing this because the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the amalgamation of the various amendments which have been made to that principle Act are in such a mess that in the time available we could not get a suitable amendment worded. Our motion will seek to add to the end of the second reading motion the following words: Social Security and Veterans Bill 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. In support of that I point out that in terms of the cost to the individual recipients the amount would be quite significant, but in terms of cost to the Government it would be extremely small. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(10.19) —In taking part in this cognate debate today, I wish to address the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. In doing so, I point out that I have had and still have a great deal to do with nursing homes. Quite apart from serving with a number of other senators on the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, I have had the privilege of opening very many retirement villages and nursing homes in Queensland from time to time. I have always been very concerned about the care of the elderly and I have no doubt that many other senators feel exactly the same way. As the aged population becomes even greater, so the care of this group in the community becomes a more demanding problem. Let us put the problem in perspective. By the year 2021, some five million Australians are expected to be aged 65 and over. Going by present funding arrangements, this type of population aging is expected to increase government outlays on the aged by 131 per cent between the years 1981 and 2001. That certainly is a big increase, in anybody's language. Right at this moment we are in a crucial phase in terms of policy arrangements which will set the tone for the next 20 or 30 years. The Opposition is concerned about some of the ramifications of this Bill. However, the Opposition has no problem with the overall policy direction. There is a concern, though, about the discretionary power that appears to be granted to the Minister. It seems that in drafting this legislation, there has been a minimum of consultation between the Department of Community Services and Health and the nursing home industry. I know that the Australian Nursing Homes Association has many criticisms of the Bill. It stated in its submission: The Government constantly declines to consult, preferring to suffer the constant mess and aggravations of its blind pursuit of what is now simply change for the sake of change. The Nursing Homes Association is also concerned about the discretionary power that appears to be granted to the Minister. It is concerned about clause 27, which was supposed to clarify ministerial power to review the Secretary's decisions. It also refers to a clause which proposes to introduce a harsh penalty when the Department is approaching the defining of the records required to be maintained. It says that the definition is highly questionable and highly disturbing. Many other concerns have been raised by other nursing home operators. They say that they were not consulted and have many serious and valid concerns about the effects of this legislation. Some of the problems that I see are in the Government's plans to set standards for the aged care industry that it does not intend to meet itself; to duplicate State government regulations concerning care quality in aged persons homes; to take away any appeal rights that nursing home proprietors have concerning bureaucratic decisions; to force nursing homes to keep records in a manner and form intrusive, excessive and costly for nursing homes but of no relevance to Commonwealth funding requirements; and to prevent private investors providing aged persons hostel beds. It seems to me that that would be a very reasonable thing to do. The effects of the Hawke Labor Government's latest legislation will be to force nursing homes with fewer than 30 beds to close under the new funding arrangements, and to make it impossible for any voluntary organisation to provide respite care. I received a letter, as no doubt did many other senators, from the Scone District Nursing Home, which expressed dismay and disillusionment at this legislation. Clauses 29 and 30 present considerable concern because they are very wide in their application and, in effect, give what some people have considered to be too great police powers to departmental officers. Powers to visit a nursing home at any time and to question any person, under threat of six months in gaol, a fine of $1,000 or both, certainly are very intimidating. So far as I am aware, the Department has already been instrumental in prosecuting some nursing home proprietors who deserved it, so it would seem that the present legislation is able to cope with that sort of control. There is further concern that assessment teams will regularly reassess patients and attempt to discharge them from homes. It is always to be hoped that people will get better, but so often in old age that is not the case. It is often the case that people in nursing homes have nowhere else to go. Their homes have been sold, their families live far away, and where else can they go? Of course, sometimes it is not as simple as black and white. Sometimes the hand of human kindness has to be extended and a sympathetic view of the situation taken into account. The older sectors of our community deserve tremendous respect and the best of services that we as a tax paying community can provide. But I am also a realist; I realise that, if the Government is already spending twice as much today on an old person as it is spending on a young person, the situation will certainly be compounded 20 years from now when an even larger proportion of our population will be over 50 years of age. There is another problem that I see, which relates to the decision of the Government to reduce the number of nursing homes in Australia. I accept that more hostels will be allowed and that the Government thinks that it is better to have hostels than more nursing homes. But what we have to be careful about is that we do not turn hostels into second class nursing homes. I was in Ayr some time earlier this year and looked at its lovely nursing home. The people there said that they believe that, if we have more hostels than nursing homes, we have to have the nursing care necessary for the people who go into those hostels when there are not enough nursing homes provided. Friends of mine were telling me only recently that they have parents who are getting on in years and will soon be too old to stay in their own home. They have been looking for a retirement or nursing home into which they can go. They do not want to go just yet but are looking for a suitable home. They have been told that there is a four-year waiting list for such homes. I do not believe anybody wants to go into a nursing home unless it is absolutely necessary. The Government seems to be saying, `There are too many people in nursing homes; let us get them into hostels'. One point that the Government has to be really sure about is that not just hostels are provided where there is not enough nursing care for the older people. We sometimes wonder where our older people will be able to live out their last years. People cannot always have their mothers or fathers living with them in their homes; perhaps for health reasons it is just not possible. That is something to which the Government has to pay attention. I pay tribute to all the people who work in nursing homes and hostels looking after the elderly people in our community. I often visit them and I appreciate that it is a big job that they are doing, helping to keep our elderly citizens happy. I believe that the correct way to go is for the private operators and the taxpayers-that is, the Government-to join together to provide the kind of nursing home services that will be increasingly vital in our aging community. We should be encouraging free enterprise nursing homes to continue doing what they are already doing so well in the community. Of course, the Government must provide a core of necessary care for the elderly so that those who are not in a position to pay out a lot of money are still provided with the care that they need. However, in doing so, we should not neglect the very important role that private enterprise can and must play in the provision of nursing home care in what is becoming a very young country full of old people. I support the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. In addition, I want to say a few words about the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2) which is also before the Senate as part of this cognate debate. Mr Tim Fischer, the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, has raised some concerns in the other place about clauses 63 and 64 and the effect of an application date rather than a review period being included. The Opposition understands that the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) will address those concerns. I simply remind him of them and ask him to comment on them when he makes his reply. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia) —by leave-I seek leave to amend the amendment I moved yesterday. Leave granted. Senator VANSTONE —I move: At the end of the motion add: ``, and the provisions of subclauses 3 (10), 11 (2) and 76 (2) be referred to the Standing Committee on Community Affairs''. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.31) —The Senate is debating cognately three Bills directly related to the aftermath of the September Budget. Once again, in the dying stages of the Parliament, we are rushing through significant legislation that affects deeply the lives of a great many people in our community and, perhaps most significantly, people who depend in very large measure, and rather distressingly in ever-increasing numbers, upon government for, in particular, income support and assistance in times of need. My colleagues Senator McLean and Senator Coulter have addressed the major issues dealt with in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill and those aspects of the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2) that relate to the area of veterans' entitlements. I shall address my remarks to the social security aspects of the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2). As I said, this is Budget legislation. Following the election the Budget was introduced in September, a month later than usual. That Budget was generally well received by the community. The feature of the Budget that was sold quite strongly in the community was the family package. Of course, during the election campaign that package had been promoted strongly by the Australian Labor Party and particularly by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Indeed, the introduction of this family package is welcome, in particular those aspects of it that deal with matters of concern and that are designed at least to enable the Government to meet its election promise that by 1990 no Australian child need live in poverty. However, I think it is important to question whether those measures in this legislation that form part of the family package are destined to be effective. I refer to such measures as the new family allowance supplement payment and the indexation of that payment. Of course, those measures are welcome. The Government estimates that one million children will enjoy a better standard of living as a result of that payment. Again, that assertion can and will be questioned. It is proposed to increase child payments for families that depend on income support, and such payments also will be indexed automatically. The family package will extend rent assistance. As a result of this legislation families on unemployment and sickness benefits-this is a measure that the Australian Democrats have been pushing for for some time-will receive housing assistance right from the time they receive their first benefit payment. The Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) claimed in his second reading speech that the package provides for more money to be made available for disabled children. That is another assertion that will be questioned by the Australian Democrats. The legislation seeks to provide general support for disadvantaged families, and in particular working families, through the family allowance supplement. However, some contrasts can be found between the claims made and the effects of those claims. Attention needs to be drawn to those matters. Though the September Budget was generally quite well received, largely because of the inclusion of the family package, it must be remembered that it came hard on the heels of the May mini-Budget, which was not well received and which imposed some very draconian measures, some very tough cut-backs and some very worrying extensions of the powers and influence of the Department of Social Security on the lives of ordinary Australians. I turn specifically to the issue of children in poverty. Just last weekend I had pointed out to me specific cases of provisions passed by this Parliament as a result of the May statement now causing children living in poverty to be very adversely affected-in spite of the measures before us today, in this legislation, as a result of the current year's Budget. What is happening is that, as a result of the increased powers of the Department of Social Security resulting from the measures introduced in the May statement-particularly those powers relating to debt recovery, and the family allowance supplement, which the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and the Government put before us as a payment for children-the supplement has been found to be subject to withdrawal by the Department in cases where the Department claims overpayment. A specific case in Victoria, which was made public last weekend by welfare workers, involved a woman with four children aged from six months to 13 years. She was threatened with the loss of her family allowance if she would not sign a Social Security form stating that she owed $7,600 more than she had already agreed to pay with deductions of $41 per fortnight from her unemployment benefit. So at the same time as the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Security are bruiting abroad their commitment to eradicate child poverty, the Department of Social Security, having been granted the power automatically to withhold family allowance payments, puts that claim in jeopardy. The question is: Does this mean that the basic principle of the family package-that every Australian child should have a right to an adequate standard of living-does not apply to the innocent children of Social Security debtors? That really is the issue involved in the family allowance and the family allowance supplement. The Social Security Act of 1947 states that family allowance is payable for `maintenance, training and advancement of the child'. Yet it appears that the Department can use its power to withdraw the family allowance to threaten and intimidate. In fact, it appears that one of the most draconian debt collectors in our community is now the Department of Social Security. We believe that the family allowance and the family allowance supplement must be protected from use as debt collection bargaining tools if the Government's attack on child poverty is to be more than a false promise. I have been given another example of this in Victoria. It involves a couple who were bankrupted four years ago. The debt to the Department was included in the bankruptcy case. They were discharged after three years and in November they were informed by Social Security recovery officers that the family allowance would be reduced to repay the debt to Social Security. The couple were correctly informed that when they bankrupted the family allowance could not be taken by Social Security to repay the debt. So Social Security appears to be overriding the bankruptcy and ignoring the fact that the couple declared themselves insolvent in an attempt to start anew and provide their children with an adequate standard of living. It appears that the powers given in the mini-Budget are being overused. At the committee stage of this Bill we will move amendments dealing with other instances where the provisions of the May statement are causing concern through their being administered in ways which are distressing in many cases and anomalous in others. We believe that, while the Government claims that this legislation reflects an understanding of the problems of the poor and disadvantaged, in particular children, this legislation must be looked at in the context of previous legislation and its implementation. Before I move from concerns about the environment in which we are looking at this legislation and the impact it will have, I need to highlight the way new powers were created for the Department of Social Security in the May statement, powers we are now seeing being implemented and having an effect on people in receipt of Government pensions and benefits. The Secretary of the Department can now compel the production of information about the grant of a pension, benefit or allowance from either the recipient or a third person. That issue causes great concern. It is a broad, unfocused, catch-all provision and it imposes an obligation upon persons to whom requests are made to divulge such information as the Secretary requires and any documents in their custody or under their control. So the Department can compel neighbours, work colleagues and so on to provide details about a recipient's movements or habits and can compel outside authorities such as banks and reference agencies to divulge information. When one understands that all families in receipt of the family allowance-most families in Australia-are clients of the Department of Social Security, one sees that this is a major concern for a great many people. It is also possible through provisions of the mini-Budget legislation for the Department to divulge information on a much wider scale to other government departments, outside organisations or individuals. When these items are put together there is considerable concern. I might say that concern about these specific issues is being expressed by many of the people and groups who were concerned about issues surrounding the development of the ID card legislation. It is that intrusion, that access to and dissemination of information that is of major concern. As I have said, it does impinge on the lives of a great many ordinary Australians and must be questioned when we see examples of its causing distress to ordinary people, particularly as to the lives and economic well-being of their children. Provisions of this legislation regarding the under-18 unemployed relate directly to the announcement and actions taken as a result of the mini-Budget. We will be addressing some of those issues in detail during the committee stage. However, there is a major concern in that area. We are faced with a Government which is claiming to be economically very responsible and at the same time to have great care for and a sense of responsibility about the people who rely on the Government for their care and in particular for their income support. It rather rankles when at the same time as we are giving support to young people-young people living in families and perhaps most particularly young people who for one reason or another are not able to continue to live with their families-that support is being reduced bit by bit, being eaten away. Senator Coulter has already foreshadowed a second reading motion in support of those young people. The under-18 unemployment benefit has been removed. This legislation provides for the establishment of the job search allowance and increases in the work test requirements for those young people. In principle it is probably quite easy to argue that we only want to help these young people get into the work force. At the moment we are all very labour market oriented. We have to give the Government some credit for moves it is making to establish training programs and to establish a feeling and a sense that we are working towards a more appropriately trained and educated community. Unfortunately, it seems a headlong rush in the case of those young people whose unemployment benefit has been removed and another group in the community which was affected by the mini-Budget and will be further affected by measures in this legislation-sole parents who are mainly women of mature or maturing age. Their benefits have also been suddenly removed very much against their expectations. The benefits of these women have been removed at a time when their children are in the age group which I have just been talking about-generally the under 18 years age group. A great deal of family stress, particularly financial stress, is being caused by the combination of these measures. While these decisions may seem to be rational economic decisions and while they allow, in large measure, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to stomp around the country bragging about the fact that next year there will be a Budget surplus and that this Budget-the legislation for which we are now addressing-will largely be a balanced Budget, that is all too much from our point of view as it is at the cost of the very same people about whom I have been talking. Last week Mr Keating was quoted as saying that a saving of $200m was likely to be paid out for the unemployment benefit as a result of stronger employment and the success of the Government's crackdown on fraudulent unemployment benefit claims. I understand that figures are now coming in with regard to the group of people who are affected by the reduction in their entitlement to the supporting parent benefit and the widows' pension entitlement. Figures are showing that vastly fewer people are receiving these benefits and that is not surprising. First of all, there is the element that they are not entitled to them any more and there is also the element that many women are now placed in an invidious position of having to choose-for economic reasons, to save the Government money-to stay, all too often, in a relationship or to enter into another relationship which, if it is not unsatisfactory, is sometimes quite dangerous. There have been many public statements of concern by people who work in this area and who are acquainted with such women and children. Perhaps women are being placed in this position as a result of this Government's policies and the sort of legislation which we addressed in May equally as quickly-in fact we addressed it with more haste-as we are addressing this legislation today and the legislation which will continue to be put in front of us. Young unemployed people continue to be hit. Just yesterday two community youth support schemes (CYSS) in Victoria were closed down without any notice being given. It was a matter of great distress the previous week when I was called to the Elwood CYSS group which, in the first week in December, was unsure about whether it had received any funding. It could get no advice from the Minister's office or from the proper authorities in its State. Finally, yesterday, it was closed down not only at a moment's notice but also without any reasons being given. It has not had a report. It was under review-it knew that-but no report from that review has been provided. Young people, who do not very often fit in with the sorts of structured education and training programs which are provided and which the Government tells us it will increasingly provide, are using those facilities. I want to know from the Minister what is being provided for those young people and the women in rural centres around my State, and no doubt in other States, who are now not eligible for their benefit and who are now said to be able to be trained by new training programs for which money was allocated, and it continues to be allocated, but which do not yet exist. If they do exist, all too often they exist hundreds of miles away from the people who need them, leaving people no choice whatsoever but to join the unemployment queues along with their teenage children. A great many questions have to be asked and will be asked about this area. As I have said, the Australian Democrats will move a series of amendments to this legislation. If a theme runs through the amendments which we will move, it is this: they point up the areas in which the Government, as the Treasurer has said, is making savings out of the welfare sector. Some of the savings are incredibly nit-picking and miserable. Another instance is the techniques that were used in the Budget 12 months ago of delaying indexation. This time those measures affect the unemployed. We saw this happen with pensions, which have never caught up. I have to say that I support the pensioner movement. Given that we have a balanced Budget, given that we are looking at a surplus, pensioners are asking for their catchup. I congratulate the Caucus, which apparently has seen some rationality on the issue of the salaries of members of parliament. I do not believe that we deserve a catchup while pensioners and unemployment beneficiaries under 21 are looking down the barrel of a 12-month delay on a Government election promise of the indexation of the unemployment benefit, not to mention the under 18-year-olds who are still stuck on their $25 or maximum of $50 job search allowance. An increase in salary for parliamentarians is quite out of the question as far as I am concerned. I read this morning that the deal on superannuation will not come off. Again I congratulate the Caucus members who were responsible for that decision. I assume that Senator Cooney, who is nodding, is one of the people responsible for this decision and I congratulate him if he is. It is intolerable that, Budget after mini-Budget after Budget after mini-Budget, this situation continues. The non-payment of a year's indexation entitlement will save the Government tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars and it all adds up. These savings are at the expense of people who depend on government. The point has been made in this debate that too many people depend too much on government. That may well be the case but while people have no option, there is no question that the Government has a responsibility to act. If there is a problem, if we want balanced Budgets, if we want Budget surpluses, there are other areas to look at. The Democrats have always exhorted the Government to look at other areas. For instance, we still see no action on negatively gearing foreign borrowings for company takeovers, largely unproductive company takeovers that do nothing for Australian employment. We say that some $2 billion-probably by now with inflation the figure is $3 billion-could be in the Government's coffers. But no, the Government would rather save its money by going back on its promise to index the benefits of the unemployed and by taking measures such as those in this legislation, and which will be the subject of a proposed amendment by the Democrats. The assets test provision will be extended to sickness and special benefits on a sudden death basis, not on a sliding scale as it is with the age pension. If one is a sickness or other beneficiary, as opposed to pensioners who are on a sliding scale, one's assets reach the cut off point, one is literally that-cut off. We consider that this is appropriate in the circumstances. The Government seems to be attracted to that kind of saving, rather than looking to see where it can make money in a much more honourable fashion to balance its Budget or have a surplus if that is what it decides it needs. Again it seems that there are some positive moves in this direction. I would not want to hit the Government about the head if it does not deserve it. If Senator Walsh were here he would list the litany of wonderful tax reforms-the capital gains tax, which was supported by the Democrats; the fringe benefits tax, which was supported by the Democrats; the assets test, which was supported by the Democrats; and the corporate tax inquiry which is under way and was welcomed by the Democrats. Today's news that we are going to do away with the rort of trekking off to conferences or of establishing Australian-based conferences overseas is the sort of thing the Government should be doing-not the sort of nit-picking that it is doing in this Budget to save welfare money out of the welfare sector and redistribute it, even the redistribution being inequitable, as I have shown in some earlier examples. It is interesting to the Democrats that those people who have been badly affected and who are now faced with the Government's strong labour market bias in its welfare policies are to become the concern of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, chaired by Kathy Sullivan, that Committee having an inquiry into the ways in which social security pensioners might be got back into the work force. I think that is interesting because the Government, beginning with the mini-Budget and continuing until now, has been talking all the time about its labour market initiatives. In fact, the memo that we got from the Department of Employment, Education and Training about the removal of the sole parent benefit was headed `Labour Market Initiatives'. That is what all these things are. The Government does away with the under-18 unemployment benefit, backs down on indexation and does away with the sole parent benefit, and calls them labour market initiatives. We do not know where the market is and we do not know what kind of labour we need for those markets and how to train the people for them; nevertheless, we do it. So the House of Representatives Committee has decided that it will put before itself this reference to see how it can help the Government work out how it is going to do this. However, I am a bit disturbed by the first words of the reference to that Committee. It is looking at the cost-effective means of facilitating and encouraging entry or return to the work force for social security pensioners. I am worried about that because I hope that the House of Representatives Committee will not take the same attitude that the Government takes when it comes to cost-effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness is risky and can cause enormous distress if it is carried to the sorts of extremes that it is being carried to at the moment in the area of social security recipients. As I have said, there are some initiatives by the Government which we have supported and which we will continue to support. One of the other initiatives we were looking for was a wealth inquiry, which would go further than that corporate tax inquiry that is taking place. I am a little disturbed that it appears there has been a Government decision to establish a social justice unit, I believe within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I am disturbed not from the point of view that I do not think there should be social justice, or that the Government should not establish a unit to look at social justice, but because I am a Victorian and because we have in Victoria a Labor government which has been running on the issue of social justice. For two years it has been established as a formal part of the Victorian Government's process. However, the problem is that we get a lot of pretty words and even a lot of pretty pamphlets, brochures and papers, but unfortunately there is really no claim yet that I think could justifiably be made in that jurisdiction of any action of substance. The Director of the Victorian Council of Social Service said: The challenge for community organisations is to take the rhetoric, treat this as only a beginning and pry open the possibilities of developing the agenda further. If social justice is to have any hope of sharing the political agenda with economic policy- at the moment we have to remember that that is economic rationalisation- community organisations will have to campaign long and hard to turn the tide. That was a comment on the Victorian social justice strategy. I think it is equally relevant in the area of any social justice unit that might be set up here. I do sound that note of caution. It is really in the area of administration of these moves by the Government that I think I have already expressed most concern. It is not a concern which I hold to myself. I would like to mention the concern of the Colac Community Development Association, whose annual meeting I attended in one of the weeks we were not here last month. This body incorporates a number of organisations and individuals involved with community work and is concerned about the administration, even of the family allowance supplement, which I welcome. It does not know, and is asking for advice on, how the supplement will be dealt with in the case of casual, seasonal and intermittent earnings where there may not, for instance, be a pay slip, where income can fluctuate greatly from week to week and where the latest tax return could be a year old and no longer applicable. Amongst my amendments are some which would help to address the administration of this sort of problem. It is a matter of concern to the Democrats that once again this kind of Budget legislation has to be dealt with with some haste, and a range of issues will continue to be addressed by us in the committee stage of this legislation. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(11.00) —I asked the Minister in charge of this legislation, the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson), whether I could have just five minutes to speak on this package of Bills. It had not been my intention to speak, but certain comments that Senator Walters made in her contribution last night have compelled me to make a few remarks. Senator Walters waxed long about the family allowance supplement (FAS). She claimed that the FAS was introduced to buy votes. Certainly the possible introduction of the family allowance supplement was announced at a campaign opening. But that is not far different from the practice of the previous Government, which often did something similar, usually an announcement that the Government intended to purchase some defence equipment. The matter I want to stress is that the Government has introduced a scheme which will help all low income earners. To belittle the scheme, as Senator Walters did so nauseatingly last night, shows a total lack of compassion for the less fortunate in Australia. This brings me to the second matter. Senator Walters made great play out of a person doing overtime. She clearly implied that workers should seek out and do overtime. I would like to pose this question: Why should people have to be encouraged to do overtime? I would like to use a personal experience from my early childhood. I came from a very poor family. We did not know that we were poor until later years, because everybody in the suburb in which I lived was poor. My mother was originally a teacher, but in those days there was an archaic provision that, if a female married teacher tried to obtain employment, the State Government would not employ her. At that stage the State Government was quite willing to bring back male teachers who had retired some years ago to help out with the classroom problems, but it would not employ a married woman teacher, so employment was not available to her. My father was a carpenter, and those who follow the scriptures know that that is a noble calling. The building industry, however, does not provide continuous employment, and a family of five often had to live on unemployment benefits of around #2 per week. How we would have welcomed a family allowance supplement scheme such as the one we are introducing. Let me go back to overtime. When I was able to understand my father's working hours, I realised that he was working 44 hours per week-eight hours per day from Monday to Friday and four hours on Saturday. The workers in those days used to call Saturday the `dumpy day' because they worked only four hours on that day. After a long battle, this was reduced to 40 hours per week. My argument is: If a condition of 40 hours per week is achieved, why should it be jettisoned by people having to work overtime? Workers in Australia are not crazy like members of parliament, many of whom work for 80 hours a week and sometimes look for even more. Workers in Australia understand the concept of quality of life. There is much more to life than working. They understand the need to be with their families, to be able to help their children during their formative years. I can remember when my father eventually had to work overtime as the family grew older and the demands became greater. We all suffered. His quality of life suffered because he was not with his family for as long as he would have liked to have been, as did that of the rest of the family. They were denied his company. At that time we would have welcomed a scheme like the family allowance supplement which would have eliminated the need for my father to seek work beyond the hard-won 40 hours per week. Let us not forget that thousands of families are still in such a parlous financial situation. Any move to help them increase their quality of life is to be applauded. For Senator Walters to nit-pick, as she did last night, is churlish. She should get out and obtain first hand information about the problems of low income families. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(11.06) —I begin my response by first going to matters concerning veterans in the first of the three Bills being discussed in this cognate debate-the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Humphreys, has asked me to make some statements on his behalf to give assurances to the Returned Services League (RSL), which has indicated that it supports the passage of the Bill providing that these assurances are made. I am happy to make them. The RSL has raised with the Minister a concern about the inclusion in the Bill of the provision for assessing a veteran's eligibility for an intermediate or totally and permanently incapacitated (TPI) pension on the application day, which would pre-empt consideration by the Veterans' Entitlement Act monitoring committee of the issue of whether eligibility for a pension at a particular rate should be able to be assessed up to the time at which the determining authority is making its decision. The Minister has asked me to assure the Senate that it is not intended to pre-empt the monitoring committee's report. The purpose of the amendments is as stated in the Minister's second reading speech. I assure the Senate that it is not the intention of the Government by these amendments to tighten further the eligibility criteria for TPI pensions. Furthermore, in response to the RSL's representations, the Minister has undertaken to write to the monitoring committee specifically on this issue. He will be asking the committee to consider and report on the question of whether assessment of a particular rate of pension should be only at a particular point in time or, alternatively, over a period of time up to the date the determining authorities make their decision. I stress to the Senate that this is not a simple issue as, if it were possible to assess up to date, there may be factors which could result in a veteran being disentitled to eligibility for payment of a particular rate of pension during the period. The RSL recognises that these difficulties will require careful consideration by the monitoring committee. The policy issues related to assessment up to date that have been raised by the RSL represent a modification of the law as currently interpreted by the tribunals and the court. These are best dealt with following full examination by the monitoring committee. Having regard to the undertaking I have given on behalf of the Minister, the RSL has advised that it is not opposed to the passage of the legislation in its present form. The National Secretary of the RSL, Mr Ian Gollings, has raised certain concerns about the TPI amendments contained in the Bill. The Minister has asked me to reaffirm the assurances in relation to those matters given by him and by Mr Michael Lee, the member for Dobell, on his behalf during the debate in the other place. I refer honourable senators to pages 2297-8 and 2322 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 18 November 1987. I reaffirm the assurances given on those pages. A further question that has been raised concerns the effect of the new paragraph 19 (2) (a) on that part of the existing criteria for the granting of a TPI pension which requires that there be a determination in force, that the degree of a veteran's war-caused incapacity be 100 per cent of the general rate. The intention of the amendments is that a repatriation determining authority will, in examining whether a veteran satisfies the TPI criteria on the application day, have regard to any pre-existing determination that the veteran is 100 per cent incapacitated on that day or at the time the TPI question is being considered in determining whether the veteran was 100 per cent incapacitated on the application day. In either case the determining authority will then move on to consider whether the other aspects of the TPI criteria were met on the application day. I reassure the Senate and the RSL that it is not the Government's intention that a determination of 100 per cent incapacity must have been in force before the application day. I move on to some other concerns that have been expressed about this legislation. I want to refer to some of the comments referred to by Senator Sheil in his amazing contribution to the debate yesterday. He made some comments about the attitude of Australians, in particular unemployed Australians, to work. The overwhelming evidence indicates that the great majority of unemployed in this country want to work and have taken active steps in the last month to try to find employment. That fact comes from an Australian Bureau of Statistics survey on the job search experience of unemployed persons in June 1986, when 98.5 per cent of unemployed persons reported having taken active steps to find work during the previous month. A recent Australian Market Research Pty Ltd study of sole parents, commissioned by the Department of Social Security, found that 55 per cent of sole parents indicated that they were likely to attempt to find a job in the future. I move on to some of the other claims Senator Sheil made. The claim that by giving extra subsidies or benefits to groups we were making the problem worse was best expressed by his statement that if we continued to increase benefits for Aboriginals we would finish up with more Aboriginals. I hope that remark was made in jest. I cannot believe that it was serious. Just in case it was-judging by the tenor of Senator Sheil's other remarks it may have been-let me say that infant mortality rates for Aboriginals are still staggeringly high, far higher than they are for the rest of us. There are still real problems for us to overcome in this area. Fortunately, under our enlightened administration there is at least an attempt. I am not sure what to say about Senator Sheil's sole campaign to remove unemployment on the Gold Coast. We were told that due to his efforts we now had a great many more people washing down yachts, cleaning Rolls-Royces - - Senator McKiernan —And Mercedes. Senator RICHARDSON —And Mercedes. Furthermore, we were told that we ought to be encouraging them to seek work as butlers-this was one of the trades that were dying due to our reliance on the welfare state. Perhaps we could create a society in which half the people owned the yachts and the Rolls-Royces and the other half cleaned them. Somehow I doubt that will come about. I have not bought my first boat or Rolls-Royce yet, which I think puts me in line with the great majority of Australians. Senator Sheil somehow believes that these are easy solutions. They are rubbish. The real problems that have developed in Australia, particularly in manufacturing industry over the past three or four decades, relate to so many years of mismanagement by previous conservative administrations when there was total reliance on the sheep's back and industry was left to look after itself. Unfortunately, that has created long term structural problems which, again, this Government is attempting successfully to rectify. Senator Sheil's suggestion that we should not give more money to the Brotherhood of St Laurence and other organisations because they were, in some way, contributing to a continuation of the problem, strikes me as incredible. I would have thought that the more money we could give these bodies, the more the poor could be helped. If that could be done no one on this side of the House-and I would hope not many on the other side of the House, apart from Senator Sheil-would even begin to disagree. I turn to the comments that Senator Walters made yesterday. She raised some particular problems about poverty traps. In particular, we discussed whether a person on $330 a week with two children was having too much tax taken out of that money. I concede that there is a narrow range within the income ranges for family allowance supplement (FAS) eligibility where the marginal tax rate is 110 per cent. This is the range in which the Medicare levy is being shaded in at 20 per cent and the marginal tax rate is 40 per cent. As FAS is withdrawn at the rate of 50c in the dollar, the theoretical marginal tax rate is therefore 110 per cent. However, in practice, increases in income of less than 25 per cent will not affect FAS entitlement for up to six months and in most cases the 20 per cent Medicare shading arrangements will not apply to each dollar earned but will relate to total taxable income received during the financial year. Very few pensioners and beneficiaries have incomes within the relevant ranges and only a small percentage of the other 200,000 FAS recipients could be theoretically affected. Senator Walters asked a specific question, as I mentioned earlier, and I will ensure that she receives a proper written answer. It is a matter which is now being investigated by the Department of Social Security, as it has been in a general way for some time. Senator Walters has just arrived, so I can tell her that while it has not been possible overnight to get the answer she requires, she will get a written one as soon as possible. I intend to ensure that she will receive it very soon as she has shown great interest in this matter. I ask for a little patience, but hopefully not too much. Senator Walters —Could I have it during the committee stage? Senator RICHARDSON —I am not sure that it will be ready that soon. We are attempting to get the information as soon as possible. I turn to the comments of Senator Powell, who raised some issues of recovery mechanisms available to the Department of Social Security and connected this with the Government's commitment to ensure that no child would be in poverty by 1990. I think she is really complaining about the debt recovery powers of the Department which were introduced in the May economic statement. I see that she is nodding in agreement. Senator Powell —A lot of people are worried about it. Senator RICHARDSON —Where there has been overpayment by the Department and recovery is under consideration there is a broad discretion to decide not to recover the overpayment if, for example, this would create hardship for the family. There is no inconsistency whatsoever between the debt recovery provisions and the commitment to remove child poverty. A watering down of the debt recovery powers, which I suppose is what Senator Powell contemplates, would only assist the people against whom the powers should properly be used. It would certainly not assist those who are in poverty. Senator Powell also mentioned the announcement that a social justice unit would be established in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, as opposed to a wealth inquiry. Senator Powell might wait and see what happens before she pours cold water on that initiative. Senator Powell —It was lukewarm water. Senator RICHARDSON —All right, lukewarm. I apologise for a gross overstatement of the position. If we await the results of that initiative, we might find there is no need to pour anything on it. Having said that, I think it is also true to say in relation to wealth inquiries that, in light of what happened on the stock exchange in the last six weeks, the most such an inquiry would achieve would be that we would know where to find the wealth. I turn now to the other pieces of legislation, given that Senator Vanstone did not go into the argument about the 2 1/2 per cent rule. I assume she will do so in the committee stage and I will answer the point then rather than repeat myself. I move on to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). First, let us look at the problem of the job search allowance and the Australian Democrats' amendment covering the payment of free pharmaceutical benefits. Let us look at what job search allowance recipients will receive as from 1 January. It is an impressive list, when one considers what they received in the past. They will receive $50 a week if they are independent, as judged by social security tests but subject to normal benefit income tests. If they are not independent, a parental income test will be applied, which can reduce the allowance to a minimum of $25 a week. It must be remembered that $50 a week is the same amount as unemployment benefits for 16- and 17-year-olds. This brings the unemployment benefit for 16- and 17-year-olds into line with education allowances. The Bill provides that persons in receipt of this allowance will receive free pharmaceutical benefits if they are sick and unable to work. The same concession is extended to unemployed persons who are sick and unable to work. They receive sickness benefits and hence free pharmaceutical benefits. The safety net looks after recipients who need regular medication. Job search allowance recipients who exceed 25 scripts, costing $62.50, will thereafter receive free pharmaceutical benefits in any calendar year. It would be inequitable to provide free pharmaceutical benefits to one group of unemployed persons and not extend the same benefits to all unemployed and their dependants. The Democrats' amendment would, therefore, create significant anomalies. For instance, persons receiving a job search allowance and living at home with well-off parents-and I think there are a number who would want to do that-would be in a more advantageous position than a school age child of a person whose sole income is unemployment benefits. Unemployed persons and their dependants, on average, use seven pharmaceutical benefits scheme (PBS) prescriptions per year. To provide free PBS scripts to all these persons would cost approximately $18m a year. It is difficult to estimate the cost of giving job search allowance recipients free PBS scripts. The 16-to 17-year-old age group is generally recognised as being perhaps healthier than other age groups-certainly the age group to which I belong. Obviously people in this group would be making fewer demands on the public purse than would people in older age groups. No statistics are available on usage by this group. However, it follows that there would be fewer scripts written for them; it would be expected that job search allowance recipients would need fewer scripts than the seven scripts for the unemployed group as a whole. It is not considered unreasonable that job search allowance recipients make some contribution to the cost of their PBS scripts, as do all other persons receiving unemployment benefits. No doubt I will have a little more to say about that in the committee stage, if the matter is pursued. I turn to a number of points raised during the debate on the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill. There are three sets of Opposition amendments and I want to try to deal with them. I think the best way is to take Senator Vanstone's criticisms one by one; some were also referred to by Senator Bjelke-Petersen. It might save a little time if I go through the criticisms rather than look at the amendments. The first is the criticism that the Bill does not allow private entrepreneurs to receive Commonwealth hostel subsidies. Under the legislation private entrepreneurs were excluded from the outset. It must be remembered that the legislation was first produced in 1954 by a coalition government. Since 1954 there have been 26 years of coalition government, a not inconsiderable period-indeed, for some of us on this side of the House definitely not an inconsiderable period. During those 26 years no attempt was made to amend the legislation to include private entrepreneurs. It must be acknowledged that standards of care in existing private hostels are poor in many cases-not in all cases, but in many. The Commonwealth does not wish to promote a continuation of that. The Australian Affiliation of Voluntary Care Associations (AAVCA) made the following comment on the Opposition's attempt to include this provision during passage of the Bill: . . . there are concerns felt by the voluntary sector as to the kind of care being received by residents in hostel type accommodation presently being provided by the private sector . . . That sums up the Government's attitude. The next criticism is that the Government has failed to consult the nursing home and hostel industry about aged care reforms and the changes in the Bill. It is true that the industry did not receive a copy of the Bill prior to its introduction into Parliament, but we would not want to be accused of a contempt of Parliament. Since March last year there have been 19 full days of consultation between the Department and the national voluntary care body, the AAVCA. There has been similar level of consultation with the private sector nursing home body, the Australian Nursing Homes Association. I will quote from that Association's views a little later. In April and October this year there were detailed public consultations in all States and the Australian Capital Territory. There has been a succession of consultations with the national consumer bodies and the trade union movement. One wonders just how much consultation the Opposition thinks the Government ought to indulge in on this occasion. I would have thought that the litany I have just given suggests that there has been an enormous amount of consultation. Both Senator Vanstone and Senator Bjelke-Petersen commented on the removal of the Minister's discretion to determine nursing home fees. Obviously the Government wanted to ensure consistency, but I am surprised because normally Opposition members object to the inclusion of a Minister's discretion in legislation. Given the number of times that I and other senators have sat here and listened to Opposition members complain, I find it extraordinary, to say the least, that on this Bill they are suggesting the opposite. I am not sure whether the Government's desire for consistency in nursing home fees is practised by the Opposition when it comes to its own use of the chamber. In eliminating the discretion, the Bill will help to safeguard nursing home proprietors in the future against some other Minister-perhaps not so enlightened as the current Minister-who might otherwise be tempted to do favours for individual proprietors or, the opposite, victimise some unfavoured individual proprietors. The next criticism was that the Bill duplicates State regulations. Except for very limited provisions that generally relate to retirement villages in some States, the States do not regulate hostels at all. Some State governments have held back from legislating, leaving it to the Commonwealth Government, which provides the funds, to do the job itself. Therefore, I think that I can be fairly dismissive of that criticism. The next criticism, which I think is the main one in the time I had to listen to the debate, is that the Bill imposes on proprietors some unne-cessary and costly financial reporting requirements. While it is true to say that most proprietors are honest, it is also true to say that some are not and that they attempt to defraud the taxpayer or frail aged residents. After carefully considering the Bill, the AAVCA had something to say which I think is relevant: The AAVCA cannot support anything less than a full and fair investigation of all those matters that pertain to the good care of residents. The AAVCA can have no part in seeking to assist those who by fraudulent means `rip off' either or both the taxpayer and or the residents. Next I refer to a quotation from the Australian Nursing Homes Association. I think that Senator Bjelke-Petersen was wrong to suggest that the Association was opposed to the Bill. She may have been talking to a section of the Association; there is a splinter or ginger group. Contrary to the view that the Association opposes the Bill, let me quote Mr John Gillroy, the Executive Director of the Australian Nursing Homes Association. He said: We concur with the Government's endeavours to tighten the net against those who follow unacceptable practices . . . Somewhere, somehow, sometime, the line has to be drawn. As an industry group, we have been asking the Department and the Government for two decades to get rid of the rotten apples. We can hardly now object when they finally act on our advice. That is the truth of what that Association had to say: it is more than happy. Because of time constraints I will not go through quotations from the Pensioners Federation, the Accommodation Rights Service and so on, but generally speaking this provision is supported. Senator Coulter, I am pleased to say, indicated that the Australian Democrats were pleased to support the Bill. He went through a number of points, but said that there was some scepticism about the Government's genuineness on the needs based planning system. He also criticised the adequacy of consultation. I hope I have covered the consultation point. On the other point, the Government has already enacted legislation to introduce the needs based planning system for the nursing home program and further legislation on hostels will be introduced in the autumn sittings. The Aged Care Advisory Committee has been established in all States to provide industry, consumer and professional inputs to improve service planning. I thank Senator Coulter for his support, and I hope that my explanation can allay some of his fears. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 3, 11 and 76-by leave-taken together. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(11.37) —The assets test presumes that people with substantial benefits apart from their own home apply those assets to produce income for their support and that, in cases where substantial assets are held but produce little or no income, the owners will choose to rearrange their affairs before they call upon the taxpayer or the community for income support through a pension system. However, it is acknowledged that there are instances where a person is unable to rearrange his or her financial affairs, or could not be reasonably expected to do so, before calling on the taxpayer. Consequently, there are special provisions included so that people are not placed in severe financial hardship due to the normal application of the assets test. These hardship provisions allow for the value of particular assets to be disregarded and for the rate of pension payable to be determined in a special manner. However, a deemed annual rate of income may be taken into account in determining the rate of pension payable under the hardship provisions. The deemed income is the amount that could reasonably be expected to be derived from or produced with the use of the assets which have been disregarded for hardship purposes. These provisions are of particular significance to rural properties. Deemed income is assessed in relation to farm properties if it is considered that the person is not receiving a reasonable commercial return from the property. It is accepted that a person is receiving a reasonable commercial return when, firstly, the property is being worked to its full capacity, and, secondly, the person's share of the income from the property is commensurate with his or her contribution to the operation of that property. I understand that the Department of Social Security manual provides that in general deemed income of 2.5 per cent of the net value of assessable assets is maintained as it relates to the net amount which could be received if the property were leased on a commercial basis. This is a rate of return which is considered a reasonably achievable net return in most situations and consequently has been adopted for the convenience of the Department and clients. This Bill provides that the deemed income formula will be 2.5 per cent of the value of property disregarded or the commercial market value, whichever is the greater. This will be a significantly stricter arrangement than we have at the moment. At present the application of the deemed income provision in hardship cases is discretionary. This Bill removes that discretion. In every case where the hardship provisions are invoked, the deemed income formula will be applied to any disregarded property, whereas in the past it may have been applied. This will undoubtedly result in significant injustice for a significant number of rural dwellers. Similar arguments apply in relation to clause 76 (2) as it relates to veterans. Accordingly, the coalition has referred clause 11 (2), clause 76 (2) and clause 3 (10), which are the clauses dealing with this matter, to the Standing Committee on Community Affairs to assess the impact on pensioners and veterans. In order that the Government may have the remainder of the Bill while the Committee considers the impact of those clauses on pensioners-particularly rural Australians and veterans-these clauses need to be removed from the Bill. In order to achieve that I seek leave to move my amendments together. Leave granted. Senator VANSTONE —I move: (1) Page 3, clause 3, leave out subclause (10). (2) Page 10, clause 11, leave out subclause (2). (3) Pages 53 and 54, clause 76, leave out subclause (2). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(11.41) —I rise in support of the amendments moved by Senator Vanstone. I do so, having supported the amendment to the second reading motion and the referral of the question of the deeming of income from assets for further consideration. It is the case that this move of the Government is causing great concern, not just from the point of view of people in the rural sector; people in the welfare rights movement with whom I have had considerable consultation over other areas of this legislation have also expressed concern on this issue from the point of view that, as with the rural sector, the measure could exclude some assets which could not reasonably be expected to be sold in the circumstances. The Australian Democrats believe that the provisions which applied previously are adequate. There was a measure of discretion available, which we believe was appropriate. The mere fact that the Government has been the loser in some appeal cases does not indicate to us necessarily that this very structured proposal for a set level of 2 1/2 per cent deemed income is an appropriate response. In this issue we are talking about people who have assets but who for one reason or another are not necessarily deriving income from those assets. We believe that the previous situation which obtained was more likely to be able to meet the needs of people in those circumstances. It is true that the most obvious group of people affected tends to be those in the area of primary production, people who own land from which they are at least attempting to get an income or from which they have had an income at some past time in their life. But they are not the only people affected; there are people in urban situations who are similarly affected. In supporting Senator Vanstone's amendments, I am quite sure that the Government will characterise our support as some kind of opposition to an assets test. I am afraid that the success of the amendments before the Committee-it is a rather rare occurrence for the Opposition to be successful in amending Budget legislation, but it is an occurrence that is welcomed by the Australian Democrats-will be characterised as our opposing the assets test. That is not the purpose of the amendments, and that is not the purpose of moving these amendments on behalf of the farming community. I remind the Senate that the National Farmers Federation was a lone voice among business organisations in support of the principle of assets testing. The amendments are simply addressed to the application of matters affecting assets testing and the deeming of income. We believe that those matters are not being handled well by this legislation. When this legislation was debated in the House of Representatives, questions were raised about this issue, quite properly, by some honourable members on behalf of their constituents. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) responded by saying, `the pension system is there to make sure that Australians have adequate income support. It is not there to subsidise inheritances'. The Australian Democrats agree with that statement. However, we need to consider the point that has been made to me by the National Farmers Federation and by individuals-not just those in the farming community but also small business people-about the assets test in general, and that is that in fact thousands of city-based pensioners have family homes that are exempt from the assets test. Some of those homes are valued at more than $200,000 or $300,000. Those prospective inheritances are quite demonstrably being heavily subsidised. Just picture for a moment a family with aging parents with considerable assets, which might be spread across a range of properties and belongings, making sure that mum and dad in the dying stages of their lives buy a mansion in Toorak worth $2.5m to live in. That sort of thing is possible. It is unfair to people in the rural community to be always seen as grasping and greedy when they raise genuine concerns about their ability to maintain their lifestyle and to maintain a continuing interest, and even a continuing family interest, in rural properties. I believe the proposed amendments are reasonable. My one concern is that the Opposition has not moved an amendment to clause 11 (3). I shall pursue that matter myself, as I believe that the amendments moved by the Opposition, which I support, relate to pensions rather than to benefits. I think that technically has escaped the attention of the Opposition, unfortunately. On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I support the move embodied in the amendments. I welcome the fact that the Opposition is looking at this issue and showing genuine concern about it. The Australian Democrats have had considerable discussions about it and it was our intention to move such an amendment ourselves. However, on this occasion we are happy to support the Opposition's amendments. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(11.48) —I am disappointed at the attitude adopted by the Australian Democrats. I shall briefly give some background to this matter. Some of the decisions handed down by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal have meant that in some cases no income at all has been imputed. The ordinary imputed income under the assets test is 10 per cent, but in some cases no income at all is involved. This has meant that in the case of a farmer who has retained a valuable farm which is not producing income, for the purpose of leaving it to his children, no income has been imputed when he died. Even though the farmer had the capacity to support himself from the proceeds of selling or mortgaging the farm, he was not required to do so. Rather, the public purse was called upon to support him because he wanted to hand the farm on to his children. It is not the purpose of any social security system to support such people. I am disappointed indeed that so many people opt to follow that practice. Though I share Senator Powell's concern that the present system has caused worry to some people, the reality is that such people are covered by the pension loans scheme anyway; all of these cases are covered by an existing arrangement. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has been generous to some of these people. The effect of this legislation will be to clear up the situation while at the same time keeping in place the pension loans scheme so that the full pension can be paid to the farmer and his wife while they are alive and, upon their death, the public purse will be reimbursed. I would have thought that was a more reasonable approach. Only a small number of cases are involved. The Opposition dismissed as minuscule the projected saving of $2m. That is typical of its attitude to expenditure restraint, and I suppose it is typical of what happened under the first Lynch razor gang: it always ran away from the problem. The huge expenditure savings achieved by the Government have been effected only by each item being examined individually. All of these amounts of $2m add up to a very significant sum. For the record, 32 assets test hardship applications have been determined by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; 17 were successful, affecting 24 people. Obviously it is expected that some of these people will have their entitlement reduced. However, all of them would have been eligible to receive payments under the pension loans scheme. I cannot understand why the Australian Democrats are prepared to support the amendments. Amendments agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, agreed to. Ordered that further consideration of clauses 11 and 76, as amended, be postponed. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Teague) —Order! I now ask Senator Powell to give an indication of how she wishes to proceed. She has not yet moved any of the amendments circulated in her name. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(11.52) —I intended to move my circulated amendments as the relevant clauses were called on. I should perhaps inform the Committee that we are working under difficulties, in that because of pressures being placed on the parliamentary staff-not the least of which is the unavailability of a reprinted principal Act, to which Senator Sheil referred last night-the amended version of my amendments has not yet been circulated. In substance, they merely seek to make amendments in respect of some technicalities. Though the numbering of my later amendments might be different from that appearing on the present circulated list, I think we can proceed. Those three clauses having been taken together, I assume that we will now proceed from clause 3. In that case, my first amendment is to clause 7. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Teague) —I thank Senator Powell for advising the Committee on the way in which she thinks we should proceed. Clauses 4 to 6-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 7 (Interpretation). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(11.54) —I move: Page 6, subclause 7(1), leave out paragraph (a), insert the following paragraph: ``(a) by omitting subsection (8);''. This amendment relates to a measure introduced in the May mini-Budget which sought to impose a six-month rule in respect of couples separated but living under the same roof. Since that measure was introduced it has been found, as was anticipated, to be causing considerable stress, particularly financial stress, in individual cases. The Australian Democrats believe that the rule should be abolished. It strikes particularly against low income people who are forced, upon separating legally, to remain in the same house if neither of them can find another place in which to live. Also many women are put at a disadvantage in property negotiations during divorce proceedings if their only option is to move out. Divorce proceedings can often take longer than the six-month period allowed for in this provision. I might add, too, that parents who continue to be responsible for their children may decide to stay together, living under the same roof, for a considerable period. Such decisions should not be impeded by a legislative provision such as this. If a couple decide between themselves that they are to separate in a marital sense-that is, they separate emotionally from each other but not from their children-and decide to maintain a situation that they believe is best for their children, with some kind of joint living, though separate, which is provided for under law, the Australian Democrats do not believe that a provision such as this should stand in their way. I stress that my concern also relates to the financial hardship which can occur as a result of this provision. My amendment therefore seeks to remove that provision. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 8 (Insertion of new section). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(11.57) —I move: (2) Page 8, clause 8, lines 19 to 38, proposed sections 3a (4) and (5), leave out the proposed subsections and insert the following subsections: ``(4) Where a person, whether before or after the commencement of this subsection, receives an amount of income, being an amount of a capital nature but not being: (a) income from remunerative work undertaken by the person: or (b) a return from an accruing return investment; the person shall, for the purposes of this Act, be taken to receive one fifty-second of that amount as income of the person during each week in the period of 12 months commencing on the day on which the person received that amount. (5) Where a person makes, at any time before 1 January 1988, an accruing return investment: (a) with a friendly society; or (b) of a kind where a return is not available until the end of a period of at least 12 months after the investment was made or until realisation of that investment; and the person receives an amount by way of return on that investment the person shall, for the purposes of this Act, be taken to receive one fifty-second of that amount as income of the person during each week in the period of 12 months commencing on the day on which the person received that amount.'' This amendment, the first of a number we have of a similar nature, arises from a concern about the legislation as it is written. The concern about this clause was raised with the Australian Democrats by the Friendly Societies of Australia Federal Council. It relates specifically to the drafting of this legislation. The legislation makes it clear that after 1 January 1988 safe investments will be counted as income earned for pension eligibility, whether or not it is realised. However, this legislation has created uncertainty as to whether income accrued on capital guaranteed investments purchased before 1 January 1988 and market-linked investments will be exempt for pension eligibility purposes until that income is realised. This is a major concern, of course. Most of us will have seen the very heavy promotional program that has been undertaken to encourage people to take advantage of this commitment, which the Government said was to last until 1 January. We do not oppose the new treatment of some post-1 January 1988 investments. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) explained the intention of the legislation in the second reading speech. He said that the Bill contained measures to clarify the treatment of income from investments and to ensure that people with deferred income, including income from friendly society bonds, are not advantaged over pensioners and beneficiaries with more straightforward forms of income such as those from bank deposits. As I said, we do not oppose this new treatment. But we have looked at the concerns regarding the drafting of this legislation, and the drafting really does not clarify that position. The friendly societies, I understand, have discussed this problem with the Department of Social Security, which claims that the existing drafting is necessary but that the interpretation will be such as to exclude both pre-1 January 1988 capital guaranteed investments and market-linked investments whenever they are purchased. As I said, we have a number of amendments today which relate to the question of the legislation being somewhat imperfect and to people being asked to rely upon the interpretation within the Department. The Australian Democrats had a similar problem with the issue of German restitution payments. The Minister said that the problem would be solved by directing the Department of Social Security to interpret the legislation so as to exclude the restitution payments. We accepted that at that time. However, problems with that matter have occurred and the Minister has recently assured the Federation of Australian Jewish Welfare Societies that the legislation will be changed next year. We are saying to the Government in respect of this matter: `You have said before that it will be all right-that you would instruct the Department to interpret the legislation in a particular way. This does not always work'. There is at least that example to indicate that this procedure has not worked. We think it would be tidier and more efficient to fix the legislation here and now. Further, since the legislation is going back to the House of Representatives-given the passage of the amendments just dealt with-we cannot see any reason why the minds of people investing in friendly society bonds before 1 January, not to mention the friendly societies themselves, should not be set at rest by the simple passage of this amendment. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 9 and 10-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 11 (Financial hardship). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(12.01) —by leave-I move: (4) Page 10, paragraphs 11 (3) (b) and (c), lines 34 to 43, leave out the proposed paragraphs. (5) Page 11, subclause 11 (3), proposed subparagraph 7 (4a) (a) (i), line 32, after ``2.5% of the value'' insert ``or such lesser percentage of the value as may be prescribed''. At least one of the amendments circulated in my name related to the amendment to sub-clause 11 (2), which has now been passed. I have not moved that amendment, but wish to pursue the amendments dealing with paragraphs 11 (3) (b) and (c) and sub-paragraph 7 (4a) (a) (i). The reason for pursuing these two amendments is that they apply to the question of deemed assets in relation to beneficiaries, whereas sub-clause 11 (2) related to pensioners. This concerns me, particularly as it is a feature of this legislation that assets testing is being extended to beneficiaries, which has not happened before. I have a further amendment which relates specifically to that matter. I wish simply to say that the same concerns which applied and which were articulated in relation to sub-clause 11 (2) also apply in this case. Simply because a separate part of the Bill relates to beneficiaries, it is necessary to pursue my amendment to sub-clause 11 (3). I mentioned this matter to the Opposition spokesperson in this place. I understand the difficulties of someone here communicating with a spokesperson in the other place, and I understand that even now some communication is taking place at that level. But, as time is of the essence, it appears that we will not get Opposition support on this one, in spite of the fact that this amendment really involves the same provision for beneficiaries as the one which we, with the Opposition, just supported on behalf of pensioners. So I will pursue these two amendments and I would have been happier had they been supported by the Opposition. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(12.03) —I feel it is appropriate to clear up one point. There is no confusion on the coalition side with respect to these amendments. We have made it quite clear to the Australian Democrats that we will not support them. No negotiations are taking place at the moment, and I understood that Senator Powell was clear on that point. She appears not to be, so I now seek to put on the record that that is the case. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Powell's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Coulter, J. R. Powell, J. F.Haines, J. Sanders, N. K.Harradine, B. Vallentine, J.Jenkins, J. A. Wood, W. R.Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Aulich, T. G. Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Michael McGauran, J. J.Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J.Beahan, M. E. McKiernan, J. P.Bishop, B. K. Maguire, G. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J.Black, J. R. Newman, J. M.Bolkus, N. Panizza, J. H.Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Patterson, K. C. L.Burns, B. R. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Ray, RobertChapman, H. G. P. Reid, M. E.Childs, B. K. Reynolds, M. E.Coates, J. Richardson, G. F.Collins, R. L. Ryan, S. M.Colston, M. A. Schacht, C. C.Cook, P. F. S. Sheil, G.Cooney, B. C. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sibraa, K. W.Crowley, R. A. Stone, J. O.Devereux, J. R. Tambling, G. E. J.Devlin, R. Tate, M. C.Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Foreman, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S.Hill, R. M. Watson, J. O. W.Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Question so resolved in the negative. Clauses as amended, agreed to. Clauses 12 to 16-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(12.12) —I move: At page 15, after clause 16, add the following new clauses: `16a. Section 27 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting paragraph (b)'. Again, this amendment is designed to pick up a problem arising from amendments to the principal Act in the May mini-Budget legislation which provided that people would have to prove a 50 per cent incapacity before they would be eligible for benefits. At that time questions about the practicality of this were raised by the Australian Democrats and by people in the welfare sector concerned with people with disabilities. They were concerned with the impracticality of demonstrating a disability to any given level, and 50 per cent seemed somewhat arbitrary in any case. It has been drawn to my attention that this provision has caused practical problems, not to mention individual emotional stress resulting from financial hardship. I have moved this amendment to continue the Australian Democrats' opposition to this provision and to highlight the problems it is already causing and we expect it will continue to cause to the disabled in our community. Amendment negatived. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 17 to 20-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 21 (Carer's pension). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(12.15) —by leave-I move: (7) Page 18, paragraph 21 (e), proposed paragraph (a) of definition of ``severely handicapped person'', line 4, leave out the proposed paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(a) has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric disability; and;''. (8) Page 18, clause 21, proposed paragraph 39 (3) (b), lines 5 to 9, leave out the proposed paragraph. This section of the legislation relates to the extension of the carer's pension which was announced in the Budget. The announcement of the extension of the carer's pension was greeted by the Australian Democrats-including me-with great delight because in the last stages of the former Parliament I moved amendments to social security legislation in an attempt to implement extensions to the carer's pension. At that time I made the point that if anybody in the community is prepared, on a daily basis, to give constant care and attention to an individual who needs that care and attention, and provided no income support is otherwise available, that person should receive the support of the community. At that time I quoted statistics to demonstrate that in the area of the rather distressing burgeoning of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) epidemic to extend the carer's pension could be seen as an economy measure on behalf of the Government because it costs considerably more for the very ill and the dying to be cared for in institutions. I also made the point that this is the sort of direction that Government policy is taking. An amendment moved in May that people should be cared for in their own home was not supported by the Government or the Opposition. However, the carer's pension was extended in the Budget. Quite clearly, in this legislation the restrictions on those people who are eligible to receive the carer's pension have been removed and we certainly welcome that measure. However, there are concerns about this section of the legislation and they arise from sub-clauses which have defined the broader definitions of people who can receive the carer's pension. The definition of those who are to be cared for has been changed and, by being changed, has been limited. The criteria for the kind of care which those people can receive has been changed and limited and the amendments I have moved address those two issues. I refer, firstly, to amendments to clause 21, paragraph (e) sub-paragraph (a) which will substitute the definition that a person has a physical or intellectual disability. This raises another area of amendment to previous government legislation-the disability services legislation which was passed late in 1986-in which definitions were changed. The people involved in supporting the disabled in the community have wanted changes to the legislation because previous principal Acts have been in terms of physical and mental disability. There has been lobbying for changes in that definition. At the time the disability services legislation was before the Parliament there was a great hue and cry because the definition of disability had been changed to `physical or intellectual disability' which is in this legislation. A whole category of the disabled had been left out, that is, the psychiatrically disabled. It is a category of people which, since the International Year of Disabled Persons, has been recognised as being a significant and recognisable group within the disabled community, a group of people who had been consulted prior to that legislation being introduced but who had been left out of it. On that occasion both Senator Peter Baume and I moved amendments to change the definition of `disabled' to include the psychiatrically disabled. The Democrats and the Opposition supported those amendments and they were included in the legislation. On this occasion and in another provision in the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 once again the psychiatrically disabled are being excluded. I for one am not prepared to tolerate that. I have received a telex from Russell Hunt, the Executive Director of Disabled People's International, who supports this amendment and the amendment that I will move later to the child disability allowance which raises the same issue. I point out, perhaps with some distress, the response from the Minister at the time, Senator Grimes, who, having had these amendments passed by the Opposition and the Democrats, indicated that it was his intention to ignore that fact. He said: The way I administer the legislation in fact it will not cost anything at all. I am concerned if the attitude which Senator Grimes took at the time to the extension of the definition to the psychiatrically disabled is the motivation behind these definitions being left out in this legislation. I do not believe that that is the reason; I believe that it is an oversight on behalf of the Government. It is utterly inconsistent that the psychiatrically disabled should be left out on this occasion, as they were previously, because we will now have two pieces of legislation with differing definitions of the word `disability'. As I have said, Disabled People's International, the people at the Australian Council for Rehabilitation for Disabled, who supported the amendment when it was moved previously, support it again now. I think it is a mere technicality and I will be absolutely astonished if the Government does not support at least the amendment to clause 21 paragraph (e) sub-paragraph (a) of my series of amendments. I understand that the Opposition may once again support the Democrats on this matter and, if so, I would welcome it. It may be necessary for us to take separately sub-paragraph (a) of this amendment if that is the case. The definitions contained in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) are also areas of concern which are addressed by this amendment. Previously the carer's pension was made available to people who were looking after those who were defined as being severely handicapped and who needed constant care and attention. This legislation changes that definition to state `frequent attention in connection with the person's bodily functions or constant supervision to prevent injury to the person or to another person permanently or for an extended period'. The concern is that that changed definition is likely to lead to a restriction in terms of the people who may be cared for and the carer being eligible to receive a carer's pension. If that is the case, in light of these two redefinitions, any claim that the carer's pension is being extended would be a cruel deception to people in the community who, like me, applauded the announcement of this measure before we saw the legislation. For instance, organisations such as the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations wrote to me with great delight when that announcement was made and thanked the Democrats for their actions in May. They suggested that this Budget decision was the fruition of that exercise and they would be bitterly disappointed if, by these definitions being restricted, access to the carer's pension was not, in the overall picture, actually extended. I have moved the amendments so that the technicality of psychiatric disability having been omitted can be addressed by the Government and so that it can assure the people concerned that those who are being cared for will be cared for under the same definition as they were previously under the carer's pension. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for Environment and the Arts)(12.25) —I want to take up the points raised by Senator Powell about the Democrats' amendment No. 7, because she has continually made the statement that the category of psychiatrically disabled is being left out. This is simply not true. Apparently the amendment has been moved because of a concern that the replacement of the word `mental' by the word `intellectual' narrows the meaning so that in some way psychiatric conditions are excluded. There has been no narrowing of the meaning of the section at all. People with psychiatric disabilities are covered by this clause. The change was made because the Government had received from the Australian Council for the Rehabilitation of Disabled, an organisation to which Senator Powell referred, advice that the word `mental' was offensive to some groups in the community-in fact to a significant section-with which this provision had to deal. I think the only other thing I can say is that in the implementation of these criteria the system will be operated in such a way that we would not exclude anyone who qualified under the previous arrangements. The Government's opposition to the amendment stems from the fact that, firstly, we believe it is not necessary, that no one is being excluded; and secondly, the change to the wording had simply been misunderstood. We have reacted to community concern, in a proper way I think, and the problem is that that proper way has been misunderstood. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(12.26) —I am very pleased to hear what Senator Richardson has just said, but very disappointed to hear the conclusion he draws from those remarks. If in fact there is no intention to reduce the benefit, he should have concern about dotting the i's and crossing the t's and making the matter quite clear. In my mind there is a very distinct difference between intellectual and psychiatric disability, and it is certainly open to interpretation that psychiatric disability does not include intellectual disability. I draw Senator Richardson's attention to the fact that about 4,000 people are killed each year on Australia's roads. While the number injured is not that well categorised, we suspect that it is something like 10 times that number; and among those there are large numbers who suffer head injuries. A number of those people suffer no intellectual impairment whatsoever but, because of frontal lobe injuries, suffer quite severe psychiatric and personal disabilities which would not, in my mind, be covered by the words `intellectual disability. Therefore, the inclusion of `physical, intellectual or psychiatric disability' makes the matter quite clear and puts it beyond the ability of anybody to misinterpret those words. I therefore ask Senator Richardson to reconsider his remarks and to draw the appropriate conclusion, that is, that the amendment is quite appropriate. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(12.28) —I hesi-tate to take more time of the chamber, but I vividly recall the debate during the disability services legislation. At that time I had not been a member of this chamber for very long and was absolutely distressed by the lack of understan-ding of senior members of this chamber, some of them either medical practitioners or married to medical practitioners, who constantly during the debate talked about mental illness and mental disability and confused `intellectual' with `psychiatric', `mental' with `psychiatric', and `illness' with `disability'. There is tremendous confusion in this area, and that was clearly displayed in the chamber. I have been exhorted time and again to support one or other of the sides of this chamber on legislation. I exhort the Minister, and through the Minister his advisers, to look again at this. There is in the community a genuine group-and it is not a very large group; I made that point last year in the debate-to whom, by pushing them beneath the surface, whether that is intended or not, we are doing a disservice. They do exist. They are a separate category of the disabled, and that cannot be denied. The discussion papers from the Department of Community Services and Health which preceded the disability services legislation made that quite clear. The community has a bad record, and the Government an even worse record, in recognising this group of disabled people. I put in this final plea to the Minister and his advisers: This legislation is going back to the House of Representatives. The insertion of two words, here and in the child disability allowance area, will clean up at least that. I think it is the very least the Government could do in this instance. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Powell has moved two amendments to clause 21. I will put the two amendments separately to the Committee. The question is that amendment No. 7 be agreed to. Amendment agreed to. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 12.30 p.m., pursuant to sessional order I shall report progress. The Chairman having reported accordingly- Sitting suspended from 12.30 to 2.15 p.m. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Minister for Transport and Communications to the answer he gave to my question on Monday in which he said that he had been present at a meeting between the Prime Minister and the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). During the answer he denied that pressure had been brought to bear on Mr Somervaille concerning a then pending Four Corners program on Sir Peter Abeles. I ask the Minister: Was he present for the whole time Mr Somervaille was in the Prime Minister's suite? I further ask: Was the name of Sir Peter Abeles raised while he was there, and if so by whom and in what context? Senator GARETH EVANS —I was there for the whole time of the conversation which, I believe, is the source of the speculation that has arisen on this matter. Beyond that I do not propose to go into any detail of what was said on that occasion. I simply rely on Mr Somervaille's own public statement made yesterday and released in response to an extremely ill-judged and extravagant comment from the late Opposition spokesman on media matters, Mr Ian Macphee, the relevant portion of Mr Somervaille's release being in the following terms: At no time has the Prime Minister or any other Minister applied or tried to apply pressure on me in matters relating to program content or in any other matter. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. My supplementary question relates to the answer that has just been given and the answer given by Senator Evans on Monday. On Monday Senator Evans was prepared to tell the Senate that to his certain knowledge the Prime Minister had not sought to influence the content of the program. He was further prepared to tell the Senate that concern had been expressed about the desirability of a high quality being maintained in ABC programming. I ask the Minister: In light of his forthright comments that he and the Prime Minister should not be seeking to influence the programming content of the ABC, why is he not prepared to give us the facts in this matter? What has he got to hide? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have absolutely nothing at all to hide. I have given a sufficient statement of the facts of the matter to answer comprehensively, completely and credibly the kind of scuttlebutt, allegation, innuendo, imputation and generally extravagant misallegation that we have heard from the Opposition in this matter. I have nothing more to say. Senator COLSTON —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training advise what proportion of students who begin studies at an Australian university actually complete their studies and graduate? Are comparable figures available for colleges of advanced education? Is the Government satisfied with this level of graduation from our universities and colleges of advanced education and, if not, what can be done to improve the current situation? Senator RYAN —I have some information that will assist Senator Colston. Really accurate information about graduate rates in Australia's universities and colleges of advanced education is not available. However, in the mid-1970s the graduate rate was estimated at about two-thirds of intake. Some recent studies have suggested that graduate rates for the higher education system as a whole may now be as high as 75 per cent if transfer and subsequent re-entry is taken into account. There is no breakdown between colleges of advanced education and university rates at this stage. Other estimates, however, put student attrition rates for some higher education institutions and disciplines as high as 40 per cent. Preliminary data from the current national review of the engineering discipline, for example, show completion rates to be 59 per cent for universities and 45 per cent for advanced education institutions. The answer to Senator Colston's question as to whether the Government is satisfied with this rate of completion is no. The Government believes that there is scope for improvement in completion rates in higher education. Senator Colston may be aware that the issue is taken up in the higher education policy discussion paper which will be tabled by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training today. The paper argues that the success of institutions in addressing the issue of completion rates will become more important in the context of resource allocation processes that will focus increasingly on assessment of overall institutional performance. Measures that might be addressed to improve graduation rates are dealt with in the policy discussion paper. As a first step in the process it will be necessary to collect more reliable information in this area and this will be a high priority for the Department of Employment, Education and Training. Senator MESSNER —I remind the Minister for Justice that this morning the Senate passed my motion condemning the Government for its cowardly and despicable action in hiding behind the statute of limitations in its defence against claims for compensation arising out of the HMAS Voyager disaster. In view of the fact that the Government has previously admitted liability, that two years ago it agreed to waive the statute and that Mr Justice O'Bryan of the Victorian Supreme Court has severely criticised the Go-vernment's apparent approach, will the Minister, on an issue that cries out for natural justice, take the matter back to the Government for reconsideration so that those people seeking compensation can have their day in court? Senator TATE —I will not take the matter back to the Attorney-General for his further consideration; he has given very serious consi-deration to the issue involved in deciding to plead the statute of limitations. Honourable senators will be aware that the incident out of which these mainly mental and psychiatric conditions are said to arise occurred in 1964, at which time there was a general indication by the then Attorney-General to the survivors and their families and to the families of those who died that the Commonwealth would be prepared at that stage to accept their claims. Many settlements were undertaken at that time. As I explained yesterday, the Government and the Attorney-General have not done anything extraordinary or unusual. The Government has pleaded the statute of limitations, which is available in Victorian jurisdiction and which is expressed in terms recognising that it is very likely to prejudice a party if evidence goes stale over a period of years. I think that the statute itself in Victoria speaks of three years in relation to these sorts of claims. In deciding whether to plead the statute of limitations, the Commonwealth has always taken the view that it should take the term of longest duration available under any statute of limitations in Australia, and that is six years. Clearly, 23 years have passed since this incident and the sorts of evidence that would be available to the Commonwealth in order to rebut the claims put forward by these survivors would clearly be very difficult to assemble. In that situation, the sort of prejudice which would arise if these claims were litigated is very apparent. The Attorney-General made his decision for that reason and I do not believe that he intends to reconsider the matter. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is not the Minister dissembling when he says that the claim goes back some 23 years when, in fact, previous governments were bound by a decision of the High Court of Australia which restricted any action that might have been taken in that period? Secondly, was not the statement that was made two years ago clear to the point that it waived any statute and that Mr Justice O'Bryan, having taken on the case, has criticised the Government for employing that defence? Thirdly, why did the Government not divide on this issue when the motion was put before the Senate this morning? Senator TATE —It is true that Mr Justice O'Bryan of the Victorian Supreme Court made some critical comments on the fact that the Commonwealth had decided to plead the statute. But there was no great argument before him as to the reasons why the Commonwealth had pleaded the statute. He took it upon himself to substitute his judgment for that of the Attorney, who is the correct repository of the necessary exercise of judgment and discretion in this instance. He found that there had been no waiver by the Commonwealth in the sense that the Commonwealth was estopped by any previous decision by departmental officers to settle in one or two cases. The Commonwealth was not estopped from pleading the statute. That is a clear part of his finding as a matter of law. His other comments are not matters which, strictly speaking, are within his capacity as a judge. Those decisions have been made by the Attorney-General and I do not believe that they are to be reconsidered. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in my gallery of a former distinguished senator, Minister and ambassador, Sir Robert Cotton. On behalf of all senators, I welcome him to Canberra, particularly as he is here because of his involvement with the political exchange program. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator COLLINS —My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. Has the World Heritage Committee considered the Federal Government's nomination of Uluru National Park to the World Heritage List? If so, has it added that unique part of Australia to that prestigious list? Senator RICHARDSON —Mr President-- Senator Haines —This is the Minister in continuation. Senator RICHARDSON —I am not in continuation; this is the first attempt of the day, as a matter of fact. The World Heritage Committee, I am pleased to inform the Senate, has approved the inscription of Uluru on the World Heritage List. I know that on behalf of all senators I can express our delight at that occurrence. It is formal recognition of the significance of a magnificent area-an area that was originally nominated by this Government. I am sure that all senators will share in our delight. The nomination was suggested by the traditional owners, for whom many features of the national park hold special significance. The rock itself, the Olgas and the surrounding areas have special significance for all Australians. Certainly, the number of people who are visiting those areas is growing at an extraordinary rate. The listing will not interfere with the rights of traditional owners. Senator Puplick —Will it interfere with the monorail? Senator RICHARDSON —Now that Senator Puplick has asked that question, I digress. The new management plan, which we will have a good look at, will not include a specific section on monorails. I have always doubted that construction would go ahead, and I still find it difficult to believe. Senator Brownhill —You are a two-rail man, aren't you? Senator RICHARDSON —Take it easy, Senator. The honour that has been given the area, and indeed the country, also presents us with a special responsibility to preserve and manage it in a fitting and proper manner. The Australian Government relishes that task, and along with the traditional owners we shall embark upon it. It is interesting to note, though, that the Committee praised the way in which the traditional owners have been involved in planning. It also praised the Australian Government for its role in the management of the park. I am delighted to hear that, given that over the next few hours the Committee will also consider Kakadu stage 2. I know that a Minister of the Northern Territory Government has seen fit to drop over to Paris to oppose that listing, for all the wrong reasons. I am sure that he and his officials have had a nice trip and their visit to the Louvre may have been magnificent; but I doubt very much whether their trip will affect the listing. Senator Bishop —I think he means the loo. Senator RICHARDSON —I said `the Louvre', not the loo-although he may have been in there too. Finally, special mention was made by the World Heritage Committee of appreciation of the efforts of the Government to reintroduce to the area species which unfortunately not only have been endangered but also have disappeared since European civilisation. The Government intends to continue that program. All in all, this is another result not only for which the Government can take credit but also for which the Australian people can give thanks. Senator SANDERS —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Is it a fact that the Tasmanian Forestry Commission has asked for the views of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy on proposed cable logging near Clumner Bluff, next to the Walls of Jerusalem National Park in north-western Tasmania? Is the Minister aware that the operation is proposed for an area on the Register of the National Estate? Is he further aware of the numerous times that the Tasmanian Forestry Commission has lost control of regeneration burns and other fires, resulting in destruction of adjacent forests? If so, is he confident that the nearby timber, including the world's largest remaining forest of the rare pencil pine, will remain unburnt? If he cannot give absolute assurances that the pencil pine will be safe, will he ensure that the logging operation will not proceed, especially since the logging site is part of the National Estate? If not, why not? Senator WALSH —Two days ago Senator Sanders told me-or, to be more accurate, my office-that he was going to ask a question like this. But he did not do it then or yesterday. At that stage Mr Kerin's office was contacted. The answer on Monday was that the ceiling in the part of the building which houses the relevant branch of what is now the Department of Primary Industries and Energy had fallen in and that, because there was a bit of asbestos up in the ceiling, the building had been evacuated and, therefore, either there was nobody there who could be contacted to write an answer, or a typewriter could not be found to type it out. That was the situation two days ago. I do not know what has happened since but I will see whether I can find out. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the differing economic and labour market conditions in various parts of Australia. In view of this, what are the prospects for an individual-say, a very senior State parliamentarian such as a former Premier-finding alternative work in Queensland compared with the rest of Australia? Senator WALSH —An ordinary Queenslander looking for a job faces bleak prospects. Probably the best single indicator of the prospect of a person getting employment is the ratio of people seeking employment to the number of job vacancies. The national average is almost 11 per cent. In Queensland the figure is almost 22 per cent. In other works, an ordinary Queenslander has about half as much chance of getting a job as have Australians overall. If one is lucky enough to live in Victoria or New South Wales, the prospects are enhanced significantly. In Victoria there are just over seven people seeking employment for every job vacancy; in New South Wales the figure is just over 9 1/2. The latter hypothetical part of the question touched on somebody who is not an ordinary Queenslander but an ex-Premier of Queensland. I noticed that it was being reported last week that the former Premier was about to take a high profile appointment in the private sector. I must say I was surprised at that. Senator Chaney —As an also-ran, you could have given him a job in CSIRO, I suppose. Senator WALSH —No, I do not think that is likely. I do not think that even a coalition government, if we should ever have one, would give him a job in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Indeed, I was surprised that it was even being reported that he was about to take a high profile job anywhere in the private sector. I cannot imagine the private sector giving that individual any important position, unless it was to become, say, the executive director of the hydrogen car corporation or the Milan Brych cancer clinic. Senator MAGUIRE —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I would like Senator Walsh to clarify that answer. Was he saying that in Queensland there are 21 unemployed persons for every job vacancy? How does that compare with the national average? Senator WALSH —I said in fact that there were almost 22-21.8 to be precise-unemployed people in Queensland for every job vacancy recorded. The national average is just under 11, or 10.7, if one wants to be precise. In other words, it is twice as difficult for a person looking for a job to get one in Queensland as it is in the rest of Australia on average. Senator STONE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. I preface my question to the Minister by referring to the meeting of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) which was to commence in Vienna today and which is occurring within the context of the growing prospect of a downturn in the economy of the United States of America, as well as a forecast drop in world demand for oil, in the wake of the recent collapse of international stock and foreign exchange markets. In that connection I note also the reported decision by Saudi Arabia not to cut its oil production in 1988, despite over quota production by other OPEC producers and a likely increase in new supply from non-OPEC producers. Does the Minister agree that in these circumstances there appears to be a significant probability of an appreciable fall in world oil prices next year from the current benchmark of $US18 a barrel? If so, would the Minister expect to see a flow-on to other international energy commodity prices, and most particularly coal? Finally, will the Minister indicate what domestic economic policy adjustments will be appropriate-and how soon-to ensure that Australia's already critical foreign debt and balance of payments positions do not deteriorate further in the face of this worsening external trade environment for Australia's energy exports? Senator WALSH —Just over three years ago I kept myself fairly well briefed on these subjects, as Senator Evans would have kept himself fairly well briefed on them about six months ago. I am no longer so well briefed. Therefore, I would not pretend that I could give any sort of definitive answer to the question. Of course, I have heard the standard news reports canvassing the possibilities that Senator Stone mentioned in his question. I was asked whether an appreciable fall in oil prices would be likely to flow on to coal prices. I think the answer to that question is, in the long term, yes. I am less sure what would happen in the short term. Obviously in the short term a fall in the price of oil in isolation would have an effect on Government revenue, unless the lower excise collections on crude oil were offset by increases in excise on refined product, which is present Government policy. As to our trade account, since Australia is, I believe, still a significant net importer of oil-- Senator Stone —Energy. Senator WALSH —I said that I was dealing with oil alone. Australia is a significant importer of oil. A fall in the price of oil in isolation obviously would result in our balance of payments position being a little better. I shall obtain from Mr Kerin a more up to date and definitive answer to the question. Senator STONE —I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister not agree that when the international price of oil fell very sharply indeed earlier this year-I think it got down to as low as $US7 a barrel at that time for a brief period-there were very considerable flow-on consequences for our coal export prices in the contract negotiation processes that took place a few months after that occurrence? Second, will the Minister not agree, notwithstanding his erudite exposition on our energy balance so far as oil is concerned, that insofar as total energy is concerned, including coal, Australia is a very significant energy exporter? Will the Minister therefore respond to my question, which was directed to the total energy component of our balance of payments? Senator WALSH —I did respond to the question. I said that a substantial fall or an appreciable fall in the price of oil was likely in the long term to adversely affect the price of coal. I am less sure of what the short term effects would be. Senator DEVLIN —I direct my question to the Minister for Justice. In view of the tragic and horrifying rampage by an armed man in Melbourne yesterday, resulting in the death of eight people and his own ghastly suicide, can the Minister inform the Senate of the current position with respect to national firearms control? Senator TATE —First of all I express, I am sure on behalf of all senators, my sympathy and condolences to the families of those innocent people who were yesterday so senselessly massacred in this terrible assault at the offices of Telecom Australian and Australia Post. I am sure that everyone would consider that we need to take steps to ensure that a 22-year-old who is frustrated in some argument with a friend does not turn to a rifle and inflict grievous harm and even death on innocent citizens in order to impose his own solution on what is obviously for him a frustrating situation. It is clear that, as a nation, we need a much more stringent approach to the question of firearms control. We need controls by way of licensing the persons who are to have legal ownership and possession of firearms and other weapons, and we need to have a system of permits relating to the different types of weapons that might be possessed. Bringing these matters together, it is quite clear that weapons-particularly lethal weapons such as high powered rifles and automatic and semi-automatic weapons-should perhaps be made available only to those who are members of registered, recognised and reputable firearms associations. The idea that, as is the case in my home State of Tasmania, any person can simply go into a gun shop and, by merely asserting that he or she is over 16, obtain a high powered weapon and ammunition across the counter is absolutely intolerable. I am sure that this idea will be rejected by all thinking people around Australia. I am not so naive as to suppose that even the most stringent laws will prevent a deranged or obsessed person from getting hold of a weapon and inflicting grievous bodily harm and perhaps death on those with whom he or she is having an argument or, as is so tragically the case in these mass killings, wreaking havoc amongst the innocent. Every action possible should be taken to make it extremely difficult for a person to come upon a rifle or some other weapon as a very readily available means of settling an argument or expressing his or her frustration. It is true that at a meeting of the Australian Police Ministers Council held in Hobart less than a fortnight ago the following resolution was passed, with Queensland and Tasmania not concurring: . . . recognising that the absence of national uniform controls over the acquisition and possession of firearms weakens the effectiveness of the controls existing in individual jurisdictions, each member of the APMC seeks to implement legislation . . . to require- (i) the licensing of a person to possess firearms; (ii) the obtaining of a permit to purchase firearms; (iii) the registration of all longarms; and (iv) ammunition to be sold only to persons authorised to possess a firearm . . . Quite clearly, these are only very sketchy, tentative first steps towards a national approach. But they demonstrate a recognition that State boundaries are very artificial when one is talking about the movement of weapons and persons around Australia. We do need a national approach. I certainly hope that Tasmania and Queensland will reconsider their position in light of yesterday's tragic incident. I am not seeking-and I do not believe anyone is really seeking-to get technical uniformity in every respect in regard to licensing and permits throughout Australia, but we do need to have a national consensus and approach. With due respect to our American parliamentary colleagues in the gallery and young political leaders from America, I do think that we in Australia want to avoid the cultural and social situation that prevails in the United States of America where it is thought to be a constitutional right to bear arms. I believe that in Australia we regard the bearing of arms, and should regard the ownership and possession of firearms, as a privilege, as a concession by society to some rural recreational shooters and to those who need a weapon for a security reason, but certainly not as a right. Certainly we do not regard it as a right which overbalances or outweighs the rights of innocent citizens to go about their lawful pursuits-their work and their recreation-without the fear of being in jeopardy of an assault which can occasion such grievous bodily harm or even death, as occurred yesterday. I believe that the people of Australia, shocked by yesterday's massacre, will give political support to those governments which do implement a more stringent regime in this regard. The Federal Government has limited powers in regard to the import of weapons and in its own jurisdiction in the Australian Capital Territory, but we stand ready to facilitate and to support any moves by governments around Australia in the various jurisdictions to implement more stringent controls. Senator PUPLICK —My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. Did the Minister issue a Press release on 3 December in which he said financial assistance for any workers displaced as a result of job losses in the timber industry in north Queensland would be guaranteed under `an interim compensation package to go to Federal Cabinet next week'? Did he yesterday, in answer to Senator Boswell, state in relation to compensation that it would be `ridiculous to make submissions to Cabinet before we have received results of the consultancies', which reports are not expected, according to the Minister, until some time in January? Given that final decisions on the boundaries have now been made by Cabinet, when will any compensation package be decided by Federal Cabinet? Is it this week, as promised on 3 December, or will it not be until January, as stated yesterday? Senator RICHARDSON —Yesterday, in answer to Senator Boswell's question, I made it clear that the package of compensation for north Queensland-not just for displaced workers, it can go wider than that because it has to include the industry as well-will not be submitted to Cabinet until I have had an opportunity to assess the final reports that will be presented by the six consultants who are working on the problem now. It is hoped that those consultants will report to us by the end of January or early February, so I can be confident of having a submission ready in February. However, Senator Puplick may have misunderstood the import of statements made about an interim measure to protect people between now and then. It is the Government's belief that very few Queenslanders will be put out of work or dislocated in the immediate future because of decisions I shall announce on Friday. Most of the mills-in fact all of the mills bar one, so far as I can discover-have been working overtime in the forests to ensure an extraordinary amount of the resources is taken out to enable them to continue. That being the case, we would anticipate that, if there is to be dislocation, it will occur from April, perhaps even from May. However, because of the possibility that some people may be affected in the interim, I did present to Cabinet a package which was approved on Monday for an interim protection measure. I shall be announcing the results of that on Friday. Senator VALLENTINE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Has the Minister read the recently declassified documents released by the United States Department of Defense showing that American forces in the Pacific are prepared to fight limited and prolonged nuclear wars, although what on earth prolonged nuclear wars are by definition is not clear? Do couriers from the United States armed forces courier service go through Australia, and is the Government aware that these couriers carry the computer instructions used to order United States naval ships to use their nuclear weapons? I ask the Minister how the Government can reconcile United States plans for fighting limited and prolonged nuclear wars in the Pacific with the presence in Fremantle Harbour today of the Missouri battle group, which comes under the authority of CINCPAC-Commander in Chief, Pacific? Does the Government not acknowledge the irony of applauding the intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) agreement which involves the withdrawal of cruise missiles from western Europe in the same week as it is giving permission for a United States battleship with 32 cruise missiles on board to enter an Australian harbour? Finally, does not the presence of the Missouri battle group in Australia over Christmas does not prove the assertion by retired Lieutenant-Commander Michael Lynch of the Royal Australian Navy that the only purpose of port calls to Australia by US warships is rest and recreation-to put it politely and euphemistically-and nothing to do with any strategic necessity? Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Vallentine's revelations are, as usual, breathtaking in their irrelevance. We can only share her amazement at the suggestion that the forces of another country are prepared to engage in combat. What a marvellous revelation that is! Why else would they exist, I wonder? Senator Vallentine —Exactly. Senator ROBERT RAY —Well, one does have an army to defend oneself. Otherwise, Senator Walsh has a $7.6 billion saving coming up in the next Budget. For some considerable time the United States has adopted policies for deterring war. The American military force, including nuclear forces, has been deployed to support that objective and peace has been maintained in part because, as President Reagan has declared, nuclear wars cannot be won and must never be fought. Until complete disarmament can be achieved, Australia supports the maintenance of peace through deterrence and co-operates militarily with the United States and other countries for that purpose. Elements of the United States military do visit Australia periodically for a range of reasons encompassing Australian and US interests. Australian interests include our participation in combined exercises and the familiarisation of our principal ally with the operational environment of our region of direct military interest. Opportunities for refuelling, reprovisioning and crew rest and recreation are also important elements. The Australian Government accepts the United States practice of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons on board its warships. All ship visits take place on this understanding. The linkage Senator Vallentine attempts to draw between the INF agreement and the visit of the Missouri battle group is too tenuous as to defy national comment. The Government welcomes the INF treaty which, for the first time, will eliminate an entire class of nuclear weapons. Importantly, it does so without putting international security at risk. It is understandable that the INF agreement has forced Senator Vallentine to clutch at straws, as it destroys many of the myths she has sought to promote both in this chamber and outside, and vindicates the arguments that this Government uses in regard to the realities of the way progress can be made on disarmament issues. Senator VALLENTINE —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. It seems obvious from the Minister's answer that he does not understand the connection between the INF, so I have to ask him whether he is not aware of the fact that the missiles which President Reagan and Secretary General Gorbachev were signing away today in Washington are exactly the same as the kinds of weapons systems which are on board the USS Missouri in Fremantle Harbour today. They are exactly the same kind of cruise missile systems. So while the super-powers are beginning to disarm on land-which we are very pleased about-is it not a supreme irony that our Government invites exactly the same missile systems into Australian harbours on the very same day? The PRESIDENT —Order! That is a supplementary question and also a speech. Senator ROBERT RAY —I have already alluded to the fact that it is the policy of the Australian Government to agree with the American Government to neither confirm nor deny what weapons systems of a nuclear nature are on visiting ships. Senator Vallentine obviously misunderstood me on that position. This has been repeated here time and time again, but apparently Senator Vallentine thinks that if someone goes mining, sooner or later that person will come up with a nugget of gold. She will come up absolutely dead broke on this and every other occasion. The other point to be made is-and we will no doubt go through this again with some tedious repetition for two hours later this afternoon-nuclear disarmament or any disarmament is a long-winded process. It will not be brought about simply by good intentions by unilateralists or anyone else. It will be brought about by hard work, by agreement and by verification when all the pieces are in place. It will not be brought about by people marching up to Pine Gap and waving a few placards about, or by anything else. It will be brought about by hard work that can then be justified by both countries with absolute certainty that the conditions under which they enter into those agreements will be met. Senator PARER —My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. I refer the Minister to remarks made by Mr Peter Beattie, the Queensland State Secretary of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), in regard to the Federal handling of the rainforest World Heritage issue when Mr Beattie accused the Minister of insensitivity towards the lives and livelihoods of people in north and far north Queensland. Mr Beattie said: He's offended quite a lot of people locally and I think there will be problems for us in the State area in the future as a result of his clumsy handling of the issue. He had handled it in a very crude way. This is not a factional brawl in Sydney. We are dealing with people's lives and livelihoods and it should have been handled a lot more sensitively than it was. Will the Minister heed Mr Beattie's advice and abandon his crude and clumsy approach to this issue, or will he continue to behave, as Mr Beattie described him on the AM program last week, as `a political coward' and, I quote again, `a factional hack from New South Wales'? Senator RICHARDSON —Sometimes one can have a hard week or a difficult day. At times even one's religious faith can begin to ebb. But every now and again something happens to bring it back. There is a sign from God. Something good happens. Today Senator Parer has provided me with an opportunity I have been seeking-indeed, longing for. Senator Chapman —Did you organise a dorothy dixer? Senator RICHARDSON —No, it is not a dorothy dixer. I did not organise it. Occasionally one gets a bit of help from the strangest quarters. I am aware of some comments that a person called Beattie made on radio the other afternoon. I am informed that this person is an official of the Australian Labor Party in Queensland. I am also informed that his views on north Queensland, which he appears to share with a gentleman he visited on a farm recently, are not shared by the Queensland branch of the ALP. In fact, Mr Beattie and others who tried to put up a motion to that effect at the State Council meeting held prior to last Saturday were rolled and a motion supporting my role was carried. That does not surprise me. There is no question that the Labor Party in Queensland is behind the Government on the World Heritage listing. Mr Beattie would not find it surprising to be the odd man out. As to the remark made about me that I am a factional hack from New South Wales, I will not run too far away from it. I have been involved in factions in New South Wales for a long time. I find the word `hack' a bit offensive, but I will have to wear it. As to the suggestion that I could be insensitive, I find that appalling. That was the one thing Mr Beattie said that cut me to the quick. Senator PARER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In view of the Minister's reply and his remarks about Mr Beattie, who, I remind the Minister, is the Secretary of the Queensland Branch of the Australian Labor Party, does he intend to continue to handle the Queensland rainforest issue in the same way as one of his colleagues said that he would handle the problems of the Labor Party in Queensland-by using what he called the `Jonestown solution'? Senator RICHARDSON —I will handle north Queensland with customary dignity and aplomb. I will ensure that great sensitivity is shown to all those who may be affected by the decision. One colleague of mine referred to Mr Beattie's visit to Kingaroy as the worst piece of political judgment since Hess dropped into Scotland. All I can say is that at least he had a parachute on. Senator AULICH —Can the Minister for Justice indicate the result of a meeting of police Ministers held in Hobart recently on the important issue of Aboriginal deaths in custody? Senator TATE —Just under a fortnight ago in Hobart a meeting was held of the Australian Police Ministers Council, which comprises me and the Ministers from the various States and the Northern Territory concerned with police matters, including the very important issue in our community of police-Aboriginal relations. In particular, we were concerned to bring about a situation where, as far as lay within our power, the spate of tragic deaths of Aboriginals in custody might be brought to a halt. At that meeting a very real political will to address this problem was evidenced across all jurisdictions and between all parties, as was the case in the Senate a week ago when it passed a motion in a bipartisan manner in relation to this question. There was evidence of a real willingness on the part of the highest political elected officials of this country to deal with this matter. Whilst we could commend certain practices and procedures to police forces and custodial institutions throughout the Commonwealth, it is one thing for us to pass resolutions, and it is another to have them implemented on the ground in a practical and effective way. The will to implement these practices and processes must be there among the police forces, prison officers and those concerned with dealing with Aboriginals as they come up against the legal and penal systems. For that reason, the police Ministers decided not to make a final and definitive statement, but to enter into very urgent but adequate consultations with Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal legal services throughout Australia and other interested parties, including police associations and associations of prison officers, in order to ensure that the final document, which we hope to promulgate next year, is practical and effective. We hope it will bring about a situation in which, first, Aboriginals are diverted away from detention and custody for minor offences-particularly for simple intoxication-and into the care and custody of other Aborigines of standing in their local community; and, secondly, if they are taken into custody, special measures are taken, particularly where there is evidence of some intoxication or some medical condition which might place the person in jeopardy. The question of multi-prisoner cells is something that needs to be looked at and this is something that is not immediately apparent to us as European reformers. These resolutions need to be implemented in practice and for that reason I was happy yesterday in Sydney to open a conference, a workshop, or a seminar, organised by the Australian Police College which brought together Aboriginal people and police liaison officers from all State jurisdictions and the Northern Territory with a view to having very frank discussions over three or four days in order to come up with practices which can be implemented on the ground in order to ensure the spate of tragic deaths that have occurred does not continue. I said at the time that in the bicentennial year-next year-our practices in this regard will be under intense international scrutiny. Quite apart from that scrutiny, and even if it were not the case, justice requires that we take every step possible to ensure that our fellow Australians do not die in custody if it can be at all averted. Senator REID —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. I refer to yesterday's media release from the Minister, Mr Brown, in which he disclosed that Federal Cabinet had agreed in principle to the development of a casino in Canberra and to the Minister's claim in that release that the community would: have a full opportunity to examine the proposal and express views on the package . . . Given the Minister's record to date on community consultation with the people of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), which has included the abolition of the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, the abolition of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority Council, and the abolition of community health services and hospital boards, among others, what assurance can the Minister give the ACT community that consultations will be genuine and that people will be given an opportunity to respond to the Minister's proposal for a casino? Specifically, what mechanisms will be set up to facilitate community consultation and to see that the views expressed by the Canberra community are acted upon by the Minister? Senator RICHARDSON —Yesterday the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Mr Brown, announced the Government's intentions in this matter and in doing so he stressed that the development would not be rushed through. Indeed, he indicated that there would be a social impact study to identify any particular problems and to take account of them. No doubt Senator Reid and others who have views will be able to put those views to those who are conducting the study. Any casino ordinance would include strong control provisions and would be drafted in full consultation with law enforcement authorities. The ACT community will have a range of opportunities to express its views on the overall development and on the community facilities which it provides. It should not be forgotten that the casino involves not just a large scale private sector development, but incorporates a hotel complex, restaurants, retail space and other appropriate commercial facilities. It is also designed in such a way as to maximise the value of the site and to ensure that the proceeds that we can get from it will fund a new theatre and a library. They are the sorts of facilities that I would have thought the people of Canberra and the ACT would want. Given the wind-down in construction after the new Parliament House is completed, I think that if the casino can go ahead it will give an excellent fillip to industry in the ACT. In terms of the abolition of school boards and other boards, it has been explained many times that in the ACT there has been an extraordinary number of boards. One wonders how many citizens were not on at least one or two of them. The spread of the boards and their activities grew over years and years. There came a time-and Minister Brown decided that that time had come-when there was need for some rationalisation. Indeed, those boards were not providing any great extra services. They were providing jobs-often paid jobs, even if they were part time-for too many people. They had long since outlived their usefulness. The reconstruction of ACT boards in a number of areas such as health and education has not created any great community reaction. Senator Reid —Yes, it has. You want to have a look at my mail. Senator RICHARDSON —Most of the reactions have been in favour. I recall being told today that somebody had received 200 letters on the casino. That is not what I would call great public reaction. Great public reaction means a lot more than 200 letters, I would tell Senator Reid. Senator Messner —Like on the monorail and Darling Harbour. Senator RICHARDSON —I have not received any of it, Senator Messner, although a couple of days ago the Australian Democrats called me the Minister for monuments. If I may sum up, there are a number of ways in which the community will express its views. It will have the opportunity to do that and the Government will take those views into account. Senator COOK —I address my question to the Minister for Finance-although a moment ago I was going to ask for equal time to defend Peter Beattie. Has the Government noted any new signs or any new comments which would indicate the validity of its general thrust of economic policy, and in particular restraint in the fiscal area? If so, what are the comments, signs or indications? Senator WALSH —Arguably, the most significant signs that the Government is on the right track are to be found in the voices coming from prominent people in the Opposition as to how the Opposition is and was on the wrong track. For example, the honourable member for Boothby, Mr Hall, on 14 July said: The architects and strategists of our recent defeat need to transfer responsibility for the result to someone else to survive. That someone else is Premier Petersen. He continued: The facts are that until the opening of the poll at 8 a.m. on Saturday morning our leader had incessantly claimed that the reason we would be elected was our policies. Mr Hall said: There is no way that by 10 p.m., on the same day the reason we were not elected, was not the test on those policies. Senator Stone last week said: In the aftermath of electoral defeat last July, some were quick to blame that outcome on Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen . . . Yet I truly believe that such analyses, either at that time or more recently, were as shallow as they were self-serving . . . The more important truth, however, was that, on the basis of the policies which the conservative parties had in place prior to the emergence of that campaign, those parties-including our own-did not deserve to win. I think we would all endorse that. Then, in the next paragraph, he said: . . . had the Labor Party lost-the conservative parties would not have been truly ready for government. Again, I think we would all endorse that. But, if only in a negative way, the fact that prominent members of the Opposition are not only recognising but publicly stating how inadequate were the policies which the Opposition took into the last election-policies to which the Opposition remains committed in that negative way-demonstrates that recognition is growing that the policies being followed by the Government are correct and appropriate. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. I remind the Minister of an answer she gave to a question earlier today in which she indicated that completion rates, that is, graduation rates, will be one outcome measure of the performance of universities and colleges of advanced education. I now ask the Minister for an assurance that the Government will not, either explicitly or by implication, be party to any measure which will diminish the pursuit of excellence in institutions of higher education or which might reward institutions in any way for conferring more degrees or diplomas at a lower level of achievement. Senator RYAN —Although the paper that I referred to, the Green Paper which has been tabled by Mr Dawkins today, does raise the question of unsatisfactory completion rates, and goes into a discussion mode about some ways that this might be addressed, the Government has not as yet made a determination on any such proposal. The discussion paper, the Green Paper, is just that. It is a paper seeking the views of the education community about how outcomes at the higher education level can be improved. There is no specific proposal. Despite that, I am very happy to give an assurance that our Government will institute no policies or new ways of resource allocation to institutions which would result in a lowering of standards. To do so would cut across all the efforts we have made ever since we have been in Government to ensure not only that we have increased participation in higher education but also that the quality of education is improved for all participants in the system. I must say that there is room for improvement. We will be looking at institutions' entrance selection procedures, curriculum content, employment policies and promotional policies and at the whole gamut of things that can affect quality. So, without anticipating in any way the outcome of the discussions which we hope will be very vigorous and lively around the Green Paper, I am happy to assure Senator Baume that we have no interest in any measures which would result in a lowering of standards. Senator POWELL —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs. Is the Minister aware of a picket line at the community youth support scheme centres of Elwood and Collingwood in Melbourne, which yesterday were closed without notice? Can the Minister tell the Senate why these projects, and the Gympie project in Queensland, were given no notice of closure? Is it true that the State advisory committee in Victoria which prepared the report on these centres recommended that the Minister not close the centres? Is it true that, although one of the three centres is in the electorate of the Minister responsible, Mr Holding, that Minister has refused repeated requests for a meeting with the centres? Does the Minister agree that the whole matter has been insensitively handled? Senator RYAN —I am in no position to agree with the last part of Senator Powell's question because I have no information about the matter she has raised. I will refer that matter to Mr Holding for a response. I simply say that the whole range of initiatives that our Government has taken and is taking to give unemployed young persons the opportunity to get training, and therefore to secure a place in the labour market, is showing very good results. We certainly can point with pride to increased participation rates at all levels of education, but particularly in years 11 and 12, to disadvantaged areas where the participation rates have increased substantially in the last few years, and to enrolments in technical and further education colleges, which are fairly typical places to which young unemployed persons go to get work force training. So, without being able to comment specifically on the centres referred to in Senator Powell's question-she also referred to one in Queensland-the Senate can have confidence in the measures that the Government is taking to alleviate unemployment by the very constructive method of ensuring that unemployed young people have the opportunity to get work force skills. Senator PATTERSON —I direct my question to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health. I refer the Minister to her answer to my question of 21 October regarding the removal of items covering the treatment of certain skin cancers and warts from the medical benefits schedule. The Minister advised the Senate that the treatment of warts, due to technological change, was now much simpler and quicker and performed largely by general practitioners. The Minister advised also that `a separate item to cover the removal of large numbers of difficult warts, anal and genital, is to be considered for inclusion in the schedule'. It is now four months since items covering cervical and anal warts were removed from the schedule. Patients not covered by private health insurance but relying on the oft but wrongly acclaimed Medicare must pay for or join a hospital queue to await treatment for this highly contagious condition which in women has been implicated as a precursor to cervical cancer. Will the Minister advise when a decision is expected regarding the inclusion of papilloma virus in the schedule? The Minister herself has admitted that there is a `large number of difficult warts'. Is there any measure that can be taken in the interim to ensure that patients with this condition-I repeat, a highly contagious condition-can be treated without delay? Senator RYAN —As I think Senator Patterson acknowledged in her question, it is the case that for the treatment and removal of some kinds of warts and skin cancers the technology is now available for general practitioners to carry out those procedures within their surgeries as part of a normal consultation. However, it is the case that medical practitioners have brought to the attention of the Government problems with some of the other conditions mentioned in Senator Patterson's question. I am happy to inform Senator Patterson that officers of the Department of Community Services and Health have, since the deletion of these items from the medical benefits schedule, met with representatives of the medical profession, including surgeons, dermatologists, obstetricians and gynaecologists. The Department is reviewing the special case that has been argued for anal and genital warts to be covered in the benefits schedule, as they usually require hospital admission and removal under anaesthetic. There has been some misunderstanding about the removal from the schedule of procedural items for solar keratoses. The techniques for their removal are similar to those for other keratoses, warts, and so on, and are covered under the appropriate attendance item. Items covering the removal of skin cancer have not been deleted from the schedule. The Government recognises the need for separate procedures to cover these services. Senator PATTERSON —I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister answer the latter part of my question? Since a number of patients with this highly contagious disease have their names on waiting lists, is there any measure that can be taken in the interim to ensure that patients with this condition can be treated without delay? Senator RYAN —It seems to me that the most appropriate course for those patients is to be treated by their doctors and the question of the level of payment to be resolved later. The implication of Senator Patterson's question is that they cannot get treatment unless the items are included in certain schedules. That is not right. If the doctors are refusing to treat them, Senator Patterson should take up the matter with the colleges concerned. Senator STONE(Queensland) —by leave-In the course of responding to a question during Question Time today, the Minister for Finance made reference to views I expressed last Thursday evening when delivering the Earle Page Memorial Lecture. I am grateful to the Minister for the fact that in the course of doing so he accurately quoted some of the remarks I made during that lecture, thereby providing a lesson to some journalists who did not follow that course. However, notwithstanding the Minister's gracefulness in that regard, in the course of his response he nevertheless misrepresented the passages in question by suggesting that they referred to policies of the coalition parties at the time of the last election when, as the Minister is or should be perfectly well aware since he appears to have read the speech, they referred to the policies of the coalition parties prior to the emergence of the `Joh for Canberra' campaign. I think the Minister will acknowledge that when he refers again to the text of the address. However, there is one other matter in respect of which the Minister's remarks misrepresented the position taken in that speech. Again, perhaps this is a misrepresentation that the Minister is not singular in regard to, because indeed it has been common to much of the Press and media comment generally in the past few days. I refer, of course, to the logical non-consequential which the Minister drew in relation to the position or policies of the coalition parties either before the emergence of the `Joh for Canberra' campaign or at the time of the last election in comparison to those of the Australian Labor Party. Of course, there was nothing in my remarks last Thursday night which would in any way suggest that the Opposition parties' policies at that time, on either of those occasions, were in any way inferior to those of the Labor Party. On the contrary, the deficiencies of the Labor Party policies at the time of the last election were of a kind which are, of course, now being clearly brought home to the Australian people. Senator WALSH —On 26 November Senator Chaney asked me a question about people leaving the Commonwealth superannuation scheme and, in particular, the resignation of a specific officer. I have a quite detailed reply to that question, of which he was given a copy a couple of hours ago. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The reply read as follows- On 26 November Senator Chaney asked me a number of questions concerning a change to the interest rate applying to the contributions of persons leaving the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. In response, I indicated that I had made a determination that the exit rate would be zero, that I could not be certain what precise period it applied to but that I intended to put out a comprehensive press release the following day. That press release was in fact issued next day. It is numbered 67/87 and makes it clear that the zero rate applies to contributors leaving the scheme as from 27 November 1987 until the date of the next variation and that it relates only to the period of interest since 1 July 1987. Concurrently with the promulgation of this new exit rate, an ``annual'' rate of 22.676% covering the year ended 30 June 1987 was declared. These two rates replaced the single rate of 22.973% which had applied to those leaving the Scheme as from 21 September, 1987, and which covered the interest period commencing on 1 July, 1986. Senator Chaney also asked me whether a senior officer of the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund Board (actually the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office-``AGRBO'') who had just recently retired had received privileged treatment or had gained from inside information. The answer I have obtained from the Commissioner for Superannuation to both aspects is ``no''. The Commissioner has provided me with the following background information:- ``The officer to whom the questions raised by Senator Chaney and Mr Tuckey on 26 November relate appears to be one of the Section Heads (Class 11 Clerical/Administrative officer) in the Superannuation and DFRDB Administration Branch of AGRBO who retired officially on 25 November at age 59 years after over 40 years service for the Commonwealth and 39 years membership of the Scheme. That officer, who had for some time been planning to retire in March next year on his 60th birthday, informed me orally in late October that he was concerned at the likely effect of the share market crash on his retirement benefits package. He had noted SFIT's acknowledgment in the Press that the Fund had suffered losses in the order of some hundreds of millions of dollars and felt it prudent to plan on the basis that sooner or later the ``exit'' rate would suffer a drastic reduction. He indicated that he would be weighing carefully the financial implications of serving until he could gain the benefit of- Commonwealth Superannuation Fund His maximum additional pension entitlement (for 40 years contributory service) accruing in February, 1988; The higher pension accruing on his 60th birthday in March, 1988; and The impending second tier pay increase which would also affect his annual rate of pension and the payment in lieu of his considerable furlough credit, as against the probable large loss of interest on his accumulated superannuation contributions in the Fund. He later wrote to me on 16 November notifying his likely retirement on 25 November, the end of that fortnightly pay period. He confirmed that advice on 24 November when he formally submitted his retirement decision. He has of course, had the right to set his own retirement date at any time since he reached 55 years of age. It seems clear to me that this officer certainly had made up his mind to retire earlier than his 60th birthday on the basis of generally available, published information. In fact, at the time he gave me advance notice in writing of his proposed retirement date, it is my belief that the Department of Finance had not yet approached you with proposals for an interest rate change. Clearly, at least the more senior officers in AGRBO would all possess a more intimate and detailed knowledge of the exit rate arrangement and the influences on it than would many outsiders. This is to be expected given their day to day responsibilities, just as those in other agencies would be more au fait with their systems eg. social security benefits, taxation provisions. However, from reports I have had of telephone calls received by my Office over the weeks since the Share Market crash, many contributors contemplating retirement or resignation were weighing up similar considerations to those exercising the mind of this particular officer, and I would not be surprised if many of them left the Scheme prior to the interest rate change on the basis of their general knowledge of the Scheme and their judgment that the current high interest rate was unlikely to last much longer and would be more beneficial to them than the emerging situation, including the impending pay increase. In summary, this Officer certainly did not receive any privileged treatment and I am satisfied that his decision to retire earlier than his 60th birthday was prompted by his prudent planning on the basis of publicly available information rather than any ``insider'' knowledge.'' Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr President, I do not wish to speak to the response, but I seek leave to move a motion to take note of it. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —I thank the Senate. I move: That the Senate take note of the answer. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered- (a) the times of meeting of the Senate for the remainder of this day be till 6.30 p.m., and from 8.00 p.m.. to 10.30 p.m.; and (b) the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at the terminating time this day. The PRESIDENT —I have received the following message from the House of Representatives requesting concurrence in an amendment to the resolution appointing the Joint Select Committee on Video Material: Message No. 115 The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day and requests the concurrence of the Senate therein: That paragraph (9) of the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material be omitted and the following paragraph be substituted: ``(9) That the committee report by 28 April 1988.''. Ordered that the message be taken into consideration forthwith. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: (1) That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by House of Representatives Message No. 115 relating to an extension of time for the Joint Select Committee on Video Material to report. (2) That the foregoing resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by message. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 9 December, from Senator Teague: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- `That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Senate to acknowledge the importance of the agreement being made today between the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate their intermediate range nuclear weapons because: (1) NATO's resolve over the past decade to deter Soviet SS-20 missile deployments in Europe has been the effective foundation for the agreement; (2) the agreement should be viewed as a first important step towards the early achievement of a 50 per cent cut in strategic weapons, cuts in conventional forces, a complete ban on chemical weapons and a comprehensive ban on the testing of nuclear weapons; (3) the agreement demonstrates that the only sound basis for achieving nuclear arms reductions is that disarmament proposals be multilateral and verifiable; and (4) there is a need to maintain effective deterrence and a strong Western alliance.' Yours sincerely, BADEN TEAGUE Senator for the State of South Australia More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.25) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Senate to acknowledge the importance of the agreement being made today between the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate their intermediate range nuclear weapons because: (1) NATO's resolve over the past decade to deter Soviet SS-20 missile deployments in Europe has been the effective foundation for the agreement; (2) the agreement should be viewed as a first important step towards the early achievement of a 50 per cent cut in strategic weapons, cuts in conventional forces, a complete ban on chemical weapons and a comprehensive ban on the testing of nuclear weapons; (3) the agreement demonstrates that the only sound basis for achieving nuclear arms reductions is that disarmament proposals be multilateral and verifiable; and (4) there is a need to maintain effective deterrence and a strong Western alliance. I congratulate the United States and the Soviet Union on the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed in Washington today by President Reagan and the Soviet leader, Mr Gorbachev. I am confident that all senators from all parties in this chamber welcome the Treaty, as it heralds the fact that the super-powers' nuclear arsenals will be reduced for the first time since World War II. This is the first real disarmament decision by the United States and the Soviet Union. Other very important preceding treaties, including the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, SALT I and SALT II, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, and even the earlier Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, were only about arms control. This Treaty is about actual reductions; it is about disarmament. Today's Treaty in Washington is a real disarmament agreement. It will eliminate 4 per cent-a small but important start-of the US and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) arsenals of nuclear weapons. This 4 per cent involves the elimination of all US and Soviet intermediate nuclear weapons, that is, missiles with a range of from 500 kilometres to 5,000 kilometres. The intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) treaty announced today is an important first step in the disarmament agenda. I am not confident that all senators understand the essential foundation on which this agreement has been based. The Opposition parties and the Government understand, but I despair that the Australian Democrats and the Nuclear Disarmament Party senators-a small minority in this chamber-do not. The Opposition parties and the Government recognise that today's agreement is based on a policy of peace through strength, that the deployment by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) of a deterrent to the Soviet SS20s, which were deployed a little more than 10 years ago, has been an essential foundation for the now mutual withdrawal that the INF treaty will achieve; that is, mutual withdrawal both by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact forces on the one hand and by NATO on the other. I believe Opposition members and the Government recognise that any effective nuclear arms reduction requires that disarmament proposals be multilateral, not unilateral, and that they be verifiable. The world's continuing security requires the maintenance of an effective deterrent and a strong Western alliance. Accordingly, on behalf of the Opposition parties I have wanted to highlight these four points that we in this chamber need to recognise today as the foundation for this important treaty, so I have couched my motion in these terms: The need for the Senate to acknowledge the importance of the agreement being made today between the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate their intermediate range nuclear weapons because: (1) NATO's resolve over the past decade to deter Soviet SS-20 missile deployments in Europe has been the effective foundation for the agreement; (2) the agreement should be viewed as a first important step towards the early achievement of a 50 per cent cut in strategic weapons, cuts in conventional forces, a complete ban on chemical weapons and a comprehensive ban on the testing of nuclear weapons; (3) the agreement demonstrates that the only sound basis for achieving nuclear arms reductions is that disarmament proposals be multilateral and verifiable, and (4) there is a need to maintain effective deterrence and a strong Western alliance. Honourable senators will recall that this week's meeting in Washington is the third summit meeting. In November 1985 President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev met in Geneva. I am sure honourable senators will still recall the fireside chat they had. One of the important consequences of that meeting was their agreement: A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought . . . We undertake to work for a 50 per cent reduction in our offensive nuclear weapons systems as a step towards the objective of a complete elimination of nuclear weapons. The Geneva summit meeting not only set that as the most substantial of the objectives yet to be achieved-and I look forward to that being achieved on the same basis, with the same realism and with the same strength as the foundation for today's agreement-but also there was reference in Geneva to a chemical weapons ban and, most importantly, to the actual achievement of intermediate forces being withdrawn, especially from Europe but ideally throughout the world. It is that part of the Geneva goal that we have seen completed in this treaty at the third summit meeting. The second summit was held in Reykjavik, Iceland, in October 1986. A more precise set of proposals for disarmament was discussed, but a major stumbling block of disagreement about strategic defence led that summit to be fruitless. However, in the 12 months since that time, notably by 19 September this year, foreign secretaries George Shultz and Eduard Shevardnadze agreed that an INF treaty in principle could be achieved and would be prepared for signing by the summit meeting today. This agreement is great news for Europe and great news for that part of the world which, for the last 15 years, has been threatened most directly by massive SS20 missiles deployed in the Soviet Union west of the Urals. These massive SS20 nuclear missiles, now amounting to 441 on the Soviet side, are aimed at all of the major capitals of Western Europe. They directly threaten the peoples of Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, the Low Countries, France, West Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain, and, indeed, they threaten neighbouring countries in the Mediterranean, and, through other deployments in Asia, China, Japan and other Asian countries. When the Soviet Union deployed these weapons it was riding a large wave of aspiration to show the world that it could be the strongest defending nation. During the 1970s, at the same time as the 1972 SALT I agreement and the 1979 SALT II agreement, which was so disappointing because of the duplicity of the Soviet Union at that time, were being negotiated, there was a massive increase not only in the number of weapons and warheads but also in the megatonnage available to the Soviet Union. It was at that time, during the 1970s, that these new powerful weapons were deployed and aimed at Europe. The response by the NATO forces in western Europe was decided in 1979. They believed that the only response available to Europe was to deploy similar weapons which would act as a deterrent against the SS20s ever being used, which would, of course, have meant Europe's destruction. With an enormous amount of publicity, because of the minority peace dissenters and protesters at Greenham Common in the United Kingdom and the greens generally throughout Europe, cruise missiles and Pershing II missiles were deployed by the United States, with the full approval of NATO and with the agreement of the United Kingdom, West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy, all of which were receiving these missiles. NATO and the European nations made a dual track decision. They also put forward to the Soviet Union that the deployment of the deterrent would not proceed if the Soviet Union withdrew the SS20s, which was the initial offence. However, despite careful negotiations through to 1983, when the first of the Pershing and cruise missiles were deployed, there was no ground given by the Soviet Union in its overly strong deployment stance. As a result, cruise and Pershing missiles were deployed in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987. Indeed, they have still not been completely deployed. All the time the United States and NATO held forth an olive branch to the Soviet Union and engaged in active talks in respect of the INF treaty that would see intermediate range weapons withdrawn not only from Europe but from all other areas. Most thankfully, the agreement that has been signed by President Reagan and leader Gorbachev today ban both super-powers from maintaining arsenals of intermediate range weapons in all parts of the world. Let me concentrate for one minute more on the question of NATO's response to the SS20 deployment. In the last month the Australian Democrats have put to the Senate the claim that today's agreement is the result of the peaceniks, the dissenting demonstrators, putting forth their views in Europe. They claim that today's agreement is the result of the peace movement, so called. I totally reject that. I believe that it is only on the basis of strength that we have seen this mutual withdrawal of these weapons. There would not have been this agreement if there had not been the NATO response that I described. The surest way to achieve disarmament around the world and to save the world from a nuclear conflict is to ensure that there is a deterrent. We must ensure that there is strength in the Western response and, of course, that involves Australia in a close alliance with the United States. It is because of the strength of that response on the part of NATO and the Western alliance that the agreement was signed today. It should be noted that the SS20 is a solid fuel mobile missile with a range of almost 5,000 kilometres. It has three multiple re-entry vehicles, each with a 150-kiloton warhead. These offensive weapons are 10 times as powerful as the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima more than 40 years ago. More than 1,000 warheads can independently be targeted all over Europe. These are the weapons that are now to be withdrawn and that is why we applaud the agreement that has been negotiated today. Senator Button —You are not trying to get in on President Reagan's popularity, are you? Senator TEAGUE —I believe that we should in the Senate congratulate both President Reagan of the United States and General Secretary Gorbachev of the Soviet Union on the agreement that was reached today. There was good faith on both sides. I should say, as the convenor in this Parliament House of a disarmament forum in September last year which was attended by representatives of the five nuclear nations and many parliamentarians, and which Senator Button has also been gracious enough to recognise as a useful activity during the International Year of Peace, that all of the nations displayed good faith in respect of the objectives of the agreement that has been achieved today. It was proposed only a year ago at the Reykjavik meeting that 100 intermediate warheads be retained by the Soviet Union in Asia and that 100 warheads be retained by the United States, presumably in Alaska. I think all Australians greatly opposed this proposal because, whilst it would have seen the elimination, happily, of these weapons in Europe, they would have been retained in Asia to the extent that I outlined. We should recognise that the agreement that was signed today reflects the position that was put by the Australians, the Chinese, the Japanese and the people of the other countries of Asia who were threatened by that 100-100 retention. What we have achieved is a zero-zero outcome for all intermediate range weapons. One of the most important new achievements that have made this possible is the verification procedure. As the Senate knows, verification means checking on cheating. It is the ability of one super-power to make sure that the other one does not try to break arms agreements secretly. Verification means satisfying oneself that the other side sticks to its word and complies with its solemn treaty obligations. The verification requirements in the treaty signed today are not only the major part in the 100-page treaty and in the 100 pages of appendices attached, but also recognise that there is a new ability to verify the terms of the treaty. This is a very real breakthrough. Had there not been a desire by both sides to achieve verification, this treaty would not have been signed today. The Russian's chief INF negotiator has been General Vladimir Medvedev. He has said: As a technical specialist I am first and foremost concerned with the technical problems involved in verification, but of course it does have a political aspect. Verification ensures the maintaining and fulfilment of important political agreements. He has clearly acknowledged verification requirements to be substantial and practical. For the first time we have seen common ground as to verification procedures between the two super-powers. One of the reasons for this breakthrough is the recent development of a satellite, as big as the double-decker so-called `peace bus' that was parked at the front of Parliament House last Monday, with the potential to take the super-powers into a new age of trust. Four of these satellites will be put into space very soon and there will be no hiding place left. The KH12 will be able to achieve remarkable verification standards. It will be able to see through clouds using what is called synthetic aperture radar. It will be able to see at night using special night sight imaging devices. It will have a picture resolution to within three inches when in low orbit. Once the four KH12s are in orbit, as planned, earthbound intelligence analysts will be able to receive an instantaneous close-up picture of any spot on the planet within 20 minutes of asking for it. Perhaps most significantly, the KH12 will have an unlimited lifespan and will be serviced and maintained by engineers travelling on the space shuttle to keep its eyes and ears unblocked and its brain constantly alert. The pragmatic negotiators in Geneva have a saying: `Verification cannot make a bad treaty good, but it can make a good treaty enforceable'. This is what we are observing for the first time. I draw to the attention of the Senate the fact that I, as one signatory last year to the parliamentary report on disarmament and arms control, drew particular attention, on pages 704 and 705, to the importance of verification. In the United States, public opinion polls this week show that 63 per cent of the public wholeheartedly endorse the INF treaty signed today. Why then do the other 37 per cent dissent? Why are they not convinced? The overwhelming reason given by that 37 per cent is that they are not sure that the verification procedures will be adequate. It is an important matter. A real breakthrough has made this treaty possible. The real goals for disarmament, for making the world safer, are to maintain deterrence; to maintain a stable counter-balance between the nuclear powers, in which Australia plays an important part; and, with that deterrence in place, to go on to achieve a 50 per cent reduction in strategic nuclear weapons-that is, intercontinental nuclear weapons and not just in the small percentage of intermediate weapons-and a reduction in conventional forces in Europe, in chemical weapons and in nuclear testing. We have a long agenda to achieve. This is a very important first step. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(3.45) —As has already been outlined by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during Question Time earlier today, the Government and the Australian Labor Party wholeheartedly welcome the decision of the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate entirely their intermediate range and shorter range nuclear forces. In most people's minds, this agreement will rightly be seen as the most significant step forward in nuclear disarmament achieved so far. Accordingly, I have no difficulty in associating with the general sentiment of Senator Teague's motion, although the Government might not emphasise some of the points highlighted in the motion. I suppose the salutary point from an Australian perspective of this treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is that we, Australia, have been, more or less, bystanders-vocal in putting our views forward, certainly, but really just observers from the sideline. I hope that the success and promise offered by this treaty provide some food for thought for those in Australia who proclaim their devotion to the cause of nuclear disarmament, and for those who claim to wear their principles on their sleeve. The Government believes that the treaty signed today will provide a model for future negotiations between the super-powers. It demonstrates a new and welcome maturity amongst the political leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union, a preparedness to strive for a worthy legacy to history rather than accept the preconceptions of their respective political constituencies. More fundamentally, it shows that the way to concrete progress in disarmament is for the United States and Soviets to be willing to talk to each other. Emotional rhetoric for the benefit of political constituencies here in Australia is not, and can never be, a substitute for the long, slow need for super-power negotiations. The Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty is not something whipped up over a weekend, at a rally or a consciousness-raising group. It is 170 pages of closely-argued provisions, and it has taken some six years to achieve. I cannot recall any Palm Sunday or Hiroshima Day marches over that period which contributed to this painful process of negotiation. I wonder whether the senators for nuclear disarmament will be organising rallies of concerned citizens to celebrate and congratulate the architects of the INF Treaty-- Senator Wood —We did today, outside. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Wood has very graciously indicated that they have. I congratulate them for doing so. In particular, although we may regard President Reagan as not being successful in every policy aspect, the role of the President of the United States in this case deserves great credit. The INF Treaty is a better version of the `zero option' President Reagan first put forward in 1981 for the withdrawal of INF weapons from continental Europe. What has been achieved in not just a withdrawal, rather, the elimination of an entire class of weapon: about 850 United States missiles and 1,900 Soviet missiles-all the land-based Pershing and cruise missiles installed by the United States for the security of western Europe, and all the land-based SS4s, 12s, 20s, 22s, and 23s deployed by the Soviet Union in Europe and Asia. Senator Teague emphasises the role played by the resolve of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) forces in encouraging the Soviet Union to talk. There may be some truth in that assertion, but at the same time we should recognise that there has been a great deal of uncertainty and negotiations. The elimination of intermediate and shorter range weapons from Europe places far greater emphasis on the need for NATO to maintain conventional deterrence. As we know here, national defence budgets are always subject to active debate, and the next few years of adjustment may be painful for some western European NATO members. France is determined to maintain its own nuclear capabilities, with controversial implications for our own region. The Government has no disagreement with the United States encouraging its allies to build up their own conventional capacity. This same attitude is pursued in our own defence arrangements under the provisions of the ANZUS alliance and other treaties. This goal of self-reliance, which has been supported by successive United States administrations, has, however, provoked wild criticism from `loony league' conservatives in western Europe, in the United States and here in Australia. The entirely natural and sensible view of the United States that allies should shoulder their fair share of responsibility is seen by some critics as `betrayal' or `treachery'. Perhaps the most significant comment of President Reagan in the lead-up to the treaty was his response to his conservative critics. He said: Some of the people who are objecting the most, basically, down in their deepest thoughts, have accepted that war is inevitable. That is a sad reflection on the current mental state of some conservative thinkers in the West. It indicates an attitude of moral cowardice which I hope would never find voice in this chamber. The entire motivation of the Australian Labor Party and the Government, affirmed by our national conference, is based on the conviction that war can and must be prevented. No matter what difficulties or obstacles are encountered, such a commitment is essential. In negotiating the INF treaty the Soviet Union has proved to be a hard bargainer. On many occasions progress stalled over the Soviets insistence on linking strategic defence initiative (SDI) research to discussions about existing weapon deployments. To the credit of the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, that preoccupation has now been dropped. Both nations acknowledge their work on SDI and hopefully that frankness will provide a basis for specific discussions in that area. That is how it should be. The motion looks forward to progress in other areas such as possible cuts in strategic nuclear weapons and nuclear testing. All are vitally important areas and the Government is confident that achievements will come on these issues. But progress will take time. Each issue in disarmament is intricate and complex-the defence and foreign policy arrangements of the US and the Soviet Union and their myriad of allies cannot and should not be changed overnight. We do not want the illusion of peace at the price of instability. Although there has been much tragic conflict over the past 40 years, during which our region of South East Asia has suffered more than most, we are still lucky to live in an era free of world war. This is not an occasion for banal praise of the United States or banal criticism of the Soviet Union. The United States knows that Australia is a reliable ally bounded by cultural, social and philosophical sympathies. The Soviet Union knows that Australia is, as was epitomised by the Prime Minister's recent visit there, a constructive but reasonable critic of many aspects of its society. In particular the Australian Labor Party, as part of the international democratic socialist community, has good reason to be hostile about elements of past Soviet behaviour. Because the Government is aware of this history of international relations, it remains firmly convinced that Australia has a role to play in strengthening what is known as the Western alliance. But our awareness of past sins has not hindered our contribution to realising future potential for disarmament. The Hawke Government, with Bill Hayden as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, has done more, and has been recognised overseas as having done more, on this central issue of world stability than any Australian Government since that of Ben Chifley and Dr Evatt at the time of the founding of the United Nations 40 years ago. I do not intend to list the initiatives of this Government in the area of disarmament. Those who are genuinely concerned will already be aware that the Hawke Government places meaningful action ahead of empty rhetoric. To sum up, the Government congratulates the United States and the Soviets on today's agreement and commits itself to doing everything in its capacity to encourage further concrete negotiations between the super-powers, both globally and specifically in our own region. The signing of the INF treaty is vivid justification of our policies aimed at identifying specific proposals for hard negotiation. Hard work over many years will always be the answer, not emotional clap-trap. I do not often quote Sir Winston Churchill but at least he was right when he said, `More jaw-jaw means less war-war'. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(3.54) —The Australian Democrats do, of course, support the motion as stated: The need for the Senate to acknowledge the importance of the agreement being made today between the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate their intermediate range nuclear weapons . . . We do not agree with the rest of the motion and I shall tell honourable senators why. The motion goes on to list reasons for the importance of the agreement and the first of these is: NATO's resolve over the past decade to deter Soviet SS-20 missile deployments in Europe has been the effective foundation for the agreement; What rubbish! War is not peace. The foundation for this agreement is the fact that people around the world are saying to their politicians: `Enough is enough; we are sick and tired of your threatening us with nuclear war'. The people are taking the matter out of the hands of politicians. They have taken to the streets again and again over a number of years. They have campaigned at Greenham Common, at Pine Gap, in the United States and in Europe. The people are finally being heard. They are sick and tired of being exposed to the posturing and sabre rattling of the politicians who would say that war is peace. These people have taken matters into their own hands and have made their leaders, in the Soviet Union and in the United States, listen to reason, and that reason is demonstrated by the intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) agreement-the reduction of nuclear weapons. This is a first step and in some ways it is not even a very big step, as I shall point out later. Nevertheless it is an important first step. The second reason listed in the motion is: the agreement should be viewed as a first important step towards the early achievement of a 50 per cent cut in strategic weapons, cuts in conventional forces, a complete ban on chemical weapons and a comprehensive ban on the testing of nuclear weapons; We can and do agree with that. The third reason is: the agreement demonstrates that the only sound basis for achieving nuclear arms reductions is that disarmament proposals be multilateral and verifiable, Again, we cannot agree with that. We cannot agree with this idea that multilateral disarmament is the only possible way. We do not agree with it because history shows that when one side in any conflict starts to de-escalate, the other side follows. John F. Kennedy showed this in the early 1960s. He unilaterally stopped nuclear testing in the atmosphere and this led to a partial test ban treaty. Unilateral cuts do work. The unilateral concession has been made by the Soviet Union-500 SS20 warheads will be removed from Asia and the US is not removing any warheads from that area, even though it has many on ships in the area. At this point the US is not removing those weapons, but perhaps it will. The Soviets are willing to take a punt, to take a chance to preserve peace. Let us talk about the Soviets. I do not think it is very hard to understand why the Soviets want peace. I have been to the Soviet Union and I have seen the monuments to the fallen. I have seen what has happened as a result of World War II when 20 million Soviet citizens lost their lives. We have been so fortunate in Australia and I, too, was fortunate in America because my home was never bombed. I was never exposed to such things. Certainly during the wars we sent people off to fight, but our homes were never bombed and our children were never killed in their beds. This happened to the Soviet people so they know and understand it. They want peace; they want it sincerely-as much, if not more than the American people. Senator Richardson —Stick to the environment! Senator SANDERS —Senator Richardson tells me to stick to the environment. Does he not believe in peace? Does he not believe the Soviet citizens suffered in World War II? I do not believe for a minute that he does not recognise that. The point is that unilateral disarmament works. Part of the rhetoric that we get from the far Right, the ultra conservatives, is that we must continue to arm ourselves in order to obtain peace. That is absolutely wrong thinking. The fourth reason listed in the motion is: there is a need to maintain effective deterrence and a strong Western alliance. This flies in the face of the second item listed in the motion, which mentions cuts in conventional forces. I wonder if Senator Teague, who proposed this motion, realises this. I see that he is now in the chair and thus finds himself somewhat constrained by his position. Nevertheless, I wonder whether he really thought this through. I am certainly in favour of a reduction in conventional arms. Incidentally, there seems to be a fallacy amongst the right wing members of the world community that somehow the Soviets have a massive conventional force advantage in Europe. This is simply not the case. It is a matter of arithmetic. The parliamentary delegation to the European institutions had contact with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) headquarters in Brussels and we discussed this very issue. It turns out that if one includes, as one must, the forces of France and Spain in NATO-because they would come to the aid of NATO if the Soviets attacked, though I do not believe for one second that they ever would-there would not be parity between the two sides; NATO would have a slight advantage. We found in NATO headquarters a great abhorrence of the INF treaty. We got this from two people. We had briefings from Merrill Walters, the NATO Director of Nuclear Planning, and from Colonel G. R. Akam, who is in the US Army. Both said, `Nuclear deterrence is essential to keeping the peace in Europe. We believe that it allows a flexible response to take place, and that includes limited and winnable nuclear war'. That is what the people in NATO headquarters think. That is not what the people of Europe or anywhere else in the world think. We have to look closely at what the military planners are saying. They are living in a never never, fantasy land of winnable nuclear wars. That is one of the main reasons that people have taken peace out of the hands of the military and those who say that peace comes from rearmament or massive armament. Let us come to the subject of verification. Senator Teague brought up the subject of the KH12 satellite. Certainly, it is a very sophisticated satellite, but it is not essential to the role of INF treaty verification. The breakthrough in the INF treaty is on-site verification. This is what is so exciting about the treaty. For the first time, both super-powers are saying, `Okay, we will get over our paranoia. We will allow people to come on site and not only see that we are complying with the treaty but oversee the destruction of the warheads'. Senator Teague nods his head in affirmation. This is a remarkable achievement. It is a milestone. I hope that we have turned the corner on disarmament. Unfortunately, our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) does not seem to understand this point. Senator Puplick —That is not surprising. Senator SANDERS —`That is not surprising', says Senator Puplick. Senator Richardson —You have an ally there. Senator SANDERS —Yes, I have an ally occasionally in Senator Puplick. He is an astute man, but sometimes his politics gets in the way of his intelligence. Senator Richardson —So does his Party. Senator SANDERS —And his Party. Earlier today Mr Hawke claimed that the United States bases in Australia will play a key role in verifying the INF treaty. Once again, he displays the fact that he does not know what the bases in Australia do. The KH12 and other polar-orbiting satellites simply have no role in Australia. The United States bases in Australia do not monitor those satellites. They are polar-orbiting; they pass over the United States; they can be keyed to disgorge their information over the United States or its own territories; and they are not tracked by Pine Gap, Nurrungar and certainly not by North West Cape, which is not a satellite-tracking facility anyway, or any of the other facilities in Australia. As I said earlier, the verification will be on site. In fact, the verification role of the bases has often been used as an excuse for having them here. Now it turns out that under the INF treaty the verification will be on site: human eyes on the ground, human feet walking into areas to see exactly what is going on. If the Government keeps maintaining that the main value of the bases is for verification and the verification is now being done on site, I am afraid that it has just put the last nail in the coffin of the justification for the bases on Australian soil. We have heard a number of things about the peace movement. The peace movement is active in Australia, as it is everywhere else. It does not really mind how this treaty came about. It is unfortunate, however, that members of this chamber refuse to give the movement any credit. The supporting mechanism for nuclear war is the availability of uranium. I hope that this Government will take a look at its policies on shipments of uranium to France. France is outside the INF treaty. France is building nuclear weapons apace, and the French nuclear weapons are being built in some cases using Australian uranium. I advise Senator Richardson, who I know is a stalwart in his Party, if he is indeed a man of peace as he would claim, to take a hard look at the shipment of uranium to France. Senator Boswell —Who is going to pay for World Heritage if you stop uranium? Senator SANDERS —We have a paper on Kakadu coming up, and I shall explain that point a little later. One point that worries me about the INF treaty is that it is for land based missiles. I am sure that Senator Vallentine will go into this matter in more detail because she is very concerned about the Missouri battle group, which is in Western Australia at this very moment, equipped with Tomahawk missiles. The United States maritime strategy involves a number of nuclear strike capabilities, including guided missiles and human guided aircraft; and there is a strategy for sending missiles and aircraft from United States units into Central Europe in time of war. Now that the INF agreement has been signed, it is imperative that we look at the problems of the maritime weapons, many of which are in the north-west Pacific. We have a huge build-up in the north-west Pacific, and if Australia really wants to contribute to world peace, since this is our ocean-we inhabit the borders of it-Australia should get involved perhaps in calling a conference on disarmament of maritime weapons in the Pacific. Perhaps we could actually contribute. Everybody has been ignoring this factor. Because of population pressures, I suppose, the super-powers look at Europe. Perhaps we could play a role in the Pacific by calling for nuclear disarmament in this area. Once again, I welcome the INF treaty. It is a first step in the elimination of nuclear weapons and of nuclear war. We still have a very long way to go. There are still thousands and thousands of nuclear weapons in the arsenals of the world. We still have to involve France and Britain in these discussions. Certainly, the two super-powers are talking to each other. I think that it is a very good sign, and I think that this is the best Christmas present the world could have-a reduction in nuclear weapons. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(4.07) —I rise to speak in favour of the urgency motion moved by my colleague Senator Teague, which I shall take a moment to repeat to the Senate: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Senate to acknowledge the importance of the agreement being made today between the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate their intermediate range nuclear weapons because: (1) NATO's resolve over the past decade to deter Soviet SS-20 missile deployments in Europe has been the effective foundation for the agreement; (2) the agreement should be viewed as a first important step towards the early achievement of a 50 per cent cut in strategic weapons, cuts in conventional forces, a complete ban on chemical weapons and a comprehensive ban on the testing of nuclear weapons; (3) the agreement demonstrates that the only sound basis for achieving nuclear arms reductions is that disarmament proposals be multilateral and verifiable, and (4) there is a need to maintain effective deterrence and a strong Western alliance. I commend the wording of the motion. One obvious and indisputable fact which has been demonstrated by this agreement, and which we can only hope will not be lost sight of by the unilateralist and the anti-United States of America peace groups, is that agreements such as this must be multilateral and verifiable if they are to be effective. The strength and virtues of this agreement are exactly that. Let it also be understood by these groups that agreements such as the intermediate-range nuclear force agreement can and will take place only through deterrence and equality of threat. Disarmament will take place only by bilateral or multilateral and equal disarmament-certainly not, and never, by unilateral action as called for by some groups within the community and by some senators in this chamber. I remind the Senate of the words of the Soviets themselves: We strictly abide by the principle of equal security, because some or other military advantages can only provoke the other side into additional arming and sharper military rivalry. The great lesson to be learned from negotiating processes such as this agreement is that, if it were not for the nuclear capacity and the strength of the bargaining position of the United States of America, the terms of this agreement would not be as they are; this agreement would not be consummated; and it would not be a reality. It is what can be described as peace through strength-or, as the Liberal Party of Australia likes to phrase it, peace through security. This agreement once and for all demonstrates the absurdity and the danger of calls for unilateral disarmament and the destabilising of the United States' capacity and Australia's role in ensuring that strength and that security by its commitments and the agreements it enters into. When reflecting upon events which have led to this agreement, it is perhaps worth recalling how America's strength has contributed to the terms of the agreement and to the fact that we now have such an agreement. Of course, we recall that in early 1977 the Soviets began the deployment of SS20 intermediate range nuclear missiles in the European part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That, of course, exposed countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to the vulnerability of a surprise nuclear attack. These powerful SS20s replaced older weapons. It is not without significance that two-thirds of the total number of SS20s were located west of the Ural mountains and at most were within 20 minutes flying time of West Germany and were capable of targeting any European city. At that time no US intermediate range missiles were deployed. Then, of course, NATO introduced a dual track strategy to counter such deployment, the first part of that tracking being to seek to negotiate with the Soviets for the removal of those weapons. The Soviets continued to engage those weapons and, because of the very significant advantage it gave them over the NATO countries, the United States, together with the NATO forces, deployed the Pershing II and cruise missiles in 1979. During 1981 and until 1983 the United States continued to seek from the Soviet Union negotiations on the intermediate range missiles. However, the Soviets, with the very significant advantage they had by virtue of their SS20s, refused to co-operate under any circumstances. It was only after the introduction and installation of the Pershings and the cruises that the Soviets walked away from the negotiating table because they knew that they could no longer prevent the Pershings from being installed. Of course, the Pershings created very great concern for the Soviets. The Pershing II particularly is a highly accurate missile with a 5-50 kiloton warhead and the Soviets claim that it has an ability to strike any target in the west of the Soviet Union with only four minutes warning. Of course, the deployment of the Pershings caused enormous difficulties for Moscow because it required them to take one of two courses. It required them to involve themselves in political negotiations, which they had so far refused to do, or to involve themselves in strategic defence, causing them to spend a great deal of money because the Pershing was capable of knocking out their command centres. That made the Soviets very nervous and very vulnerable. Senator Richardson —They were already involved in SDI. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —That is right. The Soviets were already involved in the strategic defence initiative (SDI). It ought not to be forgotten what great opposition there was at that time from the various peace groups within the NATO countries to the introduction of the Pershings and the cruises. The protests and the demonstrations are legendary. Who can forget the peace groups at Greenham Common, half of them funded with Soviet money, demonstrations to prevent the installation of the Pershings and the cruises? However, let us ask ourselves now: What has been the effect of the installation of these weapons by NATO and by the United States? In 1985, shortly after his election-or selection-General Secretary Gorbachev was forced to return to the negotiating table with one vital item on the agenda-the removal of the Pershings and the cruises. The results of those negotiations, caused by the installation of the Pershings, can be seen today. They provided the allies with a powerful bargaining chip and allowed the allies to bargain from a position of strength. The installation of the Pershings has been responsible for the removal of all short and intermediate range land-based weapons from this planet. Had they not been deployed, the Soviets would not have bargained and there would be no agreement from Moscow today. We would still be in the situation where the Soviets, with their SS20s, would have a significant advantage over western Europe, and world stability would be at risk. Let us not forget the other benefits that President Reagan was able to bring to this agreement through the strength of his bargaining chip. He was able to insist on and achieve the zero-zero option in his agreement. He was able to demand the uncoupling of the SDI negotiations from the intermediate nuclear forces (INF) agreement. He was able to persuade the Soviets to exclude the British and the French nuclear deterrence capability from consideration within the agreement. He was able, for the very first time, to insist on the Soviets allowing ground verification. I ask honourable senators: What more tangible examples do we need to demonstrate peace through strength and action? The significance of the verification procedures should not be underestimated. They were referred to by you, Mr Acting Deputy President. They usher in a major breakthrough in arms agreements. The significance of the verification terms of the agreement is not that they guarantee there will be no future violations-no doubt there will be-but that they at least demonstrate that it is possible to have a verifiable agreement in the first place. Perhaps equally importantly, the agreement represents a dramatic change in the Soviets' attitude towards verification. It provides for the first time for on-site inspections. In fact, the Soviets had originally agreed to a level of on-site verification greater than that which the United States is presently requesting. I guess that in many respects it can properly be argued that those levels of demand for verification became redundant upon the terms of the agreement being reduced to zero-zero as distinct from maintaining 100 warheads each at the time. It is my view that the verification proposals contained within the agreement do not include unlimited on-site inspections and therefore are not adequate to guarantee certainty of compliance, because the United States does not know the number of SS20s that the Soviets have in storage. In fact, as I recall, Gorbachev recently owned up to having a greater number of SS20s than that which the Americans suggested they had. However, the central point is that the Soviets have now committed themselves to future verifiable agreements. This must create a belief that we can expect in the future arms control agreements which will be not only of political significance, as I suspect this agreement will ultimately prove to be, but, hopefully, of very real military significance. Without verifiable agreements, there can never be deep and meaningful cuts in nuclear weapons because the deeper the cuts, the greater the vulnerability of each side. Neither nation will expose itself to vulnerability or anything less than mutually assured destruction unless it is able to verify the mutuality of the vulnerability. Such verification is impossible without on-site inspections, something which until this agreement the Soviets had not been prepared to countenance. The military significance of this agreement, as distinct from its political significance, should not be overstated. It is the first sign that the two major nuclear powers are prepared by multilateral action to begin to dismantle the awesome nuclear stockpiles which they both possess. The relevance of this agreement is not only that it is a first step in building down-the number of nuclear weapons in the world will for the first time be reduced-but also that the tensions between the super-powers have been considerably reduced. As one might say, the temperature in relationships has been reduced and the threshold of conflict has been raised. The greatest threat to the world today is not the number of nuclear weapons possessed by either side. That became almost irrelevant the moment that the number of weapons required to destroy this planet was available. That number has been well passed. The greatest threat, in my view, is the nuclear threshold-the coming together of events which will cause a nuclear war. This INF agreement has demonstrated the first tentative signs that both sides are committed to a denial, to taking tangible and positive steps to ensure that such a war does not take place. The significance of this treaty is that it breaks the logjam. It creates a momentum. It eliminates, for the first time, a complete class of nuclear weapons. It demonstrates, whatever the motive, the desire of both sides to move towards significantly reducing the risk of nuclear war. It demonstrates a sense of good will and genuine desire which encourages both sides to move forward with a greater sense of assurance and trust. It needs to be clearly understood, and it should not be forgotten in the hype and excitement of the current treaty negotiations, that neither this agreement nor any other agreement will change the dichotomy between East and West. It will not inhibit or retard the expansionist ambitions of the Soviet Union. The fundamental differences between the East and the West, between the super-powers, are not changed or influenced by arms control agreements. The very reason that East and West are in conflict and are natural enemies has not been changed in any way by this agreement. The Soviets' closed, authoritarian community, governed by a hierarchy or echelon of unelected dictators ruling over a subjugated and oppressed society is as true today as it has always been. Arms controls do not have the capacity to forge a real and lasting peace; they simply provide the mechanism for reducing the risk of total destruction of the globe. In my view, the best prospects for a lasting peace will come from the establishment of a free and open democratic society within the Soviet Union. We ought not forget that there has not been a war between democracies since World War I. It is fair to say that we can look forward with optimism and confidence to this agreement setting the ground rules. It will create an environment in which the two major nuclear parties will be able to come together in further pursuit of a reduction in nuclear weapons. Senator SCHACHT(South Australia)(4.22) —In the short time I have been a member of the Senate I have already spoken on a similar issue to that dealt with in this urgency motion, namely, nuclear disarmament. Like everybody else in Australia and the world today, including all political parties, I am pleased about the momentous decisions reached between the Soviet Union and the United States of America in the signing of the intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) agreement. As has been said by all other senators who have participated in the debate, this is the first time since nuclear weapons came as a plague upon the earth that there will actually be a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons through their destruction. Admittedly, that will affect only about 4 per cent of those already held, but at least it is a very good beginning. Most people would find agreeable the motion moved by Senator Teague. As Senator Ray said, certainly honourable senators on the Government side agree with it. However, we disagree with some of its emphasis. Perhaps paragraph (1) and paragraph (4) are in a way a little self-serving. I suggest that much of the motion could have been drafted by a Deputy Secretary of the Politburo in the Kremlin. With some suitable changes in the wording, it would be carried with alacrity and acclamation by the comrades of the Central Committee. For example, I think they would change paragraph (1) to read: The Warsaw Pact's resolve over the past decade to deter NATO's deployment of Pershing and Cruise missiles has been the effective foundation for the agreement; I suggest also that the comrades in the Kremlin would delete paragraph (4) and replace it with a paragraph in these terms: There is a need to maintain effective deterrence and a strong Warsaw Pact alliance. In a sense at present those on both sides of this debate in the world-those from the West and those from the communist bloc-are congratulating themselves that it was their determination not to give in before the other side that has led to the breakthrough and so on. As far as I have been able to ascertain over the years, when one side says that the other side has escalated in one area, that side asserts that the other side did it the year before, and so on. One can never quite find out accurately where the escalation started, except in respect of when nuclear weapons were first being produced in the late 1940s. Ever since then both sides have accused the other of escalation. The great achievement of the INF agreement is that that cycle of criticism of the other side has been broken. Both sides should take credit for finally, for whatever reason, agreeing to stop the madness of accusing the other of always being the evil side, the side not to be trusted. In supporting this motion on behalf of the Government, I point out that the Government's role in nuclear disarmament over the past 4 1/2 years has been excellent. In some ways I do not like to be critical of the Opposition. After all, it brought forward this motion. But it must admit that when it was in government in Australia for something like 30 of the past 40 years it did nothing that is equivalent to that which the present Federal Labor Government has been doing in support of nuclear disarmament. I am not trying to be gratuitous in making that criticism, but the Liberal-National parties in government always relied overwhelmingly on what the Americans were doing to form the basis for their position. The Federal Labor Government is to be congratulated on its independent role, which often was in conflict with that of the Americans in a number of areas, in raising the issue of nuclear disarmament not just in this country but in the world. The use of the word `deterrence' in the motion is very important. Though there may be moral quibbles about the use of deterrence as a way of keeping peace, in the absence of anything else over the past 40 years there can be no doubt that the policy called MAD-mutually assured destruction to both sides-kept some equilibrium and kept the fingers off the world self-destruction button. Though many people in a moral sense can be critical of deterrence as a policy for keeping peace, in effect it was the only practical thing that worked. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we do not see deterrence as the ultimate end in itself. Deterrence is the practical thing that is working now, but it must be replaced by the abolition of all nuclear weapons and, after that occurs, by appropriate treaties, co-operation and understanding between the various countries of the world so that the adoption of what I think everyone would agree is the immoral position of using deterrence and fear to create peace is replaced by a positive attitude of co-operation and openness to achieve peace in the world. Australia has played a very important part in both deterrence and verification by its role with respect to the joint facilities. I do not deny that in my Party there has been a consistent and ongoing debate about whether the joint facilities should be eliminated from Australia, whether we should adopt a unilateralist position and a neutralist position. I point out that every time that matter has been debated in the top forums of the Party it has always been defeated by an overwhelming margin. The Australian Labor Party has always been in favour of its involvement in the so-called Western alliance. As I have said previously in debates, we are naturally aligned with those countries that have a democratic tradition and the cultural traditions that go with democracy, openness and pluralism. That is the position of the Australian Labor Party, and it always has been since the Party was founded in 1891. We are part of the Western alliance. We accept that role and that responsibility. We accept also that we must play a role in deterrence and verification. The joint facilities help in the deterrent and verification process. I hope that with the abolition of all nuclear weapons-both super-power leaders have said that that is their bottom line, that that is what they hope to achieve by the end of the century or by the mid-1990s-although obviously there will no longer be a role for deterrence, there will still be a role for verification. I think the Australian people will be willing to continue to provide facilities, such as the joint facilities, to help in the verification process. There can be no ongoing peace or stability between the super-powers if one side believes that the other side is trying to get away with something that is hidden or if they are not open about what is going on in each country. I think the verification process is very important. Also, whereas I may be critical of the Opposition parties' uncritical reliance on the American position, I am also very critical of the Australian Democrats and the nuclear disarmament senators for adopting a neutralist and unilateralist position. That just will not work in terms of reducing nuclear weapons. The agreement reached between the two super-powers today indicates that multilateral talks are the way to go, not unilateral developments. Unilateralism would mean effectively that there would be no reduction in nuclear weapons in the world. I want to mention three areas where the Australian Government in the last 4 1/2 years has played a major role in the world as a middle power. First of all, I cite our efforts to achieve a comprehensive test ban treaty. People should be aware that the last time this matter was voted on in the United Nations, in the form of a resolution from Australia and New Zealand, something like 140 countries supported it. Great credit has been brought to our country through the initiatives we have made in the United Nations to support a comprehensive test ban treaty. Unfortunately, at times we have made these efforts against opposition from both the Soviet Union, in its own way, and from the United States. The second area where the Australian Government has been very active concerns the need for the abolition of the use of chemical weapons. It is quite clear that, with the abolition of the major arsenals of nuclear weapons, we also have to get rid of and ban the possibility of chemical warfare, because if chemical warfare were allowed to be used in any conflict in the world the result would be almost as horrendous as the result of the use of nuclear weapons. We have already seen dreadful scenes of chemical warfare being used in the Iraq-Iran conflict. This is activity of a very minor scale compared with what is possible with the arsenal of chemical weapons held in the world today. Again, I think the Australian Government is to be congratulated on its fine role in encouraging a treaty to abolish chemical weapons. The third and final area I want to mention concerning the role of the Australian Government is the appointment of our Ambassador for Peace. I know that many cynics agreed amongst them selves that the Australian Government's establishment in 1983-84 of the position of Ambassador for Peace based in Geneva was a cynical public relations gesture. I believe much of that criticism is now muted. People see that Richard Butler has been directly involved in support for the comprehensive test ban treaty. But, more importantly in some ways, he has been back in this country speaking to community groups on the need for disarmament and the need for peace. I believe that is a very important Government initiative. In all these discussions about the reduction of nuclear weapons, one matter cannot be ignored; that is: What will the minor nuclear powers do with their nuclear weapons? The treaty that has been agreed between the Soviet Union and the United States is excellent, but one cannot ignore the fact that countries such as China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and South Africa either have nuclear weapons or have the potential to make them. In the coming years each of those countries will have to accept the responsibility of being involved in multilateral discussions for nuclear disarmament. We cannot allow those countries to be outside those discussions for nuclear disarmament. Of course, we are also particularly keen to see the French stop nuclear testing in our own region. In conclusion, I would like to place on record my belief that congratulations should go to the Government. I have great pride in the fact that I am a member of a Labor government that has used Australia's position as a middle sized power in the world to make a significant contribution to raising the debate on nuclear disarmament in this country and to contribute in the forums of the world we have been recognised as significant by many countries in the United Nations in the debates about nuclear disarmament. I believe that that is an excellent achievement of the Hawke Labor Government which will stand on the record for all time. Again, as I mentioned earlier, I do not believe that the other political parties-the Opposition parties, the Australian Democrats and the Nuclear Disarmament Party-have contributed as much as the Australian Labor Party has contributed in government to nuclear disarmament. I look forward to seeing further developments over the next 12 months on the nuclear disarmament front, and I hope that by the middle of next year the super-powers realise their next hoped-for achievement of a 50 per cent reduction in the strategic nuclear weapons that they both hold. Overall, I think the motion is to be commended. Although I have differences of opinion and emphasis, I think it very appropriate that today the Senate carry this sort of resolution. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(4.36) —I rise to support the urgency motion put before the Senate by my colleague Senator Teague. Today is indeed a significant day. The two super-powers of this world have come together for the first time actually to move to get rid of or destroy 800 intermediate range nuclear weapons. I believe congratulations are in order, and I extend them on behalf of this Parliament to both the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America. Hopefully, this will be the first step to defuse the arms race between the super-powers. Let us hope that the lesser nuclear powers of China, France and the United Kingdom will ultimately become part of a unilateral move towards disarmament throughout the world. I am a member of the all-party parliamentary disarmament group, and I welcome these moves which will de-escalate the arms race. My Party, the National Party of Australia, along with all the parties represented in the Senate, acknowledges that the intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) treaty that removes nuclear missiles from Asia and the Continent will go a long way to achieving that de-escalation. We congratulate the people who are signing that treaty today. It is appropriate today to examine how and why this treaty between the two super-powers has come about because, if we want to achieve further successes in this area, we must study the success of the past. Let me say that I do not believe that it was achieved by the posturing of the Australian Democrats with their oversimplification of the situation-their view that all nations should ban nuclear weapons, ergo it will happen; that is, that it will happen because they said it would. Neither was it achieved by Senator Vallentine standing up every broadcast day and frightening Australians who listen to Parliament by stating that sailors in the United States Navy will afflict Australian men and women with all sorts of sexually transmitted diseases, such as syphilis, acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and others. I think that is just an oversimplification of the argument. Senator Vallentine argues selectively. She insists that the Navy personnel must be kept out of Australia and by that subterfuge she would deny American ships berthing facilities in the Indian Ocean. I really believe that this reduces the disarmament debate to a really infantile level. It causes the disarmament argument great harm. Whilst Senator Vallentine and Senator Wood spend most of their time in Canberra concentrating on nuclear issues-that is, the time they have between being gaoled, getting fined and paddling under the front of nuclear armed vessels that are coming into Australia-they are very rarely in the chamber when the Senate is debating major issues of importance to this nation. They do come into the Senate on occasions such as this and make some contributions, but I do not believe they have ever understood or come to grips with the realities of how and why these two super-powers have today removed 800 missiles from their joint arsenals. I believe a statement accusing Americans of spreading sexually transmitted diseases is a terrible insult to our allies. Senator Vallentine should take the opportunity today to apologise on behalf of the Australian people. Today of all days, Senator Vallentine could not resist another crack at the Americans at Question Time when she asked a loaded question of a Government Minister. I would have thought today, in the spirit of goodwill and co-operation this Senate is extending to the two super-powers, would be one day when Senator Vallentine could have congratulated both the super-powers. Senator Short —I wonder where she has been during the debate up to now? Senator BOSWELL —I will leave that to speculation. I do not believe Senator Vallentine will apologise to our allies, so I will take the opportunity to put the record straight. Senator Crichton-Browne —Apologise on her behalf. Senator BOSWELL —I do not feel I should apologise on her behalf. She would be woman enough to do it herself. Let us examine some of the facts. The US Department of Defense requires all applicants for military service, as well as all individuals who are already in the military, to be tested for AIDS. Personnel deployed overseas in US Navy ships, and other military personnel en route to permanent overseas duty, are tested prior to deployment. If any are found to be AIDS positive they remain in America. If any already serving abroad test positive they are returned to the US immediately. I believe Senator Vallentine has picked up some Soviet propaganda that initially came out when an American ship visited Mauritius last October. The Soviet Embassy in Mauritius released a statement implying that the US military was responsible for the spread of AIDS. That was also broadcast on radio. Senator Crichton-Browne —Senator Vallentine went to America. Senator BOSWELL —I cannot be diverted to speak about Senator Vallentine. Today I want to put my Party's position on the signing of this treaty. Australia's contribution towards this momentous achievement should be applauded. Without the support of Australia and other Western allies this treaty could never have been signed. In terms of military capability we are only a very small power but I believe our co-operation and support was necessary for the implementation of this treaty between the two super-powers. If Australia had withdrawn its support and weakened the united front put up the Western alliance, that might have put the Soviets in a far stronger bargaining position over a divided and vulnerable alliance. The co-operation has also worked to our advantage. I believe initially the Soviets wanted to retain 100 of their 127 INF missiles in Asia, which would have seriously threatened Japan and other nations of the South Pacific region, including, I suppose, even Papua New Guinea. I believe our mutual interests were served, and the missiles were removed from Asia. That is very good from our point of view. I do not believe this treaty could have been signed without our joint United States-Australian facilities. From time to time they have come under a lot of attack and abuse. It is important to realise that these facilities played an integral role in the signing of this landmark treaty which eliminates a whole range of nuclear weapons. It is trendy to be in the peace groups and to be arrested for picketing places such as Pine Gap and Nurrungar, but it is a tragic irony that the antics of these people only end up delaying the nuclear disarmament process. Nurrungar and Pine Gap have made a direct contribution towards the negotiating of this treaty. We have the facilities to ensure that the verification regime of the treaty, which is the strictest and most detailed in history is complied with. After all, if the Western alliance does not know how many missiles are being deployed by the Soviets, how will it be able to determine how many will be dismantled and destroyed? How could we, in that situation, ever begin to negotiate these types of treaties? The stringent and clearly defined obligations of this verification regime are the best means of ensuring that the treaty provisions are not violated. They foster greater confidence in the agreement, which will mean greater stability and security in Europe and Asia. The other function of these centres is to contribute to the deterrence effort by providing early warning assistance. Therefore, Australia's contribution today-this memorable day-should be highlighted as part of a united Western effort to provide joint facilities for verification and deterrence. Without those facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar I do not believe we would have seen these two men sitting down today in Washington signing this treaty. I believe, too, it is important to acknowledge the role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in the signing of this treaty. If it was not for NATO's vigorous and united response to the destabilising Soviet deployment of SS20s in Europe, today's achievement would have been impossible. Since World War II NATO countries have courageously rejected the fairy-tale world of the peace groups and the Democrats, to face the reality of the super-power struggle. At this stage I welcome Senator Vallentine to the Senate. Senator Short —The debate is almost over. Senator BOSWELL —The debate is nearly over but Senator Vallentine has come in in the past three minutes. Since 1977 the SS20 missile force has grown, with no countervailing US missiles being deployed in Europe. The NATO strategy of nuclear deterrence and flexible response that has kept peace in Europe for the past 40 years was seriously threatened. Unfortunately time is limited but in the short time I have left to close my contribution, I point out that it must be clearly understood that the two men representing the two super-powers would not have been sitting down in Washington and signing this treaty to reduce intermediate-range nuclear forces had there been no verification and deterrence. There are no fairies in the bottom of the garden. It is unfortunate but the fear of one nation by the other has kept the world at peace for 40 years. Without the two components of verification and deterrence the disarmament treaty could never have been initiated and signed. Senator BEAHAN(Western Australia)(4.49) —Of course, along with other speakers, I agree with the general thrust of Senator Teague's motion concerning the intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) treaty. It is appropriate that the Senate should acknowledge the importance of this historic agreement. It is appropriate and correct to note that the treaty is a reflection of the success of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and of broader Western alliance approaches to arms control. It is correct and appropriate to say that this should be seen as a first step in many more such arms control agreements. It is appropriate and correct to suggest that the basis for such agreements should always be a multilateral approach and should also be based on the principle of verifiability. It is worth noting, and it has not been noted by other speakers so far, that Australia, along with Japan, was particularly prominent in calling for the agreement not to be limited to Europe but also to cover missiles in Asia. With all of this, and with all of those points that I concede in Senator Teague's motion, it should also be conceded-and it has not been so far by anyone in the Opposition-that the success of the treaty is at least equally the result of changes in the Soviet Union. Only three years ago, I remind honourable senators opposite, the Soviets refused to talk about intermediate-range nuclear forces. Changes in the Soviet's position, particularly on questions of verification, reductions to zero and non-linkage with other areas of arms control, have made this agreement possible. This is consistent with the Soviet Union's proclaimed policy of trusting its security to a sufficiency of weapons rather than to a preponderance of weapons. That is an important shift in emphasis which I, along with other members of my Party, welcome. While NATO and the Western approach-in particular, the approach that has been adopted since the deployment of the SS20s, the dual track approach that has been used by Western nations-are vindicated in the signing of this agreement, the changing attitude of the Soviet Union should also be recognised, and it is preposterous nonsense not to look at both sides of this very complex international equation. I believe that this highlights the quaintly outmoded attitudes of the Opposition in international affairs. It seems to be caught in a sort of cold war time warp. It is still in the 1960s. It is not quite up to date and it has found it very hard to pull itself out of a mind set which was perhaps appropriate in the 1950s but which certainly has nothing to do with the realities of the 1980s. The comments made by Senator Hill and Senator Hamer in this chamber, and by John Howard, Ian Sinclair and Mr Downer in the other chamber, seem to indicate, as I have said, that the Opposition has not moved at all since the 1960s. While we support the motion itself, we do not support the rhetoric that accompanies the motion or the rhetoric that has accompanied the support of the agreement. The Opposition seems to prefer the simplistic approach of black and white, of goodies and baddies. The world was much simpler when we could operate that way. It is much more complex now that we have to deal with nuances of change which are hard to understand and which we have to work hard to understand. Opposition members do not want to tackle that sort of thing. They are still following the old cowboys and Indians approach to international relations. They might be described as international cowboys. They take the unrealistic view that unless all Western demands of the Soviet Union are totally met, we should not accept that any changes are occurring at all. This is, of course, utter nonsense. Agreements do not occur that way. This one would not have occurred that way, and it would not have occurred if other conservative nations such as the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and their conservative leaderships, had not taken a much different stand from the stand that has consistently been taken by the Opposition in this place. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) I think summed it up very well in the address that he gave to the House just yesterday, when he said: Australians have paid a very high price indeed for the predilection of the conservative parties in this country to project their domestic political preoccupations on to 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. My point is that the Opposition simply has not changed since those times. It is still in that 1960s time warp. But there is no doubt about the changes. The changes are occurring. Apart from the specific changes that I have referred to already in the Soviet Union's attitudes towards specific aspects of arms control, other changes and reforms are occurring within the Soviet Union which have a fundamental importance in setting the scene for more specific changes in the international sphere. Changes represented in the twin themes of glasnost and perestroika, for example, have created an atmosphere of greater trust and confidence. I was fortunate enough to be in the Soviet Union early in November as a representative of the Australian Labor Party. As its National Vice-President I was invited, and our Party accepted the invitation for the first time, to participate in the jubilee celebrations for the seventieth anniversary of the Revolution. At that gathering I attended a two-day meeting of the Supreme Soviet and heard Mikhail Gorbachev give his long but very substantial speech. I met him very briefly afterwards. I did not get quite as much time as either Mrs Thatcher or Bob Hawke, but I did set the scene, of course, and make it easier for Bob Hawke's visit later on! But I was given the opportunity of addressing a round table discussion of guest parties which included communist and social democratic parties from around the world. This round table discussion was chaired by Mikhail Gorbachev for the whole of the two-day session, and I was privileged to speak at it. I would like to quote a brief passage from the speech. Although it was not a totally uncritical speech, I was making what I believe to be an important point about the question of trust and confidence and about the importance of the sorts of reforms that are occurring. I said: We see the development of greater confidence and trust between the countries of East and West as a precondition for further gains in the most important matter for us all, the question of arms control. There is a need to overcome tensions arising from perceived threats both military and non-military, to each other's security and social political systems. Trust, of course, depends largely upon how we view each other and what we believe to be each other's motives and goals. We therefore welcome moves to facilitate a less encumbered flow of information between the peoples of the East and the West. Glasnost and perestroika are domestically important for the Soviet Union, but they are internationally important as contributors to increased thrust and a consequent reduction in tensions. There is no doubt, as I have said, that changes are occurring. I was able to speak to a wide range of people. Whilst there are impediments to that change, and whilst the Yeltsin affair is, I suppose, a symbol of some of the difficulties in the process of change, there was no doubt to me at the time; there was no doubt in my discussions with academics, with the media and with ordinary people in the street-we had interpreters with us the whole time-that there is a momentum for change which is simply not going to be easily diverted. As I have said, that is important in setting the scene for the more specific change that has been occurring in this INF agreement. This is not to say that we accept uncritically everything that is happening in the Soviet Union and everything that the Soviet Union does now or has stood for in the past. As I have said, our acceptance of the invitation to attend the seventieth anniversary jubilee celebrations was our first acceptance of such an invitation. We had been invited many times before but we had not accepted. Unlike the Opposition, we take the view that changes such as those that are currently occurring in the Soviet Union must be encouraged. Senator Crichton-Browne —Why do you say contrary to us? Senator BEAHAN —We should not put impediments in the way and we should not use the rhetoric of the 1960s when talking about the 1980s, as Senator Crichton-Browne has just proved he is so good at doing. As I said, this is not to say that we accept uncritically everything that the Soviets do. In my speech I made two fundamental criticisms of their system. In other speeches that I gave in other situations I drew attention to others. I indicated, for example, that it would be an appropriate symbolic gesture if the Soviets withdrew their troops from Afghanistan. I indicated that compliance with the Helsinki Final Act on human rights was also a fundamental pre-condition, as seen from the Western perspective, to any further changes that we might expect in international arms control fora. The difference between us and the Opposition, the difference between that sort of line-a critical line that accepts and welcomes the fundamental changes that are occurring within the Soviet Union-is that we are concerned to encourage the development of reform in the Soviet Union. It is true that we are prepared to criticise the Soviets, but we are wanting to draw them out and to say, `What you are doing is fine. We know that you cannot do it all in one hit and we are not going to make it impossible for you to make contact with us while you are making these reforms'. On the other hand, the Opposition seems intent on creating divisions, on building barriers to any of the genuine changes that are being attempted currently within the Soviet Union. I, along with other speakers on the Government side, support the motion, which is a fundamentally sound one, even though we would not support at all some of the rhetoric which has accompanied it. I agree with Senator Schacht that the wording of the motion also is to some extent self-serving. Nevertheless, we cannot fundamentally disagree with the general positions that are taken by it, and will therefore support it. I simply make the plea to the Opposition that in this, of all areas, there is a need for a bipartisan approach. We are not talking simply about relations between the Soviet Union and Australia or the Soviet Union and the West; we are talking about the future of the world. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(5.02) —While this week is an historic occasion as we celebrate the first agreement between the nuclear super-powers that involves the actual destruction of nuclear weapons, I regret this urgency motion which is a blatant attempt to artificially--(Quorum formed) As I was saying, I think it is a shame that this debate has had to be brought on because I believe that the urgency motion is a blatant attempt to polarise artificially the disarmament debate by scoring political points, instead of using the occasion to discuss how we can extend the European intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) agreement to the Pacific. In fact I am curious to know why this motion was necessary at all because if it was self-evident that peace through strength had triumphed there would really be no need for it. I suspect that it was because of the Opposition's insecurity that the peace through strength proponents, who feed off each other's mutual hostility in the Cold War capitals, felt it necessary to introduce this urgency motion today while the peace movement simply indicated its approval of the INF agreement with picnics and celebrations like the one outside Parliament House at lunchtime today. I also regret the decision of the Government to allow 32 or more sea launched cruise missiles into Fremantle this week at the very time that the United States of America will be starting to dismantle them in Europe. At least three of the ships coming in with the Missouri battle group are known to be carrying Tomahawk sea launched cruise missiles-the Missouri, the Bunker Hill and the Leftwich. There is a great danger that in the joy over the agreement in Europe we shall ignore the increasing escalation of the nuclear arms race at sea, particularly in the Pacific Ocean. I should also remind honourable senators that as far as the United States and Soviet navies are concerned their Pacific command covers the Indian Ocean as well as the Pacific. Considering Senator Teague's motion, I would ask him whether he has ever read Tom Gervasi's book, The Myth of Soviet Military Supremacy, which is available here in the Parliamentary Library. If not, I commend it to him and other senators. Tom Gervasi is a man who believes in a strong defence for the United States and, like Senator Teague, he is no pacifist. In his book he points out that the deployment of cruise and Pershing 2 after the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) decision in December 1979, was nothing to do with the deployment of Soviet SS20s in the Soviet Union. When the West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt made his celebrated speech in 1977, he did not mention the SS20s. He simply expressed his concern that SALT 2 negotiations then in progress would neglect the components of NATO's deterrence strategy because they dealt only with the nuclear strategic weapons of the super-powers and did not take into account the disparities between East and West in nuclear tactical and conventional weapons. At no point in his address had Chancellor Schmidt defined the nature of the disparity in arms between East and West, nor did he suggest that the SS20 was its cause, nor did he even mentioned the SS20 at all. If he thought that the SS20 posed a new kind of threat, he did not say so. If he thought that this threat required a new response, he did not prescribe one, nor did he imply that it ought to be an American one. In fact he told Newsweek that he would find it difficult, given the German psyche, to tell the Germans that they need to add missiles to the 6,000 American nuclear warheads stationed in West Germany already. In fact, NATO had indicated no concern when the Soviets began deployment of the SS20 in 1977, accepting it as force modernisation and replacing the SS4s and SS5s which were already 20 years old. The decision to deploy the Pershing 2 in Europe was made in 1971, six years before Chancellor Schmidt's speech in London. As for the cruise missiles, they were a superb example of what Sir Solly Zuckermann, the British Government's chief scientific adviser for over 20 years, referred to as the technological imperative. They were weapons already made and looking for a home. It is also interesting to note that the Reagan Administration had to set up a special cabinet-level interagency group to find a justification for deploying these weapons in Europe. Authorised by National Security Memorandum 77, its special planning team was established to develop a public relations strategy to sell the deployment of Pershing 2 and cruise missiles in Europe. United States Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger privately offered officials the advice that: We've got to make them think that what we're doing is good for them. Not just that, but we've got to make them think that they're going to like it, and that it's what they've been asking us to do. What Senator Teague has got to realise is that the deployment of cruise and Pershing 2 was nothing to do with the deployment of the Soviet SS20 missiles and that if there is any credit for the decision to withdraw them, it should go primarily to the independent and non-aligned peace groups in east and west Europe which have, since 1980, demanded `No cruise, no SS20s'. They have been very even-handed in their criticism. While I agree with much of what Senator Teague suggests in the second paragraph of his motion, I would add the need to work for disarming the seas in order to stop the escalation of the nuclear arms race in the Pacific. In the last few years we have seen the Soviet deployment of new delta class submarines in the Sea of Okhotsk, testing of the SS-NX-21 and SS-N-24 sea launched cruise missiles, further construction of typhoon submarines, although none have as yet been deployed in the Pacific, development of the former United States naval facility at Cam Ranh Bay since 1979, and construction of their first proper aircraft carrier in the Black Sea. The United States has now deployed eight Trident submarines in the Pacific and in a few years after they are armed with the D5 sea launched ballistic missiles, they will have a first strike capability. As the Pentagon has proudly boasted, the Trident submarine is the most destructive weapon in history. Each one has 24 missiles with eight warheads, a total of 192,200 kiloton of warheads, which, I remind honourable senators, is 16 times larger than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. This is a measure of how far the arms race has advanced in 42 years. Besides the deployment of Tridents since 1982, the Reagan Administration has started deployment of 4,000 Tomahawk sea launched cruise missiles since 1984, of which 758 are nuclear armed. The cruise missile is a dangerously destabilising weapon because it is impossible to include in any verification agreement and the Soviets cannot know the difference between a conventionally armed Tomahawk and a nuclear armed one. The increase in the size of the United States Navy, pushed through under former Naval Secretary John Lehman, includes new nuclear powered aircraft carriers and battleships like the Missouri, which arrives in Fremantle today and which will be visiting Sydney over Christmas with its 32 Tomahawk sea launched cruise missiles on board. It seems an inappropriate way for us to celebrate the birthday of the prince of peace-I am talking about Jesus Christ-on Christmas Day by having the Missouri battle fleet in Sydney, the nuclear powered Long Reach in Hobart and other nuclear armed ships in Brisbane. Last year we had the Carl Vinson in Fremantle. All of this goes to prove what former Lieutenant-Commander Michael Lynch of the Royal Australian Navy has said, which is that the visits of these warships have nothing to do with the strategic needs of the United States Navy, but merely serve its rest and recreation needs so-called, a polite euphemism to describe the activities of several thousand young American sailors and their physical appetites after they have been at sea for a long time. I would also like Senator Teague to explain how he can reconcile his call for a comprehensive test ban treaty with his adherence to the Western alliance, given that the only reason the world cannot have a comprehensive test ban is that our major ally, and the head of the alliance, simply does not want one. I hope that on some future occasion he will explain to the Senate the reasons for this intransigence on the part of the United States. If this agreement proves anything, it is that continued pressure by the people of the world for disarmament, instead of a continued arms race, has now paid off and that the new leadership in the Soviet Union and an apparent change of heart by Ronald Reagan have now meant a return to dialogue after the deadlock of the early part of this decade during the days of Brezhnev and Ronald Reagan mark 1. It is this change of heart, rather than Senator Teague's obsession-peace through strength-that has made the INF agreement this week possible. Obviously, I agree that disarmament measures must be multilateral and verifiable. I have never advocated anything else. Members of the Opposition, and today I heard a member of the Government, talk about unilateralism. They seem to misunderstand the difference between unilateral initiatives towards peace, that is, one side making a first gesture, and a call for unilateral disarmament. The two are very different indeed. I support multilateral disarmament. I would also like to stress the dangers of talking about deterrence for 42 years as if somehow the nuclear arms race has never changed. The most alarming developments in recent years have been possible because of technology leading to both the United States and the Soviet Union accusing each other of developing a first strike capability. It is nonsense to talk about deterrence having kept the peace for 40 years. Deterrence is the only so-called defence system known to humanity which has to fail only once to be rendered totally useless. For peace through the strength of nuclear deterrence to be effective for even 99.9 per cent of the time is not good enough. Lord Louis Mountbatten said very clearly in his famous Strasbourg speech in 1979 that nuclear weapons serve no military purpose whatsoever. They cannot be used. They do not constitute a defence system. The statement that nuclear weapons have kept the peace since 1945 ignores the 130 small wars which have taken place since then and in which 20 million people have died, including the 40 or so wars raging right now. So we are told that there has been no world war since nuclear weapons were first used in a war situation. In itself that is true, but it does not prove that we would have had a major war in the absence of nuclear weapons. The point is that no other way of peacekeeping has been seriously attempted. We have succumbed to the temptation to find a false security in these deadly weapons, instigating in the process a reign of terror which has affected our young people in a very negative way. Also, there is no guarantee that, because people argue that nuclear weapons have prevented a major war, they will continue to do so indefinitely into the future. To say that shows an abysmal lack of knowledge of the increasing sophistication of nuclear weapons systems, which allows less and less time for errors to be corrected. So let us hope that this agreement signed today will give some hope to our young people, that they will see that the peoples' voice does count. It is important that we acknowledge the efforts of peace groups, east and west, and that we continue to put peaceful pressure on the super-powers to continue this process of real disarmament at sea as well as on land. For the benefit of Senator Boswell, I must inform the Senate that today I sent telegrams to both the Soviet and United States ambassadors congratulating them on this historic statement. However, I cannot support this urgency motion as it stands because of Senator Teague's wording of sections (1) and (4). I hope that my position is not misunderstood. I welcome the signing of the disarmament treaty today as a very historic first step in the process towards real disarmament. Senator HILL(South Australia)(5.16) —I join this debate because I am surprised and disappointed that members of the Government and Senator Vallentine have decided that it is an opportunity to win cheap political points rather than to commend Senator Teague on the terms of his motion and the importance of the debate he has brought to the chamber today. Senator Teague's motion states that the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Senate to acknowledge the importance of the agreement being made today between the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate their intermediate range nuclear weapons . . . He goes on to set out the reasons why we should do so. I would have thought that that was beyond dispute and that both Government senators and Senator Vallentine would have welcomed the opportunity to get up and say that they support and commend Senator Teague for bringing this matter to the attention of the Senate. Instead, regrettably, Senator Schacht saw the debate as an opportunity to claim all credit for his political party, in other words, taking a purely political party line, to try to gain some benefit from what is a benefit for the whole of mankind. Senator Beahan then took a shot at me, Senator Hamer and others, accusing us of having indulged in Cold War rhetoric in the past, which is quite unfair. I can suggest only that he go back and read Hansard. He will find the invalidity of the statements he made. Then we had Senator Vallentine, in such a disappointing way, indicating that she would not vote for this motion. In the few minutes I have in this debate-I may expand my remarks later in the adjournment debate-I wish to remind the Senate that my Party and the National Party of Australia, the Opposition parties, were very active in seeking mutual and verifiable reductions when we were last in government. I remind the Senate that there were times, particularly in the work the Fraser Government was doing towards a comprehensive test ban treaty, when we incurred the wrath of our ally and friend the United States, which was concerned with the leadership role that we, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party, were taking in the international fora on that subject. Yet if one believed what one heard in this debate today from Government senators, one would think we were not playing any such role at all. What we were not doing, and what this Government has been doing, in the domestic political situation of Australia, was making a loud noise about what we were seeking to do. When I went to the Second United Nations Special Session on Disarmament in 1982 I was the only member of this Parliament to go to that special session. We expected an Australian Labor Party member to be there, but apparently he did not turn up. Many an American expressed concern about the independent position that the Liberal Party was taking in this particularly important area. I bring that to the attention of this Government. I remind the Government that in that forum and others it was Australians who were out there leading the committees, who were contributing in Geneva at the Committee on Disarmament, who were providing seismic experts to try to develop a system of verification-as we have been doing in all the intervening years-and who were sending chemical experts, chemists, to Geneva to work on the proposed chemical weapons treaty. They were doing so in those days under the authority and on the instructions of the then coalition Government. To come into this chamber, as both Senator Schacht and Senator Beahan have today, and almost suggest that this Labor Government invented the subjects of disarmament and peace when it came to office is totally misleading. I remind honourable senators that for years we on this side of the chamber have been advocating restraints of both vertical and horizontal proliferation. I remind honourable senators of the work that the Fraser Government did on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the conferences that were held in Vienna and the work done and the speeches given since on ways in which that treaty could be further strengthened and improved. We have also suggested ways in which the work of the Committee on Disarmament could be further improved. I also remind the Senate of the way in which we, in recent years, have taken this debate to the community through our `peace through security' campaign. We on this side do believe in deterrents and we believe that they have worked. The proof has been in the fact that-thank God-we have not had a nuclear war because of the positive attitude of the Western alliance. We have taken our campaign to the community, on to the streets and into the schools. We have had people such as my colleague and friend Senator Teague developing videos to educate school children about our contribution and role in this area. These have been first-class videos based on fact, not rhetoric, and I commend them. We have also contributed in the public fora, in peace marches and on the streets. In more recent times we have continued this process. I continued it in the First Committee of the United Nations last year; we continued it in the work done by the Opposition's foreign affairs committee which I led in the last Parliament. We received people such as Max Kampleman and went in great detail through the fine work that he was doing in Geneva in putting treaties such as this one into place. I and others have visited the US Arms Control Agency, arguing there that both sides should try to become better informed. We contributed the Opposition's point of view which we believe to be in the best interests of the total community. We worked-and this included Senator Teague and Senator Crichton-Browne, who have both contributed to this debate today-on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence report on disarmament last year. That is perhaps the best piece of work-the most studied, thoughtful and academic piece of work-on that subject that has been produced in this country for a long time. Our contribution has been constructive and as a result of it I believe this Government can make wise decisions and can take good counsel to the United Nations and other international fora. That is the sort of constructive role that we have attempted to play, so I regret that the Government and Senator Vallentine have attempted to make cheap political points out of a day that should be one of celebration for all of us. We on this side of the Senate believe that because of the agreement the world has become a slightly safer place in which to live. We congratulate the two super-powers on their agreement. To enable a vote to be taken on the matter of urgency, I now move: That the question be now put. Senator Wood —I wish to move the suspension of Standing Orders. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You cannot do so. The motion that the question be now put overrides that. The question must be put without debate. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator The Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Alston, R. K. R. Knowles, S. C. (Teller)Aulich, T. G. Lewis. A. W. R.Baume, Michael McGauran, J. J.Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J.Beahan, M. E. McKiernan, J. P.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Maguire, G. R.Black, J. R. Messner, A. J.Bolkus, N. Newman, J. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Panizza, J. H.Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R.Burns, B. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chaney, F. M. Ray, RobertChapman, H. G. P. Reid, M. E.Childs, B. K. Richardson, G. F.Coates, J. Ryan, S. M.Collins, R. L. Schacht, C. C.Colston, M. A. Sheil, G.Cook, P. F. S. Short, J. R.Cooney, B. C. Sibraa, K. W.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Crowley, R. A. Tambling, G. E. J.Devereux, J. R. Tate, M. C.Devlin, R. Teague, B. C.Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E.Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A.Foreman, D. J. Walters, M. S.Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W.Hill, R. M. Zakharov, A. O.Jones, G. N. Coulter, J. R. Powell, J. F.Haines, J. Sanders, N. K.Jenkins, J. A. Vallentine, J.McLean, P. A. Wood, W. R.Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(5.34) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. This debate relates to the Seventy-second Session of the International Labour Conference held in Geneva and the report of the Australian delegation. It contains instruments, as required under article 19 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) constitution relating to convention 162 and recommendation 172 concerning safety in the use of asbestos. Associated with the paper is a tabling statement by the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). Annually, we in this chamber deal with reports of the ILO, sessions of which are held typically in June. The International Labour Organisation is a subdivision of the United Nations and is a unique body. Its uniqueness once again should be commended to the chamber. The ILO consists in equal proportions of a government sector, a workers' sector containing union representation, and an employers' sector containing representation from business organisations and employer groups around the globe. Each year it convenes in Geneva for the purposes of debating and arriving at agreement on conventions which are then recommended to member countries. If those member countries adopt those conventions, they stand as a benchmark in those countries as minimum behaviour or minimum standards for industrial relations. The ILO has been doing this for many years. It has proved its value in all sorts of ways. In Australia in the recent past it has proved the value of its conventions-conventions which have been adopted by all the State governments and the Federal Government. Most notably, recently the value of those conventions was proved in Queensland, where the Queensland Government, under the former Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, attempted to enact State laws which contravened conventions which had been adopted by the ILO and in Australia and which required some changes. The ILO as a living example of tripartitism is a body on which the Hawke Government has modelled many of its industrial relations conventions. We have set up extensively throughout industry in Australia and at peak level tripartite consultative mechanisms to enable the Government and the social partners, in the form of unions and employers, to try to address the middle and longer term problems in industrial relations which, if not addressed, would exhibit themselves in industrial disputes over specific issues in industry. By addressing the macro issues one tries to resolve in advance, and thus remove from the arena of industrial relations, matters that would blow out in industrial disputes. This Government's industrial record illustrates better than any speech that can be made the success of that strategy. It stands in stark contrast to the approach of Opposition members, who when in government adopted an approach to industrial relations which was simply a matter of putting on the statute book as many pains and penalties as possible to breed compliance irrespective of the grievance. Thus, Australia had high figures for industrial disputes. Under our Government those figures have dropped markedly. In no place is this better illustrated than in the iron ore industry in Western Australia, which now, during the tenure of office of this Government, is regarded as a reliable supplier to its Japanese markets. It was acknowledged as such in the recent Australia-Japan iron ore conference held at Observation City, Scarborough, Western Australia. The productivity level of workers in the iron ore industry under the tripartite approach of this Government has increased dramatically. In 1983, the first year of our office, gross tonnes of iron ore exported per employee ranked at 20,243; last year they shot up to 27,220, a dramatic increase. Industrial disputes have fallen dramatically too. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(5.39) —I also wish to talk on the International Labour Conference paper and safety in the use of asbestos. During the Conference the use of asbestos was discussed and a committee was set up to examine its use in industry. A number of amendments were made which, if followed through, would make conditions safer for workers in the asbestos industry. However, I feel that we need to take this matter a lot further. I believe that labour conferences in this country should also look to asbestos as it affects ordinary people in their own houses. Recently, on 6 October, a report went out that Professor David Ferguson from Worksafe Australia told conference delegates at a national symposium on cancer in the workplace: After that the most exposure occurs in the use of asbestos for insulation, mainly of pipes or boilers and in the insulation of houses and the spraying of asbestos in ceilings or between linings. Professor David Ferguson also stated that the evidence is sufficient to warrant the elimination of asbestos in any form. He said that, although mesothelioma was previously considered to be a rare cancer, Australia now appears to have a higher incidence of it than any other country, which, of course, is a very serious matter. It was also drawn to the attention of the Senate today during Question Time that in the offices of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy in the Edmund Barton Building in Canberra the ceilings made of asbestos recently fell down and, as a result, the staff in the office had to leave the office for a couple of days or so, which meant that a very important question was not able to be answered in the Senate today. The thing that is most depressing for everybody is that experts warned of the dangers of asbestos more than 19 years ago. The Australian Capital Territory health authorities were warned of the dangers of insulation, but these warnings were ignored. In fact, a report by a Mr G. Major was put out at the request of the Australian Capital Territory Health Services Branch of the then Department of Health. He described how he watched South African asbestos fluff being piped between ceilings for insulation purposes in Canberra homes. Having read articles in the Press recently, we all know that it will cost citizens between $12,000 and $15,000 to have the asbestos removed, which most people cannot afford. I would also like to draw the Senate's attention to newspaper reports in Western Australia this year of workers in the asbestos industry claiming recompense for the cancers that the asbestos has caused. Mr Wally Simpson is the first worker to have survived long enough to put in his claim for compensation. Unfortunately, the court found that the company concerned was not negligent and therefore this man, who is dying of cancer, will receive no recompense. The warnings came out 19 years ago. Successive governments have taken absolutely no notice. Although the International Labour Conference is to be commended for the steps it is taking now, these steps have come too late. It is a case of too little too late. Many people are dead, others are dying, and nothing whatsoever is happening to recompense those involved. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(5.43) —I wish to place a slightly different emphasis in my comments about the report of the Australian delegation to the Seventy-second Session of the International Labour Conference, held in 1986. The report of the Director-General of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), given at that conference and entitled The Changing World of Work: Major Issues Ahead, highlighted three broad issues which are mentioned in the report before us. They are: new dimensions in labour relations, including the protection of workers in the informal sector; trends and issues related to the future of social protection in both developed and developing countries; and the twin problems of unemployment and poverty. Those very significant points are matters with which the Government has certainly been grappling. Associated with this report is a copy of the speech given at the conference by the Minister for Industrial Relations, Ralph Willis, addressing those points in a way that is most thoughtful and constructive, and which would make edifying reading, particularly for the Opposition. It is also interesting that the principal issues highlighted have been of major concern to this Government both during 1986 and since its re-election this year. The importance of increasing employment through growth in the economy is something that this Government has been addressing. We can quite clearly see the evidence of the success of the Hawke Government since it came to office in 1983, with the creation of over 800,000 jobs to this point, and an estimated one million jobs by the end of 1988. Clearly, that has been an aim of the Government; clearly, it has been a success for the Government; and, clearly, it fits very well with some of the headline issues that I have just outlined. Mr Willis's speech also highlighted the importance of looking at the problems of developed countries as compared with those of the poorly developed or developing countries and the problems of the guidelines or industrial practices applying in both. He says that we should take up the issues addressed by the Director-General and the conference. Clearly, those issues need more and considered thought. Australia gives a lot of thought to them both through its involvement in the ILO and also through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Bill Hayden, has addressed these sorts of issues and is very concerned that they continue to be addressed. The other point that I want to speak briefly about is the recommendation regarding the safe use of asbestos. In particular, I wish to comment on the way recommendation 172 associated with this document was arrived at. It involved a very extensive series of discussions; it is not as though this recommendation has just come off the top of people's heads. In fact, the ILO Committee on Safety in the Use of Asbestos has been meeting for many years and the report documents that the Committee now has a very exceptional scientific database on asbestos, in particular, its mineralogical characteristics as well as its physical and chemical properties and its biological effects. The report also states that that study over 10 years has been of great benefit in the formulation of this recommendation. As so often in tripartite agreements of this sort, a total ban is not placed on the use of asbestos, but a very thoughtful requirement that, if it is to be used, it has to be used under strict workable standards of handling in the workplace and of use in the community. I urge people to look at this recommendation because there has been very much activity and discussion about asbestos in all States, from the Wittenoom discussions in Western Australia, which go back much more than 19 years, to some activities by colleagues of mine in South Australia who are very concerned about the safety issues of asbestos. The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission established by the Government, now called Worksafe Australia, clearly will be one of the organisations of government to adopt this recommendation, develop it and look at further ways of having it incorporated into Australian law or regulations. I commend this report to the Senate. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(5.48) —I want to add my praise for this report of the Australian delegation to the International Labour Conference, which is the major body of the International Labour Organisation. That organisation grew up as a result of the First World War. Trade union organisations on both sides of the conflict, and, indeed, trade unions from neutral countries, said after the war that there ought to be an organisation which devoted its time and attention to the conditions of the working man and woman. In October 1919 the conference met in Washington and appointed a governing body which since then has met usually once or twice a year, except during the Second World War. This report is of the seventy-second session of the conference. It is interesting to note that at the conference held in Philadelphia in May 1944 a declaration was made which makes interesting reading. That declaration reaffirmed that labour is not a commodity, that freedom of expression and association are essential to sustain progress, that poverty everywhere constitutes a danger to prosperity everywhere and that the war against want is required to be carried on with unrelenting vigour within each nation. In other words, it set forth aspirations which still hold good. It is important to note that that declaration re-affirmed in particular that labour is not a commodity. There is a danger in the sorts of debates that take place today, including those in this chamber, to treat labour as a commodity. Often times it is said that wages should be reduced in the interests of economic imperatives, that workers should accept lesser conditions than they are used to; and other words to those effects are used. When that is done an impression is given, if it is not intended, that labour is considered simply as another commodity, such as coal, wheat or cars. If the community comes to adopt that view, a disaster will follow; the very strong recommendations made by this organisation will be overlooked. International Labour Organisation conferences are attended by representatives of workers and employers. The delegation to the conference with which we are dealing included the Hon. Ralph Willis, to whom Senator Crowley referred as being in attendance; the Opposition spokesman on industrial relations at that time, Mr Neil Brown; Mr Bryan Noakes, the employers' delegate from the Confederation of Australian Industry; and Bill Mansfield, the Assistant Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The input into this organisation is wide ranging. The organisation represents countries throughout the world and the various economic interests within those countries. So when it speaks-particularly when it speaks about the conditions under which workers should be employed-its words have considerable force. It is well to remember in that context that when the organisation gives an admonition that we should consider workers not simply as pieces of machinery but living human beings who are entitled to dignity and respect and proper wages and conditions, such admonition carries great weight. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.53) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Unfortunately, the annual report of the Automotive Industry Authority does not really deal with the state of the automotive industry. No doubt we will have to wait until about May before the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) provides us with those details. One needs to be desperately concerned about another industry plan of this Government going wrong. It has been demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt that the Government's steel plan is now a total failure, and the automotive industry plan is well on the same road as the steel plan; in other words, it is headed for disaster. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has been gaining great kudos by going around this country in effect pretending that he is not responsible for the decisions of the Government in these matters. The truth of the matter is that the automotive industry plan is aimed at reducing by 1992 the number of motor vehicle manufacturers and motor vehicle models. It has been demonstrated within the motor vehicle industry that that plan will be a failure because, frankly, people will not buy one of four simple models of cars. Companies such as Mazda are demonstrating clearly around the world that there are niche opportunities for car manufacturers to produce a run as small as, say, 40,000 vehicles and sell such a run world wide. I hope that the car dealers are never put in the situation where they have available to them only the routine franchised vehicles from one of the major manufacturers. If they are put in that situation, their dealerships will fall in value greatly as they are destroyed by those competitors who are able to offer buyers some alternative motor vehicle. The great problem with the automotive industry plan is that it limits the number of cars and the number of models available. That will result in the removal of any incentive for innovation and advantages of product differentiation. The export facilitation scheme effectively means that exports are being subsidised. The components sector of the car manufacturing industry is very much the Achilles heel of the plan. I refer first to the industrial relations aspect. The component manufacturers have been holding to ransom the major car manufacturers. I mention the strikes at the plants of Cooldrive Consolidated Industries and Flexidrive. As with the steel plan, once again the Achilles heel of this plan is the failure of the union movement to deliver to the manufacturing sector what the Government has in effect promised. The situation is that the companies are doing what they have to do, the taxpayers are contributing their fair share, but the union movement is taking advantage of the situation by blackmailing the manufacturing companies. I am not being critical of the union movement. It should be understood that this is not an attack on unionists. I am merely pointing out that this Government and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, knew that those circumstances would arise when these plans were implemented. At the time we criticised the Minister for introducing these plans. We pointed out to him that he was going down the wrong path, but he refused to listen to us. Now the union movement is taking him to task and demonstrating to the people of Australia that this Government's industry plans have been a failure in the past and will continue to be a failure. The Opposition suggests that the Government should adopt its policies in this area. The Government could well adopt the Opposition's policies in this area to the advantage of the Australian taxpayers. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(5.57) —I also wish to make some remarks on the latest annual report of the Automotive Industry Authority for the recent financial year 1986-87. The Authority was established in October 1984 by the Hawke Government to oversee the post-1984 passenger motor vehicle plan in Australia. As such the Authority is part of the Government's economic planning mechanism. It is one of the several authorities involved with the various industry plans in Australia which have been initiated and developed by the Hawke Government since its election in 1983 in an effort to help restructure and redevelop and to lay the foundations for growth in a number of important secondary industries in Australia. I was particularly interested to note the claims made just a moment ago by Senator Lewis, who I gather is the Opposition spokesman on such matters. He claimed that this plan has gone wrong, that it is yet another example of industry plans that have gone wrong. That assertion is totally confounded by the evidence that was put before me recently when I had the opportunity to inspect the very large facility of Holden's Motor Co. in Elizabeth, one of the northern suburbs of Adelaide. What is happening at that plant will totally dispel the claims made by Senator Lewis this evening. On that site at Elizabeth, Holden's Motor Co. is spending many hundreds of millions of dollars-not just many millions or many tens of millions of dollars-in an effort to boost its motor vehicle production activities. A number of factors have enabled it to do that, not the least of which has been the confidence engendered in the new motor vehicle industry by this Government's motor vehicle plans and the plans administered by the Automotive Industry Authority. Together with Senator Foreman, I was recently able to inspect the new plastics facility at Holden's Motor Co. at Elizabeth and the new assembly line along which more than 50 robots have been installed for the purpose of that company producing even larger numbers of new motor vehicles. It was a real pleasure and delight to inspect that plant, which after January will be the only place in Australia at which Commodore motor vehicles will be built. Since the 1970s that plant has been plagued by industrial relations problems. There were even suggestions at some stages that the Elizabeth facility would be closed down. It is very pleasing to note that it will now be the central place in Australia for the production of Commodore vehicles. It is now the largest employment site of the Holden Motor Co. in Australia. There are now more people employed at Elizabeth than at Fishermans Bend in Victoria or at Dandenong in Victoria. It is really impressive to note that under this plan Holden's are about to introduce a second shift of production, from January, to produce Commodore cars. Yet just a moment ago we heard the nonsense from Senator Lewis that the car industry plan was another plan that had gone wrong. The confidence shown in the industry, particularly in South Australia, by Holden's gives the lie to that claim by Senator Lewis. I am also pleased to note that Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd, which is located in the southern suburbs of Adelaide and which has both assembly facilities and an engine plant, is now exporting Australian made motor vehicle engines to Japan. I think that is really something. It shows what is happening in Australian industry. Certainly this move has been assisted by the downward movement in the Australian dollar, but it shows what this industry is capable of producing if rationalisation occurs and if there is a planned basis for production in the car industry. I am also delighted to note that South Australian manufacturers of components such as ROH Industries Pty Ltd and Castalloy Ltd have recently secured very large export orders indeed. Australian made car components are now being exported from this country as a result of the new-found confidence in and more stable basis of the Australian motor vehicle industry. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.02) —I remind the Senate that we are debating the Automotive Industry Authority's third annual report. I also remind the Senate that in a ministerial statement of 29 May 1984 the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator John Button, announced the Commonwealth Government's policy objectives for the development, as he put it, `of a more competitive and export orientated automotive industry'. This report should contain a statement of the Automotive Industry Authority's success-which the Authority should monitor-in achieving those objectives. We are now three years down the track and there is no statement in this report about how successful the plan has been. We would prefer to have specific performance targets. But there is nothing in this report to indicate how successful the Authority has been in meeting those objectives, so there is no use in having objectives. This is not surprising, because since September 1985 company fleet passenger car sales had plummeted by almost 46 per cent. In fact, sales in 1986 generally were at their lowest for 18 years. Sales of imported cars at the beginning of this year were 30.1 per cent lower than in the previous year. One of the big reasons for the big slump, of course, is this Government's fringe benefits tax. But this has occurred not only because of the fringe benefits tax, but also because of government interference. I refer to increased fuel tax levied by both State and Federal governments. I mention the increased sales tax imposed by the Federal Government and also, of course, the massive devaluation of the Australian dollar. This Labor Government must take direct responsibility for the sad state of the industry at present. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for consideration of Government Papers has expired. Consideration resumed from 7 December, on motion by Senator Maguire: That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 25 November, on motion by Senator Collins: That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —by leave-I table the report of the Australian delegation to the Seventy-seventh Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union held in Managua in April and May 1987. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON —I seek leave to make a brief statement in relation to the report. Leave granted. Senator COLSTON —I am pleased to be able to present the report of the Seventy-seventh Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. During this conference, members of the Australian delegation were particularly active, both formally and informally, in bringing to the attention of other delegates Australia's views concerning the subsidisation of agricultural production and exports, and related issues. The delegation had sought to bring the matter before the Seventy-sixth Conference in Argentina as a supplementary agenda item. But when that strategy was unsuccessful the delegation managed to have the matter unanimously accepted as a main topic for debate at the 1987 Conference in Managua. The Australian delegation performed creditably in the plenary debate and in the drafting committee for this particular item. I wish to acknowledge the assistance the delegation received through the then Ministers for Trade and for Primary Industry and from the Parliamentary Library. I must record the delegation's thanks to the head of the Australian Embassy in Mexico who made two of his staff available for the delegation's support throughout the conference. This was the second time I, as leader, had such excellent assistance from the Australian Embassy in Mexico. Miss Beverley Morrisby, from the embassy, provided the same excellent assistance as she had in Mexico in 1986. On behalf of the delegation, I must offer sincere thanks to Mr Glen Waller, also from the Australian Embassy in Mexico, for his invaluable assistance. For the smooth running of the delegation, I thank the other members of the delegation-the Hon. Ian Wilson, MP, the deputy leader, Senator Alston, Senator Black, Mr Jull, Mr Kent, MP and Senator Vallentine. As leader, my thanks are extended to Mr Peter Murdoch, the secretary to the delegation, and Mr Geoff Crawford, the Department of the Foreign Affairs adviser. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the sixteenth report of 1987 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning: the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1987; the Migration Amendment Bill 1987; the Petroleum Excise (Prices) Bill 1987; and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1987. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 17, dated 9 December 1987. Ordered that the report be printed. (Quorum formed) Consideration resumed. Social Security and Veterans Bill The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Teague) —Order! The Committee is considering clause 21, and the Australian Democrats' amendment No. 8, moved by Senator Powell. I put the question: That the amendment be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 45 —— Coulter, J. R. Powell, J. F.Jenkins, J. A. Sanders, N. K.McLean, P. A. Wood, W. R.Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Alston, R. K. R. Jones, G. N.Aulich, T. G. Knowles, S. C.Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Peter McGauran, J. J.Beahan, M. E. McKiernan, J. P.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Maguire, G. R.Black, J. R. Messner, A. J.Bolkus, N. Newman, J. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Panizza, J. H.Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R.Burns, B. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Childs, B. K. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Coates, J. Reynolds, M. E.Collins, R. L. Richardson, G. F.Colston, M. A. Ryan, S. M.Cook, P. F. S. Schacht, C. C.Cooney, B. C. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Crowley, R. A. Sibraa, K. W.Devereux, J. R. Tambling, G. E. J.Devlin, R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Teague, B. C.Foreman, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Gietzelt, A. T. Walters, M. S.Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W.Hill, R. M. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 22 agreed to. Proposed new clause 22a. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(6.19) —I move: (9) Page 18, after clause 22 add the following clause: ``22a. Section 44 of the Principal Act is amended by adding the words ``under the age of 18 years and receiving full-time education at school'' after the words ``16 years'' in subsection (3)''. This amendment will change the new provisions regarding widows pensions and sole parent benefits which were introduced in the May mini-Budget. The Committee will recall that suddenly, following the May mini-Budget, people who had been previously entitled to or were expecting to be entitled to widows pensions or sole parent benefits while they had children up to the age of 24 in full time education were faced with a cutback in benefits when their children reached the age of 16. At that time it was anticipated quite quickly that this was going to cause immense distress to a great many sole parent families, the vast majority of them headed by women. A large number of these women were of an age whereby they did not have the opportunity to move back into the full time work force. As I said in my speech at the second reading stage, this was designated by the Government as a labour market program. There are a tremendous number of difficulties involved, not the least of which is the inappropriateness of this measure in the context of a government which protests that it is attempting to help families and that it wants to keep children at school for the longest possible time and to have a focus on education and training for young people. The age currently set down in the legislation as a result of that change-that is, 16 years-is not generally the age at which even secondary schooling is completed. It runs quite counter to the claims of the Government that it is after an increase in retention rates. The amendment I have moved attempts to lift this age to 18 years, which is far more realistic, at least when it comes to secondary education. As far as the Australian Democrats are concerned, there should have been no change from the age of 24 which, of course, covered tertiary or post-secondary education and training quite adequately and was of great benefit to many families, particularly, I repeat, sole parent families. Here is another instance where the Government, in making its economies out of welfare sector for redistribution within that sector, not having the courage to raise funds in the large corporate sector, is making savings at the expense of women and young people in particular. This has been a continuing pattern. In this amendment the Democrats are supporting the Government's initiative towards higher school retention rates. There has certainly been a spate of correspondence to my office and to the offices of other Australian Democrat senators and, I trust, to the offices of Government senators and members, and Ministers in particular, detailing instances of the difficulties being experienced by women. The Government has told us that the women concerned will now be able to get into the paid work force-although I think it probably just said the `work force'. We often forget that women do work, even if they are only in the home. We should all remember to differentiate quite clearly by using the term `paid work force'. It is as if there were discredit in women's honourable task of being full time parents, instead of which the Government has said that they can now seek employment. What that means in 1987, as it meant in 1986 and it will mean in 1988 at least, is that those women can join the ranks of the unemployed. They will be able to queue at the Commonwealth Employment Service offices, in too many cases along with their adolescent and young adult children, who are also amongst the ranks of the unemployed in very high numbers. Alternatively, the Government has said, they can get involved in training and retraining programs. A lady from Colac wrote to me on behalf of her daughter, who lives deep in western Victoria, some 80 or 90 miles from the nearest tertiary or technical and further education institution, wanting to know which training program her daughter, a widow, was going to get involved in when she became ineligible for the pension. I have had any number of such questions from people in rural areas. Of course, people in urban areas also often face this kind of difficulty. We have to bear in mind that this a group of people in large measure who have not had this expectation and who have now had it lumped on them with very little notice. Their expectations will certainly change over time. At the time of the May legislation the Democrats attempted to impose a longer transition period, because that allowed by the Government was only a short one. Of course, those people who are currently eligible for assistance will remain eligible, but there is a large group in the transition stage who have been thrust on to the unemployment queues and who are finding it difficult even now to get into training programs, because those programs were not set up in advance. There is an enormous amount of disillusionment in the community on this issue. I commend this amendment to the chamber. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(6.25) —I shall be very brief. It is simply not true to say that this Government has lacked the courage to tax the corporate sector. If we look at the range of taxes, from the capital gains tax to the fringe benefits tax, we see that this Government has gone into waters into which no other government has been prepared to go. We have shown our courage and put our runs on the board. Obviously, this is a decision taken by the Government which recognises the increased maturity of 16-year-olds, who do not need the same level of care as younger children. I therefore do not believe that the Australian Democrats' amendment is in any way a recognition of reality. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(6.26) —I would also like to speak to this amendment because of the personal experience that I have had in Western Australia from a group of women who have approached me on this matter in particular. This group of women is called Women in Transit. These are women who have all been affected by the new regulation in the May mini-Budget. Now that their youngest child in each case has turned 16, these women are all in a very difficult situation. The group is gathering information on the effects of the changes, and the picture which is emerging is a particularly ugly one. The women point out that the change is making it impossible for their children to continue with their education. These women particularly want their youngest child to continue with education and, because they are no longer eligible for the single parent benefit, they can no longer afford to keep their child in education. When they look for jobs they find that there are none for untrained middle aged women. They find it very difficult, if not impossible, to get into training courses. It is particularly interesting that the House of Representatives, from which this Government governs-in other words, over which it has total control-has just requested the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training to conduct an inquiry into the work force entry or re-entry of social security pensioners. The scope of the inquiry will include supporting parent beneficiaries, so basically the initiation of this inquiry constitutes a de facto admission that the Government has goofed. The Government has attempted to force supporting parent beneficiaries into the work force, in a context of its admitting the need for an inquiry to ascertain whether education, training and support measures are adequate. Such a move would not be made if there was not compelling evidence to suggest that they are in fact inadequate. I very strongly support the Australian Democrats' amendment and hope that the Government will pay some attention to this matter. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(6.28) —There is a matter which I would like to put to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson). It is a disturbing matter. It is apparent that the Government is not going to support this amendment, nor is the Opposition, and therefore these women will still be appearing at the Commonwealth Employment Service offices. I have had reported to me instances of officers in the Commonwealth Employment Service discriminating against these women and actually saying to them that they cannot help them because of the age group they are in and because they do not have any training. We know that the training programs which are promised have not been set up, although they may very well be in the process of being set up, and that these women do not fit readily into existing training programs. It is a case of putting the cart before the horse. This measure was implemented before provisions for these people were put in place. I have had these disturbing reports from both the Sydney and the Melbourne areas. It may simply be a matter of practicality for the people in the Employment Service. They know that they do not have jobs for these women. Perhaps they are giving them the facts. However, it is bad enough for women who consider that they were involved in an honourable profession, that of home making and mothering, to find themselves on the dole queues, but it is even worse to be told that that is where they will have to stay and that there is no work for them. Can I please have an assurance from the Minister that he-we are dealing here with social security-will do what I asked the responsible Minister during the May mini-Budget on this matter, and take this up with the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins). I do not believe that the Department of Social Security should just wash its hands of these people. We still have a responsibility to them as human beings. I am very disturbed by these reports. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(6.30) —Certainly I will take the matter up with both Ministers-the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). I would hope that, in a service as large as that administered by the Department of Social Security, Senator Powell would be referring to some isolated incidents rather than to a pattern. If there are any specific instances-and I hope she can give me some examples-I will be very happy to take them up with the appropriate Minister. In any event, I certainly will take up the general question. Sitting suspended from 6.31 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) Senator POWELL(Victoria)(8.02) —We have had some debate on clause 22 in relation to the widow's pension and the sole parent's benefit. I seek leave to move amendment No. (10), which also stands in my name and which relates to clause 23. Then we could consider the two amendments together. Leave granted. Senator POWELL —I move: (10) Page 18, after clause 23 add the following clause: ``23a. Section 53 of the Principal Act is amended by adding the words ``under the age of 18 years and receiving full-time education at school'' after the words ``16 years'' in the definition of ``supporting parent'' in subsection (1)''. Simply put, clause 22 relates to the widow's pension and clause 23 relates to the sole parent's benefit. In both cases we seek to have the age limit of children below which the parent is eligible for the pension or benefit raised from the age of 16, to which it was reduced in the May statement, to the age of 18. As I said earlier, we consider this to be a far more rational age when one considers that it is more likely to be the age at which children finish at least their secondary education. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Powell's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Coulter, J. R. Macklin M. J. (Teller)Haines, J. Powell, J. F.Jenkins, J. A. Sanders, N. K.McLean, P. A. Vallentine, J. Aulich, T. G. Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Peter McGauran, J. J.Beahan, M. E. McKiernan, J. P.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Maguire, G. R.Black, J. R. Messner, A. J.Bolkus, N. Morris, J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Panizza, J. H.Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R.Burns, B. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Ray, RobertChilds, B. K. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Coates, J. Reynolds, M. E.Collins, R. L. Richardson, G. F.Colston, M. A. Ryan, S. M.Cook, P. F. S. Schacht, C. C.Cooney, B. C. Sheil, G.Crowley, R. A. Short, J. R.Devereux, J. R. Stone, J. O.Devlin, R. Tambling, G. E. J.Durack, P. D. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Teague, B. C.Foreman, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S.Hill, R. M. Watson, J. O. W.Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O.Knowles, S. C. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause 23 agreed to. Clauses 24 to 27-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 28 (Payment of allowance). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(8.08) —I move: (11) Page 21, clause 28, proposed paragraph 73 (a) (ii), line 15, after ``a compensation payment'' insert a comma. This amendment seeks to insert a comma after certain words in clause 28. I am advised that if this is not done, the family allowance supplement might very well be available to people who are already receiving other benefits from the Commonwealth, in particular Commonwealth employees workers compensation payments which have a child related additional benefit. In this case we are supporting the Government's policy which is, of course, that welfare benefits should go to those who are in most need. We believe that the way the clause is drafted it would be possible for people to receive the family allowance supplement on top of certainly Commonwealth employees workers compensation payments and possibly State workers compensation payments which have a child related benefit. We do not believe that this would be in the best interests of the Government and its policy, which we advocate, of supporting the needy. I commend that amendment to the Committee. Amendment negatived. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.14) —Clause 28, proposed new section 76 (1), payment of allowance, seems to me to be an appropriate place at which to bring my concerns to the Committee. During the second reading debate on the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 I pointed out that the Government had created a poverty trap in this legislation. I will explain to the Committee what I am talking about. A single income earner who earns $330 a week and who has a dependent spouse pays $40.39 in tax. Under the family allowance supplement, if he owns his own home or is renting public housing, the Government gives him back $35. If he is renting privately, under the family allowance supplement he gets back $50. I put to the Government that, instead of creating a hand-out mentality in this group, instead of just going for vote catching, it would be more sensible to work the family allowance supplement in such a way as to give such families an additional $35 by not taking that amount of tax from them. If the Government said to that group of families, `You pay $40.39. We are prepared to reduce that amount so that you pay'-if the Minister wants to stick to that amount-`only $5.39 instead of the $40-odd', this would put a stop to the disincentive to that income earner to earn more money. If that person, earning $330 a week, worked an additional 7 1/2 hours on a Saturday he would earn $90 extra, but by doing so would lose his family allowance supplement-if renting privately-and out of the $90 extra he earned that week he would get only $8.59. No one in Australia would work a whole Saturday, a whole 7 1/2-hour day, for an extra $90 and of that, as take home pay, get only $8.59. I brought this to the attention of the Minister and he assured me that he agreed with me. He said that, if my figures were correct, he thought that the situation was wrong and that the Government should be able to handle it in a different fashion. I ask the Minister what the Government is going to do about it. I understand that he has checked my figures and that the Department has found them to be completely correct. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(8.19) —The figures that Senator Walters has given are indeed correct, although her example is nothing new. I think it was used during the election campaign. It is an example which has been used before. I will go through what the family package is about before addressing the question of where we go from here. It is based on a targeted approach, if you like, assisting low income families in need. The sum of $500m is directed to those families in need. It is not possible to direct $500m to families in need without having a means test. There is no other way to do it. The Opposition's approach has been to support that. If that is the case one must admit that there is no doubt that overall the family package improves the incentive for unemployed people to get jobs. Families who are on benefits and who take up work will keep their family allowance payment or will have it phased out gradually. One presumes that eligible families will always be better off when working than when on benefits-that is certainly their view-and families who receive the family allowance supplement will stay on that rate of payment for six months. That is changed only if their income goes up by more than 25 per cent. The example that Senator Walters gave about overtime does not bear that out. The reality is that very few people will be affected by an income change of more than 25 per cent. I concede that Senator Walters's figures are accurate, and I asked the Department of Social Security to look at that during the dinner break. Given that it would appear that there are many fewer people affected than Senator Walters has suggested, I am not sure that at this point there is that much that can be done. It is a mistaken view that the Government's family package perpetuates poverty traps. Surely, it does a lot to ameliorate the problems of poor people. There is confusion about poverty traps and effective marginal tax rates. That having been said, it is pretty obvious that if one has a means tested approach, inevitably somewhere along the line between the social security and taxation systems-and that is a rather complex relationship-it will not be possible to avoid some of these conflicts. The Government is aware of this problem and it is addressing it. Hopefully it will be possible to make announcements about it. It will not be tonight, but the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is aware of the problem and he is looking at it. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.23) —As the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) has indicated by his shrug of the shoulders, he is not at all happy with that answer. He has succumbed to the `Yes, Minister' approach of the Department of Social Security. I make it perfectly clear that the Government is taking from a person whom it has designated a low income earner-that is, a single income family man with a dependent spouse and two children under 13 years of age, on $330 a week-more than $40 a week in tax. It then turns around and says that because that person is a low income earner and it believes his children could be in poverty, it will give him back $35 of that amount. That is ludicrous. The Government is paying the Australian Taxation Office to make that assessment and take the $40.39, and it is paying the Department of Social Security additional money to hand back $35. That could be done for only one reason-the Government wants to be seen as giving a big handout, as the `big fella', the white knight. It wants to get some votes on this because it thinks it is being good and giving $35 to those whom it considers to be low income earners who need help. What absolute rubbish! The Government is ripping off more than $40 in tax from those people. Why does it not just tell that group of single income earners-and I do not care how many or how few there are-that they need not pay that tax? That would stop the disincentive for such people to earn more money. If they were offered an additional 7 1/2 hours work in a week, they would gladly accept it because although their tax would go up they would not lose the $35 that the Government is so generously handing them as a family allowance supplement. Indeed, as the position is now a family would lose $50 because it would also be getting a rental allowance if renting privately. As it is, if a family man is asked to work another 7 1/2 hours, he will say, `Not on your life! The employer will pay me $90, but I will lose all my handouts from the Government and I will be only $8.59 better off. I am not going to work 7 1/2 hours for $8.59'. Would the Minister? Would he work 7 1/2 hours for $8.59? I bet he would not. He would say, `No I will not work for that, I would rather put my hand out. The Government has said that if I do not work that extra 7 1/2 hours it will give me $35; if I do work it the Government will not give me a penny'. The disincentive in that proposition underscores the problem that the Government has created. If the Government is not prepared to tell that group of people that it will not take over $40 from them in tax, that it will allow them to keep that money that they earn and that it will tax them only $5, it will create the biggest poverty trap imaginable because it will be saying to them, `Do not try to earn more money to try to support your own family; do not try to escape the mess you are in, because if you try the Government will not help you. The Government will make sure that you do not do that extra work because if you do you will receive only an extra $8.59'. The Government really must consider the long term effects of this sort of legislation on the Australian community. It must consider the fact that it is creating such disincentives for this group. It is no use the Minister telling me that there are only a few families affected. So long as the Government creates such large disincentives and long term problems for this group of parents trying to help their own families-and I do not know how many people are involved, I have just picked out that one income group as an example; there must be other people in that area who will be worse off if they do not stick to the handout mentality-it is doing a great disservice to the Australian community. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(8.29) —Senator Walters began her contribution by saying that we are taking from the low income earner. The reality is that the family allowance supplement that we have discussed tonight is about giving to the low income earner. Surely that is the overriding, overwhelming effect of it. The package gives; it does not take. Senator Walters was referring to a very narrow range; I am referring to the broad range. She said that the Government should take into consideration the long term effects of its decision. I have already acknowledged that that is what the Government is doing in looking at the problem at the moment. Senator Walters also made two remarks about me. In the first she asked whether I would work an extra 7 1/2 hours for $8.59. Given my working hours in the past year, I consider that I have worked a lot more than that for nothing. Senator McKiernan —You might be doing that tonight. Senator RICHARDSON —That is correct. The other remark was about my gestures. I like moving my arms about. Senator Walters —And shrugging your shoulders. Senator RICHARDSON —I am expressive; but Senator Walters should never read too much into my expressions because, after all, I am also light-hearted. I would not want her to read too much into a shrug or a wave of the arms. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.31) —I rise to make a contribution on this clause. I acknowledge the point made by Senator Walters about the effective marginal tax rates that will be applied in the case of persons with incomes in the $17,000 to $23,000 range. That is a problem which the Minister has acknowledged and which has been spoken about quite frequently. I am concerned about it and I believe that it will have to be rectified. Over the past 10 years I have stood in this place and elsewhere and waged a consistent campaign for a fair deal, a fair go, for families. I have pointed out the serious injustices suffered by families in Australia because of the failure of successive governments to index the family allowance. The history of this whole family allowance scheme goes back to 1976 when the then Fraser Government abolished the tax rebates which had been payable for children and, with the money saved, established a family allowance scheme by which family allowance was paid to the mothers. At that time I said in this chamber that that was a good idea if the payments were to be indexed and to keep pace with the increases in costs. I repeated that year after year. Then, in about late 1980, the Fraser Government again adjusted the scheme, but not sufficiently to keep up with the loss in the real value of the family allowance. By last year that loss had resulted in $10 billion being pinched by successive governments from the purses of Australian mothers because of the failure of those governments to ensure that the family allowance kept pace with increases in the cost of living. Of course, that affected lower income families more dramatically than others. It affected all families, but lower income families more than others. The Government has now proposed a band-aid treatment, as it were, to try to cover up the wounds that it and its predecessors inflicted on lower income families. I accept that this family assistance scheme is not an inconsiderable scheme. It is a good start. However, I think it is based on a false premise when one goes into the problem, which Senator Walters and others have mentioned, of effective marginal tax rates. The family allowance supplement (FAS) package will also cause a number of administrative problems. But at least it is providing to low income families with children an amount on which to get by. Senator Walters —They wouldn't need to if they didn't have to pay so much tax. Senator HARRADINE —I will come to the tax matter in a moment; it is a very important matter. It is interesting to note that, in its FAS, the Government has recognised that it is more costly to feed, clothe and educate teenagers than younger children. That is a common sense approach and the Government should be praised for that. Since we are in committee, I would like to raise another point by way of a question to the Minister. When the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made his statement and promise on this issue, he promised that in Labor's third term, the total assistance per child would increase from 11 per cent to at least 15 per cent of the combined married rate of pension. He added that payments for older children would reach a benchmark of 20 per cent of this rate. While on the issue of indexation I would like confirmation from the Minister that this is still the Government's policy. I do not want to see, five years down the track, the amount being proposed now dwindle to such an extent that it will not reflect costs at that stage. Also on the question of indexation, I notice that the upper limit for the income test is to be indexed. But, unless I have read it wrongly, I cannot see any mention of indexing the amount mentioned in clause 28, proposed new section 72, relating to allowable income. Perhaps I have overlooked it, but I would be obliged if the Minister could point out where that is mentioned. I assume that the amount is indexed, as with the amount contained in the later clause relating to the family allowance income test. Those are a couple of the questions I want to raise with the Minister. Another question relates to the general matter of taxation which has been mentioned. I do not think that we should let this clause go by without refreshing our minds about the purpose of the family allowance in the first place. The family allowance was really a taxation measure which recognised that families with children, at whatever level of income, have higher costs, including taxation costs, than families who do not have children. That was the simple reason for the introduction of the family allowance scheme. As I mentioned, the taxation rebate was abolished in 1976 and the money saved was used to fund the family allowance scheme. But now the taxation system does not recognise children. The Government has said that it will abolish poverty by the year 1990. What does that mean? As far as I am concerned, kids are supposed to be poor. I do not think they should have money hanging out of their pockets and all the rest of it, unless they scratch up that money from somewhere else. None of my kids has much. The Government proposes to abolish child poverty. It is not a question of abolishing child poverty. The Government should be talking about the family. It is the mums and dads who are poor, not the kids. I do not really like what is behind the idea of abolishing child poverty. It might result in someone in the year 2000 saying to some parents, `Your kids are poor; we will have to take them from you'. I do not want to labour this point or get carried away with it; I just raise it. I know what is meant. It is a valid, laudable and well sounding phrase, but let us analyse it. Senator McGauran —It's an election ploy. Senator HARRADINE —The Government's measure will help a considerable number of people and, frankly, I acknowledge that. I know that a good deal of influence was exerted by a couple of unions with which I was associated to ensure that something was done in this area. I do not want to go through the history of it. Senator Haines —Oh! Go on. Senator HARRADINE —As all honourable senators would appreciate, most of all Senator Haines, not every measure that goes through this place is necessarily debated on its merits. That is unfortunate. Senator Haines —Only by us. We're the only ones who do it. You are quite right; generally it is not the case. Senator HARRADINE —The honourable senator is diverting me. It is important to understand that, because the taxation system does not recognise the number of people in a particular family dependant on a particular income, a whole range of families, at whatever level of income, are being discriminated against by the taxation system. As I said, it does not recognise and does not take account of the number of children that must rely on that one income. That is a tragedy. I do not know of any other country in the world that does not take account of that aspect. It is all very well for Mr Elliott to say that family allowances should be abolished. Senator Walters —What about the Government? Senator HARRADINE —The Government as well. Mr Elliott and all such big businessmen can write off-- Senator Powell —Everything. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, they can write off very large numbers of things; but the most important business in this country cannot do that. Of course, that affects mostly those families that rely on one income. I urge the Government to do something to rectify the situation whereby families on one income are being severely discriminated against under the Government's taxation policies. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(8.46) —I shall be brief, as consideration of this measure has been going on for some time. In response to the remarks of Senator Harradine, I shall quote that part of the document entitled Social Security Budget Information 1987-88 which deals with the family package. It reads: And now, with the family package, the Government will index payments and recognise the higher cost of older children . . . Once achieved, these benchmarks will be retained-ensuring that the relative value of payments will not be eroded over time. While I do not think the indexation commitment is in clause 28, I do not think Senator Harradine has misread it. I think that matter will continue to be looked at in the Budget context next year. Thus far, certainly, the Government's promise has been kept. I have no doubt that that process will continue. In response to the interjection made by Senator McGauran on one of his rare visits to the chamber, I can only say that the family package proposal was not an election ploy, as we are at present debating its being put into practice. It is not much of a ploy if it is actually being implemented. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.48) —I thank the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) for at least listening to the figures I quoted in my speech yesterday and for acknowledging that the Government has a problem in this area. I thank him for at least acknowledging that the family package will indeed be a poverty trap or a disincentive to people taking on additional work and that the Government will look at the problem and attempt to correct it. It is a pity that other Government members do not listen a little more to the speeches of Opposition members, as Senator Richardson did yesterday. Senator Crowley, who followed me in the second reading debate, made very derogatory remarks about the figures I brought to the attention of the Government. I shall quote some of her remarks, as they underline the fact that some members on the Government side just speak off the top of their heads without having listened to the speeches of those who preceded them in the debate. Senator Crowley said: 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. She went on to say: 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. She continued: 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 . . . That is totally opposed to the attitude that Senator Richardson has taken in recognising that there was considerable sense in the matters that I brought to his attention and that my figures were accurate. Indeed, he indicated that the Government intends to look at the situation and take some action to attempt to correct it. I thank the Minister for doing so. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(8.50) —Lest this new and close relationship between Senator Walters and me should at some point in time be misrepresented, might I say that, so far as Senator Crowley's remarks are concerned, I think she was referring to Senator Walters's general comments about the family package. I believe the family package is one of the great steps of this Government in social reform, and I want to defend it strongly. I would not like any of the remarks I have made to be taken in any other way. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.51) —I have been trying to determine what the Minister meant when he read out the statements from the Department of Social Security budget information document. That did not square with the comments that I quoted of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in regard to the total assistance per child. In those comments it was stated that the total assistance per child would increase from 11 per cent to at least 15 per cent of the combined married rate of pension in Labor's third term. He added that payment for older children would reach a benchmark of 20 per cent of this rate. Senator Richardson —That is correct. Senator HARRADINE —It does equal that, does it? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(8.52) —I will just read out the rest for the record. This is from the document that I quoted earlier: Achievement of benchmarks by 1990 will involve raising the total payments for children (Family Allowance plus FAS) to: 15 per cent of the married rate of pension for children under the age of 13, and 20 per cent of the married pension rate for 13, 14 and 15 year olds, in recognition of the higher cost of teenagers. They are the paragraphs that come between the two that I read out before. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.52) —On that particular point, are we now saying that in fact this is somehow related not only to the family allowance supplement (FAS) but also the family allowance scheme itself? Honourable senators should be aware-no doubt they are-of what is taking place. It looks as though the base rate of family allowances is being unjustifiably frozen. We must bear in mind that we are talking about justice now. Family allowance appears to be frozen at a totally unsatisfactory level. The present amount, by the way, will now buy only something like two-thirds of what it could buy when the allowance was first introduced. So the level of family allowance has dropped by one-third. In other words, families' taxation levels have increased on the basis of that factor alone by one-third, given the fact that the taxation rebates were abolished in 1976 to pay for this amount. The 1976 operation entailed pulling money out of the hip pocket of the taxpayer and putting it into the purse. That was fine. I did not mind that. But the trouble is that a third of that money has now been taken out of the purse. What worries me is that, unless the Government in some other way-such as through the taxation system if it will not do it with these measures-recognises that it is more costly, in terms of taxation, education, clothing and food, to support a family with children than it is to support a family without children, that injustice will continue. What I am really asking is how those figures mentioned will apply. Will they apply to the FAS or to the family allowance basic rate itself? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(8.56) —As I said, we are looking at the family allowance plus the family allowance supplement. It seems to me that, provided the Government honours its commitment to the two percentages, the 15 per cent and the 20 per cent-and I have no doubt that it will-it does not matter what the components that get us to the figure are, provided we get to the figure; and we certainly will do that as far as low income families are concerned. So while I acknowledge that the family allowance itself has not risen spectacularly since 1976, I think, by definition, the family allowance supplement is the component of the package upon which we should be concentrating at the moment. Given that, I am sure that we can allay Senator Harradine's concerns. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(8.57) —I wish to make some remarks on that matter. Given that the Minister has stressed the importance of the family allowance supplement in this whole process, I raise a concern which I have not raised today; that is, the take-up rates of the family allowance supplement. With previous supplementary benefits take-up rates have been a problem. It is acknowledged that many of the poorest families, particularly those without a great grasp of English-people in the migrant community who have not yet been able to overcome language problems, but others as well-have not had a very high take-up rate of supplements of this sort. I know that there have been advertising programs and so on, but there always have been such programs for supplementary benefits. I wonder whether the Government can give us some assurance that additional specific steps are being taken in those areas of particular need-areas where there has been a demonstrably low take-up of supplements previously. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(8.58) —Certainly it would be acknowledged that the take-up rates for the family income supplement were not all that we hoped they might be. I acknowledge that there have been particular problems in the ethnic community with them. The signs for the new test are indeed encouraging. The Government is concentrating the advertising to which the honourable senator referred on the ethnic Press to make sure that those people who lacked sufficient information to take up such programs in the past can be fully informed. We are hopeful that this problem will be rectified. I am informed that new applications in the last two months have more than doubled compared with the number for all of last year. That being the case, I think the signs are there that that situation, if not fully redressed, has been substantially redressed. Clause agreed to. Clauses 29 and 30-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 31 (Income test for family allowances). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.00) —I move: (12) Page 25, Clause 31, paragraph (d), at the end of the paragraph add ``, and by inserting the words ``or for the current year of income'' after the words ``last year of income'' when first occurring in subsection 85 (7), and by omitting the words ``the following year of'' and substituting ``the year of lower'' in subsection 85 (7)''. This amendment is proposed because section 85 (7) of the Act is, I believe, deficient in that, in combination with section 85 (1), it discriminates unfairly between families whose incomes drop substantially and permanently at some time during the first six months of a financial year and those whose income drops some time during the second six months. If the income drops during the first six months, the income taken into account is the income of the previous financial year. Therefore, the anticipated fall in income for the current financial year will not be taken into account until the latter half of that year. Many instances have been drawn to my attention where this is a concern. Incomes can fluctuate dramatically at any time. By locking decisions on eligibility into the previous financial year there is potential for a great deal of hardship. Hence this amendment is proposed. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 32 to 35-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 36 (Repeal of Part XII and substitution of new Part). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.03) —by leave-I move: (13) Page 27, clause 36, proposed section 101, proposed definition of ``disabled children'', paragraph (a), line 6, leave out the proposed paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(a) has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric disability''. (14) page 27, clause 36, proposed section 101, definition of ``disabled children'', paragraph (b), line 8, after the word ``daily'' insert the words ``or very frequent''. (15) Page 28, clause 36, proposed subsection 103 (3), lines 1 to 8, leave out the proposed subsection. These amendments relate to provisions concerning the child disability allowance. The first of them, which is an amendment to proposed section 101 (a), relates to the definition of `disability'. In the Bill, disability is defined in terms of physical and intellectual disability. Psychiatric disability is omitted. The Australian Democrats, as well as the people involved in the disability support area, are grateful for the support of the Opposition with the earlier amendment on this issue. I remind the Committee that earlier disability services legislation included psychiatric disability as a result of that same combination of the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. It is important that the three types of disability are clearly recognised and that it is acknowledged that there is a difference between intellectual and psychiatric disability. That has been clearly canvassed during this debate. I simply add that the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled has weighed into this debate and has pointed out to us-and I think pointed out today directly to the Minister-that intellectual disabilities arise from an inability to learn and understand while psychiatric disabilities arise from difficulties with emotions, feelings and perceptions of reality. We need to recognise that and not to cut out one significant sector in this definition. The proposed amendments to paragraph (b) of proposed section 101 relate to further aspects of the definition. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of the proposed section state: (b) because of that disability, needs care and attention provided by another person on a daily basis that is substantially more than the care and attention needed by a child of the same age who does not have such a disability; and (c) is likely to need that care and attention permanently or for an extended period; The amendment I am proposing addresses the concern with the limitation of the word `daily'. We are proposing to add `or very frequent' in recognition of forms of disability which may not need regular and complete care on a daily basis, different from that which a child without such a disability would need but frequently enough so that the additional allowance is necessary for the care of that child. The third amendment I am moving in this group addresses the restriction in clause 36 which might mean that the mere fact that a child attends school during the day would preclude the parent or the carer from being paid the child disability allowance. There are a considerable number of instances when attendance at a school might be part of the daily life of a child with a disability. We believe the Bill imposes an undue restriction and we propose this amendment to reduce that restriction. I commend those amendments to the Committee. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Teague) —Order! Senator Powell has spoken to amendments (13), (14) and (15), but I shall put them separately. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(9.08) —On mature consideration during the dinner suspension- Senator Haines —You are joking! Senator RICHARDSON —I occasionally have mature consideration. Given that that is the case, the Government will not oppose amendment No. (13) concerning the term `intellectual disability'. The first of the other two amendments concerns the words `on a daily basis.' I think it is really a matter of using better language, and `on a daily basis' is certainly much clearer. The new criteria allow for additional care being able to fluctuate, given that on some days it is more necessary than on others, provided at least some care is given on a daily basis. Obviously the condition of a child can be unpredictable. We think the definition more than covers any problem. Certainly it is not meant to be restrictive. So far as schooling is concerned, to which amendment No. (15) is directed, certainly there is no new restriction at all. The best example of that is the case of children in boarding school. Where a child is at boarding school, and is therefore absent from the home for 24 hours, the disability allowance will be payable only at weekends when the child is at home. The payment is not affected where the child attends school for part of the day and is home for the rest. So I do not believe that the new clause is in any way restrictive or will affect those recipients presently getting it. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.11) —I must express my absolute delight at the Minister's unqualified support for the first of these amendments. I think this constitutes a breakthrough with this Government. I am sure that the psychiatrically disabled, and those who care for and work with them, will be delighted. I also welcome the assurances of the Minister that the further definitions in regard to the child disability allowance are not intended to be restrictive. Should that prove to be the case, the Government can confidently expect further proposed amendments next time we have another social security amendment Bill-and they are introduced on a nauseatingly regular basis in this place. But the assurances are there, and we welcome those assurances and welcome the Government's support for the first of these amendments. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Teague) —The question is: That amendment No. 13 be agreed to. Amendment agreed to. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —The question now is: That amendment No. 14 be agreed to. Amendment negatived. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —The question now is: That amendment No. 15 be agreed to. Amendment negatived. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 37 and 38-by leave-taken together. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.13) —by leave-I move: (16) Page 29, clause 37, proposed subsection 117a (2), lines 33 to 37, leave out the proposed subsection. (17) Page 31, clause 38, subclause 38 (4), lines 5 to 9, leave out the proposed subclause. These amendments relate to the under-18-year-old unemployed who are now no longer able to receive the unemployment benefit and who also, by way of this legislation, would not be able to receive the sickness benefit. My amendment is designed to restore that access to the sickness benefit to under-18-year-olds. It is a concern that because the sickness benefit is not available, and because of the requirements which now exist for job search allowance recipients, that there is a distinct disadvantage to them. Job search allowance recipients have to attend the Commonwealth Employment Service office or a training course, or possibly both, with a penalty of automatic loss of income for non-compliance without any sufficient reason. We are concerned at how the Department of Social Security will be able to identify when a job search allowance recipient is ill. The practical result of this would be that those under-18-year-olds who are ill could lose their income unjustly and may not even know that they have the right to retain the job search allowance. It is also unclear how long any such termination, which might result from the lack of awareness of this situation, will last and whether in fact a fresh application would have to be made and whether reinstatement would take place only after a 13-week waiting period. We believe that the sickness benefit should continue to be available to under-18-year-old beneficiaries in spite of the fact that they are now no longer unemployment beneficiaries and go on to in many cases a reduced job search allowance. I commend these amendments to the chamber. The amendment to clause 38 is consequent upon the amendment to clause 37. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —The question is: That the amendment to clause 37 be agreed to. Amendment negatived. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —The question now is: That the amendment to clause 38 be agreed to. Amendment negatived. Clauses agreed to. Clause 39 (Indexation of Unemployment and Sickness Benefits). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.16) —I move: (18) Page 32, clause 39, subclause 39 (b), leave out the proposed subclause. This amendment relates to a point which I made in my speech at the second reading stage; that is, the Government's promise of indexation. We see the Government making economies within particular areas of the welfare sector in order to be able to claim that it is increasing support for other parts of the welfare sector. We have seen this before. We saw pension increases delayed in the 1986 Budget, and this is a rerun of that exercise. There is no justification for the Government reneging on prior commitments in relation to rates for sickness and unemployment beneficiaries. We are presently in a climate where we have a Budget which is touted as a great achievement, being a relatively balanced Budget, and we have a Treasurer claiming that there is going to be a surplus Budget next time. We are also seeing a great increase in wealth, regardless of the stock market crash. I would have to object to this point being used as an excuse for inaction, as it was earlier by the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson), when of course all that has happened as a result of the stock market crash is that we have been taken back to the stock market levels of about October 1986. I fail to see, if a millionaire drops back from having $10m to $6.5m or whatever, how that means that there is not as much wealth sloshing around at the top while pensioners and beneficiaries are once again asked to pull in their belts and to bear the brunt. This seems to the Australian Democrats to be the sort of exercise that cannot be supported. With this amendment we are seeking to have the Government come clean and live up to promises which it has made with regard to the indexation of unemployment and sickness benefits. As I say, it is the sort of exercise which is very difficult to tolerate, particularly in the current economic climate, when there is a great deal of heartache felt by people who simply cannot find employment. This kind of exercise does not recognise that they are being punished for circumstances that are beyond their control. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Powell's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Coulter, J. R. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Haines, J. Powell, J. F.Harradine, B. Sanders, N. K.Jenkins, J. A. Vallentine, J.McLean, P. A. Alston, R. K. R. Knowles, S. C.Aulich, T. G. Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Michael McGauran, J. J.Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J.Beahan, M. E. McKiernan, J. P.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Maguire, G. R.Black, J. R. Messner, A. J.Bolkus, N. Morris, J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Panizza, J. H.Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R.Burns, B. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Ray, RobertChilds, B. K. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Coates, J. Reynolds, M. E.Collins, R. L. Richardson, G. F.Colston, M. A. Ryan, S. M.Cook, P. F. S. Schacht, C. C.Cooney, B. C. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Crowley, R. A. Sibraa, K. W.Devereux, J. R. Stone, J. O.Devlin, R. Tambling, G. E. J.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Teague, B. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Vanstone, A. E.Hamer, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Hill, R. M. Walters, M. S.Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clause 40 agreed to. Clause 41. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.27) —by leave-I move: (19) Page 36, clause 41, proposed subsection 121a (1), proposed definition of ``person to whom this section applies'', (a) subparagraph (i), leave out ``6 months'', insert ``6 weeks''; (b) leave out subparagraph (ii). (20) Page 37, clause 41, proposed paragraph 121a (5) (c), lines 17 to 20, leave out the proposed subparagraph, insert the following subparagraph: ``(c) for the year of income following the last year of income or for the current year of income is, or is likely to be, at least 25% less than the taxable income of the person's parents for the last year of income:''. (21) Page 37, clause 41, proposed subsection 121a (5), line 21, leave out ``that following year of'' insert ``the year of lower''. These amendments relate to the parental income test as it applies to young people living away from home. Under the Bill, a person does not qualify for a benefit if the child lives away from home for a continuous period of at least six months. We are talking about a group of young people in the under-18 age group whose potential income has been reduced by virtue of the job search allowance being $25. One of the ways in which they can reach the $50 maximum-I might add that because of the failure of the previous amendment, that is a pegged maximum-is by not being supported in any way and, therefore, not being subject to the parental income test. It seems to the Australian Democrats that it is particularly draconian to require a person to live away from home for six months in order to qualify for the extra $25. I cannot imagine for one minute why it cannot be shown that a child has left home if that child has been away from home for less than six months. When my children have lived away from home, I have known whether they have left home or not. I know that it is a feature of children of this age group, and even older age groups, who have left home to move back again. But I do not think that the problems faced by young people living away from home have been taken into account. The first of these amendments is designed to reduce the time in which a person must have been away from home in order to qualify for the full amount to six weeks, which I think is far more reasonable. Even that is of some concern. The reasons young people leave home are stated in the October newsletter of the Institute of Family Studies. It referred to a report by Frank Maas which points out that research shows that family conflict is one of the main reasons youth leave home and that low income groups are more prone to such outcomes. In those circumstances, it seems that a six-week period for qualification is not too much to ask for. This amendment also attempts to delete the requirement for a person to have been in full time employment at some point during that period. Item (ii) of proposed new section 121A requires a person to be employed on a full time basis for a period of, or for periods that in the aggregate constitute, at least 13 weeks. In the circumstances that family conflict is a major reason for youth leaving home and that low income groups are more prone to leaving home, and given that these are the sorts of groups, the disadvantaged young people, who are least likely to get employment, it seems that the combination that is in this legislation will make it an enormously high hurdle for young people to clear in order to qualify for additional benefits and not to come under the parental income test. This raises the whole question of what the Government is on about when it talks about young people. Again, these issues are raised in the same article in the Australian Institute of Family Studies newsletter. The question is who should bear the responsibility for the upkeep of young people. The report points out that it used to be that the status of student presented the most problems, that it was difficult to reconcile the way student benefits were structured with an answer to the question of who has the responsibility. Since the May statement, it has been difficult to find clarity in the status of unemployed youth. Previously, unemployed youth faced no family income test for their benefit payments. The assumption was that a young person should be treated in his or her own right once that person entered the work force. That was, one would suggest, a reasonable assumption because surely workers, or potential workers, should be regarded as fully fledged members of society. Unemployed workers surely should be regarded no differently. Those over 21 years of age are treated accordingly. There seems to be now a tacit assumption that families will carry the extra burden. Inherent in many of the various measures which have been taken and which are being taken there are many problems because at the same time support within the family has been withdrawn for older children. Family allowances were first withdrawn from the 18- to 24-year-old dependants and for 16- to 17-year-olds once the income reached $39,000 per annum. Eligibility for Austudy depends on family income. While I would not suggest for a minute that low income families should not receive assistance for supporting teenage children, it is a fact that it is only families on very low incomes who receive support for dependent teenage children. We have referred often in this debate to the removal of the supporting parent's benefit once the youngest child reaches the age of 16. This is a conflict because that removal is consistent with the view that young people should be accorded more independent status at that age. The Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson), who was at the table when I raised this matter earlier in this debate, said just that-that the idea is that 16-year-olds are independent. Yet the Government is making it as difficult as it possibly can with this provision for young people to avoid being disqualified from family support under the parental income test. So that is the reason for that amendment. Amendments Nos (20) and (21) address an issue which was raised earlier in an amendment, the issue of whether the income of the previous financial year should be the only income which is taken into account. I have raised the point that there can be great fluctuations in income at any time. If that happens in the first six months of any financial year it can be greatly detrimental. I give the example of a young person who had applied for Austudy and whose parents separated in July 1987. The mother's only source of income then was a small amount of maintenance. Under the current rule, the mother's income was taken as being the amount it was for the financial year 1986-87, that is, the father's salary. The drop in income will not be taken into account while the current legislation stands until 1 January 1988. That is the sort of circumstance that can occur and it is the reason for amendments Nos (20) and (21). In this whole exercise there are some problems with Government policy in relation to young people, whether they are or are not considered independent. I stress that, while low income families receive some support-it is acknowledged that there is additional support for those families-there are problems in regard to family stability which have been outlined, particularly in regard to the removal of the sole parent benefit. In the whole exercise and, in particular, in the case of the job search allowance and the removal of the unemployment benefit, it can be young people from low income families who suffer most. It is very often those young people for whom the school curriculum does not cater. I instance the recent removal by the Government of special programs which have catered for those young people-the participation and equity program and the disadvantaged schools program-and the demise of the Commonwealth Schools Commission, not to mention the Government's lack of commitment to the community youth support scheme, which suits those for whom more structured programs are not appropriate. I remind the Senate that today three of those programs were closed down without any warning or explanation other than that they had been under review. Two programs were in my own State of Victoria, in Elwood and Collingwood, and the other program was in Queensland. I do not know what the young people in those areas are going to do. They have not been told. In speaking to these amendments, I raise those significant issues with relation to Government policy for this particular group of young people-low income, unemployed people, particularly those under 18 years of age. Question put: That amendment No. (19) (Senator Powell's amendment) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Coulter, J. R. Powell, J. F.Haines, J. Sanders, N. K.Jenkins, J. A. Vallentine, J.McLean, P. A. Wood, W. R.Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Alston, R. K. R. Knowles, S. C.Aulich, T. G. Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Michael McGauran, J. J.Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J.Beahan, M. E. McKeirnan, J. P.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Maguire, G. R.Black, J. R. Messner, A. J.Bolkus, N. Morris, J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Panizza, J. H.Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R.Burns, B. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Ray, RobertChilds, B. K. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Coates, J. Reynolds, M. E.Collins, R. L. Richardson, G. F.Colston, M. A. Ryan, S. M.Cook, P. F. S. Schacht, C. C.Cooney, B. C. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Crowley, R. A. Sibraa, K. W.Devereux, J. R. Stone, J. O.Devlin, R. Tambling, G. E. J.Durack, P. D. Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Teague, B. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Vanstone, A. E.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S.Hill, R. M. Zakharov, A. O.Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Amendments Nos (20) and (21) negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 42 (Income and assets test). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.47) —I move: (22) Page 37, clause 42, proposed subsection 122 (1), lines 29 to 37, leave out the proposed subsection, insert the following subsection: `` `(1) subject to subsection (2), where an unemployment benefit is payable to a person whose income exceeds $60 per fortnight, who has attained the age of 25 years and has received such a benefit for at least 6 months during the preceding 12 month period, the rate per week of that benefit shall be reduced in accordance with the assets test applying to pensioners.''. This amendment relates to the assets test provisions as they are to apply to beneficiaries under this legislation. The legislation introduces the assets test provision for beneficiaries and, while there is no fundamental objection to the principle, the concern being addressed by this amendment is that which is raised by the different application of the assets test provisions to beneficiaries as opposed to pensioners. The assets test, as it applies to beneficiaries, brings with it a `sudden death', in a sense, in that there is no sliding scale for the benefit once the threshold is reached as there is in the case of pensions. It was interesting to look at the response when this matter was raised by Opposition members in the House of Representatives. In response to those concerns, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) made the point that benefits tended to be essentially short term and that a person with substantial assets but without income for a short period was not comparatively badly off. He went on to point out that the situation was different for pensioners who were often on a pension for a longer period. The Minister went on to say: Administrative reasons played a part in the decision to go for the `sudden death' assets test. Administratively, it is a much simpler test. That was the Minister's response. I think we should look at the claim that benefits tend to be short term. Certainly, the age pension is a payment which can go on for a great many years. Let us look at the situation with benefits. In 1975, the average duration of the payment of unemployment benefit to a person was 12.7 weeks. In October this year the average duration of unemployment was 46.8 weeks. The number of Australians unemployed for six months or more has risen from 32,800 in 1975 to 283,500 this year-a nine-fold increase. Quite clearly, it is difficult to claim that the unemployment benefit is a short term benefit, and should this trend continue it will be even more difficult to claim that. What we are saying in this amendment is that while there is no fundamental objection to a fair asset test system for qualifying for benefits, if it is to apply it should apply in the same way to beneficiaries as it applies to pensioners. I commend the amendment to the Committee. (Quorum formed) Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.53) —I think it is worth while pointing out at this stage that Senator Powell has just raised in consecutive comments on a number of clauses some fairly important issues relating to the welfare of some fairly vulnerable people in this country. The last one related in particular to young people. Despite the fact that there is a box full of advisers next to the Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services (Senator Ryan), she has not bothered to respond to any of the concerns that Senator Powell has raised. One presumes that she got her ministerial position because she has some sort of intelligence and I would have thought that there was some responsibility on the part of the Minister to respond to the concerns that Senator Powell has raised about some people in this country whom the Australian Labor Party for many years said it supported. It is bad enough that in the period of its government it has turned its back on pensioners, homeless young people and people on the unemployment benefit; it is far worse when somebody on this side of the chamber moves an amendment aimed at restoring some of the lost benefits and reducing some of the hardship and the Minister does not even bother responding to the criticisms. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Powell's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Coulter, J. R. Powell, J. F.Haines, J. Sanders, N. K.Jenkins, J. A. Vallentine, J.McLean, P. A. Wood, W. R.Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Alston, R. K. R. Knowles, S. C.Aulich, T. G. Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Michael McGauran, J. J.Baume Peter MacGibbon, D. J.Beahan, M. E. McKeirnan, J. P.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Maguire, G. R.Black, J. R. Messner, A. J.Bolkus, N. Morris, J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Panizza, J. H.Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R.Burns, B. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Ray, RobertChilds, B. K. Reid, M. E.Coates, J. Reynolds, M. E.Collins, R. L. Richardson, G. F.Colston, M. A. Ryan, S. M.Cook, P. F. S. Schacht, C. C.Cooney, B. C. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Crowley, R. A. Sibraa, K. W.Devereux, J. R. Stone, J. O.Devlin, R. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Teague, B. C.Foreman, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S.Hill, R. M. Zakharov, A. O.Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Proposed new clause 42 proposed. The CHAIRMAN —Before we proceed to deal with this clause, I must point out that Senator Powell's amendment No. (23) appears to be misplaced. I think that it should come after amendment No. (26), which is to clause 55. Do you agree, Senator Powell? Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.01) —Yes, there is no doubt about it. I move: (24) Page 38, after clause 42 add the following new clause: ``42a. (1) Section 125 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from subsection (3) `5' and substituting `13' ''. (2) Section 125 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from subsection 125 (3) ``paragraph (b) does'' and substituting ``paragraphs (b) and (c) do''. (3) Section 125 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after paragraph (3) (a) the following paragraph: ``(b) in the case where the claim is lodged more than 5 weeks prior to the day on which he became incapacitated-from and including the day 5 weeks before the day on which he became incapacitated.''. This amendment addresses a problem which has arisen under the new rules introduced earlier this year, again in the May mini-Budget, whereby a person who claims sickness benefit for more than five-weeks after becoming qualified for that benefit cannot receive any back payment. The five week limit was imposed in the May mini-Budget. If the person applies within five weeks of being qualified, back payment will be made to the date on which the person became qualified. Previously, as I am sure honourable senators will remember, back payment was possible for up to 13 weeks. In our view, those who apply for sickness benefit more than five weeks but less than 13 weeks after being qualified should be entitled to back payment for five weeks prior to the date of application. What is happening as a result of this is that genuine doctors certificates going back past the five-week period are being changed on the request of the recipients because they are not able to have that back payment. We are not asking that we go back to the pre-mini-Budget provision, but simply that between five and 13 weeks back payment should be possible for those people who do not get to making that application. Obviously, when it is an application for sickness benefit there can be a number of reasons why there is delay in the application being made. I commend the new clause to the Senate. Proposed new clause negatived. Clauses 43 and 44-by leave- taken together, and agreed to. Clause 45 (Benefit not payable to full-time students). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.05) —I move: (25) Page 40, clause 45, proposed paragraph 136 (2a) (a), line 21, leave out ``commences that course'', insert ``begin receiving the payment or his or her application for it is rejected or lapses''. This amendment addresses an issue in the legislation which we consider to be quite important. Under the legislation as it stands it is possible for a benefit to cease being paid before a person who has applied for an educational payment actually receives that payment. We do not think that the benefit should cease until people receive the educational payment or until their claim is rejected, as otherwise such people might be without income support at a crucial time. When people move into educational training it often involves extra expense. Once again we have a provision which, in spite of the Government's protestations about wanting people to stay in education or get into training programs and about its own labour market direction, is likely to be a disincentive to people wanting to do just that. I commend the amendment to the Committee. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 46 to 52-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 53 (Cancellation, suspension or variation of pension etc). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.07) —I move: (26) Page 41, clause 53, proposed paragraph 168 (4) (d), lines 30 to 31, leave out ``(not being a day more than 3 months before the determination was made)''. Clause 53 is an amendment to another of the rules introduced in the May statement. However, we believe that it does not adequately rectify the problem with that rule, which relates to backdating in regard to the cancellation, suspension or variations of pensions. We believe that it should be possible to backdate the payment more than three months where the determination that there should be a cancellation, suspension or variation has occurred more than three months after the claim was made. Instances of this having been a problem have been drawn to our attention. It is for that reason that we propose our amendment. We would be interested in hearing some comment on this matter, as we would have been interested in hearing some comment on the other amendments which we have proposed. I refer in particular to the last few such amendments and the problems which have occurred to people who have to operate within the ambit of legislation passed by this Parliament, passed too often without regard to the impact that it can have on individuals. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State)(10.08) —Paragraph 168 (4) (d) is primarily concerned with increases in the rate of pension. It allows this to be done up to three months retrospectively in certain circumstances. However, we agree that there is some doubt about the effect of this on the initial grant of pension. The Department will act on the interpretation that claims can be granted from the first pay day following lodgment of a claim regardless of how late the determination is made. The issue will be clarified in legislation at the earliest opportunity. However, I point out that the Australian Democrats' amendment actually removes the flexibility to have a determination operate up to three months retrospectively. Therefore, we do not accept the amendment. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 54 agreed to. Clause 55 (Secretary may impose certain requirements). Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.09) —I move: (23) Page 42, clause 55, after paragraph (b) add the following new paragraph: ``(bb) by omitting from subsection (2) ``unless the person complies with the reasonable requirements of the Secretary, with respect to any such matter'' and substituting ``unless the person complies with the reasonable requirements of the Secretary, which shall be provided in writing, with respect to any such matter.'' This amendment is brought forward because of concerns which surround the activity test as it applies to job search allowance recipients and new measures introduced in this legislation and, in particular, in this clause. The imposition of requirements for unemployment benefit recipients has been extended, in particular the requirement which may be made for those recipients to undertake courses of training of one kind or another. This amendment simply seeks to make it necessary for that requirement to be in writing. We believe that this is necessary because it is a matter which will not be consistent; it will occur from time to time. The requirement will not be something which is necessarily regular for all recipients on all occasions. Therefore, if it is a requirement which is not in writing, it is considered by us to be open to substantial abuse. Therefore, I have moved this amendment to ensure that when there is a requirement for the attendance at any course on referral by the Commonwealth Employment Service, then it should be in writing, because if that requirement is not met, then the allowance is withdrawn. We believe that it needs to be in writing for the protection of the recipient so that there is no misunderstanding in the circumstance where that requirement is not met. I commend this amendment to the Committee. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.12) —The Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan) has not yet responded on this amendment. I think it is important, particularly from the point of view of people being able to go to the relevant tribunal with regard to the denial of their rights on any particular occasion. One can well imagine in these types of circumstances that, unless a person is able to show in writing that a direction has been given, it would be very difficult for the bureaucrats to be able to prove in a tribunal that such a direction had been given. I think it is for the protection of both sides that a written direction should be made available in preference to an oral direction, which can always be disputed and will often be disputed in those circumstances where a denial of pensions or benefits is likely. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State)(10.13) —I think Senator Powell had overlooked the fact that requirements that decisions be in writing are already in section 15. So the kinds of decisions she is expressing concern about are already required to be in writing. The Department does abide by section 15 of the principal Act. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 56 to 62-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 63 to 65-by leave-taken together. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(10.14) —by leave-I move: (27) Page 44, clause 63, proposed section 12, definition of ``application day'', lines 19 to 26, leave out the definition, insert the following definition: `` `review period' in relation to a veteran who has made a claim for a pension or an application for an increase in the rate of a pension or a veteran on whose behalf such a claim or application has been made means that period up to and including the date of determination by the Repatriation Commission or the Veterans' Review Board or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as the case may be.''. (28) Page 44, clause 64, proposed subsection 19 (2a), line 37, leave out ``on the application day'', insert ``during the review period''. (29) Page 44, clause 64, after proposed subsection 19 (2a) add the following new subsection: ``(2ab) Subject to section 24a, a veteran shall be entitled to the rate of pension provided for by section 23 or 24, if the veteran is a veteran to whom that section has applied at any time up to and including the date of the decision of the Repatriation Commission, Veterans' Review Board or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, as the case may be.''. (30) Page 45, clause 65, proposed paragraph 24a (c), lines 19 to 21, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(c) in the case of a veteran to whom section 24 applies-the veteran's age or length of time out of employment shall not be taken into account in determining what prevents the veteran from continuing in employment, if the veteran ceased employment as a result of the veteran's war-caused injury or war-caused disease alone.''. Honourable senators will be aware that it was the stated intention of the Government in proposing these clauses that they overcome a difficulty which flowed from some legal judgment which threatened the continuity of totally and permanently incapacitated pensions for recipients beyond the age of 65. It is argued by the Government that these clauses resolve those difficulties and ensure continuity. I have received counter argument from legal counsel to the effect that these clauses do not achieve what they are intended to achieve. It is argued by legal counsel of veterans' groups that the provisions of clauses 63, 64 and 65, which introduce the concept of the application day, fail to preserve continuity and, even worse, as I said in my speech at the second reading stage, they make it extremely difficult to seek a special rate pension successfully in the future. The departmental legal opinion differs from this. It appears that the two bodies of opinion-both learned, informed and well intentioned-arrive at different interpretations of the legal effects of these clauses. I have been asked to represent the views of those whose interpretation says that the legal effect of the clauses is not to ensure continuity and in fact is potentially to deprive applicants who might otherwise be worthy. It is argued that we are facing a veritable minefield of litigation if this ambiguity is not resolved. I am advised that these amendments resolve the ambiguity. I am also advised that the ambiguity flows out of the ambiguity of a legal judgment in relation to the matter of Banovich. I am told that on the one hand this judgment can be interpreted in a sense that is favoured by the Department of Veterans' Affairs and on the other hand in another legal sense that is favoured by veteran litigants. Therefore we have a serious legal ambiguity on our hands. It is argued that the introduction of an application day imposes an absolute time limit, which is unjust in that it imposes in a legal sense a limitation of action which is inappropriate in this type of legislation. In fact, I am assured that honourable senators are aware that such a limit to action is very uncommon in this type of legislation and is judged to be quite inappropriate. In almost all other areas there is provision for discretion. Such provision is excluded by these clauses. The Veterans Advocates Advisory Group briefly summarises its legal objections to clauses 63, 64 and 65 in a letter which it sent to most, if not all, senators. Its first observation is: All the criteria of the TPI must be considered on only one day... That is, should this concept of an application day be affirmed. Its second observation is: Most veterans are unaware of when is the most appropriate time to lodge their application and may inadvertently disentitle themselves... That is, as a result of this focusing on a specific application day. The third observation is: Even a single day difference might disentitle a veteran; there is no discretion. It is observed that this was probably not intended, but it is argued that that is the legal effect. The fourth observation is: There are Sections in the Act which, by their nature, presuppose views up to the date of hearing review. These clauses are inconsistent with those Sections. In other words, this body of legal opinion is citing internal contradiction within the Act as it will be amended should these clauses proceed. Its fifth observation is: 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. In short, the observation of those who put forward this learned legal opinion is that there will be a veritable minefield of litigation. It must be resolved by the amendments which they have advocated that I move on their behalf. They are not contending that any ill will is intended, but rather that there is genuine legal ambiguity that must be resolved in the interests of the veterans. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State)(10.20) —Apparently, the amendments being proposed by the Australian Democrats are seen as advantaging veterans. However, they are unclear in their effect and could have the result of depriving particular veterans of a pension at a higher rate. For example, is it intended that veterans must comply with the totally and permanently incapacitated (TPI) eligibility criteria over the whole of the review period? What would the result be if a veteran meets the TPI criteria for part of the period and then fails to meet the criteria for the rest of the period? These amendments would go well beyond the broadest view of what is the current law by enabling TPI eligibility to be tested at any date before an application for an increase in pension has been lodged. The Government has asked the Department of Veterans' Affairs monitoring committee to address the issue of up to date assessment in its report on the operation of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. This course is much preferable to supporting the amendments put forward by the Democrats. Amendment (30), which would remove the new paragraph 24a (c) from the Bill, would have the effect of enabling a TPI pensioner to keep his TPI pension even though he was working more than eight hours a week. It would make a mockery of the existing TPI eligibility criteria. Amendment (30) would also seek to insert a new paragraph 24a (c). The proposed amendment is a nonsense; it would have no effect. Paragraph 24a (c) currently specifies one of the exceptions to the continuation of payment of the TPI pension for the life of the veteran. That exception is where the veteran becomes capable of working more than eight hours a week. That is one of the basic eligibility criteria for the TPI pension. The proposed amendment would say that it is an exception to the rule that a TPI pension is payable for life where the veteran's age or health shall not be taken into account in determining a claim. This is a nonsense. It does not make any sense. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(10.23) —As I have said, there are simply two bodies of legal thought on this matter. The body of legal interpretation which I am representing in these amendments simply rejects those observations. It does so sincerely and accepts the alternative interpretation, but it simply does not acknowledge it. If I may cite an anomaly, under the proposed legislation if there are two veterans retiring early, one lodging an application on the last day of employment and the other one month after that time but otherwise equal, the first will be disentitled whilst the other will not. The two additional amendments which extend beyond the application day controversy simply cite that there are injustices which flow out of the circumstances of needing to fulfil three criteria on one day. I am told that on many occasions it would simply be impossible for all three criteria to be filled on one day-namely, the application day. So, quite clearly, we are dealing with two learned bodies of legal opinion which simply differ over the interpretation of this and say that we will be in trouble if we proceed with the amendments in their present form. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.24) —I remember when we debated the original legislation some time ago. In fact, the original legislation took well over a year to come to completion. At the time I had the carriage of veterans for my Party. There was a division on this matter and my Party opposed the insertion of the clauses which eventually were the subject of a court case and caused such enormous trouble. I think it is interesting that, at that time, we got much the same type of answer from the Minister as we are currently getting from the Minister; that is, an airy wave of the arm and the suggestion that it is absurd. It so happens that the court case was resolved in our favour, not in the Government's favour, so the Minister should be relatively careful about that. By inserting the types of conditions that were inserted after the age of 65, which is where the problems came from in the previous exercise, we ended up with a judgment from the court with regard to the continuing test. Really, this is where we are hung up at the moment in terms of this legislation. I do not think that these clauses will meet the problem that the court has posed. Essentially, the problem that we were faced with was an interpretation by the court which, in many ways and certainly in a number of its aspects, I consider to be basically absurd. Here I think I would agree with at least one comment of the Special Minister of State-that the court made a judgment that somehow or other it was the intention of this Parliament to create a test in respect of totally and permanently incapacitated (TPI) ex-servicemen. I think when one goes back and reads the Hansard one will see that this was not the intention of the Government, the Opposition, the Australian Democrats or anyone who contributed to that debate. So, in essence, I think the court judgment was obviously an absurd one in terms of the legislation which was passed. Nevertheless, the court made that judgment, we are stuck with it and we have to try to get back out of it. Unfortunately I think that the legislation before us will not clarify the position. I accept the point raised by the Minister that in trying to move to correct the basic position one might end up disadvantaging a different group of veterans. I think that could probably happen in respect of our amendments. It is a case of deciding which group of veterans would be least disadvantaged. We believe that our amendments would disadvantage the smallest group of veterans in terms of the amount of pension they may lose. The only way to make sure that nobody is disadvantaged is to return to the previous position in which TPI pensioners were placed, which is, of course, what we advocated in the first place. The Government does not intend to do that. Instead, it intends to rely on the monitoring committee, which, I also remind honourable senators, was set up at the instigation of my Party. I think we will find that, after this legislation is enacted, the monitoring committee will come back with evidence of an identical set of problems for a different group of veterans. I believe it would be far better if we adopted the Australian Democrats' amendments and then moved on to try to come to some constructive resolution of the problem. Question put: That the amendments (Senator McLean's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Coulter, J. R. Powell, J. F.Haines, J. Sanders, N. K.Jenkins, J. A. Vallentine, J.McLean, P. A. Wood, W. R.Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Alston, R. K. R. Jones, G. N.Aulich, T. G. Knowles, S. C.Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Peter McGauran, J. J.Beahan, M. E. MacGibbon, D. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McKiernan, J. P.Black, J. R. Maguire, G. R.Bolkus, N. Messner, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Morris, J. J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Panizza, J. H.Burns, B. R. Parer, W. R.Calvert, P. H. Patterson, K. C. L.Chaney, F. M. Puplick, C. J. G.Childs, B. K. Ray, RobertCoates, J. Reid, M. E.Collins, R. L. Reynolds, M. E.Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ryan, S. M.Cooney, B. C. Schacht, C. C.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G.Crowley, R. A. Short, J. R.Devereux, J. R. Sibraa, K. W.Devlin, R. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Teague, B. C.Foreman, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S.Hill, R. M. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the negative. Clauses 63 to 65 agreed to. Clauses 66 to 75-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 77 to 81-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Remainder of Bill and clause 76, as amended-by leave-taken together. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(10.37) —by leave-I move: (31) That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment: Page 56, clause 82, proposed paragraph 85 (4) (aa) lines 24 and 25, leave out all words after `during', insert `the periods referred to as `periods of hostilities' as defined in subsection 35 (1);'. Page 56, after clause 83, insert the following clause: `83a. Section 90 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section substituted: `Treatment principles `90. (1) The regulations may prescribe treatment principles, setting out circumstances in which, and conditions subject to which, treatment of a particular kind, or included in a particular class of treatment, may be provided under this Part for, or in respect of, eligible persons- (a) by the Commission at a hospital or other institution operated by the Commission; (b) at a hospital or other institution in respect of which the Commission has entered into arrangements under paragraph 89 (1) (b) or (c); or (c) otherwise under this Part. (2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the regulations may specify kinds of classes of treatment that will not be provided for, or in respect of, eligible persons under this Part, or will not be so provided at places, or in circumstances, specified or described in the regulations. (3) The provisions of the regulations made under subsection (1) are binding on the Commission in the exercise by it of its powers and discretions under this Part. (4) In this section `eligible person' means a person eligible under section 85, 86, 87 or 88 to be provided with treatment.'.'. Presumably it has been noted by those who have been listening this evening that for all divisions on the amendments that have been moved to the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Bill this evening, we have witnessed the extraordinary sight of the Australian Democrats and Independents voting on one side, and the Government, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia voting together to defeat all the amendments, some of the most important and constructive amendments that have come before this chamber since I have been here. Opposition senators-Oh! Senator McLEAN —Honourable senators may not believe it but I speak for myself. I really believe it. I now address myself to the two remaining amendments, the first of which seems innocuous. It simply asks that we grant the same veterans' entitlements to women as we grant to male servicemen. I would be surprised if the amendment were opposed by either the Government or the Opposition. It is a fairly simple proposition that servicewomen be acknowledged to the same degree as servicemen. That is my proposed amendment to clause 82. My amendment to clause 83 I believe to be a much more emotional proposition. I think most people would have registered by now that it is the proposal of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys), exercising his privilege, to impose, as from 1 January 1988, a penalty or a fee of $111 per week on all totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners in nursing homes. It is a tragic coincidence that, on 1 January 1988 when we begin the celebration of the nation this will be the happy new year present which will be extended by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to totally and permanently incapacitated Australians, many of whom have been totally and permanently incapacitated for most of their lives. Senator Powell —Shame! Senator McLEAN —It is a shameful decision carried out at the discretion of the Minister. The amendment proposes to remove the privilege of the Minister of introducing this variation to the circumstances of totally and permanently incapacitated veterans in nursing homes and to demand or insist that it be done under regulation, which gives the right of denial to the Parliament. In moving this amendment I register the absolute disgust of the Australian Democrats that this amendment is necessary. The CHAIRMAN —I call Senator Richardson. Senator Haines —Now you are going to tell us what you have got against ex-servicewomen. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(10.40) —I have nothing against ex-servicewomen. They are indeed great Australians, Senator Haines, and I, along with the Government, want to do all we can to help them. In accordance with the Government's election commitment, clause 82 currently extends such rights to ex-servicewomen of World War II only. The previous Minister, Senator Gietzelt, in response to a request from the Returned Services League (RSL) commissioned a study into the particular circumstances of these women. The study identified discrimination against them and disadvantages, so that the Government's extension of treatment rights was directly an acknowledgment of the results of the study. However, the circumstances that applied to those women did not apply to women who gave service in later conflicts. Indeed, the RSL gave assurances that the extension would not be seen as a precedent for other claims in the future. No case has been made out, and accordingly the Government opposes the requested amendment. As far as the amendment to replace section 90 is concerned, I do not think there is sufficient understanding on the part of the Democrats as to the complexities-- Senator Haines —I do not think there is sufficient concern on your part. Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Haines, remain calm. I do not think there is sufficient understanding on the part of the Democrats as to the complexities of the treatment principles. The treatment principles existing under section 90 are set out in detail and veterans are able to obtain copies of them. They can therefore understand what is to be or what is not. The document is, of course, readily available to them, but the important thing is that it is readily adaptable to changes and circumstances, given of course the safeguard that the Minister would have to approve any change. That document is easily understood by veterans and its flexibility would be lost if we were to agree to this amendment. I am not sure whether Senator McLean is aware of the time that it would take to put all of those treatment principles into regulations. If the Government were to agree to his amendment the inevitable result would be a time lag. That would mean that there would be uncertainty and no guide whatsoever to veterans and their dependants for an intolerable amount of time. Obviously that is not what veterans want, it is not what the Government wants and it is why the amendment should be rejected. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(10.43) —What an extraordinary reply from the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson). First he tells us that a study has been made into the circumstances of ex-servicewomen who served in Korea, Malaya and Vietnam and that their circumstances differ from those of the servicewomen who served in the two previous world wars. What a profound observation that was. Of course their circumstances vary, and they are likely to change from today. Many of those women are, we hope, likely to live many years, and their circumstances will change profoundly. The observation I made about the legislation and the introduction of the concept of an application day applies exactly the same rigidity of thought as the Minister has attempted to impose on us in that ridiculous observation he has just made. As for saying that totally and permanently incapacitated veterans in nursing homes, many of whom are in their nineties, should be in the slightest bit concerned about the fact that it might take some time to produce some regulations which will impose upon them, or not impose upon them, a fee of $111, that is just a whole lot of verbal gobbledegook. The Minister has tried to confuse us with words and tried to pretend that he has responded to an observation that, as from 1 January 1988, he has the right to inform the veterans in writing that they will get a bill of $111 a week for the rest of their lives. They are non-responses. If the Minister cares to try again, please do. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(10.45) —Senator McLean is new in this place, so I will accept that he does not understand. But just in case there is some mistake about the words-although, having checked, I see there is certainly no mistake-I did not say that a study had been commissioned into the circumstances of women involved in conflicts later than World War II. I said-and I repeat it so that the honourable senator will understand-that a study was done of the circumstances of women who had been involved in World War II. The Returned Services League of Australia (RSL) had requested such a study. The Government responded to the request. The RSL made it clear at the time that it did not believe that that was setting a precedent for women involved in later conflicts. I do not think I have made any extraordinary statements. They are quite normal and they are in accordance with the wishes of the RSL. The Government has therefore acted properly. As far as I am concerned, the only extraordinary statement that has been made tonight on this question is that the veterans we are talking about are in their nineties. The average age is the late sixties. Those in their late sixties would definitely be concerned about the undue delay in certainty as to what their entitlements were likely to be if the Government were to agree to the amendment, and therefore it cannot. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(10.46) —There is no doubt at all about what will happen to these people. They will receive a bill for $111 a week for the rest of their lives. There is no conjecture, no doubt, no need for them to get it in writing in an envelope from the Minister, because they are hearing it tonight. They heard it admitted two weeks ago by the Minister for Local Government, Senator Reynolds, when she responded to my questions in her capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys). There is no conjecture about it. These people know that if the Minister has his way, without a response from the Parliament, which is what this amendment provides for, they will get a bill for $111 a week for the rest of their lives, beginning on the first day of the celebration of the nation. I cannot imagine anything more offensive for totally and permanently incapacitated veterans, many of whom have been that way for most of their lives. I cannot comprehend how a government could make such a decision. There are only 750 people involved. Many of them are very aged and very infirm and have been very infirm for most of their lives. It is the most extraordinary, dispassionate, crude decision I have heard from a government. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(10.48) —Not only have I been accused today of being insensitive; I am now accused of being dispassionate. This is really going too far. As far as the specifics-- Senator Haines —I will throw in `sexist' and `discriminatory', if you like. Senator RICHARDSON —I certainly have not been sexist. Senator Haines —You have, on the question of ex-servicewomen's rights. Senator RICHARDSON —I have not; perish the thought. Most of the beneficiaries about whom we are now speaking and who are in nursing homes currently meet the patient contribution. However, at present the Repatriation Commission accepts financial responsibility for the patient contribution of those beneficiaries who have been specifically admitted to nursing homes as a result of war-caused disabilities. The exemption from the patient contribution of any group will create an inequitable situation, as in a relatively small number of cases no contribution is being made towards board and lodging. These patients would be responsible for their maintenance at home or in hostels. The absence of such a contribution could in some circumstances create a financial incentive for institutional care. I would not have thought that there was anything dispassionate, sexist, discriminatory or insensitive in any of the remarks that I made. Certainly none of them would be-- Senator Haines —Uncaring; you forgot `uncaring'. Senator RICHARDSON —`Uncaring' is the word that I was just about to use. Great minds think alike, as they say. I would have thought that at this point it might have been appropriate for Senator McLean to withdraw his amendment in view of the explanation that I have given. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.51) —In his first response in regard to service women, the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) said that no case had been made out. I put to the Committee that no case needs to be made out. These women are service women. No case is made out for servicemen. The case is that they have served their country. The case for service women is identical-they have served their country. They do not need to go cap in hand to the Government in order to be treated in the same fashion as men. Just because it took 40 years for this Government or any government to deal with service women from World War II in the same way as it dealt with servicemen, why should the service women from Korea and Vietnam have to wait another 40 years? The Minister then compounded his rather absurd statement about going cap in hand and making out a special case for being women, which is basically what he was saying-- Senator Richardson —Nonsense! Senator MACKLIN —Senator Richardson was saying that he said that no special case had been made out. These women do not have to make out a special case; they merely have to have served their country. They should only have to merely serve their country in order to be dealt with in the same way as servicemen. The Minister's second argument was even more absurd than the first. He said that the reason the Government changed its mind over the Second World War service women was that it had done a study. The reason that it will not change its mind over the service women from Korea and Vietnam is that it has not done a study. That probably takes the cake for one of the most absurd reasons in the entire debate for not doing anything. The Government has not made a study and therefore it will not do anything. If the Government would say that it is undertaking a study and as a result of that it might do something, then we would revert to the first problem. But now we have two distinct problems as a result of the answers the Minister has given. First, service women somehow or other must make out a special case because they are women and, secondly, the Government will not undertake a study. It has undertaken a study on World War II service women and has decided that they need some assistance but it has not done a study on women who served in Vietnam and Korea, so it has decided they do not need any assistance. As a matter of prima facie logic, I would suggest that as the Government has done a study of women who served in the Second World War and has discovered that they should be treated in the same way as servicemen from the Second World War, if it did a study of the women who served in Vietnam and Korea it would probably come up with the unmistakable conclusion that they should be treated in the same way as men who served in Vietnam and Korea. That seems to be a reasonable proposition. Finally, we have a situation in which we will have an undue delay on the other matter. That is very good coming from this Minister because it is a classic case taken right out of the Yes Minister series. One of the reasons given in this celebrated series for not doing something was that it would take an inordinate time to get round to making regulations. I wish that I had written down the Minister's words tonight because they probably came right out of the actual text. To claim, in this place, that the reason we cannot amend legislation is that the bureaucrats will take an awfully long time to do their job is an extraordinary proposition. In fact, regulations can be drafted overnight. I have seen it in this place when the Government has had to move that quickly in order to get regulations made in that time. When I originally came into this place and the Fraser Administration was in office, I was in this chamber at 2 o'clock one morning-a stage we may reach tonight-and I was told that it would take three days to get a Bill from here to the House of Representatives and back again. It took exactly three-quarters of an hour for the Bill involved to do that. But I was told there would be an inordinate delay. We are told every year that things are urgent, but if we have an election they are no longer urgent. We are told all sorts of things as an excuse for not doing something. Let us have a reason why we should not do it and I will debate the reason but let not the Minister come in here and say that the bureaucrats will take an awfully long time to get the regulations done. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(10.56) —There may be an excuse for Senator McLean; there is no such excuse for Senator Macklin. I will go through a number of the points that he has raised. First, I have not stated at any time that the reason we have not extended benefits is that a study has not been done. Let us look at what normally happens with veterans' matters. The organisation that represents the interests of veterans is not the Australian Democrats, thank God. I might say that veterans thank God that that is not the case as well. The Returned Services League (RSL) does it. I know the Australian Democrats are upset tonight, however I wish they would listen even for just a moment. I sat in abject silence and listened to the Democrats. Senator McLean —At the end of this night the veterans will know who represent them. The numbers will indicate it. It will be in the Hansard. Senator RICHARDSON —Senator McLean should take three deep breaths, not just one. On the points raised by Senator Macklin, it must be remembered that the Government will respond to representations from the RSL properly. When it brings forward a case the Government will look at the case and if it is proven the Government will act. The Government did act. But let us remember that what we have done here, if anything, is discriminate against men, not against women. Senator Sanders —Oh! Senator RICHARDSON —This has naught to do with the United States alliance and naught to do with trees. I ask Senator Sanders please to remain totally calm. World War II service women will have treatment rights without-I repeat, without-a specific repatriation entitlement. Servicemen do not have that. They do not have access to treatment without a specific repatriation entitlement, as Senator McLean would know. So if anything this legislation discriminates against men. I find Senator Macklin's point quite extraordinary. He suggests that all these regulations can be drafted overnight-there is no great problem, the complexities or the size do not matter, tomorrow morning we can trot out to the Governor-General's and have them all signed. Let us have a look at what that entails. I have here the treatment principles. They are not on one page; they go through to page 51. They are complex principles. To put those properly drafted into regulations would take time. It cannot be done overnight. It would not matter who was in government, it just cannot be done. All of the Democrats know that and posing will not change the position one bit. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(10.59) —We have to give some credit to the Minister: he is trying to defend an almost indefensible position. I would like to shift the focus now from the inadequate responses of the Government to what is clearly a totally callous imposition. In a few minutes when we have a division on this matter once again we will witness the extraordinary fact that the Opposition will vote with the Government to enforce this precise thing. I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) is in the chamber to defend this action. The Opposition's justification will be that it sees this Bill as a Budget Bill. The Opposition has voted with the Government on all these amendments because it defines this as a Budget Bill and therefore it hides behind this extraordinary umbrella. It will support this extraordinary proposal on the ground that supposedly this is a Budget Bill. If Opposition senators care to go to the offices of the Senate, they can get a superb paper which was written to educate the likes of us about the distinction between Budget Bills, Appropriation Bills and the like. It will clearly establish that Opposition senators are hiding behind an umbrella in saying that this is a Budget Bill when in fact the Appropriation Bills were passed, giving the money to the Government, the week before last. This is not a Budget Bill; it is all about principle; it is all about policy. Therefore, I believe that Opposition senators will have to think very seriously, when a division is called on this matter, about whether they support it. Question put: That the request and the amendment (Senator McLean's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Coulter, J. R. Powell, J. F.Haines, J. Sanders, N. K.Jenkins, J. A. Vallentine, J.McLean, P. A. Wood, W. R.Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Alston, R. K. R. Jones, G. N.Aulich, T. G. Knowles, S. C.Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R.Baume Peter McGauran, J. J.Beahan, M. E. MacGibbon, D. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McKiernan, J. P.Black, J. R. Maguire, G. R.Bolkus, N. Messner, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Morris, J. J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Panizza, J. H.Burns, B. R. Parer, W. R.Calvert, P. H. Patterson, K. C. L.Chaney, F. M. Puplick, C. J. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Ray, RobertChilds, B. K. Reid, M. E.Coates, J. Reynolds, M. E.Collins, R. L. Richardson, G. F.Colston, M. A. Ryan, S. M.Cook, P. F. S. Schacht, C. C.Cooney, B. C. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Crowley, R. A. Sibraa, K. W.Devereux. J. R. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Devlin, R. Tate, M. C.Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Evans, Gareth Vanstone, A. E.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Walters, M. S.Hamer, D. J. Zakharov, A. O.Hill, R. M. Question so resolved in the negative. Remainder of Bill and clause 76, as amended, agreed to. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is that the Bill be reported. Motion (by Senator Richardson) agreed to: Leave out all words after `That', insert clauses 3, 11 and 76 be reconsidered'. Clauses 3, 11 and 76. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(11.09) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 3, clause 3, after subclause (9) insert the following subclause: ``(10) The amendment made by subsection 76 (2) applies to payments under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 that fall due on or after 13 November 1987. Commencement: Day of Royal Assent''. (2) Page 10, clause 11, after subclause (1) insert the following subclause: ``(2) Section 7 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting subsection (4) and substituting the following subsection: `(4) Where: (a) the amount per annum of the reduction under subsection (3) in the maximum annual rate of pension, benefit (other than a benefit under Part XIII) or allowance applicable to a person in respect of property of the person or the person's spouse that is property referred to in paragraph (1) (c) is less than the lesser of the following amounts per annum: (i) the amount per annum equal to 2.5% of the value of that property; (ii) the amount per annum that could reasonably be expected to be obtained from a purely commercial application of that property; or (b) there is no reduction under subsection (3) in respect of that property; the maximum annual rate of pension, benefit or allowance applicable to the person shall: (c) in a case to which paragraph (a) applies-be further reduced by the difference between that first-mentioned reduction and that lesser amount per annum; or (d) in a case to which paragraph (b) applies-be reduced by that lesser amount per annum.'. Commencement: 13 November 1987''. (3) Page 11, Clause 11, leave out from paragraph (3) (g) ``greater'' (wherever occurring), insert ``lesser''. (4) Page 53, Clause 76, after subclause (1) insert the following subclause: ``(2) Section 53 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting subsection (3) and substituting the following subsection: `(3) Where: (a) the amount per annum of the reduction under subsection (2) in the maximum annual rate of pension applicable to a person in respect of property of the person or the person's spouse that is property referred to in paragraph (1) (c) is less than the lesser of the following amounts per annum: (i) the amount per annum equal to 2.5% of the value of that property; (ii) the amount per annum that could reasonably be expected to be obtained from a purely commercial application of that property; or (b) there is no reduction under subsection (2) in respect of that property; the maximum annual rate of pension, applicable to the person shall: (c) in a case to which paragraph (a) applies-be further reduced by the difference between that first-mentioned reduction and that lesser amount per annum; or (d) in a case to which paragraph (b) applies-be reduced by that lesser amount per annum.'. Commencement: 13 November 1987''. The Government's proposal for the pension assets test hardship provisions I believe were already fair and equitable, cutting off loopholes to make sure that only those people who needed public income support got it. Nevertheless, given the attitude of the Opposition and the Australian Democrats and because of the need to get the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill through Parliament to enable the Government to pay the family package increases, the Government will agree to amend the Bill in the terms that I have circulated. The effect of the amendment will be that in cases where the amount that could reasonably be expected to be obtained from the commercial application of the property in question is less than 2.5 per cent of the value of the property, the 2.5 per cent need not apply. In moving this amendment, I undertake that where a farm is being operated by a family member of the pensioner, for example, the child of the pensioner, and it is not unreasonable to expect that farm to be used for other purposes, the provision will be amended and the legislation will be administered so that the overall financial situation of that family member will be taken into account in determining what rent, if any, that family member could reasonably be expected to pay. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(11.12) —The Opposition welcomes the package of amendments, if they can be referred to as such. The amendments are as a result of negotiations by the Opposition with the Government prior to the dinner break this evening. The Government has produced these amendments in response to the coalition's concerns. To put it simply, the Government had planned a harsh application of the assets test to pensioners and veterans. The Opposition moved to have the clauses that would implement the harsher administration of the assets test referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs and to remove the clauses from the Bill to allow that Committee to review them while giving the Government the remainder of the Bill. The Government has responded to this pressure from the coalition by moving these amendments and giving an undertaking in respect of the guidelines. These amendments represent an acknowledgment that the Opposition's concerns were well founded in the first place. They represent an acknowledgment that what the Government was proposing had the potential to produce an excessively harsh effect on certain pensioners and veterans. With the passage of these amendments the situation will be substantially better than that which the Government was proposing to implement. The coalition is pleased that the Government has seen the light. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(11.14) —The Australian Democrats, too, welcome this package of amendments moved by the Minister. I think it is important to point out that the process which has led to the moving of these amendments will lead, therefore, as Senator Vanstone has said, to legislation that is fair and equitable and that meets the needs that were addressed in the original debate on these aspects of the assets test. This process has occurred because, uncharacteristically, the Opposition moved amendments which were supported by the Australian Democrats, we having proposed similar amendments to this legislation ourselves. I think that is an interesting demonstration of the fact that such agreement can be constructive, as it has been in this case. I am sure that the farming community and other people with considerable assets but problems in relation to the nature of those assets are pleased about that process. I would not stand here and accuse the Government and the Opposition of having done a deal, even though they communicated over the dinner hour. I think it is absolutely marvellous that this kind of communication can take place and I hope that the next time we negotiate with either the Government or the Opposition, either on amendments similar to this or on others, we will not be accused of having done a deal either. If we are working in the interests of our constituents-which I believe the coalition was, just as we were, in this exercise-a resolution such as this is a just outcome. I think it is one that the Parliament should see very much more often, especially when it comes to Budget legislation which apparently now is no longer sacrosanct. Amendments agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Richardson) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.16) —I am not keen to detain the Senate at this late hour, given that we have been sitting for some time, but I did want to make a couple of comments in light of the debate which has taken place in the committee stage of the Bill over the last half hour or so. There has been some comment on the fact that the Opposition has taken a general view that we should not support amendments which increase expenditure of the Commonwealth. The position of the Opposition is quite clear on that. We made a statement with respect to our general approach to Budget Bills. I remind the Senate that we have taken the view for some time that the level of government expenditure is excessive and that we have, therefore, been calling upon the Government to reduce government expenditure. In those circumstances, the Opposition has not seen it as consistent with its stance to turn around and support amendments which would increase the expenditure of the Government. I would like to make that point clear because I think it is a simple point and a point which is obviously of very great importance to the Opposition. We think it is an important point to be understood. With respect to the matter which was the subject of debate at the end of the committee stage; namely the position of ex-servicewomen in certain theatres of war, there is certainly very great concern in the Opposition at what appears to us to be an inconsistency. The Government has in its amendments just moved by the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) accepted that the concerns of the Opposition warranted some attention and it has made adjustments to the assets test as it applies to that limited group of people who live on family farms usually with younger members of the family. Those farms are simply not producing enough to provide an income for the family which is working the farm and rent for the parents who still own the farm. So there is a genuine economic and social problem. The Opposition is pleased that the Government has acknowledged that by moving the amendments which pick up some of the Opposition's concerns. My main point in rising now is to say to the Government that we think there is a genuine point of principle. I am pleased that Senator Ryan is in the chamber because she has a particular responsibility within the Government for matters which relate to the situation of women in Australia. I simply say to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, who is at the table, and to Senator Ryan that I hope that they will take back to the Government the points which have been raised in debate, the concerns which were expressed in the second reading debate by Senator Vanstone on behalf of the Opposition about the extent to which there is a differentiation between male and female ex-service personnel in particular theatres of war. On the simple point of principle that an Opposition which is continually saying to the Government that we think that government expenditure has to be controlled and, indeed, reduced, we are not prepared to then foist upon the Government on an ad hoc basis increases in expenditure because we do not see that as being a consistent and principled course of conduct. Given that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) today has announced a slightly better outcome with respect to Forward Estimates than he previously thought, I suspect the Government will see its way clear to make some adjustments on this matter. I certainly urge early consideration of them. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 19 November, on motion by Senator Reynolds: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(11.20) —I gave notice earlier that I would be moving an amendment to the second reading motion of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987. I pointed out that the reason we were moving an amendment in this form rather than amending a particular clause of the Bill was related to the difficulty of getting that amendment drafted. Earlier we heard the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) speak to this matter. He used a rather contorted argument similar to the one we heard him use earlier this evening in relation to relative disadvantage. I now formally 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''. Senator Richardson argued that if this amendment were carried those who were in receipt of the job search allowance would get an advantage compared with others who were unemployed and on unemployment benefits. I have already pointed out that the $62.50 per year which would be paid by somebody on job search allowance would represent between 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 weeks of his or her annual income, which is grossly in excess of the proportion which would be paid by a person on average weekly earnings in relation to his or her pharmaceutical payments should such a person reach the maximum limit of $250. The amount of $62.50 represents a much larger proportion of the income of those people on job search allowance. So clearly there is a disadvantage to the poor. The fact that a disadvantage may be caused to other groups who are poor, other young unemployed people, seems to me to be rather irrelevant. If such disabilities are imposed by the Government they should be addressed too. This amendment simply seeks to point out that with respect to this piece of legislation, which mentions these particular recipients, the Australian Democrats strongly support the view that these job search allowance recipients should be entitled to free pharmaceutical benefits. Moreover, I pointed out earlier that, while the amounts involved are very significant in relation to the job search recipients, the amounts involved for the Government are indeed very small. I think that was conceded by Senator Richardson when he said that people in the 16- and 17-year-old age group are by and large pretty healthy. The group most in need of this help, of course, would be those 16- and 17-year-olds seeking jobs who have chronic illness of a nature which would not prevent them from seeking work provided they have medication. I instance those who suffer from such diseases as hay fever, asthma, diabetes and epilepsy-those people who, provided they have medication, are quite capable of both applying for and holding down jobs. I commend this amendment to the Senate and seek its support for it. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(11.24) —I think Senator Richardson has already explained the Government's position on this proposal. It is not acceptable to the Government. In our view it would be inequitable to provide free pharmaceutical benefits to one group of unemployed persons and not extend the same benefit to all unemployed persons and their dependants. It is not considered unreasonable that job search allowance recipients make some contribution to the cost of their pharmaceutical benefits scheme prescriptions, as do all other persons receiving unemployment benefits. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Coulter's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Coulter, J. R. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Haines, J. Powell, J. F..Jenkins, J. A. Sanders, N. K.McLean, P. A. Wood, W. R. Alston, R. K. R. Jones, G. N.Aulich, T. G. Knowles, S. C. (Teller)Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R.Baume Peter McGauran, J. J.Beahan, M. E. MacGibbon, D. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McKiernan, J. P.Black, J. R. Maguire, G. R.Bolkus, N. Messner, A. J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Morris, J. J.Burns, B. R. Panizza, J. HCalvert, P. H. Parer, W. R.Chaney, F. M. Patterson, K. C. L.Chapman, H. G. P. Puplick, C. J. G.Childs, B. K. Ray, RobertCoates, J. Reid, M. E.Collins, R. L. Reynolds, M.Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ryan, S. M.Cooney, B. C. Schacht, C. C.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G.Crowley, R. A. Short, J. R.Devereux, J. R. Sibraa, K. W.Devlin, A. R. Tambling, G. E. J.Durack, P. D. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Teague, B. C.Foreman, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Gietzelt, A. T. Walters, M. S.Hamer, D. J. Zakharov, A. O.Hill, R. M. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 24 November, on motion by Senator Reynolds: That the Bill be now read a second time. Amendment (by Senator Vanstone) negatived. At the end of the motion, add: ``, 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''. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Referral to Committee Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(11.35) —Pursuant to standing order 196a, I move: That the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Community Affairs, for inquiry and report as soon as possible, and that the committee consider in particular: (a) the Government's exclusion of private sector investment from the provision of hostel accommodation; (b) the effect of the Government's refusal to consult with the aged care industry over the Bill; (c) the removal of ministerial discretion in the area of aged care; (d) the proposed duplication by the Federal Government of State Government regulations controlling the standard of care; and (e) the impact of unnecessary, costly and excessive reporting requirements for nursing home proprietors. It is apparent from the late hour and from the discussions we have had this evening that there are no prizes for being articulate in this chamber, so I will chance my arm and say that I believe that this motion speaks for itself and needs no further comment. Question resolved in the negative. The Bill. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(11.36) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 7, clause 14, after proposed paragraph 9b (2) (f) insert the following paragraph: ``(fa) the potential for private sector investment;''. (2) Page 9, clause 19, leave out proposed subsection 10c (3). (3) Page 10, clause 19, after proposed paragraph 10f (2) (d) insert the following paragraph: ``(da) the potential for private sector investment;''. (4) Page 19, clause 25, paragraph (b), proposed new paragraph 40aa (6) (ce), before ``such information'', insert ``with respect to grants made by the Commonwealth''. (5) Leave out clause 29. (6) Leave out clause 30. My comments earlier, with respect to the need to be articulate at this late hour and the extent to which amendments speak for themselves, stand, nonetheless there are some comments I wish to make to explain the amendments. Amendments (1) to (3) remedy what the coalition sees as an unnecessary exclusion of private investment in this area. Amendment (4) seeks to restrict the amount of information that is required by hostels to be provided to the Commonwealth. The motion moved earlier indicates that the coalition believes the amount of unnecessary information that is required puts an unnecessary burden on hostels. Amendment (4) seeks to address that. Amendments (5) and (6) seek to remove the penalty clauses which the coalition regards as excessive. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(11.38) —The amendments are not acceptable to the Government mainly because they are policy changes with which the Government does not agree. The Government does not agree with the Opposition that private entrepreneurs ought to be able to operate subsidised hostels. If amendments (1) to (3) were to be passed private hostels would continue to be excluded from subsidies as they still would not be eligible organisations under section 2 of the Aged or Disabled Persons Hostels Act. Amendment (4) is not acceptable to the Government. If the amendment intends to confine access to data with respect to grants or benefits, and if it were successful in achieving that goal, it would impede the Government in its fee regulation role. In fact, the amendment would not limit access in a manner which appears to be envisaged as it is necessary to have information on all costs to be encompassed in fees in order to calculate benefit entitlements. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(11.39) —The Australian Democrats will not be supporting these amendments. One hopes that we will not have to have a division on this. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a third time. Motion (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: That intervening business be postponed until after consideration of Government Business, Order of the Day No. 13, Migration Amendment Bill 1987. Consideration resumed from 5 November. The Bill. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.42) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 1, subclause 2 (2), leave out `and paragraph 9 (a)' and `, and the first regulations made under paragraph 67 (1) (ac) of the Principal Act as amended by this Act,'. (2) Page 3, paragraph 9 (a), leave out the paragraph. The Opposition finds clause 9 of the Bill objectionable and totally unacceptable. Clause 9 seeks to insert new provisions into section 67 of the Migration Act. That section empowers the Governor-General to make regulations in respect of the operation of the Act. Clause 9 (a) of the Bill provides that a fee will be able to be charged against certain decisions taken under the Migration Act. The provision and the first regulations made under the provision are expressed under clause 2 of the Bill to come into effect on 16 September 1987, the day after the introduction of the 1987 Budget. The scheme was announced in the Budget. It was said then repeated in the Minister's second reading speech on this Bill, that the charge will initially be $240 for each appeal for reconsideration. The Government claims, according to the explanatory memorandum of this Bill, that: This measure is associated with a significant increase in resources devoted to reconsideration of decisions under the Act, and is aimed at partial recovery of the costs relating to that process. The Opposition acknowledges that this new fee, which might as well be called a tax, is a Budget measure. Because of this we are prepared to see the proposal introduced if, but only if, it meets basic parliamentary standards of legislative propriety. In its present form, the operative clause of the Bill, that is, clause 9 (a), does not do this. It is for this reason that I have moved the deletion of clause 9 (a) from the Bill. Let me explain the reasons for the Opposition's approach to clause 9 (a). When the Migration Amendment Bill was being debated, and after the second reading stage, the Senate, on the motion of the Opposition, postponed its consideration in Committee of the Whole until the Senate had had an opportunity to consider the draft regulations to be made under clause 9. At that stage the regulations had not even been drafted, despite the fact that their content comprises the real essence of the Bill. Subsequently, last week the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) tabled draft regulations in the Senate. The copy that Senator Reynolds tabled was, I think, draft No. 6. Since then I have seen a copy purporting to be draft No. 12. There may well be more for all I know. We do not know, and we have not been told; nor have we been told how draft No. 6 differs from draft No. 12. The draft which was tabled is obviously already out of date. In any event, it is long, complex and virtually incomprehensible. To the Opposition it is totally unsatisfactory. It does nothing to alleviate the concerns we had before we saw the draft, which concerns caused us to postpone further consideration of the Bill at the conclusion of the second reading stage. However, there are other more serious reasons for our rejection of clause 9 (a). These reasons have been brought forcibly to the chamber's attention by the thirteenth report of 1987 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, dated 4 November. I understand that that Committee today reviewed its earlier report in the light of comments received by the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Young, but decided not to change that report. In respect of clause 9 and sub-clause 2 (2), which triggers the timing of clause 9-I think it is sufficiently important to bear repeating in this chamber-it had this to say: Subclause 2 (2) of the Bill provides that any regulations made under the proposed paragraph 67 (1) (ac)- that is, clause 9 of this Bill- shall be taken to have come into operation on 16 September 1987, the date on which it was announced that a fee (nominated to be $240) would be payable on application for reconsideration of prescribed decisions. Research conducted within the Committee has been unable to find a comparable provision to subclause 2 (2) in the statutes. The Committee strongly believes that this provision, announced at the time of the Budget, is offensive for the following reasons: It is an apparently novel use of a Bill to attempt to retrospectively impose a fee by regulation. The imposition of a fee retrospectively by regulation (which cannot be introduced until this Bill has passed the Parliament) is clearly contrary to the provisions of subsection 48 (2) of the Acts Interpretation Act, insofar as the regulations which would provide for retrospective imposition of a liability on a person would not be subject to consideration by the Parliament as required by the Acts Interpretation Act. The description of the fee as a budget measure is being used to justify the retrospective imposition of a fee which appears to be aimed at recovery of costs, rather than realisation of revenue. A further matter that should be drawn to Senators' attention is, fees that are payable on lodgment of appeals, on applications for review by courts, tribunals or other bodies have previously been imposed by legislation and have been fixed, as to the amount, by regulations which must be tabled in the Parliament. That was a unanimous report of a committee comprising senators from the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Australian Democrats-every party represented in this chamber. It is a damning indictment of clause 9. Not only is the clause retrospective; so too are the regulations to be established as a result of the clause. The clause appears to be without precedent in our legislative history. No responsible parliament could permit the passage of such a clause. The Opposition is totally opposed to it, and I am very pleased to know that the Democrats share our view. Senator Jenkins —It is our amendment. Senator SHORT —It is my amendment on behalf of the Opposition, Senator. But I am delighted that we are of like mind on this issue. Rejection of clause 9 by the Committee will mean that the Government will have no legislative basis, let alone any moral basis for the $240 charge. It is a disgraceful and classic example of this Government's incompetence and maladministration that fees have been collected, as I understand it, since 1 October in anticipation of this legislation being passed. The Opposition assumes that the Government will refund these fees already collected, and collected not on any legal basis, and will certainly not collect any more. (Quorum formed) I was saying that the Opposition assumes that the Government will refund the fees already collected since 1 October-fees that were obviously illegally collected, or collected certainly not on any legislative basis-and will certainly not collect any more fees unless and until new proposals are adopted by this Parliament in the future. I repeat what I said earlier: The Opposition is not opposed in principle to the imposition of this charge, particularly as it is a Budget measure. It is the method that the Government has attempted to adopt to implement its proposal that is the essential basis of our objection. If the Government pursues this proposal and can find a proper and legislatively correct way of implementing it, we will consider it sympathetically and with appropriate expedition, presumably in the autumn session next year. But that is a matter for the Government. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(11.53) —The Australian Democrats are opposed in principle to clause 9 (a). It is a totally obnoxious clause. We opposed the clause during the second reading debate, during which time my amendment opposing it was circulated. My amendment opposing it was also circulated earlier this afternoon. The $240 fee for change of status is totally obnoxious and repugnant to all migrants and intending migrants. They are paying, first and foremost, for a system which, as I described during my contribution to the second reading debate, is not really an appeal system. The immigration review panels are not true review panels. I was very surprised to find that the Government was comparing these panels with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Migrants are being asked to pay $240 for a system of appeal which, in reality, is not an appeal. The people on the panels are appointed by the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. The panels are only advisory and, for the most part, they simply rubber stamp the Minister's decision. For example, I know of one lawyer in Perth who represented 10 migrants in such appeals and all 10 were knocked back. Subsequently two appeals were upheld, only because these two people were able to act through a member of parliament. That does not seem to me to be a very just system. This is retrospective legislation and the fee has already been collected. I was under the impression that the fee had been collected since 16 September, but whether it is 16 September of 1 October it means that a lot of migrants and prospective migrants have been paying a fee for which legislation has not yet been passed. Presumably the people who have paid this fee have just been put in the queue of 11,000-odd people who are waiting to have their appeals heard. Thus, they have paid $240 and they might have to wait a couple of years or so to have their appeals heard in any case. The Australian Democrats are against this clause and this fee. As Senator Short was able to be heard before I was, obviously we will support his amendment but not for the reasons he put forward. Senator Short has indicated that when the regulations are tidied up, he will support the fee. The Democrats will certainly not support it. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.57) —I shall respond very briefly to Senator Jenkins. I did not say that we would approve the legislation if the regulations were tidied up. The problem is more fundamental than that. I hope I made that point clear during my remarks. I do not want the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) to be under any misapprehension on that score. Amendments agreed to. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(11.58) —I move: (1) Pages 2 and 3, clause 7, leave out the clause. Clause 7 relates to the immigration clearance fee of $5 as stipulated in the regulations which we saw for the first time on 25 November. This fee will be collected by the international air operators. As I said previously, the whole system of having an entrance fee into this country is unsatisfactory. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills regarded this fee as a tax and not as a fee as the Government alleges. Because the Government regards it as a fee, it says that it cannot be added to the departure tax. Thus the $5 fee must be collected in a different way. There is a major problem about the collection of this fee. The airlines were requested to work out how they would collect this fee, despite the fact that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee said that arrangements for the collection of the fee and its amount would be prescribed by regulation. As far as I can make out in all these regulations, which are very difficult to follow, there does not seem to be any statement about the arrangements for the collection of the fee. I have been led to believe by the Minister that the airlines are supposed to work this out for themselves. The airlines have sent a couple of detailed telexes to the Minister describing how difficult it is for them to do this. At this time of night I really do not want to go through all this-I have pages and pages of detailed descriptions of why various methods of collection of the fee by the airlines would be very difficult. I simply say that the Australian Democrats are opposed to the fee. It is going to cost the airlines probably as much as the $5 again to collect the fee. This will mean that airline ticket costs will go up the $5 plus whatever it costs the airlines to collect the fee. The Democrats are opposed to clause 7 and that is why we seek its removal from the Bill. 9-10 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 9-10 December 1987 9-10 December 1987 SENATE Thursday, 10 December 1987 Senator SHORT(Victoria)(12.01 a.m.) —Whilst we have a great deal of sympathy for the Australian Democrats' views, we will not be supporting the amendment. I shall try to explain briefly why. As I said, whilst we cannot and will not reject a Budget measure outright-that is not what we in fact did with clause 9-we are amazed at the Government's imposition of the $5 fee, particularly so far as it relates to returning Australians. But it relates not just to them. It is a de facto tax on Australian citizens returning home from abroad. The Committee will recall that on 4 November during the second reading debate on this Bill I moved an amendment to the second reading motion to add the following words: but the Senate is of the opinion that the imposition of a fee of $5 on Australian citizens returning to their own country by international air travel is an obnoxious attack on the fundamental right of Australians to enter their own country. I also outlined in some detail our objections to this fee. Let me repeat just some of the problems that we see with it. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of the Bills said with much justification that this so-called fee may be regarded as a form of taxation and the Committee pointed out that it has in the past consistently objected to the imposition of such imposts by way of regulation, rather than such provisions being contained in an Act of Parliament, and without a limit being set by legislation. The Committee concluded that the Bill may be considered to be an inappropriate delegation of the Parliament's fundamental taxing powers. Our second objection is that to the extent that the fee applies to Australian citizens returning from abroad it can be regarded as an infringement of their right of free entry to their homeland. Thirdly, to the extent that the $5 fee applies to tourists or other non-Australians travelling to Australia it is really nothing other than an export duty or levy. It is a burden on our foreign exchange earning capacity. The Government says that it is attempting to boost our foreign exchange earnings. It says it wants to boost international tourism to Australia. So what does it do? It puts on another tax, another export duty, another burden on our capacity to earn foreign exchange. Fourthly, the imposition of the new entry tax breaks yet another of the Government's pre-election promises. Before the recent election both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said, `There will be no new taxes in the 1987 Budget'. So what do we find? Surprise, surprise, we find this new tax. Perhaps we should not be surprised: this Government's promises are like confetti to be blown away with the slightest breeze. 9-10 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 9-10 December 1987 9-10 December 1987 SENATE Fifthly, the new tax is to be collected by the international airline operator which brought the passenger to Australia and then the airline operator is to pay the money over to the Government. The practical administrative difficulties in this are horrendous. The Government is getting the airlines to do its dirty work for it-a point that Senator Jenkins made. Let me mention just a few of the practical difficulties. For example, what if the traveller changes airlines once or more en route to Australia, having paid for all his fares and other charges at his place of initial departure? How does the airline which eventually carries the traveller into Australia on the last leg collect the $5? What is to be done about foreign exchange rate changes? Just imagine the confusion and the passenger frustration if the airline attempted to collect the $5 after the passenger had landed in Australia. It seems from discussions that have taken place to date that the cost to the airlines of collecting this tax will be enormous. Amongst the figures that I and the Opposition have seen is the figure of $10 for every $5 collected. The whole proposal is one great mess. Therefore, the Opposition has much sympathy with the Democrats' amendment. However, because the tax is a Budget measure, and because it does not have the same basic legal and related problems as does clause 9 of the Bill, with which we have just dealt, the Opposition will not support the Democrats' amendment. It follows from what I have said that the Opposition believes that the Government should have an urgent re-look at this proposal-a proposal which has come forward only because of the Government's desperate need for increased revenue to pay for its capacious and seemingly uncontrollable propensity for spending taxpayers' money. 9-10 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 9-10 December 1987 9-10 December 1987 SENATE Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(12.06 a.m.) —Senator Short has made a fairly important contribution to this debate in general, and I am pleased that we were able to arrive at some acceptable agreement over the amendment of clause 9. However, I cannot accept some of his comments about the immigration clearance service fee. I just draw to his attention the thirteenth report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills which, in regard to the immigration clearance service fee, stated: The Committee is happy to accept that the Immigration Clearance Fee is intended to be a fee for service, and that it appears to bear a reasonable relation to the costs of the service involved. So I believe that Senator Short was quoting selectively from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report. The immigration clearance service fee of $5 is to be introduced on 1 January, and I am advised that the airlines have indicated that they will be geared up to collect the fee. The fee will recoup part of the cost of immigration clearances for overseas passengers arriving at Australian airports, estimated at approximately 18 million per year. It reflects the Government's concern that the cost of services should be borne primarily by the user, not by the community as a whole. At present, Australian taxpayers meet the full cost of such clearances and the cost is escalating dramatically with ever increasing numbers of arrivals. Of course, we are very pleased that there are increasing numbers of arrivals. In 1985-86, 2.9 million passengers arrived and, in 1986-87, the figure was 3.3 million passengers. Obviously, to cope with the increase in passengers and to provide them with better services, the Government will be employing additional staff at airports and overseas posts and it is installing more sophisticated but costly computer systems. The revenue collected from the fee will be about $17m per year and the money will be used to offset the following: costs of immigration inspections at airports, costs relating to passengers refused entry, costs of facilities to detect fraudulent immigration documents, salaries and other costs of airport staff, costs of visa issue, maintenance of movement records and alert lists of undesirable entrants, and general administrative overheads. As I have said before in this chamber, the fee is not unique to Australia. A similar charge is payable and collected by airlines flying passengers to the United States of America. The Department is consulting closely with airline operators to ensure that the necessary legislation and mechanisms to collect the fee will impose as small an administrative burden as possible. On the question of the fee being a tax, the fee is not a tax as it is imposed for a service provided to the person who pays the fee, and the amount recovered bears a reasonable relation to the actual cost. Of course, that view put forward by the Department and by the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) has been endorsed by the thirteenth report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. 9-10 December 1987 SENATE SENATE 9-10 December 1987 9-10 December 1987 SENATE Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(12.10 a.m.) —I have been listening to this and other debates this evening and I have detected a glaring inconsistency in the position of the Opposition. Earlier this evening, Senator Chaney said that he could not support our amendment because these Bills would increase spending and the Opposition was loth to increase spending in any way. Therefore, it would not support any more funding for the disadvantaged, for widows, for permanently disabled people, or for any other worthy causes, because it did not want to see taxes rising; it wanted to protect the Australian taxpayers from spending any more money. Now we find that the Opposition will not support the Democrats because this is a tax-raising measure. This will increase the flow of money into the Treasury. I wonder what the Opposition's position is. I think that it is simply that of expediency. It does not want to rock any boats or infuriate anybody, and it will take the easy way out and support the Government at all times. This confirms the Australian Democrats view that there is only one major collection of people in here. It is the liborals-the Labor Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia are even as one. Their policies are almost identical, and their voting record shows that they vote together. Senator McGauran —What about the Nationals? Senator SANDERS —I think that we can ignore them. They are callow youth. The point is that there is no difference in these policies and the Opposition clutches at straws. Sometimes it says that it will not vote because taxes will go up and sometimes it says that it will not vote because they will go down. It has no consistency in its position and has not presented any rational case for rejecting our amendment. Amendment negatived. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(12.12 a.m.) —by leave-I move, as an alternative to amendment (1): Page 1, subclause 2 (3), leave out ``Sections 6 and 7'' insert ``Section 6''. Page 1, after subclause 2 (3), insert the following subclause: ``(4) Section 7 shall come into operation on 1 March 1988.''. (2) Page 3, paragraph 9 (a), leave out the paragraph. The Bill has already been delayed by approximately one month because the Government did not have the regulations to hand when we last debated the matter on 5 November. There is a big problem, which the airlines indicated to me on Monday this week still remains, as far as collection of the $5 fee or tax is concerned. Therefore, my second amendment is to delay the start of this fee until 1 March. (Quorum formed) Senator Puplick —Mr Chairman, I seek a ruling from you as to whether, the quorum bells having been rung, it is appropriate for Senator Sanders, a member of the party whose leader called the quorum, to walk out when the quorum bells are ringing. If it is not appropriate, steps ought to be taken in that regard. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It is out of order for any honourable senator to leave the chamber while the quorum bells are ringing. I did not observe Senator Sanders leaving. Amendments negatived. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Reynolds) read a third time. Debate resumed from 19 November, on motion by Senator Reynolds: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(12.17 a.m.) —Tonight we are debating a package of nine Education Bills. As my colleague the shadow Minister for education, Mr Carlton, has said, the Opposition has grave misgivings in respect of certain areas of the Government's education policy and administration. The shortcomings of this policy will be highlighted by amendments which we propose to move at the second reading stage to some of the Bills and by a committee stage amendment to one of the Bills. It is appropriate to move at this stage the second reading amendments to the Bills that follow the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No.2) 1987. In doing so I indicate that because of the late hour and my desire to be as articulate as possible, a desire which I am sure is shared by others, I will relate my reading of the amendments to the comments that I wish to make in respect of those Bills. Following the moving of those amendments I wish to make some other comments. I seek leave to move the amendments together. Leave granted. Senator VANSTONE —In respect of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 I move: At end of the motion, add `but the Senate deplores the excessive regulation by the Federal Government of non-government schools, which is designed both to impose an external value system on those schools and to hamper the growth of non-government schools and thereby limit parent choice. In respect of the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1987 I move: At end of motion, add `but the Senate- (a) condemns Government policies which have denied 20,000 qualified students entry into higher education this year and which promise no better performance in 1988; (b) notes with concern the failure of the Government to maintain the triennial funding system for higher education, thus introducing uncertainty and potential wastefulness into the planning and expenditure of universities, institutes and colleges; (c) draws attention to the dangers inherent in allowing centralised bureaucratic bodies to decide whether or not research conducted by universities and colleges of advanced education is in the national interest; and (d) questions the inclusion of funds for key centres for teaching and research as a part of research funding rather than as a separate allocation concerned mainly with the improvement of teaching. With respect to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) I move: At the end of motion, add ``, but the Senate expresses its concern that the transfer of responsibility from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission to the Department of Employment, Education and Training proposed in the Bill is a precursor to the denial of an adequate consultative mechanism and public voice for those directly concerned with running and using Australia's various education systems''. With respect to the Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1987 I move: At the end of motion, add ``, but the Senate condemns the Government for its failure to administer Austudy student assistance grants in a timely and efficient manner, thus causing grave inconvenience to students and their families''. Last, but not least, is the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1987-(Quorum formed) I was in the process of foreshadowing the following amendment to the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1987: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate condemns the Government for: (a) its arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions on the rights of tertiary institutions to attract fee paying students from overseas; and (b) refusing admission into tertiary education to Australian students who are not awarded a free place but who are prepared to pay a fee for admission on the same basis as overseas students. This package represents a damning indictment of the previous Minister's policies and administration. Earlier this year Senator Ryan became the longest serving Education Minister. As I recall, unless I am mistaken, the day that she became the longest serving Education Minister was the fateful day that she tabled certain confidential information relating to interest rates. That may be of interest. One would think that the record of achievement of someone who had held the record of being the longest serving Minister would be one of which this Government could and would be proud, but that is apparently not so. Senator Ryan has been removed from the education portfolio. A new broom has come in. The triennial funding that was to begin in 1988 has been abandoned. The reason this has been done is that the current Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) says that basically he needs to take a year off to sort out the mess. What that year off means in terms of abandoning the triennium funding is uncertainty. Uncertainty in any area is generally dysfunctional. It is a disincentive to planning; it inhibits innovation and progress. Individuals and families like to be able to plan ahead. Businesses need to be able to plan ahead and invest now for future benefit. Similarly, educational institutions need to be able to plan ahead. But because the new Minister for Employment, Education and Training, as the new broom, is attempting to sweep clean-I understand it was described in the other place as changing gears-it is the educational institutions that will have to suffer the uncertainty while the Government decides where to go from here. One thing at least is certain; that is, that this Government is turning its back on the policies of the previous Minister, Senator Ryan. The Government is beginning to realise that many of the things the coalition has been saying with respect to education policy are true. The package seeks to address some of the problems. In doing so it will need to accomplish some policy gymnastics of proportions one would previously have thought unbelievable. Despite the Australian Labor Party's opposition to fees for tertiary study-or its alleged opposition, one should say-there is already a fee by another name. We had that semantic debate here that went on ad infinitum with the then Minister saying that the student administration charge was not a precursor to tertiary tuition fees. Senator Ryan lost that debate. This Government now sees fit to allow our institutions to charge tuition fees for higher degrees. I invite honourable senators opposite to turn their minds back to 1981 and the Fraser Government's proposal to do just that. In the event that they choose to do that they will see certain comments by the current Minister, who was then opposing the move. For example, the present Minister said: Another point that has to be made is that the Government is intent with this legislation on re-establishing the principle of tertiary tuition fees. It is intent on re-establishing a fee collecting mechanism . . . That is why we are intent on opposing it. Due to the late hour I will not go on to repeat more quotations from those available. But I invite Government senators to turn their minds to these debates, to seek them from Hansard and to see the about-face that this Government has done. The fees issue, of course, is part of a wider debate-the debate about the resources available to educational institutions and the flexibility of those institutions to use those resources. The Opposition went to the last election offering to maintain existing free places and offering the option to institutions to charge fees for additional places. Senator Ryan, then the Minister-now removed-made much of this policy, ambiguously saying that if the coalition were to win fees would be charged. But what was omitted was that the existing places would be maintained, and there was certainly no reference in the comments of the then Minister for Education about the anomaly whereby overseas students can pay for their places but Australian students cannot. It would be interesting to see what the then Minister for Education will say as the debate on this issue progresses. It is important for any institutions seeking a degree of autonomy and flexibility to have control over its staff, for without its staff it does not exist. Educational institutions, or at least some faculties in them-for example, commerce and engineering-are competing for staff with the private sector. Others are seeking to create faculties where excellence is the prime criterion for staffing, and they need to be able to compete with other universities for the relevant staff. Accordingly, at the committee stage we will seek to give institutions that autonomy. Unless institutions are perceived by the business community to be in control of their destiny to a reasonable degree, those institutions will have difficulty attracting private sector funds. It is all very well for Senator Button and other Ministers in this Government virtually to kick the can of higher education and say that it is not attracting sufficient private sector funds while at the same time blaming the private sector for not putting the funds in. If the Government will not allow the educational institutions to have the degree of autonomy and control they need, there is no point in hoping that a magic wand will appear and the private sector will invest in institutions which do not have that level of autonomy. This package also deals in part with the Government's planned structural changes to education, which are to abolish the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and the Commonwealth Schools Commission, to transfer their administrative functions to the Department of Employment, Education and Training and to establish a new National Board of Employment, Education and Training. Four advisory councils will report to that board-the Schools Council, the Higher Education Council, the Employment and Skills Formation Council and the Australian Research Council. The board will have a full time chairman and three full time executive members who will chair the four councils, and it will have a membership of 13 or 14. The membership will be made up of union representatives, representatives of big business and only two education training providers. The Minister, at his discretion, can attempt to put a balance into this centralist and corporate model with a few appointments at his discretion. However, as there is space for only two education providers, the Opposition is concerned that the wide variety of educational interests will not be properly served. While the membership of the various councils reporting to this board will, as the Minister has said, provide a wider membership and perhaps, therefore, diversity, the coalition seeks to remind the Government that the councils can act only on matters referred to them by the Minister or the board. Independence is not the order of the day for these councils. They have no independent powers of investigation and publication. To understand the concern in the education community one need give only a cursory glance to the daily papers. If we read them we understand the concern even more. What we read makes a mockery of the Government's assertion that it has widespread support for these measures. If one takes a stronger interest and talks to the people involved one realises that the concern is even greater. I wish to deal with one other aspect of this legislation, namely, research, in which I have a particular interest. I understand that there will be ample opportunity when debating future Bills to deal with this matter in detail, so I will be brief. The research community in Australia is understandably apprehensive about these proposals. As my colleague the shadow Minister for education, Jim Carlton, pointed out in the other place, there is a real concern that the bureaucracy will override excellence in research and there are very substantial dangers in the Government pronouncing what research is in the national interest. The research community and, for that matter, the Australian community generally have little confidence that the bureaucrats can decide what research is in the national interest. There is little confidence that they understand the lead time required to get back into fields that someone has decided rate low down on the national interest scale, and there is even less confidence that the bureaucrats appreciate the importance of pure research. We have heard much from this Government about the need for more applied research, some of its comments going as far as stating that universities have been luxuriating and that academics have been pursuing their own personal interests for no benefit. It has caused very deep concern in the research community that this Government does not understand the value of pure research-research which, at the time it is undertaken, may have no apparent economic use whatsoever; it is undertaken purely on the basis of the inquiring mind. Researches would like the Government to indicate that it understands that pure research is the capital on which we draw. It is the lifeblood of applied research; it is the seed from which the benefits of applied research can grow. Without that seed, applied research needs to buy basic research from other countries. That means that we are buying in the raw material for applied research when everybody else has picked it over. We get the remnants, and the detriment of that flows through into the quality of applied research and the quality of the products that are produced as a consequence of that. In conclusion, this package of Bills is an indictment of the administration policies of the previous Minister for Education. I look forward to the contribution that will be made by my colleagues and, in particular, I look forward to the contribution of the Minister at the end of this debate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator Macklin, one matter should be clarified. The eight Bills listed under Order of the Day No. 4 are at present before the Chair. I understand that it is proposed that there be a cognate debate on those eight Bills and on Order of the Day No. 5, the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1985. Does the Minister wish to propose that this course be followed? Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Deputy President, I suggest that we proceed in those terms. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is it the wish of the Senate that there be a cognate debate on the Bills? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.36 a.m.) —We are dealing cognately with nine Bills which are concerned with restructuring education. A most important statement that was made today is not in those Bills. I refer to the higher education policy discussion paper which was tabled in the other place after Question Time today by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins). I propose to look at each of the Bills briefly. I think the major items in the Bills that one would want to discuss can probably be best left to the committee stage of the debate. The States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 seeks to adjust the participation and equity program which will finish at the end of this year. The previous Minister said three years ago when the participation and equity program (PEP) was announced that this program was the corner stone of the Government's education policy. We find at the end of this year that the entire corner-stone has been removed. The Government has decided not to embark on any successor program that has similar goals to those that were set by PEP. The Commonwealth Schools Commission-it is interesting to note that this body held its last meeting on Monday this week-recommended a Commonwealth specific purpose secondary education program to succeed PEP. The aim of PEP was to encourage qualitative change in education in schools and in technical and further education colleges. This was a very worthwhile goal. In fact, when the original PEP program was first suggested I raised doubts about the way in which it could proceed and whether or not it would be successful. As it has turned out, the doubts that I raised at that time have come to fruition. There were a number of administrative problems earlier on with the program which I think discouraged those who were interested in engaging in it. Nevertheless, a very large number of people around Australia with tremendous qualities initially threw themselves wholeheartedly into this program. It was then announced in the subsequent Budget that the funds were to be cut in half. This is very symptomatic of the way in which this Government has dealt with these programs. I think it is unaware that the psychological gearing up of the people who will undertake these programs is such that grandiose statements such as that which was made by the then Minister about PEP being the corner-stone of the Government's education policy and so forth leads them to believe that the Government itself is committed to the program. Upon that basis they then embark upon spending a great deal of their time, energies and professional expertise on developing parts of that overall program. The Government, for whatever reason, has decided to do a U-turn in the middle of a two-year program. The program did not even get past its first year of operation. The Government then expects that the professionals whom it has asked to contribute should themselves simply say, `Oh, the Government has changed its mind on this exercise. Right, we will change our direction-there is no problem about that'. It may be that the Government treats education professionals as bureaucrats. While not wishing to cast aspersions on bureaucrats, the professionals who are engaged in this area are not there at the behest of the Government. They are not there to carry out every whim and policy item of the Government. They are there for educational purposes. We would not get anywhere with any of these programs unless those professionals were willing to contribute not just their paid time but also vast amounts of time over and above that paid time as they have done with all of the programs that this Government has instituted and programs that previous governments have instituted. This is not the first time a government has changed its mind. The Fraser Government had spectacular success changing its mind every couple of years. In one case it changed its mind on a similar program after one year. I have heard from many of these professionals an almost identical comment that never again would they get caught by this type of exercise. We are driving away tremendous amounts of contribution that would come from professionals operating in this area by the ad hoc way in which we deal with these matters. Having finished with PEP-and as we were saying PEP hopefully was the catalyst for reforms-the Commonwealth Schools Commission wished the Government to continue a role in this area. However, the Government obviously believes that Commonwealth participation in school education is best undertaken indirectly through States grants and grants to private school systems where those schools agree to use funds in particular ways. We are looking at a general funding model to take the place of the previous exercises in which we more or less had control, depending upon which part of the rhetoric one wants to believe-on whether one believes the legislation we have before us, which in many cases tightens the administration of these funds, or whether we believe the report handed down today which urges a deregulation of them. I will come to a detailed examination of some of those extraordinary contradictions that appeared today in the Senate. One Bill seeks to impose a regulation that has never previously existed in regard to the salaries of members of higher education institutions. The paper tabled today raises the issue of how we have to do something about being able to attract by increments specialised, qualified people to our tertiary institutions. The absurdity of having that paper handed down today and discussing this Bill must dawn even on the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan) who I understand no longer discusses education in Cabinet meetings. With PEP we are confronted with the Government's education corner-stone. I will raise some further points on this Bill, again at the committee stage. The second Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, deals with one of the most contentious matters up to date in education policy in Australia. The debate has provided a great deal of heat and not terribly much light over a large number of years mainly in terms of the distribution of funds between the private school sector and the State school sector. In addition we have had debates last year on other items of school education such as migrant education and English as a second language. The Commonwealth's contribution to school education essentially takes two forms. Firstly, there are the general funding programs that were bitten into last year to provide additional funds for the retention of the English as a second language program. These funding programs provide the resources, either to the States for state schools or directly to the schools or to the systemic systems for use in the private or Catholic schools. The use of funds is determined by a whole series of agreements that the Commonwealth has entered into or, with regard to private schools, by a whole series of conditions which have been set by the Commonwealth. Secondly, there are the specific purpose programs which, until now, were run by the Commonwealth Schools Commission. With the abolition of the commissions, these programs, presumably, will be run through the National Board of Employment, Education and Training, if they are run at all. When one looks at the thrust of the Green Paper on higher education one could be forgiven for thinking that, if the Government is in any way consistent-that is probably an assumption one should not make with regard to this Government-there is likely to be a flow-through to schools. I believe that the Government will not be consistent and that there will not be a flow-through to schools for the very good reason that this Government reneged on its policy and adopted the policy which the Liberal and National parties went to the 1983 and 1984 elections on. The Government neglected its own policy by extending funding to private schools in a way the Fraser-Howard Government had never dared to do. It is interesting to note that the only guaranteed funds for any educational institutions in Australia go to the private school sector. They are guaranteed for the eight-year program set down last year in the legislation. This year even our tertiary institutions do not get guaranteed funding. We are now experiencing yet another of the continuing rotating hiccups. Programs used to be over a triennium but we now have a one-year lead time while we rearrange all the programs each year. In the 1987-88 Budget, as I have already mentioned the Government has failed to provide successor programs to two of the most important special purpose programs, the participation and equity program and the basic learning in primary schools program. The Government's interest in computers has also disappeared. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) was telling us that we need to get with the times in terms of technology. So what do we do? We decide to undermine our base in this area by pulling out of a useful program, saying, `Somebody else can pick up the tab'. It is very odd that we should believe that somehow or other the tertiary sector will be able to produce the qualified people we are looking for if we do not have those people coming forward from the schooling sector. It is also very odd to believe that those people will come forward from the schooling sector unless we fund it adequately and attract qualified people to the teaching profession. I have mentioned time and again in this place that currently in Australia we have a dearth of teachers in important areas, particularly mathematics and science. The problem is that many of our best maths teachers have been seconded to teach computer science. Many of our best science teachers have then had to be seconded to teach maths, and domestic science teachers have had to be seconded to teach science. Our schools are in a shambles, and we expect them to produce reasonable people for entry into higher education institutions. It is a structural problem, a problem of foresight. It is a problem which is shared not only by the Government but also by other groups within the community. One of those groups is the Press. Its reporting of education is woefully inadequate. Members of the Press seem unable to work out that a teacher surplus in some curriculum areas does not mean that there is a teacher surplus in every curriculum area. So they publish scare reports in the newspapers which, naturally enough, have an effect on those people who are looking at their career prospects. They change their career prospects and they do not go into teaching, and we lose some of the best and most talented people from the profession that they should go into, because it is the basic profession for all types of things that the Government is talking about in its other policy areas. We are not in these Bills talking about a peripheral area; we are talking about an area that is basic and fundamental to the nation. I wish to raise some points again about the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill when we come to the committee stage. I wish to turn now to another group of Bills-the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1987, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Maritime College Amendment Bill, the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill and the Australian National University Amendment Bill. They are essentially linked together, and the last three Bills are consequential amendment Bills flowing from the fact that the Commonwealth has legislative control over the Maritime College, the Canberra College of Advanced Education (CCAE) and the Australian National University. I want to refer to some of the items which were raised today in the Green paper-a document full of platitudes. In fact in recent times I have seen only one better document for platitudes, and that was at an Inter-parliamentary Union conference, when we managed to pass a five-page resolution on the Iran-Iraq war which both Iran and Iraq were able to vote for. I think the people who drafted that resolution must have been co-opted to write a great deal of this particular paper. I understand there is now a computer program which will generate platitudes, so some of them might have come out of that as well. This document is most extraordinary. When we eliminate all of the guff and get down to some of the mechanisms, we find some extraordinary propositions. I refer to page 29 of the higher education policy document, which talks about `educational profiles'. I have tested this out on a few people and asked them what they believe is the intent behind this particular exercise when the Government says that it is going to set up these profiles and that they will take the form of statements, identification of mission and so on. It then says: These educational profiles should both describe an institution's existing course mix and indicate the areas that the institution wishes to develop as strengths for the future. They will be subject to a process of discussion with the Government to enable both parties to agree on a contract . . . On the one hand, we have the Government, and on the other hand we have a single institution-not all of the universities, the CAEs and the TAFE colleges. What are we going to use for these education profiles? The first item is the level of funding available to the institution from the Commonwealth to implement its chosen academic goals. I ask honourable senators: What type of debate will that be between the Commonwealth, with the money, the bureaucracy and everything else, and the institution? What leverage could an institution possibly have in such an unequal contest? It will be, and obviously is, the clearest case of divide and conquer that I have ever seen put down in any document, because the Government well knows that the only way that an alternative paradigm to what this Government is trying to do in education is going to come forward is by the co-operation of the universities, the CAEs and the TAFE colleges looking to develop, as they are at this very moment, an alternative paradigm to what the Government is seeking to thrust on the education sector. This education profile in this paper today will mean that that will not be possible. Every institution will be screwed to the floor by this particular exercise and will, in fact, have no criteria upon which to judge whether it is being usefully dealt with, successfully dealt with or fairly dealt with, because the criteria that will apply to a particular university, say in my State, will obviously be different to the criteria that will be applied in another State. (Quorum formed) I thank Senator Knowles for calling a quorum. In fact, she has called me back to the speech that I should be making. I should not get carried away with the Green Paper which was introduced today. I wish to refer briefly to three additional items in the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill. I refer first to the fees for certain courses which can be applied by ministerial discretion. When we reach the committee stage we will consider a most extraordinary clause-clause 9-which we will, I am quite sure, deal with in some detail. In particular, I refer to the fascinating part of the clause which reads, `earned a living at any time'-something that has previously been unknown to man or beast in a legislative form. However, presumably the Minister will be able to tease out the relevant definitions of `earned' in this instance, of `living', in this instance, of `earning a living' which could be different from both of those definitions, and of `any time'. I will also be interested when we consider clause 9 to find out what `educational qualifications' could possibly mean. It is undefined in the Bill. It is not defined in any education Bill. So we will be interested to look at what `educational qualifications' means. We will also be interested to look at what is meant by a `vocational qualification'. Does this refer to a kindergarten graduation form? I believe that that is a vocational qualification; it is obviously very useful. Does it relate to primary or secondary school-- Senator Puplick —The minimum requirement for a senator. Senator MACKLIN —It would be an excellent requirement for a senator. Perhaps it should be compulsory. I will leave those delights until the committee stage, but I foreshadow that clause 9 should be of some interest at that stage. The second point I wish to raise concerns the higher education administration charge. The Government is pursuing this policy. I have forecast for the last two years that in academic year 1989 we will have full recovery of fees. Despite the policy of this Government when it went to the people at the last election and despite its policy when it went to the people at the previous election, in academic year 1989 we will have full recovery of fees, so people should start to save their pennies if they want their kids to be able to continue in higher education. Senator Puplick —It would be dishonest, if they do. Senator MACKLIN —It is totally dishonest. In fact, it would be adopting the Liberal-National Party policy-- Senator Puplick —At least we had it up front. Senator MACKLIN —At least it was up front. Senator Boswell —Do you think they will sink so low as to do that? Senator MACKLIN —If Senator Boswell reads the Green Paper he will see that it sinks a lot lower than that. The third point that I wish to raise briefly concerns the limitations on the ability of higher education institutions to pay salaries. This Bill introduces for the first time a requirement whereby universities can be penalised if they go beyond the Remuneration Tribunal's salaries with regard to- Senator Ryan —Not for the first time; it has been there for years. Senator MACKLIN —It has been done before with vice-chancellors, I know that. On page 61 of the Green Paper we find this quote: Academic salaries are paid at uniform rates across all disciplines according to a position held by an academic. They do not necessarily reflect the salary rates available in other sectors of comparable professions. This, together with other considerations such as a regional location of some institutions, means that some academic positions are difficult to fill. It then goes on with a very reasonable discussion of why there should be special allowances. It also talks about access to consultancy income, salary structures, superannuation and so on. That section of the Green Paper at least meets the reality and in Australia that reality is quite stark. I refer to a publication from the National Remuneration Centre. Let us look at the example of payment for an engineer, grade 4, aged from about 35. We see that regular total cash remuneration is, in 75 per cent of cases, $60,000-and that is at the age of 35. Let us look at professional scientists, grade 4-75 per cent of these receive $64,000. Data processing managers, grade 4, receive on average $56,000. But what do we find when we look at what we are paying our academics? We pay a professor a top salary of $58,000-less than most of those that I have just mentioned. Yet we expect to get good computer professionals to stay in academia. Why would they do so? The same applies to scientists and biological scientists; the list is endless. We have enormous difficulty because of the attractions of the outside professions which are looking for qualified people and people with skills. Those people with skills are easily found by headhunters in any department of any university. Senator Boswell —What else are they going to do? Senator MACKLIN —I acknowledge that one! This Bill runs against the very point in the Green Paper that we are debating on the self same day. I am sure the Government would not have wanted to organise that; it was a quirk of history whereby we got the lie to a very important item within the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1987. Senator McKiernan —Do you want an extension of time? Senator MACKLIN —That would be very pleasant, Senator. In the last couple of minutes that I have I wish to refer to the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1987 and the enormous problems that have arisen as a result of the Government's inept handling of this area. On previous occasions I have moved for the ability to have the charge broken up and I have made a whole series of other suggestions on the basis that my Party does not support the charge but realises that the charge will remain there. I believe that there are better ways of administering that charge-for the benefit of students coming from overseas and for our reputation overseas. Recently I have visited both Malaysia and Thailand and I can assure honourable senators that our reputation there has been severely damaged by the exercise of enticing students to come from overseas to this country and then seeking to deport them. Whether or not that sounds like a fair and reasonable description of what is happening, that is the way in which it has been put to me in those countries. I would suggest that when we seek to organise something with regard to overseas students we should seek to organise it in a way that enhances Australia's reputation in this area, not denigrates it. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(1.05 a.m.) —I do not want to hold up the business of the Senate this morning for too long at this eleventh hour of this session of Parliament although some of my fellow senators have not been too reluctant to do that today. I feel compelled to speak on this package of Bills today. Having worked in a college of advanced education for the past eleven years and having been a member of Monash Council for the past eight years, it would be remiss of me not to contribute to the debate on education. I refer to a media release by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Mr Dawkins, on 5 December in which he made the statement that the amount provided for tertiary education in the university sector for 1988 represented an increase of 2 per cent in real terms over that in 1987. We all know that we can have lies, damned lies and statistics. Often figures can be presented to us in favourable terms but closer analysis may reveal that all is not what it seems. The Minister may well claim that there has been an increase in real terms but with that increase the university and college sector is teaching more students. The student-staff ratio in Australian higher education is disgraceful and may be those 20,000 unplaced students are well off not being jammed into overcrowded lecture theatres. In the first term of this year I taught in lecture theatres with students sitting in aisles, unable to see the blackboards and overhead screens. Some of my staff complained that the students and staff were subjected to severe fire risks as a result of overcrowding-antiquated conditions in modern times. As I mentioned in my maiden speech, the higher education sector has been severely affected by the economic situation and, despite an apparent increase in funding in real terms, the cost of equipment and library acquisitions has left universities behind the eight ball. On 28 October I mentioned libraries. In the higher education supplement in the Australian on 4 November 1987 Professor Davies, a recently retired Adelaide academic, said of the University of Adelaide Barr Smith Library that the number of volumes received: had dropped from an average of about 26 thousand annually in the mid 1970's to an average of about 17 thousand in the past few years. He went on further to say: If a halt is not called at once to this serious downward trend, the Barr Smith Library, from being one of the best university libraries in the country, will soon become a second-rate provincial non-entity. I am sure that many librarians throughout universities in Australia would be echoing his sentiments. Not only are universities facing uncertainty associated with the impact of the national economy on their operations; they are also affected by the uncertainty resulting from the failure of the Government to maintain the triennial funding. As Senator Vanstone has mentioned, this has created an environment which is not conducive to research, teaching and planning. The answer is not necessarily pouring more taxpayers' money into the higher education sector. We must free up the sector to be more innovative and self-supporting. However, if the Minister is attempting to do this he needs to be sure that the Labor governments in the States are not working against him. If the suggestion in the review of governing bodies of universities in Victoria which has been under discussion were implemented, it would mean the governing bodies of each university would be look alike clones. Educational institutions have their own individual identity and the composition of the governing bodies should be flexible and not fixed. The Minister, in his discussion in the community, seems to be running with the foxes and hunting with the hounds. When speaking recently at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) he said: Unless the universities, and particularly the older ones among them, can shake off their ingrained resistances to change, can put the lie to their image as ossified bodies incapable of adaptation, then the opportunities associated with the changes now needed in the higher education sector will simply pass them by. It will be the innovative, more dynamic institutions-colleges and institutes such as RMIT-who will reap the benefits of the `new age'. I wonder whether the Minister would be as happy to say that at Melbourne, Sydney or Adelaide universities. I do not know to which universities he was referring, and of course some of the older universities may have some tired, tenured academics, but the Graduates Gazette of the University of Sydney and that university's annual report, and the annual report of the University of Melbourne, demonstrate that the two oldest universities in Australia have many departments of international standing producing outstanding students and research. The universities and colleges, both old and new, ought to be credited for what they have achieved, given their limited resources. These Bills cover a wide range of issues in education. It is not possible at this time of the morning to pursue them in depth. However, I concur with Mr Carlton who, in speaking on these Bills in the House of Representatives, expressed the Opposition's concern at the transfer of the functions of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission to the Department of Employment, Education and Training. By reducing the input of those directly involved in higher education we face serious risks, just as we face serious risks if centralised bureaucratic bodies decide whether or not research conducted by universities and colleges of advanced education is in the national interest. I will not debate this issue tonight, despite the fact that I see it as of the utmost importance. The suggestions that the Minister is making indicate that he does not understand the psychology of the researcher. The sort of verve and commitment that we have seen on the part of Australian researchers who have made major contributions to pure and applied research in Australia is based on intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivation. The discussion on the Minister's higher education policy paper will enable me to debate this fundamental and basic issue further. To save myself the wrath of my fellow senators, I will refrain from speaking further in this debate. Opposition senators-No! Senator PATTERSON —However, I must state that I regret that such important Bills on education are being discussed with such haste in this House. I thank my fellow senators for their support in asking me to continue my speech, but I will refrain from doing so. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(1.12 a.m.) —I promise not to be as kind as Senator Patterson. The provision of financial assistance to students has shaped the face of higher education in Australia. Prior to the Second World War, the distribution of student assistance was closely linked to the labour power needs of State governments and private capital. Scholarships, bonds and bursaries were available in limited numbers for students who wished to train and work as teachers, engineers or technicians. Most students, however, relied on private means and access to study was duly limited to an exceedingly small section of the population. This situation changed dramatically in the 1940s with the involvement of the Commonwealth Government in the funding of post-school education. In 1943 the introduction of a federally funded scholarship and reconstruction training scheme conditioned an astronomical growth in student numbers, which was limited only by the demise of the training scheme at the end of the 1940s. With the establishment of an ongoing Commonwealth scholarship scheme in 1951, student numbers continued to increase, but at a slower rate than in the five years after the war. The year 1961 saw the introduction of scholarships earmarked specifically for post-graduates, to induce students to remain at university for further study. The development of financial assistance to students over this period essentially revolved around the issues of access and attrition; when government was concerned about labour market requirements, declining access or high dropout rates from educational institutions it would generally meet these needs by increasing the accessibility of grants. The combined needs of developing human capital and enhancing equality of opportunity led the Labor Government in 1973-74 to revolutionise the system of student financing by replacing the competitive undergraduate scholarship scheme with the non-competitive means tested tertiary education assistance scheme (TEAS). It was intended that TEAS would meet the basic needs of student studying full time towards a first degree. State teacher education scholarships, which had preceded and paralleled the development of federally funded student assistance, were phased out as TEAS was phased in. However, the social and economic climate altered in 1975 and a new government assumed power-I do not need to tell honourable senators which government-with the stated intention of reducing government spending and placing welfare services on a user-pays footing. This involved the gradual phasing out of student grants and the introduction of a commercial student loans scheme. Due to the opposition from the education lobby, the Government failed in its attempt to establish a loans scheme but, between 1975 and 1983, the level and accessibility of the two main grant schemes, TEAS and the Commonwealth post-graduate awards schemes, declined markedly. The social consequences of this decline were felt in the late 1970s and early 1980s, with a shift from full time to part time study in both undergraduate and post-graduate study modes, disturbing drops in youth participation in higher education and a decrease in the number of students from less privileged groups-that is, women and those of low socio-economic status. In recognition of community concerns with these trends the Hawke Labor Government, first elected in March 1983, promised to rectify the situation by upgrading TEAS to the level of the single unemployment benefit and raising the level of the income test ceiling. After consideration of the introduction of a single youth allowance coinciding with the International Year of Youth, the Government decided to rationalise existing youth support schemes to establish a new scheme-Austudy-to be phased in from 1987 on. However, Austudy has not marked a turning point in student financing. It has carried over many of the poverty traps which characterised the TEAS scheme and the level of, and eligibility for, assistance have continued to contract as, year after year, the Federal Government has reduced the public commitment to higher education and training in Australia. The decline in the availability of student financing has been accurately charted by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's Review of the Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education, published in 1986, which noted that a factor affecting the socio-economic composition of higher education is the nature and availability of financial assistance to students. Tuition fees for higher education were abolished back in 1974. At the same time, there were major changes in government schemes of financial assistance. The Commonwealth Government replaced the Commonwealth scholarship scheme, which provided a means tested living allowance to 17 per cent of full time students, with the tertiary education assistance scheme, which provided similar means tested allowances to all full time students. State governments started phasing out scholarships for teacher trainees, which provided generous non-means tested allowances to over 30 per cent of full time students. The result has been that less than 40 per cent-- Senator Peter Baume —I take a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I ask you whether standing order 406 is being breached. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —I think that Senator Wood is using copious notes. I also draw to his attention that he should try to relate his speech to the nine Bills before us. Will Senator Wood please continue, bearing in mind the standing orders? Senator WOOD —I do not usually use copious notes, Senator Hill —Don't dispute the ruling of the Chair. Senator WOOD —I am not disputing the ruling of the Chair. I am just pointing out that, at this hour of the night, I wish to be as precise and succinct as I can be. Therefore, I would like to rely on my primary sources as much as I can. Senator Hill, who was instrumental in having me gagged earlier this evening, is now objecting. In short, the decline in financial assistance also has been demonstrated at the University of New South Wales. A comparison with 1974 figures demonstrated that there had been a marked decrease in Government funding to students in this sector of education. Scholarships have declined and there is a corresponding increase in the number of students being supported, either by their families or by themselves. Contrary to Government rhetoric, student financial assistance is continuing its rapid decline which was first set in place under the Fraser Liberal Government. There is an assumption in Austudy that full time students up to 24 years of age receive financial support from parents. The age at which students are deemed to be independent by the Department of Employment, Education and Training is 25 years of age. This figure is arbitrary and bears no relation to reality. It is our view that 18 years be considered the cut off point for dependent status. Most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have sought to lower the age of independence. Other criteria for the granting of independent status are also problematic, the most difficult being that on the ground of significant labour force participation. That issue will come up later in the committee stage of the debate. Until recently students were granted independent status if they could prove participation in the labour force for two years out of five. This criteria was changed by the Labor Government to two years out of three. Recently in the mini-Budget it was changed to three years out of four on the basis of a full week being 35 hours rather than the previous 25 hours. Clearly this measure has been introduced to reduce access to assistance. The Sydney University Student Representative Council welfare officer estimates that at least 9,000 students will not gain access to financial assistance as a result of this decision. I am opposed also to an incomes test because this places student grants in the residual welfare category which fosters a `blame the victim' mentality for being unsuccessful for not having the means of self-support. I favour a universal welfare scheme as proposed by the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty and other inquiries such as that done by Dr Wilenski, who later pressed for a universal youth allowance to be paid to all those young people not in the labour force. It was from this idea that the Austudy concept was developed. At the very least the present cut off point for assistance to students who are not dependants is the ludicrous figure of $16,000 for total parental income. This is absurd. It was the Labor Government which first decided in the 1985-86 Budget to tax student allowances. Currently students are allowed to earn no more than $2,000 over their total grant. Opening this to taxation has taken a huge bite out of yearly earnings, with students paying tax at a high marginal rate. In this scenario the level of allowable earnings should be increased substantially. The result of this decline in accessibility to financial assistance has been to throw students back on to their already overburdened families for support. I was a student at Macquarie University when these fees were introduced. Studies at Macquarie University have shown that the fee introduced by this Government-it is a fee-has resulted in the rapid exit of mature age students from that university and, more specifically, mature age women students. It is interesting that this fee alone has been responsible for seeing the decline in the access of women to tertiary education. Mature age women are seeking to enter higher education. These are the people who are being specifically disadvantaged by the fee. I agree with Senator Macklin. I have no doubt that, despite Australian Labor Party policy, this Government will move to full cost fees by the end of its term. We are also debating the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill. It is instructive to look at what happened to fees for overseas students. I think that is a mirror of what will happen to fees for the general body of the student population. We will see increase after increase to the fee. The Government will probably give up trying to pretend that it is an administrative fee and we will see an introduction of full cost fees. We will have gone back 20 years in assistance to students in higher education. Higher education is, once again, becoming the enclave of the sons and daughters of the wealthy. I think that this is something to be resisted. I say in conclusion that, as a youth worker, I have seen the value of the participation and equity program (PEP). I have used it at various levels and seen its benefits to students in school and out of school. At the school which my children go to, PEP has been the main factor responsible for getting parents more involved in the education of their children. It is a tragedy that PEP will be abolished. Given that in my Party I am my own Whip, I conclude my remarks. Senator HILL(South Australia)(1.28 a.m.) —I wish to speak about only one of the Bills that we are debating at the moment-the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1987. Senator Haines —Just faint gracefully. Senator HILL —I could not faint gracefully. This debate gives me the opportunity, if I am not distracted, to stress the importance of an overseas student program under which foreign students are educated in Australian institutions. It is important from the point of view of benefits to Australia and to the developing nations around us, from the Pacific and Asia whence most of these students come. It enables me to express concern at the reducing sum this Government appropriates through our aid vote in subsidising the costs of such education. Put in the context of what is happening in relation to this Government's approach to foreign aid, that is not surprising. In the last few years we have seen dramatic erosion of our aid efforts. I remind the Senate that since 1984 there has been a 20 per cent real reduction in our aid, a position which is quite deplorable and of which the Government should be ashamed, particularly considering the undertakings it gave when it came to government. (Quorum formed) The appalling record of this Government in relation to foreign aid, to which I was referring, would seem to be based on the misconception that overseas aid is charity-not that there is any reason to be ashamed of charity. But in fact probably the greatest beneficiary of Australia's aid program is Australia itself. Why? It is because it promotes our country; it promotes and encourages the role of our goods and services; it complements our foreign affairs, defence and trade activities. Unfortunately, the field of education support has suffered along with other cuts in foreign aid. In 1984-85 our assistance for overseas students was $98.6m. In 1987-88 it is only $85.2m-in real terms, quite a substantial drop. Similarly, training support has dropped from $5.9m in 1985-86 to $5.2m in 1987-88. Senator Wood —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I just ask whether the honourable senator is breaching standing order 406. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Zakharov) —No, he is not. Senator HILL —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I was having some difficulty with my copious notes. Before I was rudely interrupted, I was going to say that there are probably few areas in which Australia can better help our developing neighbours than that of education assistance. It helps them to help themselves. It helps them to develop so that they need not be so dependent in the future upon aid. It helps them to lift themselves to a standard of living which will enable opportunities for trade with us in the future. Senator Haines should listen to this. It gives us the opportunity to educate and influence the future leaders of our neighbour countries in the value systems we think important and which can best ensure peace and stability in our region. It gives us the opportunity to promote goodwill, not only with the students' parents, who long for better opportunities for their children, but also with the current leaders of such countries, who are obviously striving to lift the standards of living of their people. There are so many benefits in Australia's providing this service to the region. Yet the number of students this Government is prepared to subsidise is now reducing. I refer firstly to those who are fully subsidised under our system. I remind honourable senators that in 1982 the figure for such students was over 3,000. Senator Haines —You cannot remind them of something most of them did not know about. Senator HILL —Well, they know about it now. In 1986 the figure was reduced to 2,588. The figure for 1987 was approximately 2,300. Senator Chaney —It sounds a bit like their record in foreign aid generally, doesn't it? Senator HILL —It does. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that, if I go back to the first page of my notes, I find that in the last few years there has been a dramatic erosion of our foreign aid. In fact, since 1984 there has been a 20 per cent reduction in real terms. Let us look at that in the context of partly subsidised overseas students because under this legislation they will have to pay an increase, from 45 per cent to 55 per cent, in actual costs. Because of that increase in costs their number is also reducing. Secondary students who were subject to the quota in 1983 got up to the figure of 5,397. By 1987 that figure was down to 3,410-a substantial reduction in the number of overseas secondary school students whom we are supporting under this scheme. Under the quota the number of tertiary students rose steadily to 14,605 in 1986. In 1987 that figure was reduced to 14,400 and this year it has reduced further to about 13,300. So again we see this continuing picture of less money being provided by this Government and fewer overseas students from our developing neighbours able to be supported within the system in this country. I think that is something this Senate should deplore. As I have indicated, the percentage cost that they are expecting to pay is increasing and is now reaching very substantial sums. In real terms, for the more expensive university courses, these students are now having to pay over $7,000 a year and $6,300 for other courses, which certainly is not an insignificant sum. It seems to be filling the places in university courses and technical and further education (TAFE) courses. That means that the contribution of Australia is being reduced because the subsidy for those who are in TAFE is significantly lower. We find that of the 3,500 new students to be admitted under this scheme this year, only 1,500 will be in tertiary institutions, which, as I indicated earlier, certainly causes me concern, and I would hope that it causes this Senate generally concern. Two aspects remain pleasing. The first aspect is that, as a result of an amendment to earlier legislation pressed by the Opposition, those who started their courses at a particular fee structure will be able to finish their courses on that structure. The second pleasing aspect, provided that the Government does not renege on its undertaking, is that we note that the 55 per cent figure that will apply-the payment required-according to the Minister will be for the triennium starting in the year 1987-88. We trust that the Government will keep to that undertaking. With regard to the third category, that is, full fee paying students, there is still enormous potential for this country. One needs only to look briefly at the market to appreciate what a small sector is being realised by this country. It is estimated that there are approximately one million students studying outside their home countries, but of those only 1.2 per cent come to Australia. The United States of America takes approximately 32 per cent, France 13 per cent, Canada 3 per cent and so on down the scale. When one looks at the source of students to Australia one sees that interesting anomalies are also apparent. Of the approximate 14,000 students who come under this category it is interesting that we get only 1,000 from Indonesia out of a population of 176 million. Taiwan, with a population of about 20 million, does not even get into the figures, which I must say I find astounding. From Korea we get only 125 students out of a population of some 43 million. The Philippines which has a population of 60 million and which needs education particularly in view of its current crisis, as do so many developing countries, also is not included in the figure. So it is either none or a mere handful. Why is this occurring? It is occurring because most of these countries traditionally look to the education facilities of the United States of America, which in many cases is considerably more expensive for them than sending students to Australia. So there is an education failing on our part in terms of what services we have to offer in that area. It is interesting also to look at Malaysia, which has some 65,000 foreign students studying overseas. Although Malaysia is our greatest source of overseas students, only 8,000 of those 65,000 come to this country. So there is obviously room for extensive improvement, even in relation to Malaysia. As I indicated, the developing nations in Asia, in particular, and also the nations in the Pacific are yet to be convinced of the education facilities that we offer in this country. We need to indicate that education facilities are available in Australia if we are to attract students. But it is also important that we should offer the right courses. There has been a considerable demand for technically oriented courses, business courses, et cetera. It is no good us going, as we have perhaps in so many other trading areas, and telling our potential trading partners what is good for them. We must be prepared to respond to their market. Furthermore, the quality of what we offer must be high. We must realise that we are in competition with countries such as the United States and the European nations. I have indicated the general benefits that will flow from offering these facilities to overseas students. But if we look at this matter from the point of view of full fee paying students we can see the obvious additional benefits in respect of foreign currency and the economies of scale that can benefit Australian students here. The Australian economy would receive an obvious fillip in terms of the accommodation, sustenance, transport and so on that is necessary to sustain these students while they are in Australia. What is the potential revenue to Australia from this largely untapped source? I can do no better than to refer to the work of Mr George Tarjan, the Manager of the Trade and Services Branch of the Australian Trade Commission, who indicated that he believed that revenue of $24m in 1987 could very quickly be turned into revenue of at least $100m if our institutions opened their doors and if we marketed their services in the way in which I have indicated. There are also other profit making opportunities through education that are clearly-- Senator Gareth Evans —Tell us about them; don't hesitate. Senator HILL —I am going to, because it will be good for the Minister to learn. Apart from the full courses, there are other profit making opportunities in the field of education. There are obviously opportunities through external courses that we do not yet offer sufficiently in this country and which can be profitable. There are opportunities through specialist short term courses that can be much more extensively adopted. There are also opportunities in the provision of education consultants funded by international aid organisations. There are, of course, also opportunities in the area which this Government wishes to avoid-that of private education institutions which could clearly offer a service if we did not have the blinkered attitude that we have had from this Government that, for no other than irrational reasons, will not allow that facility to be offered. As I have indicated, this is one area in which Australia can provide a really worthwhile service to our neighbours and make a profit as well. To me, there does not seem to be anything wrong with that. If we did make that profit, it might better enable this Government to find places for the 20,000-odd young Australians who cannot find places in Australian tertiary institutions. Outside of the profit areas, I remind the Government, there are many areas in education in which we can be of help to our neighbours. Some time last year I mentioned the absence of books in Philippine primary schools. This touched me. To provide books is one simple way in which we can be of assistance to our neighbours. I drew the Government's attention to this, but it took little notice. In my experience, one of the best ways in which we have contributed to developing nations is through the provision of teachers. The service that has been provided by Australian teachers in Zimbabwe, for example, is quite legendary-not only the services they provide to students in that country but also the goodwill they promote and extend for Australia's benefit. Overseas education facilities is an area in which Australia can make a worthwhile contribution to the development of our region. The three-phase structure that we have at the moment of totally subsidised, partly subsidised and full fee paying appears to me to be a sound structure. However, it is a matter of great regret that the Government is cutting support for the first two. I argue that it is short-sighted and I urge the Government to reconsider it as a matter of urgency. Debate (on motion by Senator Tate) adjourned. Senate adjourned at 1.47 a.m. (Thursday) The following paper was tabled: Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act-Order pursuant to subsection 9 (1), dated 18 November 1987. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 10) Senator Alston asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Is there any legislative or other practical limitation which precludes the provision of witness protection once a person has given evidence or finished being of assistance to the National Crime Authority (NCA) or any other and what investigating Authority? (2) In the 1986-87 financial year did: (a) the Australian Federal Police; (b) any other and what State police force; (c) any other and what organisations carry out and what amount of this type of witness protection on behalf of the NCA. Did any and what proportion of such work relate to: (i) Commonwealth references; (ii) State references? (3) What was the expenditure by each State police force in connection with this activity? (4) What proportion of State expenditure during 1986-87 in terms of: (a) salaries, overtime and allowances; (b) direct costs including food, accommodation and travel has been or will be recouped from; (i) the National Crime Authority, (ii) the Australian Federal Police, (iii) any other Commonwealth agency? Senator Tate —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There are no Commonwealth legislative limitations to the duration of witness protection once a witness has given evidence or ceases to be of assistance to the National Crime Authority (NCA) or other investigative authorities. However the AFP Witness Protection Branch, which also provides its services to a number of other authorities, has or may have the following practical constraints placed upon it: the question of continuing financial support from client authorities; specific terms and conditions for the provision of protective services contained in Memoranda and Understanding; limitations of manpower resources; the diminution of threat against the witness and as a consequence the necessity for continued full service or otherwise; and the decision by the witness to terminate any arrangement for this or her security, or to enter the final relocation phase of the program which may involve the removal of close protection arrangements. I understand that no legislative limitations exist, but that similar practical constraints apply, to the provision of witness protection by State authorities. (2) (1) Yes. During the 1986-87 financial year the AFP performed protection duties on four witnesses for the NCA. (i) and (ii) Three of the witnesses under AFP protection relate to joint Commonwealth and State references; the other witness is related to a purely Commonwealth matter. (b) Yes. During the 1986-87 financial year the N.S.W. Police performed protection duties for the NCA on two witnesses. (i) and (ii) These witnesses were both related to joint Commonwealth and N.S.W. references. (c) No other organisation carried out witness protection duties on behalf of the NCA in 1986-87. (3) The New South Wales Police Department has not been able to provide this information to date. (4) (i) No formal arrangement exists for the reimbursement of the costs of witness protection provided by State agencies to the NCA. However, cost-sharing arrangements apply to joint Commonwealth/State References, under which all project-specific costs (including operational expenses) are divided between the Commonwealth and the State (or States). (ii) As mentioned above the AFP carries out its own witness protection. (iii) Not applicable to any other Commonwealth agency. (Question No. 11) Senator Alston asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) What is the extent of additional resources (both financial and other) that the NCA would require to set up its own witness protection facilities given the statement on page 42 of the National Crime Authority Annual Report 1985-86 that: ``Although section 34 empowers the Authority to set up its own witness protection facilities, the Authority does not at present have sufficient resources to do so, and must, in effect, rely on facilities already in existence''? (2) What actions has the NCA taken to date in attempting to secure these additional resources? (3) What progress has been made to date in the formation of a national scheme to co-ordinate witness protection arrangements throughout Australia apart from the proposed inquiry by the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority? Senator Tate —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The Authority has not given detailed consideration to this question; it would not consider it feasible or desirable to establish its own witness protection facilities. The Authority, therefore, has taken no steps to secure additional resources for this purpose. (3) While a formal national witness protection scheme has not yet been established, co-operation and co-ordination exists between State and Commonwealth agencies on witness protection arrangements. In addition the Australian Police Ministers' Council also considered the issue of national witness protection arrangements at its meeting in Hobart on 27 November. The Council agreed that, while any final decision on improved national witness protection arrangements should await the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the NCA on witness protection, relevant jurisdictions should confer as a matter of urgency on interim arrangements for witness protection, having regard to the recommendations of the National Police Research Unit. The Australian Federal Police, Attorney-General's Department and National Crime Authority are each preparing a submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority providing comments on the issue from their particular perspective. (Question No. 12) Senator Alston asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) On what date were Lorraine and Aaron Cohen arrested in Malaysia in relation to the charges recently faced by them? (2) On what date did: (a) the Department of Foreign Affairs; (b) any other and what Australian authorities, first become aware of their arrest and the nature of the above charges? (3) On any and what date did (a) the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence; (b) the National Crime Authority; (c) the Department of Foreign Affairs; (d) any other and what Australian authorities, first advise the Malaysian authorities of the findings of the Stewart Royal Commission in relation to Lorraine Cohen? (4) On any and what date during the trial of the Cohens did any and what Australian authorities advise the Malaysian High Commission of matters in relation to the findings of the Stewart Royal Commission? (5) Why was it considered to be necessary for the Malaysian High Commission to be so advised at that stage. (6) At the recent trial in Malaysia, in any and what manner and to any and what extent did the prosecution seek to lead evidence in chief or by way of rebuttal designed to establish that Lorraine Cohen was or had been a heroin trafficker, dealer or distributor. Senator Tate —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Lorraine and Aaron Cohen were arrested at Penang, Malaysia on 9 February 1985. (2) (a) I am advised that the Department of Foreign Affairs became aware of the arrest through media reports at the time the events took place. In this regard, I refer the honourable Senator to the answer given on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs by Senator Evans in the Senate on 27 May 1985. (b) The Australian Federal Police liaison officer in Malaysia was advised of the arrest of the Cohens shortly after their detention. As they were travelling on New Zealand passports, advice of their arrest was immediately passed to the New Zealand High Commission which provided consular assistance. (c) I have no reason to believe that other Australian agencies became aware of the arrests other than through media reports at the time. (3) I am advised that: (a) the ABCI has not, on any occasion, provided information concerning the Cohens to the Malaysian authorities; (b) the National Crime Authority took no action to draw to the attention of Malaysian authorities the findings of the Stewart Royal Commission in relation to Lorraine Cohen; (c) the Department of Foreign Affairs took no action to advise the Malaysian Authorities of the findings of the Stewart Royal Commission in this regard; and that (d) following the arrest of the Cohens the press in both Australia and Malaysia carried stories of Lorraine Cohen's involvement in the activities of persons connected with the ``Mr Asia'' syndicate, which had been the subject of investigation and report by the Stewart Royal Commission. At the request of the Royal Malaysia Police the AFP liaison officer in Kuala Lumpur, on 18 February 1985, provided copies of those pages relating to Lorraine Cohen from the public report of Mr Justice Stewart. (4) and (5) I am advised that the AFP has not communicated any information relating to the findings of the Stewart Royal Commission to Malaysian authorities since 18 February 1985. I have no information to suggest that any other authority advised the Malaysian High Commission of these matters at any time. (6) The information sought is not in the Commonwealth's possession. (Question No. 27) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Could the Minister outline which interests, companies or individuals hold the controlling interests in the Australian media in the following areas in view of the obvious confusion in the community on the issue: (a) television stations, (b) radio stations, (c) printed newspapers and periodicals, (d) news agencies and (e) public relations and lobbying companies, groups or individuals. (2) What controls does the Federal Government have over the manifold media deals currently in vogue to the general confusion of the public at large. (3) Does the Federal Government regard the safeguards it already has in place as adequate for the protection of the public against the establishment of media monopolies within Australia. (4) What measures has the Federal Government in place to (a) monitor and (b) control the ownership of all parts of the Australian media in the future. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) & (b) The attached tables show major shareholders in licensee companies of television stations and radio stations as at 9 October 1987. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) publishes quarterly a list of shareholding interests in radio and television stations. This document is available to the public and provides a more comprehensive picture than is possible in the space of this response. Copies of the most recent edition of this publication are in the Parliament Library. (c), (d) & (e) The Commonwealth has no specific constitutional power over the ownership of print media, news agencies or public relations and lobbying companies. The merger provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the general thrust of the Foreign Takeovers Act 1975 affect patterns of control in the print media industry, but the Government does not directly regulate the industry. With regard to newspapers, as part of its role in administering the cross-media provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1942, the ABT publishes, in the document mentioned above, details of principal shareholders in newspaper publishing companies. The Department of Administrative Services maintains a register of lobbyists. There is no legislation involved and registration is not mandatory. (2) Transfer of ownership of broadcasting licences and changes in ownership of shares in companies holding licences are subject to approval by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT). The ABT must approve all such transactions, ensuring that the cross media, audience reach, concentration of ownership and foreign shareholding limits of the Broadcasting Act 1942 are observed. (3) Yes. Recent amendments to the television ownership and control provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1942 (the Act) enable the ABT to apply cross media rules and an audience reach limit of 60% of the Australian population. The cross media rules of the Act specifically prohibit persons from having a prescribed interest in a television licence if they have a prescribed interest in a commercial radio licence with a monopoly in the service area of that television licence, and/or if they have a prescribed interest in a newspaper associated with that area. These amendments were intended to promote a separation between television and print media interest and to reduce the incidence of media monopolies in regional areas. (4) The Government closely monitors the ownership of the Australian media. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, under the Broadcasting Act 1942 monitors and approves transactions involving broadcasting licences. Newspapers and other print media outlets are not licensed although the Government has powers which may affect the print media industry under the provisions pertaining to monopolies and foreign ownership in the other legislation I have just mentioned. MAJOR SHAREHOLDERS IN LICENCE COMPANIES OF COMMERCIAL RADIO LICENCES-AS AT 30 OCTOBER 1987* Company Holdings Regional Metropolitan Bond... Port Headland 6NW Kalgoorlie 6KG Geraldton 6GE Karratha 6KA Northam 6AM Darwin 8DN Melbourne 3AK Perth 6PM Sydney 2UE Australian Broadcasting P/L (Albert Investments P/L) Rockhampton 4RO Maryborough 4MB Toowoomba 4GR Kingaroy 4SB Brisbane 4BC Sydney 2UW Melbourne 3DB Canberra 2CC Northern Star Holdings Ltd/ Westfield... Mareeba 4AM Collie 6CI Narrogin 6NA Bunbury 6TZ Wesgo... Gosford 2GO Newcastle 2KO Gladstone 4CC Kempsey 2MC Gympie 4GY Coffs Harbour 2CS (14.9%) Albury 2AY Goulburn 2GN Bendigo 3BO Cairns 4CA Townsville 4TO Brisbane 4KQ Sydney 2WS Adelaide 5KA (50% with Rydge) Melbourne 3MP Perth 6KY Sydney 2CH* Bell (Holmes a Court)... Katanning 6WB Albany 6VA Bridgetown 6BY Wollongong 2WL Townsville/Ayr 4PR Canberra 2CA Adelaide 5DN Brisbane 4BH Melbourne 3AW Sydney 2GB Hoyts Media Ltd (Wheatley has minor share)... Maryborough 3CV Bega 2BE (EC) Oakey 4AK Lismore 2LM Gold Coast 4GG Murwillumbah 2MW Geelong 3GL Mt Gambier 5SE Sydney 2MMM Melbourne 3EON Brisbane 4BC Adelaide 5AD Perth 6NOW Broadcast Amalgamated... Tamworth 2TM Gunnedah 2MO Taree 2RE Armidale 2AD (50%) Warwick 4WK Associated Broadcasting Services... Shepparton 3SR Warragul 3UL Associated Communications Group... Colac 3CS Hamilton 3HA Swan Hill 3SH Horsham 3WM Ballarat Courier Ltd... Ballarat 3BA Camplin Broadcasting P/L... Bathurst 2BS TWT Holdings Ltd... Wollongong 2OO NSW Labour Council (with others)... Sydney 2KY NSW ALP Branch and NSW Labour Council... Newcastle 2HD Broadcast Operations Ltd (Linter Group)... Mudgee 2MG Dubbo 2DU Griffith 2RG Parkes 2PK Westlawn Investments P/L... Grafton 2GF Hayden Nepean Enterprises P/L... Katoomba 2KA Riverina Broadcasters (Holdings) P/L... Wagga 2WG Young 2LF Moree Broadcasting & Development Co P/L... Inverell 2NZ Moree 2VM Robrad P/L... Deniliquin 2QN North West Broadcasters P/L... Charters Towers 4GC Mt Isa 4LM Motherwell P/L... Nambour 4SS Alice Springs Commercial Broadcasters P/L... Charleville 4VL Alice Springs 8HA Skeg Pty Ltd... Port Augusta 5AU Renmark 5RM Festival City Broadcasters... Adelaide 5AA Bridge Radio P/L... Murray Bridge 5MU Findlays Broadcasting Service P/L... Scottsdale 7SD Devonport 7AD Burnie 7BU XL Broadcasting P/L... Queenstown 7QT Cooma 2XL Broadcasting Station 2SM P/L... Muswellbrook 2NM Newcastle 2NX Brisbane 4IO Sydney 2SM Qintex (Skase)... Brisbane FM104 Robert Nettlefold Ltd... Hobart 7HO ENT Securities P/L... Launceston 7EX Hobart 7HT Victorian Racing Consortium... Melbourne 3 UZ Industrial Printing and Publicity Company... Launceston 7LA Melbourne 3KZ Paul Dainty... Melbourne 3XY Austereo Ltd... Melbourne 3FOX Adelaide 5SSA Western Australian Totalisator Agency Board... Perth 6PR Broadcast Investments P/L (Lamb Family)... Sydney 2DAY FM Far West Radio P/L... Broken Hill 2BH Country Television Services... Orange 2GZ Mid West Radio Network Ltd... Lithgow 2LT South Coast and Tableland Broadcasting P/L... Nowra 2ST Sunraysia Broadcasters P/L... Mildura 3MA North East Broadcasters P/L... Wangaratta 3 NE Southern Cross Communications... Latrobe Valley 3TR Regional Communications P/L... Warrnambool 3YB Bundaberg Broadcasters P/L... Bundaberg 4BU Coastal Broadcasters P/L... Innisfail 4KZ Barrier Reef Broadcasting P/L... Mackay 4MK Emerald 4HI Longreach 4LG Maranoa Broadcasting Co... Roma 4ZR Coast and Country Broadcasting Services P/L... Port Lincoln 5CC Port Pirie 5CS Carnarvon Broadcasting P/L... Carnarvon 6LN Med Districts Radio P/L... Merredin 6MD Esperance Broadcasters P/L... Esperance 6SE * Some transactions pending approval by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, or are subject to completion of sale agreement and/or shareholders approval. MAJOR SHAREHOLDERS IN LICENSEE COMPANIES OF COMMERCIAL TELEVISION STATIONS AS AT 30 OCTOBER 1987* Company Holdings Regional Metropolitan Bond Media Ltd ... TNQ7 Townsville (minor share) FNQ10 Cairns (minor share) TCN9 Sydney GTV9 Melbourne QTQ9 Brisbane STW9 Perth Northern Star Holdings/Westfield ... RTN8 Lismore NRN11 Coffs Harbour CTC7 Canberra BTW3 Bunbury GSW9 Albany GTW9 Geraldton VEW8 Kalgoorlie TEN10 Sydney ATV10 Melbourne ADS7 Adelaide NEW10 Perth (not yet on air) Bell Group (Holmes a Court) ... SAS10 Adelaide TVW7 Perth Broadcast Investment P/L (Lamb Family) ... NWS9 Adelaide Qintex Ltd/(Skase) ... SEQ8 Maryborough MVQ6 Mackay ATN7 Sydney HSV7 Melbourne BTQ7 Brisbane ENT Enterprises Ltd (Rouse Family) ... TNT9 Launceston TVT6 Hobart Parry Corporation (40%) Fulcram TWT Holdings Ltd NBN3 Newcastle WIN4 Wollongong Southern Cross Communications/Tricom Pty Ltd BCV8 Bendigo GLV8 Traralgon Aspermont Ltd (Haynes) ... SDQ4 Warwick DDQ10 Toowoomba RTQ7 Rockhampton (minor) TVQO Brisbane Telecasters North Qld Ltd ... TNQ7 Townsville FNQ10 Cairns Associated Broadcasting Services Ltd ... BTV6 Ballarat GMV6 Shepparton Paul Ramsay Communications P/L ... RVN2 Riverina AMV4 Albury NEN9 Tamworth ECN8 Taree CBN8 Orange CWN6 Dubbo Sabtel Pty Ltd (Presser) ... STV8 Mildura Scott's Agencies P/L ... SES8 Mt Gambier RTS5A Loxton JM Sturrock Pty Ltd ... GTS4 Spencer Gulf BKN7 Broken Hill Fotheringham Investment P/L (Asher Joel Family) ITQ8 Mt Isa Television Holdings (Darwin) P/L (Packer) ... NTD8 Darwin Broadcast Operations Ltd (Linter Group) ... MTN9 Griffith * Some transactions pending approval by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, or are subject to completion of sale agreement and/or shareholders approval. (Question No. 35) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: During the years 1985-86 (a) how many arrests were made in relation to individuals or companies for drug trafficking in each of the Australian States and Territories; (b) how many convictions were obtained in relation to arrests in each of the States and Territories; (c) in each State or Territory, what was the breakdown of convictions in numerical and percentage terms for (i) heroin dealing (ii) cocaine or cocaine product and (iii) marijuana or associated products; and (d) of those (i) arrested or (ii) convicted, what was the breakdown of the Nationalities of those involved during the two years under review. Senator Tate —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The AFP is the primary law enforcement agency responsible for investigating major drug syndicates importing drugs into Australia. It has recently established a computer based system for the collection of statistics relating to the seizure and control of drugs by Federal agencies, which will in future give the AFP easy access to information of the type requested. Other drug offences committed in Australia are the responsibility of State police forces. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has recently introduced a Case Matter Management System for maintaining records of Commonwealth prosecutions, but this system is not yet sufficiently sophisticated to produce statistical information of the type requested in a complete and manageable form. While the AFP keeps records relating to its own drug operations, it does not hold such information about State police activities. The information requested on drug trafficking pertaining to all States and Territories will not be available until the Australian Drug Data Base (Law Enforcement Component), currently being developed by the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, is established. In the interim, information of the type requested should be sought direct from the appropriate agency of each State or Territory. In accordance with the 1985 Charter of Objectives and Priorities, drug trafficking and organised crime are given the highest priority by the AFP. Effective law enforcement in these areas is not measured by the number of arrests and the quantity of drugs seized, but by the significance of those arrests and seizures. A full breakdown of arrests for drug trafficking is available only for the financial year 1986/87. In the last two financial years, Federal agencies seized the following quantities of drugs: Type of Drug 1986-87 Seizures Weight 1985-86 Seizures Weight No. gms No. gms Opium- Prep... . . - 5 587 Raw... 2 6 8 389 Seeds... 8 319 6 629 Heroin... 285 40,545 354 46,723 Morphine... 3 113 5 573 Cocaine... 75 24,316 86 12,395 Cannabis... 599 2,199,829 476 62,648 Cannabis Oil... 2 2,612 10 271 Cannabis Resin... 263 797,512 301 1,502,808 Cannabis Seeds... 122 311,548 106 33,731 Amphetamines... 45 748 38 3,038 Barbiturates... 2 594 1 2 LSD (dose units)... 11 24,735 11 1,459 Other Hallucinogens... 7 568 6 9 Note: Includes some seizures awaiting analysis to confirm both weight and presence of the illegal substance. Recorded weights may therefore vary from those previously reported. Does not include seizures by State police for which Federal charges have been laid. The AFP has provided the following details of drug investigations in the last financial year which resulted in the interdiction of major importations and the apprehension of persons central to the operations of criminal syndicates. MAJOR* AFP HEROIN SEIZURES 1986/87 Amount seized (gms) Nationality of persons arrested Court result 1414.72 Thai (4) French (1), Australian (1) ... Convicted-1 (French) 12 years Pending-5 2936.6 Australian (4) ... Pending-4 1400 British (2) ... Convicted-1 6 years Pending-1 1400 Lebanese (1) ... Pending-1 1000 Lebanese (1) ... Pending-1 1400 Lebanese (2) Egyptian (1) Australian (1) ... Convicted-2 (Lebanese/Australian) 6 years; 5 years Pending-2 5556 Australian (5) ... Convicted-3 24 years; 20 years (2) Pending-2 MAJOR* AFP COCAINE SEIZURES 1986/87 Amount seized (gms) Nationality of persons arrested Court result 641.7 Australian (1) Brazilian (2) ... Pending-3 590.1 Brazilian (2) Chilean (1) ... Pending-3 521.2 US (1) Australian (2) ... Pending-3 2745 Australian (2) Israeli (1) ... Convicted-1 (Australian) 11 years Pending-2 2298 New Zealander (1) ... Pending-1 2400 Australian (2) ... Pending-2 4200 Australian (2) Argentinian (1) Colombian (1) ... Pending-4 MAJOR* AFP CANNABIS SEIZURES (A) LEAF, (B) RESIN (C) OIL 1986/87 Amount seized (gms) Nationality of persons arrested Court result 395 kgs (A) Australian (6) ... Convicted-1 10 years Pending-5 1.3 tonnes (A) Australian (2) US (1) ... Pending-3 731.1 kgs (A) Australian (1) ... Pending-1 29663 gms (B) Australian (2) Nepalese (2) ... Pending-4 21863.5 gms (B) Dutch (2) Greek (2) British (1) Australian (1) Convicted-2 (British/Australian) 8 years; 5 years Pending-4 3000 gms (C) Swedish (1) Australian (1) West German (1) ... Pending-3 Note* The following criteria are used in determining major seizures: heroin seizures over 500 grams, cocaine seizures over 250 grams, cannabis leaf seizures over 50 kgs, cannabis resin seizures over 20 kgs, cannabis oil seizures over 100 grams. (Question No. 44) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Since the decision taken at the instigation of United States President Reagan to sack substantial numbers of air traffic controllers following an industrial dispute, how many light aircraft crashes occurred in the three years. (2) How many light aircraft crashes occurred in the years 1985-86, and 1986-87. (3) What are the comparative statistics for deaths and injuries caused by such crashes in the years following the sacking of controllers and the same number of years in the period beforehand. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) See answer to part (3). Note that the term ``light aircraft'' has been interpreted as meaning general aviation aircraft ie. excluding Commercial airlines. (2) Information on aircraft crashes for financial years is not readily available from the source body the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The latest data readily available is shown below. (3) General Aviation aircraft accident figures for the years 1976-80, being the five years prior to the Air Traffic Controllers' dismissals are shown in the Table below: Total general aviation accidents Total general aviation fatal accidents 1976 ... 4023 662 1977 ... 4083 663 1978 ... 4218 721 1979 ... 3825 638 1980 ... 3597 622 The year of the Air Traffic Controllers' dismissal was 1981. The figures for that year were as follows: 1981 ... 3502 654 General Aviation aircraft accidents for the years 1982-86, being the five years following the Air Traffic Controllers' dismissals as shown in the Table below: Total general aviation accidents Total general aviation accidents 1982 ... 3231 589 1983 ... 3075 555 1984 ... 3010 543 1985 ... 2741 498 1986 ... 2577 467 (Question No. 123) Senator Puplick asked the Minister for Justice, upon notice, on 17 November 1987: What was the function or functions, or the other commitments, which the Minister had which prevented him/her from attending the official presentation of the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency the Governor-General on 5th November 1987. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Duties relating to my portfolio. Senator Walsh —On 9 October 1987 (Hansard page 927), Senator Reid asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice drawing attention to delays and difficulties claimed to have been experienced by members of the real estate industry in dealing with the Treasury Department about the new requirements for foreign investment in urban real estate and asking when the foreshadowed amendments to the Foreign Takeovers Act would be available. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: Following the change of policy announced by the Government on 29 September 1987 the Treasury has updated the real estate section of the comprehensive guidelines booklet Australia's Foreign Investment Policy-A Guide for Investors. Details of the new requirements are contained in this corrigendum. It is hoped that amending legislation will be introduced into Parliament in the Autumn sittings next year. The change of policy has resulted in a substantial increase in the number of applications made to the Foreign Investment Review Board for approval. A large number of phone and written enquiries are being answered as quickly as practicable and every effort is being made to avoid unnecessary delays. (Question No. 110) Senator Sanders asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 3 November, 1987: (1) Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware of claims in the local press about smuggling of gold from the Solomon Islands. (2) What mechanisms does the Customs Service use to ensure gold entering Australia has not been smuggled out of foreign countries. (3) How much gold has entered Australia from the Solomon Islands each year since 1980. (4) What are the names of the companies that have imported this gold. (5) Has the Customs Service been investigating these claims, and if so, what has it discovered. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes, certain press articles have been brought to my attention. (2) It is not the Australian Customs Service's (ACS) responsibility to check the means by which goods imported into Australia have been exported from their country of origin. This is the responsibility of the authorities of that country. In order to assist Australian industry the ACS administers strict tariff regulations and conducts physical and documentary checks on all imported goods, to ensure that the correct amount of duty is paid. The ACS also administers non-tariff restrictions or prohibitions on imports of goods such as dangerous weapons, narcotics, quarantinable goods, protected wildlife species and so on. Gold imported into Australia is subject to the normal checks imposed upon other imported goods. Aside from quarantine controls over imported gold ore, no prohibitions or restrictions are applied specifically to gold, although as part of a general embargo on trade with South Africa, the importation of gold (along with a number of other goods) from that country is prohibited. Concessional rates are granted for certain goods imported from Forum Island countries. Gold imported from the Solomon Islands falls within this category and is therefore admitted free of duty and at a sales tax rate of two per cent. As this gold is duty-free it poses no revenue risk in Australia. (3) According to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, the quantity and value of imports of gold into Australia from the Solomon Islands since 1980 are as follows (to rounded figures): 1979/80:...$ Bullion-4,649 g...71,000 Customs value 1980/81: Bullion-11,968 g...203,000 1981/82: Other...40,000 1982/83: Ore-6 kg...47,000 Other...17,000 Total...64,000 1983/84: Ore-21 kg...96,000 Bullion-15,744 g...106,000 Total-36,744 g...202,000 1984/85: Ore-17 kg...153,000 Bullion-6,407 g...55,000 Other...15,000 Total...223,000 1985/86: Ore-17 kg...106,000 Bullion-43,806 g...458,000 Other...90,000 Total...654,000 1986/87: Ore-13,182 g...115,000 Other...487,000 Total...602,000 Total 1979/80-1986/87: Ore-58 kg...402,000 Bullion-95,756 g...1,008,000 Other...649,000 Total quantity (ore and bullion)-153,756 g total quantity (ore and bullion and other)-$2,059,000 (4) A total of nineteen companies or individuals have imported gold during the period just mentioned. The ACS is not authorised to release the names of these companies or individuals. (5) The ACS has not been involved in any investigative operation into claims of gold smuggling from the Solomon Islands.