Monday, 22 February 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully showeth that: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject out of hand any plans by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls and prevent the Australian people from being seriously affected by yet another ludicrous charge. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Calvert (from 137 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) that the public is overwhelmingly opposed to Telecom's plans to introduce time charges for local calls; (2) that while Telecom remains a public enterprise, it must be accountable to the public, its owners; and (3) while Telecom retains a statutory monopoly which shields it from the discipline of competition, it should not be unilaterally allowed to impose extortionate charges upon the public. Your petitioners therefore respectfully call upon all members of the Senate in Parliament assembled to take action to prevent Telecom introducing time charges for local calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: (1) That we oppose timed local calls by Telecom. (2) Timed calls should not be introduced in the absence of widespread community support. (3) Timed calls will seriously affect pensioners, the elderly, low income earners and other disadvantaged groups. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 35 citizens). To the President and the Senate in Parliament assembled. Your humble petitioners showeth: (a) The introduction of time charge for local telephone calls would discriminate against ordinary telephone users. (b) Time charge would be unfair to pensioners, handicapped people and low income earners. As in duty bound your humble petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament assembled. The petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with the only nation-wide, independent radio and television service. That the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia. That the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programs of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McLean (from 30 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament assembled. We the undersigned: (i) are greatly disturbed by the dangers to health posed by passive smoking, and evidence of which is being documented daily by medical authorities around the world; (ii) note that environmental tobacco smoke has been identified as the major pollutant in aeroplane cabins, and that its direct threat to health is recognised in the special leave provisions for flight attendants specifically on grounds of upper respiratory infections; (iii) appreciate the government's undertaking to legislate for smoke-free travel on aeroplanes, but are dismayed at the apparent reluctance to follow up the Minister for Aviation's December announcement with action; and (iv) call upon the government to make smoke-free aeroplane travel a reality without further delay, and to ensure that smoke-free areas which cannot be contaminated by recycled pollutants, are available at all aerodromes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 100 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the House assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we most strongly oppose the process of `food irradiation' by Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. That we oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process being permitted by State Governments. That we express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances for the purpose of food irradiation and disallow regulations permitting the irradiation of food in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Coates (from 188 citizens). Petitions received. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia) —I give notice that, five sittings days after today, I shall move: That the Schools Authority (Amendment) Ordinance 1987, as contained in the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 70 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting- (a) the warning contained in the latest quarterly report of the Steel Industry Authority that the Australian steel industry `may not see out the 20th century' unless the level of management-labour disputation is reduced markedly, work practices are brought into line with those prevailing in other countries and productivity improved significantly; (b) that `the Authority is deeply concerned that the Australian steel industry may at the end of the Steel Industry Plan be further behind its overseas competitors than it was at the inception of the Plan unless some rapid improvement can be made in the industry's performance'; (c) the Authority's `grave concern that productivity in the Australian steel industry has not shown sustained improvement over the last two years' due mainly to industrial disputes and technical problems, that `the poor productivity performance of the Australian steel industry is in stark contrast to the performance of overseas steel producers' and that even the beleaguered United States steel industry had `a productivity level almost double that being achieved by BHP during September' despite BHP investing $1.3 billion on capital expenditure since the beginning of the steel plan; and (d) that while industrial disputation in the September quarter was the lowest since the Steel Plan began, following a June quarter that was the highest, `a number of issues remain unresolved', according to the Authority, which warns that `it is therefore too early to predict if this reduction in industrial disputation between management and unions can be sustained', calls on the Hawke Government to rescue the collapsing Steel Industry Plan by giving practical and effective support to the Authority's attempts to encourage `all parties to seek some common ground in the development of plant level agreements in an effort to secure the long-term future of the Australian steel industry'. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) expresses its concern at the erosion of the common law rights of Australian citizens which has occurred under the New South Wales Labor Government's `Transcover' compensation scheme; (b) recognises that the compensation offered under the scheme, to victims of motor vehicle accidents, is inadequate, and there is no opportunity for claimants to obtain a fair award for personal damages; and (c) rejects any suggestion that a similar scheme, abolishing the fundamental right to sue for personal damages, should be introduced into the Australian Capital Territory. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 standing in my name for two sitting days hence for disallowance of Navigation Orders, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations (Amendment), Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum) Products (Amendment) Ordinance, National Parks and Wildlife Regulations (Amendment) and Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation (Annual General Meeting of the Industry) Regulations. Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances was concerned about unreviewable discretions, an inappropriate subdelegation of legislative power, strict criminal liability offences and the apparent absence of any sanction to protect the confidentiality of the income of certain payers of a levy. Ministers have agreed either to remove discretions or provide for Administrative Appeals Tribunal review, to remove the subdelegation power and to provide for a statutory defence regarding the strict criminal offences. The Committee has been referred to an Act of Parliament which will adequately protect confidentiality. It was also referred to a number of other places which I will not mention here. In keeping with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a summary of the Committee's scrutiny. The Committee's correspondence is too lengthy to incorporate and I seek leave to table it. Leave granted. The summary read as follows- Navigation Orders No. 8 of 1987 In the Navigation Orders the Committee was concerned about how an unreviewable discretion to exempt people from merchant marine examination certificate fees would be exercised. Prior to 1982 fees were paid for examinations. Since 1982 fees are instead paid for a certificate on successful completion of the examinations. The Orders provided that where a candidate had already paid for an examination but did not sit it that fee should be credited to his or her certificate fee. The Orders also provided for the possibility that a candidate may have paid, in advance, fees for a number of examinations. The sum to be credited to any such candidate's certificate fee would vary with the number of examinations completed. This gave rise to the need for a discretion to grant exemptions from certificate fees if sufficient examination fees remained. In the light of the investigation prompted by the Committee's query, the then Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, the Hon. Peter Duncan, M.P., undertook to repeal the provisions as they have served their purpose. The Committee was also concerned about a provision which inappropriately subdelegated to the Commonwealth Interdepartmental Committee on Fees and Allowances the legislative power to fix fees for medical fitness examinations. The Minister agreed that it might have been more appropriate expressly to specify in the Order the actual fee as fixed by the Committee. The Minister has undertaken to repeal the provision. Private practitioners who charge normal consulting fees are now used instead of Commonwealth Medical Officers. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations (Amendment) The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator the Hon. Graham Richardson, has agreed to the Committee's request to amend the Regulations expressly to place ``reasonable'' limits on the amount of information which certain prospective users of the Marine Park will be required by the Marine Park Authority to publish in the press. The Minister agreed to amend the regulations to provide some defence of reasonable excuse for individuals like the masters or owners of vessels or aircraft who under the regulations would otherwise be deemed to have committed offences constituted by the acts of employees or other agents. The Minister also agreed to provide for AAT review of refusals to grant permission to take certain fish in the Park for education or research purposes. Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum) Products (Amendment) Ordinance 1987 Section 36g of the Ordinance gave the Commissioner for Business Franchises a discretion to issue replacement diesel fuel exemption certificate to a person whose first certificate had been lost or destroyed. The Committee considered that if such a discretion were needed a refusal to issue a replacement would reflect badly on the integrity of a certificate holder and therefore an avenue of appeal should exist. The Minister for the Arts and Territories, the Hon. Gary Punch, M.P., agreed to overcome this problem by amending the Ordinance to remove the discretion and recast the provision in an objective formulation so that a copy of a certificate would be issued on request. National Parks and Wildlife Regulations (Amendment) On 24 November 1987 (Senate Daily Hansard, page 2272) the Committee reported on its attitude to possibly strict criminal liability offences. The Committee takes the view that only exceptional circumstances will justify the imposition of strict liability. The Committee prefers to see in offence provisions express reference to the need for some form of criminal intention or the existence of some reasonable defence. These particular regulations applied to certain conservation zones the strict liability offences of the Principal Regulations. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator the Hon. Graham Richardson, has informed the Committee that its queries have precipitated a review of the Principal Regulations to identify strict liability offences which will be amended expressly to provide for statutory reasonable defences. Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation (Annual General Meeting of the Industry) Regulations An eligible winemaker's entitlement to vote at the AGM was determined by reference to the amount of levy paid by that producer. That amount was to be kept confidential as it was indicative of the financial status of the producer. Thus an obligation of confidentiality was imposed on the public servants who would be nominated to act as tellers at the AGM. However, there appeared to be no sanction in the regulations for any breach of such confidentiality. This could have undermined the strength of the protection afforded to producers. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, The Hon. John Kerin, M.P., explained to the Committee that section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act imposed penalties on public servants for disclosure of information and the intention was that this section would operate as the sanction for the purposes of the regulations. This sanction was preferable because it imposed a higher penalty than could have been prescribed by regulations and it avoided the undesirable creation of 2 alternate penalties for essentially the same offence. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Aboriginal Hostels Limited-Annual Report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's report. 2. Department of Science-Annual Report 1986-87-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 3. Foreign Investment Review Board-Annual Report 1986-87. 4. Australian Dairy Corporation-Annual Report 1986-87-section 123 of the Dairy Produce Act 1986. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I advise the Senate that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) left Australia today to attend the inauguration of the President-elect of the Republic of Korea. He will return on 2 March. During his absence Senator Tate will be the Acting Attorney-General. I also inform the Senate that the Minister for Trade Negotiations, Mr Duffy, left Australia on 20 February to attend the meeting of the Cairns group of nations in Argentina. He will return on 1 March. In his absence Senator Gareth Evans will be Acting Minister for Trade Negotiations. I also inform the Senate that Senator Reynolds has been unavoidably detained in Sydney because of transport arrangements, I understand, and in her absence Senator Tate will answer questions which would normally be directed to her. Senator CHANEY —My question to the Minister for Finance relates to an answer which the Prime Minister gave in the House of Representatives last Thursday relating to superannuation. The Prime Minister said that the Government: . . . would never contemplate changes that would impact adversely on already accrued superannuation end benefits. Can the Minister give an assurance that the investment income of the Commonwealth Superannuation Investment Trust will not be taxed? Senator WALSH —Mr President, I answered three questions, I believe, last week in which I said that the question of superannuation was under review, which is in no way inconsistent with anything the Prime Minister said, and I have nothing more to say. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the Prime Minister did say the words in the quotation that I gave him, namely that the Government: . . . would never contemplate changes that would impact adversely on already accrued superannuation end benefits. Is it consistent with such an assurance that the investment income of the Commonwealth Superannuation Investment Trust be taxed? Senator WALSH —I have nothing further to say and I think Senator Chaney should be called to order for being boring and repetitious. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. My question follows a question I asked in November last in relation to the use of corporal punishment in Australian Capital Territory (ACT) schools. Has the use of corporal punishment now been discontinued in ACT government schools and has any progress been made on the preparation of an ordinance to prevent the use of corporal punishment in both government and non-government schools? Senator RICHARDSON —On 4 December 1987 the ACT Schools Authority informed all government school administrators that from the beginning of the school year in 1988 corporal punishment would not be allowed in ACT public schools. School administrators were further advised to have in place other disciplinary policies which do not involve any form of corporal punishment. The ACT Schools Authority is revising its policies for student management consistent with that decision. There is to be further consultation between the officers of the ACT Administration and bodies responsible for non-government schools in the ACT concerning the abolition of corporal punishment. A decision on whether there should be a special ordinance to prohibit corporal punishment in all ACT schools will be made when these consultations are completed. Mr Punch will consider the matter at that time. Senator PETER BAUME —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, is somewhat complex and I gave him notice of it several hours ago. Since the higher education Green Paper proposes enormous increases in participation in higher education over the next 10 years and seeks and extra number of graduates of about 37,000 per year, I ask the Minister: Where will the extra students come from? Is not the teenage population of Australia dropping? Is it not true that even retention of most students to year 12 in school and the transfer of, say, half of them to higher education could provide only one-third of the proposed increase? So that people can evaluate the Green Paper carefully, will the Minister explain the expected source of the extra numbers of students referred to in the document? Senator WALSH —I did receive some notice of this question, although in the rush in my office prior to Question Time I had misunderstood its actual source. I thought it was from Senator Michael Baume, instead of Senator Peter Baume, so I will give a slightly modified answer. The question, framed in the way it is, suggests that the questioner has not read the Green Paper. Had it been from Senator Michael Baume, that would not have surprised me at all because one cannot read or think while one is talking and he spends most of his time talking. However, I would have expected a more relevant question from Senator Peter Baume, or at least some indication in the question that he had read the paper carefully. The question, phrased as it is, indicates that he has not. I will deal with some of the specifics. To begin with, I remember from my admittedly cursory reading of the paper that the figure of 37,000 graduates is given not as a firm target but as an illustrative figure which would be required should Australia's proportion of graduates move to become comparable with the proportions in the United States, Japan and some, although by no means all, European countries. For example, West Germany has quite a low proportion of graduates to total population compared with the rest of north-western Europe and North America. That sort of scenario-that is, reaching rough comparability with North America and most of north-western Europe-would require a graduate output of around 125,000 instead of the present 88,000, which is, of course, the source of the 37,000 that Senator Baume referred to. It is oversimplistic to look at only the teenage population, which it is true, will decline between now and the turn of the century, except if there are massive changes to immigration intakes. The 17- to 22-year-old population will increase over that same period. It is also necessary to take account of the substantial increases in retention rates to year 12. To be fair, the question acknowledges that that is a relevant factor. This is a change which flows from the policies of this Government. There are also changes in the rate at which students transfer from school to higher education. Finally, the other important point is that even a relatively small increase in the graduation rate would secure the entire growth rate set out in that scenario, which, I repeat, is a scenario, not necessarily a target. Increased retention to year 12, plus a small increase in the transfer rate, would offset the relative decline in teenage numbers. In this respect it is important to note that the Green Paper emphasises the role to be played by higher education courses in technical and further education. If somebody wants to look at this more carefully or in a more detailed way, I commend especially Chapter 3 and Appendix D to the report, which will expand on the information I have given. Senator COONEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Consumer Affairs. Firstly, are there any overseas suppliers of directories which place in their publications entries which have not been asked for by Australian businesses? Secondly, if so, do any of them send invoices to those businesses asking for payment for the entries? Thirdly, if so, is the Government doing anything about this and, if so, what? Senator BOLKUS —The short answer to the three parts of the question asked by Senator Cooney is yes, yes and yes, but I need to take this opportunity to elaborate on the problem Senator Cooney raises. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator BOLKUS —I am quite amazed at the response from the Opposition because this matter has come to the attention of the Government from two sources-firstly, from small business itself and, secondly, from a number of members of parliament who have been billed by this ruse of overseas companies sending telex invoices to them. It is quite apparent from the response we are getting that those on the other side are not astute enough to realise the difference between a legitimate account and one of these accounts they have received and could very well have paid for. As I mentioned, the problem confronted by consumers in Australia and confronted by small business people is one whereby a number of overseas organisations bill and send invoices and demands for payment for unsolicited entries in all sorts of indexes. The Government's response is one of concern. We have also embarked upon a course of action in order to try to protect consumers-in particular, as I mentioned, the small business section of the Australian private sector. I think Senator Cooney would be fully aware of the fact that the Trade Practices Act has provisions to cover this sort of practice. However, the problem we have in this instance is that most of the publishers of these telex directories have their assets overseas and, as a consequence, there is no way of enforcing the provisions of the Trade Practices Act in respect of them because of the inability of Australian courts to have their orders enforced overseas. As a consequence the Government has pursued these operators in a number of ways at a diplomatic level. On the one hand we have proceeded through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and put our case in that way. On the other hand we have approached individual governments with some success. The Swiss authorities propose to amend their legislation in the near future, and have sought to be given information on the Australian Trade Practices Act in order that they can examine the Act to see whether they can adopt the provisions to suit their particular circumstances. The Government is still pursuing this matter in Liechtenstein and West Germany but not with as much success as it is having in Switzerland. I thank Senator Cooney for giving me the opportunity to highlight this particular problem and also for giving me another opportunity to warn business and, of course, those members of parliament opposite who have already paid some of these accounts about paying them in the future. Senator SANDERS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. Is it a fact that Lease 19 at Coronation Hill in Kakadu National Park is to be renewed in December of this year? Could the Minister confirm that this lease has been granted for uranium mining only? If the lease is for uranium mining only, is the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd operating illegally by exploring for gold, or is it legally exploring for uranium? Senator ROBERT RAY —I understand that the answer to the first part of Senator Sanders's question is yes. I cannot assist him at this stage with the second part. I have had inquiries made this morning as to the exact nature of that lease. I understand that most of the papers are still in archives and we have not been able to get them out. I have instructed the Department of Administrative Services to get a response as quickly as possible. I will let the honourable senator know the response. Senator VALLENTINE —I ask the Minister for Transport and Communications a question relating to John Pilger's The Last Dream, screened by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) last night. From whence did pressure emanate for the ABC to cut the program, although Central Television had indemnified the ABC against legal action? Was it a case of self-censorship and, if so, why, or was it a case of political censorship applied from outside the ABC? Considering the issue of Australia's sovereignty in this bicentennial year, does the Minister acknowledge that the meaning of the passage suggesting that the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, `could be trusted to act in the interests of the Western alliance and not necessarily in the interests of Australia' was changed substantially by the omission of the words `and not necessarily in the interests of Australia'? Does the Minister agree that it is in the public interest to have allegations about outside interference in Australia's affairs, not only relating to the events of 1975, openly aired and debated? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is clearly the case, as I am advised, that the ABC's assessment of the Pilger programs has been based solely on legal considerations. The ABC has stated publicly and openly that there was no internal pressure applied for changes to be made to the documentaries, and certainly there has been no such pressure externally from me nor, to my knowledge, any other member of the Government. The ABC has advised me, and I have spoken directly to its senior management just to establish precisely what the situation was, that the minor changes made to the program were made on the advice of its lawyers on the basis that the line in question-only one line was deleted from the program-was both defamatory and indefensible in the courts. I believe it is only responsible for the ABC to make its own legal judgments, rather than simply to rely in any particular case on an indemnity which may or may not be readily enforceable as a matter of practice should the situation arise where it had to be relied upon. Mr Grahame Reynolds, the ABC Director of Television, has said publicly: Although the ABC was indemnified against loss through any legal action taken against it over the series, this did not mean that the ABC could abrogate its responsibilities and obligations as a responsible national broadcaster. I think that is a reasonable view and one that should be accepted at face value. As to the final part of the question, of course I do not believe it is in the national interest to suppress allegations about outside interference in Australia's affairs. Such allegations can constitute a useful contribution to an understanding of issues and to free and informed public debate, even though in particular instances such allegations may well prove to be wild and unsubstantiated. I note that allegations about external interference in Australia's affairs in the Pilger documentary did go to air. The matter in issue was not a further allegation of that kind but a defamatory reference to a particular individual. Senator VALLENTINE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister think that the omission of that particular line substantially changed the emphasis of that part of the program-that is, the Pinwell interview-and, secondly, if he believes that the people of Australia have a right to public information of this kind, will the Government be commissioning an open and full inquiry into such allegations, including the ones made by a Mr Christopher Boyce, whose allegations have never been refuted? The PRESIDENT —Order! Obviously the first part of the supplementary question is out of order. The Minister can answer the second part if he wants to. Senator GARETH EVANS —To the extent that I had an opinion the answer would be no, and to that extent the second part of the question would not arise, even though it is manifestly silly in its own terms. Senator ARCHER —My question is to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. In a statement on 7 February, the Minister said: Unlike previous retrenchments in the North Queensland Timber Industry, workers will not be thrown on the unemployment scrapheap . . . This will enable all timber workers displaced at the Hancock mill in Cairns to maintain continuity of employment. Will the Minister tell the Senate how it is possible to create jobs in a situation like this and not at other times and other places when no political issues are involved? Will he see that the formula is provided to the many other areas of Australia where there are high numbers of unemployed at present? Senator RICHARDSON —It is an interesting question. I will attempt to do it justice. I believe that an obligation exists between the Government and timber workers in north Queensland because their employment has been directly affected by a decision of the Government. It is not a question of general economic decline as existed, for instance, in the last year of the Fraser Government when thousands of people every week were going out of employment. In this case, because there was a specific decision that prevented logging, a significant number of people were to lose their jobs. Senator Boswell —How many? Senator MacGibbon —Two thousand. Senator RICHARDSON —Two thousand is a ridiculous figure. According to the industry the figure was around 700. But we all know how you count in Queensland, Senator Boswell. I would have thought that our obligation in that respect was fairly clear. As to why we would not apply that to every other part of Australia, obviously it is an arrangement that can be applied only where people are put out of work directly because of government decision making, rather than because of general economic factors, particularly those we have inherited. Senator JONES —I ask the Minister for Justice and Acting Attorney-General: In relation to the video Faces of Death, in relation to which there has been some association with recent murders, has the Attorney-General's attention been drawn to newspaper reports about the availability of this gruesome video? Is it true that the film has been given an M classification by the Film Censorship Board? What action is the Attorney-General contemplating to have this objectionable video removed from video outlets? Senator TATE —The attention of the Attorney-General and me was drawn over the weekend to reports of the availability of the video Faces of Death, which I am advised is a particularly gruesome video. Some of those media reports stated that it had been released with an M classification. It transpires that the film version of Faces of Death was submitted for classification to the Film Censorship Board in 1980. The video version was submitted in 1983. Both versions unanimously were refused classification by the Film Censorship Board under section 13 (1) (a) of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations. This section deals with films that are indecent and obscene. The Board has had inquiries from Victorian police about the film and they have been informed by the Board that both the film and video versions were refused classification. The Film Censorship Board also wrote to the New South Wales Government, in November last year, informing it that there had been reports of the video Faces of Death being available in video outlets in New South Wales. The New South Wales Government wrote back to the Board in November indicating that the matter had been placed in the hands of the police. The enforcement of the classifications assigned by the Film Censorship Board in the States is dealt with by State law. Video retailers are required by State law to offer for hire videos which have been classified by the Board. The hire of videos which have been refused classification carries penalties of up to $5,000 for a company or $1,000 or six months gaol for an individual. In conclusion, I thank Senator Jones for his question which raises a matter of great concern in the community, when videos are available of a particularly gruesome character and particularly those which involve an entanglement of sexual exploitation and violence. For that reason, at the meeting of Premiers convened to discuss the whole question of gun control, the much wider issue of the culture of violence that can be exacerbated and nurtured by the availability of these sorts of videos and films was also considered. That Premiers Conference directed the Film Censorship Board to enforce more rigorously the current classifications and gave to the Attorneys-General, who I think are meeting in about the second or third week of March, the task of reviewing those classifications with a view to a much more stringent system of classifications. Senator Walters —Why don't you take notice of the Senate Select Committee on Video Material? Senator TATE —Yes, Senator Walters, we are looking forward to the report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material. That will also help the Government. But in the meantime, I thank Senator Jones for his question which relays much of the concern in the community which is very well understood by the Government. Senator Walters —Mr President, I raise a point of order. In my interjection I referred to the Senate Select Committee, not the Joint Select Committee. I ask the Minister why he introduced the interim report. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable senator should seek leave. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. I refer to concerns I raised in October that the work of the National Crime Authority (NCA) in Queensland may have been compromised and, in particular, my concern as to the safety of informers and witnesses. I refer to the Minister's first advice that he had asked the NCA to assess such matters and then his subsequent assurance on 20 October from Mr Justice Stewart that there was no evidence or other information at this stage to suggest that any witness, prospective witness or informant had been put in jeopardy by Mr Parker, the former Queensland Police liaison officer. I ask: In the light of former NCA Commissioner Bingham's revelations in the Age that the NCA operations in Queensland were being white-anted and in particular that NCA undercover staff had to be withdrawn, does the withdrawal not indicate that these undercover staff were, and may still be, at risk? Does the Minister now wish to qualify his answer of 20 October and indicate that he is now aware of further information, as we all are, that would vary his assurances to the Senate on that date? Or is it the fact that Queensland police officers other than Mr Parker were given NCA information that compromised the NCA and put the other undercover agents at risk? Senator TATE —I do not have the Hansard of 20 October available, but if in the course of it I said that I had, in that answer, relayed advice given to me by Mr Justice Stewart-and I understand that that is what Senator Hill has said-that would be the case. In answer to Senator Hill's earlier question I gave him an undertaking that I would seek from Mr Justice Stewart as much as I could give to the Senate in my endeavour, which I have since regretted several times, to give as much information as possible to this chamber. I will have to check that answer of 20 October. Senator Hill —In the light of what Mr Bingham has said. Senator TATE —If I gave an answer which was a form of words provided to me by Mr Justice Stewart, I am sure that that form of words would be absolutely correct and adequate as a form of answer to Senator Hill's earlier question. As the Senate will know, and as I answered to Senator Newman in relation to her raising of the alleged disclosures by Mr Bingham of what he claims to be an abortive operation of the NCA in Queensland, I am not in a position to say to this chamber whether in fact that assertion by Mr Bingham, apparently purporting to draw on his time as a member of the NCA, is correct or not. It is not for me to lend credence to that assertion of Mr Bingham. It is not my policy to discuss the operations of the NCA publicly. For that reason, I will have to review the latter part of Senator Hill's question and see what I can tell him. Senator BURNS —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of advice from the Under-Treasurer of Queensland to his new Premier and Treasurer advising him to establish an Expenditure Review Committee accompanied by a threat that if he did not do so he would have to face the prospect of having to impose new taxes or raising existing taxes to meet a mounting State Budget deficit in that State? Is the Queensland Government facing major fiscal problems as a consequence of past mismanagement? Will these financial difficulties have any implications for the performance of the national economy? Senator WALSH —I am aware of such advice; indeed, I have here a copy of a Queensland Cabinet submission, No. 47914, which is just over 1 1/2 pages long. I understand that the reason that Queensland Cabinet submissions need to be kept that short is that most members of Cabinet cannot read without moving their lips. But there are some attachments to the submission which I do not have with me at present. I am not sure whether they are in the office, but when I get hold of them I might have something to say about them as well. The submission is dated 9 December. It contains the following advice: Please note that if the concept of a major expenditure review is abandoned, then in view of the overall budget situation Treasury will need to prepare a range of funding options, including new and/or higher taxation, to lift the resource level more in keeping with expenditure expectations. That is Treasury-speak for saying, `You are spending more than you can afford'. It is Queensland Treasury-speak, but Treasury-speak of that type tends to be much the same from one Treasury to another. It is a Treasury-speak way of saying, `You are spending more than you can afford, or more than you are levying taxes to sustain'; in other words, in much the same way as Senator Chaney's Government used to do and, in particular, as his Government did during its last year in office, when it brought down that grossly irresponsible 1982 Budget-an assessment with which Senator Stone concurs entirely, by the way. The letter from the Treasury accompanying the submission points out that Queensland is facing a deficit of about $160m in the next financial year and $215m in the following one. In other words, the problem is getting worse-just as the problem was getting worse with the Federal Budget when John Howard lost control of it, fortunately. Even those calculations are based on some pretty stringent assumptions, such as that there will be no new programs, no tax concessions, no special major projects or works programs-in other words, no more MacKenzie River dams or anything like that, which of course would be a good thing on its own-no natural disasters, no abnormal wage or cost increases, no adverse result of grants commission relativities, and so on. It is also interesting to note that the Cabinet submission proposed that the Queensland Expenditure Review Committee consist entirely of officials-Under-Treasurer, Co-ordinator-General, a senior Treasury budget officer and the permanent head of whatever department was under review-although under the oversight of a Cabinet Budget committee. As someone who has had some experience in this area, I should like to advise the Queensland Treasurer and some of his Cabinet colleagues that they should get more closely involved in the process, otherwise it will not have the impetus to proceed very far, because they will have to face the fact that years of National Party pork-barrelling and mismanagement have reduced Queensland to a very poor position. I make two predictions. There are two possible outcomes: one is to cut the Queensland Government's longstanding waste and inefficiency; the other is to increase State taxes. Based on observation of the Government of Queensland over a considerable period, I think that the people of Queensland can look forward to the latter, that is, increased taxes, rather than enhancement of efficiency and elimination of waste. Senator HAMER —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. Is the Minister aware that there is no immediate prospect of catching up on the serious backlog of cargo containers on the Sydney waterfront, since the backlog is about 1,000 containers and the present rate of handling is only keeping pace with the normal flow? Is the situation exacerbated by the very small number of union approved depots permitted to handle the work? Is it not true that the cost of container handling in the union approved depots is twice the cost in non-union depots, about $700 to $800 per TEU? Does it seem reasonable, then, that importers are being asked to pay a further $150 per container to pay for Saturday work which, after three months delay, has now become urgent? In all the consultations and discussions between the Labor Government and the waterfront representatives, has the question of deregulation and improved competition been discussed or considered? Does the Minister agree that we are not reducing the container backlog in Sydney? If so, what effective, immediate action is the Government taking to tackle this immediate problem? Senator GARETH EVANS —Last week in responding to an only slightly less hairy-chested rhetorical question from another member of the Opposition, I indicated that a meeting was to be held in the latter part of last week to wrestle with the particular problem of the accumulation of containers on the Sydney wharves as a result of the closure or amalgamation of several depots in the latter part of last year. I am advised that that meeting was held last Friday. All the parties involved were those with an interest in depot operations, including shippers, unions, shipping companies, stevedores and the major depot operators. That meeting was held to discuss the progress of measures undertaken by the industry to alleviate the present backlog of cargo in container depots. I am advised that the meeting considered that the present problems would diminish within the next fortnight as measures to increase unpacking capacity were implemented. I will continue to monitor that situation and see what, if anything, might be able to be done by way of further Government involvement or encouragement to the parties. However, it seems that there is an acute awareness of the problem among all interested parties, not only importers and exporters. I think the situation is about as well under control as it can reasonably be expected to be at this stage. There are larger problems, of course, which I have not been in the slightest bit loath to acknowledge exist on the Australian waterfront, which will require a dedicated and systematic effort over a long period to resolve. The elements of the strategy to deal with that situation, which is not capable of a quick fix by Senator Hamer or anybody else because of its complexity, are in place. They are spelt out and documented, amongst other places, in the Prime Minister's statement last week to which I have already referred. In the remaining part of the question Senator Hamer asked whether I acknowledged that there is a comparative cost differential of the order he mentioned as between unionised and non-unionised packing and unpacking depots. I am not aware of any data on that. I shall seek further information and I will be happy to acknowledge any information of a reliable kind that Senator Hamer might have and that he chooses to make available to me. I am aware of a number of exercises in recent times involving co-operative or joint ventures by, amongst others, the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia in several Australian ports, including Melbourne, to develop a productivity-based or incentive-based depot packing and unpacking environment. Senator Stone —You must be joking. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Stone would not know. Empty vessels make a great deal of sound and he is becoming a conspicuous representative of that species in this place. He has views about everything, the quality of which varies in inverse proportion to the noise with which they are expressed. I will seek further information on this matter. I know that a number of experiments of this kind have been conspicuously successful in reducing cargo rates in the ports in which those experiments are in place. I will be happy to provide further information on the progress of those matters to Senator Hamer over time. Senator HAMER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator Evans said that he would welcome information about this difference in charges. I can tell him now that trans-Tasman trade depots charge about 60 per cent of that charged by union approved depots. That is a fact that the Minister should take on board. My supplementary question is related to the Minister's remark that if we had more effectively run depots we would process containers faster. I accept that, but is it true that the waterfront unions at their meeting last Friday flatly refused to implement such a policy of having more depots handling cargoes more efficiently? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no detailed knowledge of the particular matters that may have been discussed last Friday as they bear upon that particular question. It will be a long time before I take Senator Hamer's word on the outcome of any such meeting, as expressed in the summary form in which he just offered it in the middle of Question Time. If Senator Hamer has further detailed information that he would care to give me, I would be only too happy to respond. Senator WOOD —My question is to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Does Australia's current policy of selling uranium to France whilst protesting that country's nuclear testing program in the Pacific leave Australia open to charges of either hypocrisy or double standards, or both? Are the arrogant and contemptuous statements made by Mr Giraud, the French Minister for Defence, that France does not need our uranium and that testing at Mururoa is none of our business a result of Australia's weak-kneed stance on uranium sales and exports to France? Will the Minister assure the Senate that the Government will protest to the French Government over Mr Giraud's remarks and remind the French Government that nuclear testing in the Pacific region is certainly our business? Will the Government resume its ban on the sale of uranium to France as demanded by its Party platform to back up its opposition to nuclear testing in the region? Senator GARETH EVANS —There would only be conceivable grounds for accusing the Government of hypocrisy in supplying uranium to France while at the same time continuing to protest the holding of nuclear testing in the South Pacific were there to be any grounds for believing that Australian uranium was being directed to that particular purpose. We have been at pains to point out on innumerable occasions that Australian uranium in France is covered by Australia's bilateral safeguards agreement with France and EURATOM. These agreements prohibit the use of Australian uranium for nuclear explosives or for any military purpose. Regular accounting of Australian origin nuclear material under these agreements is made to the Australian Safeguards Office to ensure that the nuclear material remains exclusively in peaceful use. In addition to the obligations entered into under bilateral agreements, Australian origin nuclear material in France is subject to independent verification by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors so that it is not diverted to weapons manufacture. We are confident, as I have said on previous occasions, that France's use of Australian uranium is quite in accordance with our uranium export policy and the obligations of the Australia-France and the Australian-EURATOM nuclear safeguards agreements. Other elements in justification of the decision made last Budget to resume sales to France have been the subject of innumerable statements by Ministers in the period between then and now. Senator Wood can look those statements up for himself without any need for further repetition from me. As to Monsieur Giraud's statements about France's need for uranium, I would not begin to characterise his statement that France does not need our uranium in the terms that Senator Wood used for the obvious reason that those statements are perfectly and totally accurate. France produces its own uranium from domestic sources sufficient to cover its entire weapons program, both testing and manufacture, as I understand it, and it is amply endowed with rival sources of supply from elsewhere around the world, by and large at cheaper prices-at least this was the case last year in respect of the backlog of uranium that existed pursuant to earlier contracts-than were available from Australia. So it is the case that Australia, in refusing to supply uranium to France, is not in any way inhibiting that country's capacity to get uranium both for weapons purposes from its own sources and for peaceful power generation purposes. Senator Wood will know the extent to which the French economy relies on nuclear energy for power generation. It is very substantial indeed-the highest in the western world. Despite that very large demand, France does not rely on Australian uranium for that purpose. As to whether or not the testing at Mururoa is Australia's business, I make it perfectly clear in relation to that statement of Monsieur Giraud-I will be making it clear to him when I meet him again this afternoon; I have already met him over lunch-that Australia continues to hold very strong views on that subject and does not resile from them in any way, just as we hold strong views on the general status, applicability and good sense of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. Senator WOOD —Given that Mr Giraud said that he could not guarantee that Australian uranium was not used in the French military program, on what basis does the Minister have greater confidence that Australian uranium is not being used in the military program than the French Defence Minister? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not know precisely what Monsieur Giraud may have said on that subject. I only know what was reported in the Canberra Times this morning. That very same Canberra Times article also quotes Monsieur Giraud as having noted that France has signed an agreement with Australia that Australian uranium would be used only for peaceful purposes. The Age reported the French Defence Minister as having guaranteed, in quite contrary terms to the Canberra Times report, that Australian uranium in France was not being used for military purposes. Having heard Monsieur Giraud very briefly on this subject over lunch-as I say, I will have the opportunity to pursue this matter further with him later on-I have no doubt whatsoever that he would say, and I have already heard him say, that these things are governed by both bilateral and multilateral agreements and that there can be no question of France either needing to, wanting to, or being likely to breach its guarantees properly and seriously entered into in that respect. Senator McGAURAN —Is the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories aware of statements from the East Gippsland Coalition that it will work to reject the proposal by Amcor Ltd to invest in a $1 billion pulp and paper mill near the township of Orbost in East Gippsland? Has the East Gippsland Coalition or any other conservationist group made representation to the Minister regarding this matter? Does the Minister agree with the East Gippsland Coalition that the proposal is environmentally unsound? If not, can the Minister advise the Senate of the Government's attitude to Amcor's proposal, which is supported by the Victorian Government and which will provide hundreds of jobs and $200m in export income annually? Senator RICHARDSON —I am aware of the comments of the East Gippsland Coalition in regard to the matter. I anxiously await the report of the Victorian Government whose responsibility it is at this stage. When we have that report we will consider its recommendations. Senator McGAURAN —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Am I to understand from the Minister's answer that he is dragging his feet on giving a straightforward answer on exactly whether he supports Amcor's proposal or not? If the Minister is dragging his feet on this, let me point out quite clearly that if he thinks his ministry has been tough to this stage he will find it a lot tougher if he takes on the Gippsland people because if the Gippsland people have their rights-- The PRESIDENT —Order! What is the question? Senator McGAURAN —The question, Mr President, is that the Minister should be aware that an export licence will be required by Amcor Ltd and surely he would not deny that he would be consulted on this matter of the export licence? Senator RICHARDSON —I have to say that I would be less than terrified at being challenged by Senator McGauran and his colleagues in Gippsland. At this stage of the game I can only repeat that it is the responsibility of the Victorian Government. It will be making a report to us and we will consider its recommendations when the report gets here. It is hardly likely we will consider them before they get here. Senator HARRADINE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. The Minister may recall that in the Estimates Committee and in the Senate I questioned the propriety of grants totalling $450,000 being made from medical research funds to the Monash Centre for Human Bioethics for a project entitled `Bioethical Issues in the Use of Human Foetal Tissue, Embryos and Gametes'. The original chief investigator of this project was Professor Swan but it is now animal liberationist Professor Peter Singer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the use being made of these medical research funds in polemical debates surrounding legislation concerning human embryo experimentation? In particular, has the Minister's attention been drawn to a paper prepared by the Monash Centre for Human Bioethics, which is a one-sided pro-experimentation argument against a submission made by the St Vincent's Bioethics Centre to the Victorian Standing Review and Advisory Committee, and to the fact that on that paper an acknowledgment is made that the paper has been prepared with medical research funds? Is this not a classic example of polemic and, as such, is it a misuse of the limited funds available in Australia for medical research? If so, will the Minister question these amounts of money going to the Monash Centre for Human Bioethics in view of its inability to carry out objectively the project for which the funds were made available? Senator COOK —Senator Harradine's question started with the words, `the Minister may recall'. I am sorry to inform Senator Harradine that I do not recall. Last year when he raised these matters before the Estimates Committee, I did not have an interest in following each stage of that debate as it was being developed by him and others during Estimates committee hearings and in the Senate. However, I am advised that Senator Ryan had a question directed to her by Senator Harradine last year in similar terms to that of the question that he has asked me today. I have been advised of that because he was kind enough to indicate to my office earlier today that he would ask a question along these lines. My understanding is that when the question he asked last year was put to Senator Ryan she said, on behalf of Minister Blewett, that, in short order, money was allocated for research of this sort and that it was at the discretion of the authorising body, the National Health and Medical Research Council, to choose how those funds were allocated and for what purpose they were allocated. In view of Senator Harradine rephrasing the question and putting it to me today, I am authorised by Minister Blewett to say that the answer as given by Senator Ryan last year remains the same. Dr Blewett recognises Senator Harradine's interest in this matter. In view of the answer being the same, he is happy for Senator Harradine to take his concerns directly to him and discuss those matters with him, particularly if there are any additional matters, apart from the matters raised, that Senator Harradine wishes to put. Senator MESSNER —Does the Minister for Transport and Communications recall the answer he gave to my question on Friday concerning a Government directive to Telecom Australia to suspend all new policy initiatives until after the New South Wales State election? While the Minister ruled out any Government directive, is he aware of any instruction given by the management of Telecom to postpone any particular policy initiative until after the New South Wales State election? If not, can the Minister explain why a minute of 16 February from Mr Guthrie, a Telecom manager in Victoria, was circulated to other managers and key Telecom personnel, stating that the Managing Director had asked that part of the current internal restructuring of Telecom be postponed until after 19 March this year, which, if it has escaped anybody's notice, is the date of the New South Wales State election? Does the Minister maintain that neither he nor the Government directed or advised Telecom to postpone key policy proposals until after the New South Wales election? Does the Minister believe that it is appropriate for Telecom to determine its own schedule for policy development by reference to the election agenda of the New South Wales Labor Government? Does the Minister agree that this course of action seriously compromises the political independence of Telecom? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am informed by the Managing Director of Telecom, Mr Ward, that the statement made by a junior manager, Mr Guthrie, in the circular to which Senator Messner refers, is completely false. The fact that the Managing Director sent out an internal statement to all staff on 18 February, reaffirming his commitment to the change process, which was the particular subject matter of the minute sent out by Mr Guthrie on the following day, 19 February, is ample evidence in itself of that fact. Mr Ward said in his minute: Senior management is continuing to drive the change process toward a far more customer-responsive and dynamic organisation based on divisions. The Change Process- that is the term of art used to describe this process- teams are continuing to work on this divisionalisation and the support units, and it is essential for our future that this results in rapid service improvement for our customers. Change is a long and complex process. We must continue to move forward, but we must get it right . . . Those are the relevant passages from that particular minute. As I said, the minute from Mr Guthrie claiming that there was to be a delay was sent out on 19 February. I repeat that this was the day after the Managing Director's statement from which I have quoted was sent out. Apparently the junior manager who wrote this minute had simply speculated on the basis of some rumours as to the reason for postponing a senior management meeting. The most generous construction that I or anyone within Telecom senior management can place upon his minute is that he was obviously ill-informed on the whole issue. Senator MESSNER —I ask a supplementary question. The minute of which I have a copy is dated 16 February, not either 18 or 19 February, and it quotes a Mr Carter, for Mr Guthrie, as follows: I have been advised by the Chief State Engineer that the Managing Director has asked that the Change Process be postponed until after March the 19th, the date of the N.S.W. State Elections. Is this therefore not the complete document? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised, and there is a notation on my copy of the minute, that the note in question was sent on 18 February 1988. But whatever the status of the particular document may be, I am giving the honourable senator directly from the Managing Director of Telecom an absolute and unequivocal denial that there is any substance whatsoever to that. If the honourable senator, for reasons of vulgar political opportunism, wants to claim the contrary he is entirely welcome to. We will probably see plenty of this in the weeks ahead. But there is no foundation for it whatsoever. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I ask the Minister to table the papers from which he quoted. I think there were two documents to which he referred. The PRESIDENT —Will the Minister table the documents? Senator GARETH EVANS —Certainly. Senator Puplick —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I ask, under standing order 364, that the document from which Senator Messner quoted be tabled. Senator Messner —I table the document, Mr President. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to media reports that a quantity of explosives was found in the Australian Capital Territory last weekend by the Australian Federal Police (AFP)? Can the Minister confirm that these explosives were part of a quantity recently stolen from a Telecom Australia store? Can he further confirm that the total amount that was missing has now been recovered? Senator TATE —I can advise the Senate that on 20 February the Australian Federal Police recovered 18 sticks of gelignite, over 250 detonators, a quantity of safety fuse wire and other explosive in, I believe, Narrabundah. As a result, three persons were charged with offences, including the handling of stolen property, unlawful possession, burglary and possession of unlicensed firearms. The three men concerned will appear at the Canberra Magistrates Court on 26 February. Senator McKiernan asked whether I can confirm that these items were stolen from a Telecom depot. No, I cannot, but I understand that the police will allege that that is the case. There is no evidence, as I am advised at this stage, of terrorist or organised crime enterprise in this matter. However, inquiries are continuing into the possibility of a connection with the theft of explosives from an Australian Federal Police magazine, I think off Mugga Way, in December 1987. Senator REID —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer to the Government's proposed reforms of the Commonwealth compensation system and I draw the Minister's attention to answers to my question during the Estimates Committee hearings on 8 October last when officers were unable to say whether those who were already in receipt of compensation would be affected by any of the Government's reforms. I note also the continuing refusal of the Government to provide any assurance that there will be no element of retrospectivity in the changes it proposes. Given the assurances of the Prime Minister, in relation to the Government's review of taxation of superannuation, that the Government would never contemplate action which would impact adversely on already accrued superannuation benefits, can the Minister say whether a similar assurance will be given to those who are presently entitled to Commonwealth compensation benefits? Senator WALSH —The Government's final policy has not yet been decided. Therefore, I am not going to speculate, tempting though it has been. It has been difficult not to correct some of the factual errors that have been perpetrated recently in the Canberra Times campaign on this issue. But I will correct one of the Canberra Times factual errors, and that is the reference at the end of a leader last week to politicians' pensions not being affected by politicians' compensation payments. There is in fact no politicians' compensation scheme. I request the Canberra Times, as it is so interested in this subject, at least to publish that and correct one of its previous more gross errors. Senator COULTER —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Did the Minister see the claim by his colleague, Mr Holding, that road crashes had cost Australia-I emphasise the word `cost'-$5,700m last year? Is it not true that most of these costs-again I emphasise `costs'-appear as additions to gross national product and gross domestic product (GDP)? What proportion of last year's GDP is $5,700m, and how much did Australia's GDP grow last year? Senator WALSH —If I remember correctly the answer to the last two of the four questions is, in both cases, a little over 2 per cent. But the answer to the third question is not particularly relevant, as it involves a figure of $5,700m. I have seen the Press release, although I do not know, and I have not had time to check this out with Mr Holding, what the $5,700m is supposed to represent. I can give Senator Coulter some information about what is and what is not counted in the GDP. Assuming that repair work on vehicles is part of that $5,700m figure, repair work on vehicles and the replacement of vehicles does not appear as an addition to GDP if the repairs are paid for by business enterprises or paid for under an insurance contract in which a business enterprise is an insured party. Those costs would typically appear as intermediate expenditure, and therefore not be added to GDP. I think medical treatment is probably included in that figure. The cost of medical treatment provided to injured persons is dependent on whether it is paid out of workers compensation moneys or via a third party insurance contract in which a business enterprise was an insured party. Under those circumstances, as with insurance, the costs do not, I understand, add to GDP but are regarded as a call on the value added already produced by the business enterprise which in the first instance pays the bill. The costs of working time lost and personal suffering, which are not subject to financial compensation, do not appear in GDP. Again it is likely that some imputed cost was included in the $5,700m figure. This does leave some part of the total costs adding to GDP but I am advised that an attempt to redefine GDP concepts to exclude those elements would be extremely complex. It would be possible to exclude the repair costs of vehicles not in business use from being additions to GDP if household expenditure on motor vehicles were treated as part of investment spending rather than consumption spending, while to exclude medical costs borne by households would require more fundamental changes to the accounts-indeed, to the extent where it could touch off a spiral in which all of the gross domestic product gradually disappeared. If Senator Coulter has any specific propositions to put on the way in which he believes that the recording of this or other components of GDP could be improved in a technical sense, I would certainly be willing to ask the Treasurer whether he can arrange a meeting between Mr Castles, the Australian Statistician, and Senator Coulter at which they discuss the underlying concepts in national accounts and what improvements could be made to them. Senator COULTER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In the light of the Minister's reply, which indicates the arbitrariness which determines what goes in and what is left out in the derivation of gross domestic product, will the Minister cease quoting gross domestic product as an indicator of anything useful or relevant to human welfare in this country? Senator WALSH —No, I will not, firstly because I do not accept the assertion that it is arbitrary. Certainly there are judgments made at the margin about what should be included and what should not, but in the preparation of national accounts, statisticians in Australia, and in all comparable countries, tend to follow consistently a set of criteria which do have a rational basis. I know that is probably a mode of behaviour that is hard for the Australian Democrats to understand or even comprehend at all, but that is what is done. Senator BUTTON —I ask that further questions be placed on notice. While I am on my feet, Senator Short sent me a note at Question Time. I will be happy to discuss that matter with him. Senator TATE —During Question Time, Senator Hill asked me a question which, amongst other things, asked me to recall an answer I gave on 20 October. Understandably, I did not have the Hansard with me, but I have had it sent into the chamber since and have consulted my office. I can now confirm that the answer I gave on 20 October relayed the advice made available to me by Mr Justice Stewart, at my request, to enable me to answer Senator Hill. In relation to other matters depending on the so-called Bingham revelations, I can only repeat the words I gave to Senator Newman last Wednesday. Those words were also given to me by Mr Justice Stewart-before Question Time on Tuesday. I do not know whether the honourable senator wants me to repeat them but they were: As the Senate is aware, it is not my policy to discuss the operations of the National Crime Authority publicly. From the outset I have been kept fully briefed by the Chairman of the Authority on developments in the matter and I do not believe that the public interest will be best served in this instance by further public comment. Senator Hill —It is your responsibility to assure us that witnesses are protected. Senator TATE —I sought from Mr Justice Stewart the best possible answer and I relayed to Senator Hill on 20 October that answer. I can do no better than relay the advice that was given to me. Senator Hill —But do you remain satisfied after what Mr Bingham has said? Senator TATE —In relation to what Mr Bingham has said, I have made clear that it is difficult for me to answer without giving credence to purported revelations of matters which must have come to Mr Bingham's knowledge whilst he was a member of the National Crime Authority. Therefore, I have not answered in a way which lends, if you like, my authority-however diminished-to his statement. I have been kept fully informed by the Chairman of developments in the matter. I do not believe it is in the public interest that further public comment take place. I do not say that to evade responsibility-because I accept and the Government accepts responsibility for the protection of witnesses. For that reason we look forward very keenly to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Crime Authority with its reference on the protection of witnesses. But as to operational matters and investigations now taking place, I cannot do anything more than give the answers which have been cleared by Mr Justice Stewart. Senator COOK —Last Tuesday, in my baptismal Question Time, Senator Coulter asked me a question about the substance dichlorvos, which is used in Shell pest strips and Baygon. I am now in a position to give a more detailed answer. I will not go to the question, which was in seven parts, but the answer is that yes, I am aware of reports of the results of the United States national toxicological program's recent carcinogenicity bio-assays of dichlorvos. I am also aware that the reported results of these experiments differ from those of previous studies of the carcinogenicity of dichlorvos in rodents, which were fully reviewed by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) in June 1987. Reports of the production of cancer in two animal species do not necessarily suggest a very high likelihood that a particular agent will cause human cancer. Such experiments require careful evaluation and interpretation before estimation of potential hazards to human health can be made. The International Agency for Research on Cancer follows this approach. The draft report of the national toxicological program's studies was received in September 1987 and a further report was received in January 1988. We are still waiting upon a final report. Initial consideration by the NHMRC committees of the new experimental results does not indicate a need for immediate action. The significance of the national toxicological program's new data needs to be considered in the light of the results of previous carcinogenicity bio-assays of dichlorvos. Close monitoring will continue. Senator WOOD(New South Wales) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented on two counts: firstly, by Mr H. W. Scruby, Executive Director of Ausflag, who wrote a letter to the West Australian last week and other papers and, secondly, by television and newspaper identity, Derryn Hinch. Mr Scruby claims that although I arrived here 25 years ago I never bothered to become an Australian citizen even though I was entitled to and suggested that I was never eager to become an Australian citizen and have done so only to preserve my seat in the Senate. I am sure that Mr Scruby has just been misled. He obviously would not know that I did not know that I was not an Australian citizen. My commitment to this country has been demonstrated over the past 25 years in the work and service that I have done for the community and for my country. I have always felt that I was an Australian citizen. It was a shock to me to discover that I was not and I sought to become an Australian citizen with due haste. Senator Button —Have you read The Importance of Being Earnest? Senator WOOD —I have. Derryn Hinch's article is another question; Mr Scruby was just misinformed. In fact, Derryn Hinch shows a contempt for the truth and for the Parliament. That is nothing new. Mr Hinch states: From my memory of the constitution you have to have been naturalised for five years before you can stand, so he would still be ineligible. He is, of course, wrong. There is no mention of any such thing in the Constitution. He says that a casual vacancy, if so declared, would merely be a ploy-suggesting that a decision by the High Court of Australia would merely be a ploy-in a conspiracy. I do not know in what conspiracy. He also says that while upholding the Constitution he condemns the Senate voting system as a crazy, trickle-down affair and says that I just sneaked in and pipped Elaine Nile at the post. Malcolm Mackerras was kind enough to inform me that I came fourth on the list in New South Wales in terms of the total number of primary votes cast. It would have been the same in Victoria. I would have been fourth on the list in terms of the total number of primary votes cast in Victoria as well. So my election was not an accident and I did not sneak in. The electoral system was working as it should. Senator McGauran —You crept in. Senator WOOD —I was voted in. Senator McGauran —How many primary votes did you get? Senator WOOD —I got 50,000. How many primary votes did the honourable senator get? Senator McGauran —I received 140,000 primary votes. Senator WOOD — Derryn Hinch goes on to say that with a casual vacancy the only fair thing to do would be to hold a full Senate election for New South Wales. I do not think there is a senator here who would believe that it would be fair for 11 duly elected senators in this place to be tossed out of office and have to go to the polls again. I do not think that that is fair. Derryn Hinch also says that I have the gall to sit brazenly in the Senate this week and that it is illegal for me to receive my salary. He is suggesting that the Senate is somehow conspiring to do something that is against the law in paying me my salary. I continue to sit in the Senate because I have been elected to the Senate. I have a job to do and I will do it until someone tells me that I am not a senator. The Senate has asked the High Court to decide whether I am a senator or not. The High Court will decide at this stage and not, thankfully, Mr Hinch. Mr Hinch said that I should have read the Constitution and the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Well, I read both-obviously much more closely than Derryn Hinch did. It would serve him if he looked at the Act and the Constitution before he ran off at the mouth with his interpretation of what is in the Act or the Constitution and caused inaccuracies and distortions to be printed in his articles in newspapers. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a ministerial statement on standards, accreditation and quality and to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- INTRODUCTION In September 1986 the Government established a Committee of Review of Standards, Accreditation and Quality Control and Assurance. This Committee was asked to examine the national systems of standards, accreditation and quality as they apply to the manufacturing and services sectors. The Committee was chaired by Dr Kevin Foley. It included Professor George Bennett, Mr Greg Harrison, Mr John Joyce and Mr Greg Warwick. The Committee's report, presented in June of last year, was tabled in Parliament in October. This statement represents the Government's response to that report. Undoubtedly, the Committee had a difficult task. It was the first comprehensive review of its type in Australia-never before had Australia sought to determine whether her systems for setting standards, and for accreditation, were helping to develop efficient, competitive and export-oriented industries producing quality goods and services. The Committee came to a singular conclusion that has far-reaching implications-it concluded quite simply that quality issues are at the very heart of Australia's economic problems. Quality can be defined simply as meeting customer expectations. Much of the relentless success of Japanese industry in gaining export markets has been achieved through dedication to quality of products that satisfy the customer. The Japanese have pursued quality at all levels of the firm. Japan places great emphasis on its people, on work and process, and on service in order to meet the expectations of its customers. The Japanese approach to quality is called `total quality management' or `total quality control'. Japan's approach is spreading rapidly through North America and Europe, and through countries such as Korea and Taiwan. It is spreading rapidly because it gives firms practising it an advantage in the international marketplace. Total quality control is many steps ahead of the now obsolete method of `inspecting in' quality at the ends of production lines with its emphasis on fault detection leading to costly reworking and product recall. Enlightened firms now aim to `build in' quality at all stages of the production cycle-from product development and production planning to marketing and after-sales service. The whole work force strives to achieve quality, with chief executives taking final responsibility for it. Firms that adopt total quality management do not assume they `have made it'. Rather, using inputs from all sections of the work force, they strive continuously for incremental improvement. In this way improving quality not only provides customers with what they require, but also improves productivity and reduces cost by eliminating waste, error and defective work. The scope for Australian industry to use total quality management in order to improve its reputation, both in Australia and overseas, as a producer of quality goods and services is tremendous. Studies show that the poor quality of some Australian goods and services is a major concern to consumers. On the other hand, those Australian firms that are delivering quality have found it a powerful aid to marketing at home and abroad. Designing and building quality into goods and services does not only result in organisations that operate more smoothly, more cost effectively, and with greater market orientation. As a recent survey by the Australian Organisation for Quality Control demonstrates, it also brings a substantially higher return on investment. The prospect of much greater returns permits the primary responsibility for adopting the new approaches to quality to be placed with industry. The responsibility of governments is to ensure that an appropriate infrastructure is in place. This infrastructure will comprise internationally recognised standards setting and accreditation systems, quality awareness including industry support programs, education and training for quality, and uniform use of standards, accreditation and quality in Federal, State and local government purchasing and regulatory activities. QUALITY The Foley Committee made the quality infrastructure in Australia the focus of its recommendations. It believed that the main problem was not one of finding more resources, but of providing the existing infrastructure with effective leadership and guidance. The Committee proposed that two new organisations-an Australian Quality Authority and a Quality Management Organisation-be established to oversee the quality infrastructure and to promote quality management principles. In considering these proposals, the Government has kept in mind recent developments such as increased interest in quality by industry, unions and governments. Much of this interest represents a response to conditions created by the economic and industry policies of the Government and by the publication of the Foley Report itself, and is to be encouraged. Other developments, most of which have occurred since the Foley Committee framed its recommendations, include: (a) the rapid growth of the Total Quality Management Institute of Australia, established by industry in April 1987 to promote the awareness and practice of total quality management; (b) the effects of industry and government measures for improving quality awareness-for example the quality program in the automotive industry, the new submar- ine construction project, the frigate project and the Vendor Qualification Scheme, within the Information Industries Strategy; (c) the establishment of a Quality Committee of the National Industry Extension Service, to identify gaps in co-ordinating the development and delivery of quality- related services. This Committee is representative of industry, unions, the Standards Association of Australia, the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia For Quality, the Total Quality Management Institute of Australia and the Australian Organisation for Quality Control; and (d) a revamping of standards setting procedures and management arrangements within the Standards Association of Australia. These developments are already changing the quality infrastructure. The choice before the Government was whether to nurture the changes taking place in the infrastructure or to establish additional bodies with the authority to make the changes they regard as necessary. As quality is primarily a matter for industry, the Government is keen to ensure that industry-based initiatives are given every opportunity to develop. The Government is encouraging the active involvement of employees and unions at the enterprise level to improve the quality of products and services. As it views its own intervention as a last resort, the Government has decided to provide more time for the existing and emerging infra- structure to fulfil Australia's requirements. In taking this approach the Government looks to organisations within the infrastructure to provide the leadership the Foley Committee saw as necessary. The Government prefers to use these newly created mechanisms and to improve existing organisations before considering the creation of additional quality related organisations. The Government's strategy is to encourage the further development and maturity of the existing infrastructure. Should the emerging arrangements not develop as expected or fail to meet Australia's requirements, the Government will again assess whether a new organisation is required. The remaining gap in the infrastructure is the lack of uniformity in the way governments use standards and accreditation in their purchasing and regulatory activities. I will address this issue later in this statement. The Foley Committee called for the development of a quality management concept suitable for Australian conditions. The Total Quality Management Institute of Australia and the Standards Association of Australia are developing a joint statement of quality management principles. Also the Standards Association of Australia has now adopted ISO 9000, the international quality systems standards, as an Australian Standard and will be using them in its Supplier Assessment Scheme. The Government believes that these developments, coupled with appropriate quality management principles generally accepted among experts in the area, should develop the ``concept'' suitable for Australian conditions that the Foley Committee recommended. This concept is not static; it needs to develop in line with international experience, and as the body of knowledge on quality management expands. An important part of the quality infrastructure is the ready availability to firms of guidance on the adoption and implementation of quality management systems and encouragement for them to take on such systems. The private sector and organisations such as the Standards Association of Australia are playing an increasing role in providing services of this kind. A good example of what can be achieved is the major quality program being introduced by the Federation of Automotive Parts Manufacturers into the automotive industry. The program aims to establish a common approach to quality throughout the industry. The submarine and frigate construction program also will be important means of accrediting a large number of firms to formal quality management systems standards. Assistance is already available in some States under NIES for this purpose and will shortly become available in the remainder. It is also important that attention be paid to quality in the service industries, and in particular to those that are export-oriented. The tourist and information sectors both rely on quality of service to obtain and maintain international markets. In summary, it is clear that attention must be given to providing appropriate advice on quality management principles to many areas of industry, and in particular to small and medium-sized firms. The National Industry Extension Service and its Quality Committee are working to co-ordinate public and private sector services in the quality area. EDUCATION, TRAINING AND AWARENESS The Government is keen to provide an industry focus to developments in education. Accordingly, it is essential that the education and research system provides appropriate training and fosters awareness of quality issues. I am keen to see this sector match the role played by institutions overseas in developing quality management techniques and promoting their use in industry. I would like to see links created between industry and tertiary education institutions in this area. I have drawn to the attention of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training my view that quality management should be a priority area in the education and research system, especially in the context of the Government's Key Centres of Teaching and Research Program. Key Centres provide the necessary concentration of teaching resources for undergraduate training, the opportunity for postgraduate study and research, and should help to develop close links with industry and other sectors. My Department will, in collaboration with the Department of Employment, Education and Training, seek to establish a Key Centre of Teaching and Research on quality matters in a higher education institution. Any such centre would be expected to contribute to the development of education on quality in universities, institutes, CAEs, TAFE colleges and at the secondary level through, for example, the development of curriculum modules. The ``quality ethic'' is an important part of the productive culture which the Government is seeking to encourage. Despite the commendable activities of specialist organisations such as Australia For Quality, the Total Quality Management Institute of Australia and the Organisation for Quality Control, there is still a lack of awareness in Australian industry of the importance of quality. A broad program of awareness will be undertaken to sharpen Australian attitudes to quality. The Government intends to take every opportunity to raise overall awareness of quality among business and the community. Australia For Quality is proposing a further campaign involving free radio time contributed by members of the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters. It is encouraging to see industry take the lead in this matter. My Department will be supporting this initiative and others to promote awareness through television. Another private sector initiative is the Australia For Quality Award which will be launched later this year. Also, the Minister for Consumer Affairs will be undertaking a major campaign on consumer aspects of quality. STANDARDS Standards are reference documents, materials or equipment specifying requirements against which products or processes are defined or assessed. The standards system is one of the elements of the quality infrastructure. Standards can be effective only if recognised and adhered to by potential users. Furthermore, standards can be effective in promoting exports when they are consistent with international standards. It is not feasible in Australia to have all standards prepared by a single organisation. A number of organisations in Australia have established roles in standards writing in specialised and discrete areas and are accepted to be impartial and expert. The Standards Association of Australia is generally accepted as the peak organisation for standards writing in Australia. The Government considers it appropriate, as recommended by the Foley Report, to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding formalising the relationship between the Government and the Standards Association of Australia, and recognising the Association as the peak standards writing body in Australia. However, there has been criticism of the Association, particularly over the length of time taken to prepare standards. The Association has acknowledged these problems and has begun to take steps to correct them. The Foley Committee made a number of practical suggestions which the Government commends to the Association. At the same time, the Government has a responsibility to more clearly express its expectations of the Standards Association and to link its financial support of the Association with desired performance goals. These matters will be taken up in the Memorandum of Understanding. One of the Government's principal aims for the standards system is that Australian standards should conform more closely to international standards, and that departures occur only for compelling reasons. The Foley Committee supported Australia becoming a signatory to the Standards Code of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The Code places obligations on signatories to use international standards and provides benefits through access to the markets of other signatory nations. I will be suggesting to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade that consideration be given to Australia becoming a signatory to this Code. Greater alignment between Australian and international standards will go some of the way to resolving a particular problem for our manufacturers. Standards which are mandatory, that is, incorporated in government regulation, are more easily enforced on local producers than on importers. This is because of the extreme difficulty of screening imported goods at the point of entry. This problem is aggravated by different mandatory standards among the States. The end result is often an advantage to the importer. It would help if Australian regulatory authorities relied more on overseas test results, such as those produced by laboratories accredited by a national agency recognised by Australia's National Association of Testing Authorities. Responsibility for ensuring that imported goods conform to mandatory standards rests ultimately with the authorities administering those regulations. It will continue to be necessary for local producers to bring evasions of mandatory standards to the attention of the authorities. These evasions will also highlight standards which may need to be revised to bring them into line with overseas practice. ACCREDITATION Accreditation is the provision of an assurance to the customer that a product or service complies with certain standards or specifications. For most consumers, the main forms of assurance are the guarantees and warranties of retailers or manufacturers. Where consumers and other customers are unable to check compliance, accreditation processes are desirable. Where testing is required, the customer may seek assurance by testing personally, by tests performed by the manufacturer or service provider, or by tests performed by an independent third party. Essentially third-party accreditation takes two forms: product certification based on conformance to design and function, and process certification which endorses a company's capabilities to consistently meet consumer requirements. In practice, internationally, accreditation of quality systems has become more important than type testing of individual products. Adoption of ISO 9000 as the Australian Standard should assist international acceptance of the process capabilities of Australian firms. An important part of the accreditation infrastructure is a national system of laboratory accreditation. The National Association of Testing Authorities operates a Registration Scheme which enables customers and other interested parties such as government agencies to have confidence in test results produced by laboratories accredited under the scheme. This scheme is particularly important in enabling customers and others to have confidence in test results. Where assurance is obtained in this way, duplicate testing is avoided. In accreditation as in standards, the existence of a nationally recognised peak organisation is desirable. The National Association of Testing Authorities has won a high level of recognition nationally and internationally. The Association will receive endorsement as the national laboratory accreditation body through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Government as recommended by the Foley Report. In addition to that Association, the accreditation infrastructure includes a wide range of product and process certification arrangements undertaken by many approval bodies, including Commonwealth and State government and the Standards Association of Australia. The variety of these arrangements reflects the diversity of marketing and other circumstances which industry faces. This is especially so for industries or products which are innovative. An essential element in marketing an innovative product is to assure the customer that the product performs as claimed. This may require the development of novel test procedures. The infrastructure, on a fee for service basis, needs to be capable of developing these new tests as required. In a number of industry sectors, entry to export markets requires accreditation of products and/or manufacturing processes by purchasers or regulatory authorities. The information industry, the aerospace industry, and the medical and scientific equipment industries need such accreditation. The Government will be moving to further develop a Technical Help to Exporters Scheme as recommended by the Foley Committee, drawing on existing activities within Austrade and organisations such as the Standards Association of Australia and the National Association of Testing Authorities. In some cases, programs to assist firms gain accreditation are already in place. Austrade has retained a consultant in the United States to help Australian firms apply to Underwriters Laboratories, a major US accrediting agency. As part of the Information Industries Strategy announced previously, a vendor qualification scheme is being implemented. The scheme would help Australian component suppliers become accredited to supply world markets. COMMONWEALTH/STATE ISSUES Commonwealth and State governments have a responsibility to ensure that their purchasing and regulatory activities promote business efficiency and support exports. The Foley Committee noted a number of criticisms by industry of current arrangements. These included: (a) lack of uniformity between the States and Territories in the adoption of standards in their regulatory functions, resulting in increased costs to industry; (b) goods required to undergo multiple tests to meet mandatory standards where a single test would suffice; (c) enforcing mandatory standards on Australian manufactured goods but not on imported goods. This places Australian made goods at a disadvantage; (d) Australian standards which depart unnecessarily from international standards often discourage an export orientation and possibly impose non-tariff barriers on imports. I have raised with my State counterparts the possibility of addressing these problems through a Commonwealth/State Agreement on Standards, Accreditation and Quality. This initiative, a logical extension of the approach used in the National Preference Agreement on Government Procurement, produced a collective interest and will to succeed. It is proposed that a draft agreement relating to these issues be brought to the next meeting of the Australian Industry and Technology Council later this year. This agreement will facilitate Australia's export prospects and contribute significantly to the overall efficiency of the Australian economy. AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURING COUNCIL AND INDUSTRY COUNCILS The approach which I have indicated thus far addresses overall arrangements for standards, accreditation and quality. In order to develop arrangements which meet Australia's needs, additional measures may be required in specific areas. I shall be asking the Government's principal consultative forum on industry matters, the Australian Manufacturing Council and its associated Industry Councils, for advice on those industry specific areas where further measures are needed. The Councils will be invited to identify standards which impede export prospects and to suggest priorities for the negotiation of agreements with other countries for the reciprocal acceptance of standards. They will also be invited to indicate areas where the development of new standards would boost export prospects. CONCLUSION The approach I have just outlined will provide improved direction and coordination of Australia's standards, accreditation and quality infrastructure. It will encourage better use of our educational and training resources in support of industry development and, in particular, in support of industry's international competitiveness. In the areas of standards and accreditation, the underlying infrastructure is strong. The National Association of Testing Authorities' system has served as a model for the development of similar systems in other countries. Although some aspects of the present standards system have been criticised, Australia has the potential to be among the world leaders in terms of standards-setting infrastructure. The Standards Association of Australia recently led the world in developing standards for electronic funds transfer. The Memoranda of Understanding with these associations will clearly define the Government's expectations of them. The proposed Commonwealth/State Agreement on Standards, Accreditation and Quality will provide a mechanism for eliminating inefficiencies caused by differing Government use of standards and accreditation systems. The measures I have announced provide an effective range of initiatives through which the introduction of quality management in industry, and the provision of trained individuals and research, will be supported. The basic point is that a total concern for quality is essential to good business management. This Government will work to fulfil its role of providing the required infrastructure in terms of education, standards and accreditation. However, the main responsibility lies with industry itself. A greater commitment by chief executives to quality and a recognition that everyone in the work force has a vital role to play in quality improvement is necessary if Australian industry is to increase its share of domestic and export markets. The Government will do all in its power to work in partnership with industry and the unions to achieve these goals. Finally, Mr President I would like to place on record the Government's appreciation for the important work of the Foley Committee. Senator BUTTON —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.21) —Senator Button has just tabled and incorporated in Hansard his response to a report which is commonly called the Foley report. It is the report of a committee established by Senator Button-the Committee of Review of Standards, Accreditation and Quality Control and Assurance-whose report is dated 26 June 1987. It was tabled on 9 October last year, and this is the Government's response to the report. I draw attention to the title of the response: `Ministerial Statement on Standards, Accreditation and Quality'. It is simply the usual ministerial response, whereas recommendation 1 of the Committee was that the Commonwealth Government, as a matter of urgency, issue a national quality strategy statement setting out both objectives and plans for action, including a statement of policies and actions arising from the report. The Committee stated in the letter to the Minister signed by the Chairman, Dr Foley: . . . we are firmly of the view that we have been examining an issue, or set of inextricably related issues, that are at the very core of Australia's economic problems and consequently must be central to any serious attempt to solve those problems. Because of the Committee's view of the degree of importance of these problems, it said that, as a matter of urgency, the Government should issue a national quality strategy statement. The Government has not done that. As I have said, the Minister has simply made some sort of a response to the report. At least I can say this about the response: it has not raised expectations that the Government has solved the problem, or indeed that it has a solution which will solve the problem. In so far as it goes, the Opposition supports the Government's response. In some areas, perhaps, it does not go far enough; but at least, as I said, it has not raised expectations that the Government is about to solve our national problems on standards, accreditation and quality control. Frankly, it is a pity that the Government has not adopted that approach in other areas in which it has raised expectations far too high. I cite, for example, the steel industry and the expectations which the Government created in regard to that industry and the results of its steel plan. The Minister's response is not a strategy statement, but it is-and this is where it is a little disappointing-a statement of intentions, which may or may not come to something. I compare the Minister's statements that the Government will seek to do this, that the Government will look at that, that the Minister will talk to one of his colleagues, that the Minister will raise particular matters with his State counterparts, that the Minister will be asking certain people about certain things-all of those statements of future intentions-with the Committee's report on the urgency of the matter. Of particular importance-I agree with the Minister's response in this respect-is the Government's recognition that the primary responsibility for quality is with industry. I welcome the fact that the Government did not take this opportunity to establish additional statutory authorities as recommended. This is perhaps the first time since it has been in office that the Australian Labor Party has not taken the opportunity to create some statutory authority as recommended by some committee that has been established. Senator Button —No, Senator, that is not true. That is churlish. Senator LEWIS —Why is it churlish? I take it that the Minister will be able to give me examples of statutory authorities that his Government has not taken the opportunity to create. Senator Button —Certainly. Senator LEWIS —I shall be interested to hear which ones they are, because it seems that since this Government has come to office on each occasion it has set up a committee to examine a matter the result has been the establishment of another statutory authority. In some cases it has resulted in the establishment of not one statutory authority but a number of statutory authorities which in some way or other will come to monitor, control, regulate, oversee and generally interfere with the activities of the citizens and indeed with the activities of business people in this community. A consistent theme of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia has been the necessity to reduce the anti-competitive burdens on industry. The Foley report, the report of the Committee of Review of Standards, Accreditation and Quality Control and Assurance, recognises the constraints imposed by the different State government requirements. I assure Senator Button that when the Liberal and National parties get into office we will certainly act to deregulate large areas of business where this Government has not yet had the courage to do the things that this Minister from time to time says that it might get around to doing. The Government has had about seven months in which to act on a number of recommendations in this report. It is seven months since this report was tabled. The Government took a long time getting around to recognising this problem prior to Senator Button creating this Committee. Though the report has now been tabled for seven months, still the Government talks about what it will do. For example, on page 9 of his reponse to the report the Minister says: I have raised with my State counterparts the possibility of addressing these problems through a Commonwealth/State Agreement on Standards, Accreditation and Quality. So the Minister talks only of the possibility of those matters being addressed. Later on page 9 the Minister says: I shall be asking the Government's principal consultative forum on industry matters, the Australian Manufacturing Council and its associated Industry Councils, for advice on those industry specific areas where further measures are needed. So, seven months after the report was presented, the Minister is saying to the Senate that at some stage in the future he will get around to asking them for further advice. The Minister goes on to say what the councils will be invited to do in a couple of areas. I say to the Minister that frankly he should have acted on this report earlier and got on with the job. On page 5 of his response the Minister says: My Department will, in collaboration with the Department of Employment, Education and Training, seek to establish a Key Centre of Teaching and Research on quality matters in a higher education institution. I ask the Minister whether that is another statutory authority that he proposes to establish. It may be a non-statutory government body he is talking about. I am unsure what is proposed- Senator Button —I think if you read the sentence, Senator, you will recognise that yourself. Senator LEWIS —I am unsure what is proposed to be established by a `Key Centre of teaching and research'. I suspect that it is a non-statutory body the Minister will be establishing-another means whereby the Government will be able to interfere in the activities of the companies whose main responsibility this is, as the Minister acknowledges. I turn to page 6. In the second last paragraph the Minister says: I will be suggesting to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade that consideration be given to Australia becoming a signatory to this Code. I would have thought that the Minister could at least have got around to talking to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) about this matter by now, seven months after the report was tabled, rather than telling us in his response that he will be getting around to talking to the Minister about it at some stage in the future. As I said, I am surprised that over seven months after receiving the report the Minister has not raised this important issue with his colleague. I question whether this is truly the Government's response or merely, as I said before, the Minister's statement of intentions. I hope that the Minister will not claim that in some way or other his response is a national quality strategy statement. It certainly does not read like that to me. The Minister defines quality simply as meeting customer expectations. However, whilst recognising that it is partly an awareness problem, the Government then proceeds to treat quality as an abstract principle for which it can establish a key centre of teaching and research on quality matters. I suggest to the Minister that in this way the Government might very well be following a response along the wrong lines because, as the Minister said in an earlier part of his report, it is the responsibility of industry. As the Minister said in his report: Enlightened firms now aim to `build in' quality at all stages of the production cycle-from product development and production planning to marketing and after-sales service. The whole workforce strives to achieve quality, with chief executives taking final responsibility for it. I totally agree with that. It is very much part of the Opposition's policy in relation to industry that chief executives should be developing these approaches to their productivity. As I have done on many occasions, I refer chief executives to a small volume called Up the Organization by Robert Townsend, published in 1970. I think it was reprinted last year or the year before. It is available as a paperback. It talks about the sorts of things that I believe industry chief executives should be adopting as their principles of dealing with their work force. I say to them that when one looks at the question of developing quality in their product the first thing to develop is pride within the work force, pride in the job, pride in the company employees work for. That ultimately leads to pride in the product being produced. If our chief executive officers could encourage their work force to develop that sort of pride, quality undoubtedly would improve enormously in those companies and their profitiblity would increase as a result. As I have acknowledged, the Minister has recognised that enlightened firms now aim to build in quality at all stages of the production cycle. Quality should be built in, not by way of some whip mechanism whereby foremen and others attempt to stand over the work force to insist upon standards of work but by way of the carrot whereby workers are encouraged, as I say, to have pride in their jobs, are given interesting jobs, are allowed to exercise their minds on the job and are allowed to take initiatives, short cuts, wherever they possibly can to achieve a particular result so that they are applying their minds to their work. If they can apply their minds to their work they will come to enjoy their work and produce a better product. Many of the firms which successfully use quality to develop competitive advantage foster good relations with employees and encourage employee participation and shareholding. I remind the Minister that a former Liberal Government Minister, Mr Ian Macphee, was very much involved in the establishment of employee participation, both at the workplace and in shareholding, which had much to do with the current movement towards employee participation. Enlightened firms practice what the Liberal Party has been advocating for many years. Finally, I turn to the last page of Senator Button's response, in which he says: The measures I have announced provide an effective range of initiative through which the introduction of quality management in industry, and the provision of trained individuals and research, will be supported. I very much question that the `measures' announced in this paper will provide any such thing. The Minister goes on to say that the Government `will work to fulfil its role of providing the required infrastructure in terms of education standards and accreditation'. As I have said, it is clear to me that the whole of this paper is a statement of future intentions. I am sure that the Senate will be monitoring the activities of the Government in the future to see whether or not these intentions are fulfilled. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(3.38) —The ministerial statement by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) on standards, accreditation and quality is his response to the so-called Foley report by the same name. The Minister's response spells out very clearly the direction in which this Government is taking Australia. It is one of a number of papers and statements this Government has made recently that indicate the rather disastrous direction in which this Government is taking this country. I remind the Senate that the Government has embarked on a policy of deregulating industry, banking and the currency. This has thrown Australia open to the international money markets and, extensively, to international business and competition. It praises the idea of greater international competitiveness. A moment ago Senator Lewis said that when the Liberal Party becomes the government it will extend deregulation and the application of the philosophy of greater international competitiveness. The Government has placed an unquestioned faith in what I believe is a discredited concept of the free market-the idea that the dominance of the free market will ultimately benefit the community at large, in Australia, or the world. Again, Senator Lewis in his remarks seems to be wishing to extend this discredited concept of the operation and the benefits which flow from a free market system. It is important here to observe that this system has produced and is producing progressively a greater discrepancy between the rich and the poor both between nations and within nations. We have more poor and we have more wealth in this country now than when the Labor Government came to office in 1983. We see on a worldwide scale increasing wealth in certain countries and increasing poverty in the majority of countries. The differences are increasing as a direct result of the economic policies being followed by both this Government and a number of governments in other countries. Nonetheless, although we have this evidence before us we see the Australian Government pig-headedly persisting with attempts to bend all forces and factors in this community to serve this internationally competitive monster ever more efficiently. I draw attention to a recently released report of the Brundtland Commission, which was an international commission set up in the early 1980s under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister of Norway, who also happened to be the President of Socialist International. In December 1987 that Commission reported to the world under the title Our Common Future and I wish to draw a comparison between what the Brundtland Commission recognises as the global problems facing us and the rather paltry response which the Government in Australia is making which is exemplified in this ministerial statement on standards. Senator McGauran —But he is a socialist; you just said he is. Senator COULTER —Precisely. Let us compare and see how well this Government is performing. The Brundtland Commission says: There was a time of optimism and progress in the 1960s, when there was greater hope for a braver new world, and for progressive international ideas. Colonies blessed with natural resources were becoming nations. But it goes on: The present decade has been marked by a retreat from social concerns. Scientists bring to our attention urgent but complex problems bearing on our very survival: a warming globe, threats to the Earth's ozone layer, deserts consuming agricultural land. We respond by demanding more details and by assigning the problems to institutions ill equipped to cope with them. Environmental degradation, first seen as mainly a problem of the rich nations and a side effect of industrial wealth, has become a survival issue for developing nations. It is part of the downward spiral of linked ecological and economic decline in which many of the poorest nations are trapped. Despite official hope expressed on all sides, no trends identifiable today- I stress this- no programs or policies offer any real hope of narrowing the growing gap between rich and poor nations. It is in the context of those remarks by this international United Nations report, Our Common Future, that I think we need to look at this Government's response to our internal economic situation and its demand that Australia become more internationally competitive. For instance, on page 9 of the Minister's statement he says: The approach . . . will encourage better use of our educational and training resources in support of industry development and, in particular, in support of industry's international competitiveness. That is the aim of the Government and it is an aim which undoubtedly will leave both this country poorer and most other less competitive countries. In connection with education, the Minister states on page 5: The quality ethic is an important part of the productive culture which the Government is seeking to encourage. He later says: The Government is keen to provide an industry focus to developments in education. He goes on to say: I have drawn to the attention of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, my view that quality management should be a priority area in the education and research system, especially in the context of the Government's Key Centres of Teaching and Research program. I ask all people currently working in universities and other tertiary institutions around this country to note that remark and to take it in the context of the Government's Green Paper on education and to look very closely at where this Government is taking this country. The Minister goes on to say: Key Centres provide the necessary concentration of teaching resources for undergraduate training, the opportunity for postgraduate study and research, and should help to develop close links with industry and other sectors. He goes on: My Department, in collaboration with the Department of Employment, Education and Training, will seek to establish a Key Centre of Teaching and Research on quality matters in a higher education institution. Any such centre would be expected to contribute to the development of education on quality in universities, institutes, CAEs, TAFE colleges and at the secondary level through, for example, the development of curriculum modules. I take honourable senators back to the line where the Minister states: My Department, in collaboration with the Department of Employment, Education and Training, will seek to establish a Key Centre of Teaching and Research on quality matters in a higher education institution. Let us look at what the Minister says in relation to his definition of quality. He says that quality can be defined simply as meeting customer expectations. Taken together, that means that our tertiary institutions are to be turned into places to teach our young how better to meet customer expectations, however defined. The perceived need for a quality program is indeed an admission of failure of the market system and the inconsistency between the extolling of market virtues and the perceived need to set up an inquiry into quality and standards and the need for the Minister to comment on those seems to have escaped both the Government and the Opposition. Let us look at the way in which the Minister defines a good example of what can be achieved. I ask honourable senators to consider the Minister's definition: quality can be defined simply as meeting customer expectations. He goes on to say on page 4 of the statement: A good example of what can be achieved is the major quality program being introduced by the Federation of Automotive Parts Manufacturers into the automotive industry. The point I am making concerns the contrast between the definition and the example which is given. I ask the honourable senators to consider how anybody buying a spare part for a car, such as a gear for a gearbox or a piston for an engine, could assess quality as it is defined in that second example and respond in a way which would effectively interact with the way in which the market is supposed to operate. In other words, one could make a judgment about the quality of the item being purchased and placed in one's car which in some way would be reflected back on manufacturer's through the market system so that those who manufactured poor quality pistons, or some other item about which most consumers would have very little knowledge would respond with better products. Clearly, the market system simply does not operate in the way that is so glibly talked about in this place. Feedback from customers is usually far too long for the market system to respond effectively. I return to the point made by the Brundtland Commission. What is left out of Senator Button's statement and so many other documents from the Government is the broader context and the broad environmental-and I do not use that in a narrow sense of the natural environment-and social context in which these issues need to be addressed and the narrow context in which the environment also needs to be looked at. I pick up again the definition given on page one: `Quality can be defined simply as meeting customer expectations'. Customers need to be well informed customers if we are to advance in an objective sense towards better management of our environment. I would like to use as an example the situation in Australia whereby for many years there have been pressures from consumer groups to get an efficiency rating on electrical appliances. This would allow customers to make a judgment as to the quality of refrigerators, heaters, electric irons, toasters and so on, in terms of their use of electricity. But the industry has consistently opposed the application of these efficiency ratings. It is a fact that some work going on in Denmark has demonstrated that it is possible to build refrigerators which use as little as 10 per cent of the energy of the domestic refrigerators currently in use in Australia. They are highly efficient instruments. I do not see anything in the Minister's statement or anything else from the Government that will bring about that sort of evolution. Yet evidence shows that our human society worldwide, as well as in this country, needs to become a great deal more energy efficient. That should be a primary objective. But the definition of quality, as narrowly defined as it is in this document, leads one to have no hope that those longer term and far more important objectives will be either sought or achieved. Last year in this place I raised the question of the use of chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerators. Of course, that is an extremely important issue. Both the Government and the Opposition have identified it as the most important environmental issue facing the world at present. Yet there is nothing in this document relating to the quality of equipment which will use chlorofluorocarbons which would lead us to believe that this emphasis will bring about any substantial changes for the better and safer use of chlorofluorocarbons. When we make an object in a factory, in a home workshop or anywhere else, either for ourselves or for sale to others, either in this country or overseas, we do a number of things apart from simply making the object or providing the service. There is a very important element which is left out of this document-that is, the creative satisfaction which the person gets from simply making the object or providing the service. Senator Button's statement seems to look upon workers simply as units to be manipulated-admittedly manipulated rather more efficiently to make better quality products-in the interest of exports. In mentioning exports, one might reflect upon the quality of our beef recently. Many of us were very concerned for many years about the problem of pesticides appearing in many products in Australia. No action was taken on that matter until it interfered with our exports and economic considerations brought it to the earnest consideration of a government overly concerned about economic matters. When we make something we influence the social milieu in which it is made. We influence the health of the workers and the society. In defining health in broad terms I believe that the satisfaction which workers get from making things, from the creative activity, is a very important element. We do not find anything about that in this statement, or in anything else which this Government has written. Of course, there are environmental consequences. The use of non-renewable resources leads to their depletion and the manufacturing process, in the use of any resources, leads to pollution. Again, in the emphasis on quality in the Minister's statement he makes no mentions of those factors. As I said at the beginning of my speech, it is as though all these matters are subsumed into this concentration on very narrow economic considerations. In summary, I believe that in speaking of quality the Government has taken an extremely narrow view. It is concerned about the quality of ball bearings and motor cars but it should be concerned primarily about the quality of people. If we give our attention first to the quality of people in this country and the quality of their lives, I believe these other matters would fall into place behind them. Senator BURNS(Queensland)(3.58) —I would like to commend the statement of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and express some disappointment and concern about some of the comments that have been made regarding the direction that the Government is taking. I think it is tremendously important that it be clearly understood that for some time people in industry, both at the management level and in the labour force, have been concerned about developing industry to provide jobs and, in the process, profits which can be used for research and development and for the further development of those industries. For many years in Australia in the workplace, people have looked at the end product in terms of what they require in quality. They have accepted a percentage of rejects, which is a clear waste of productivity time and a clear waste of resources. What is being sought by this move, as is contained in the paper, is to have built-in quality at all stages. If the workers have some feeling for what they are doing, they will produce a quality product, and follow that product through to completion, so that there will be no rejects. I think it is important that the tripartite committee which looked at this proposal created a proposal which could work. The workers-as is the case with management-having had a say in setting out the guidelines and structure which require them to do certain things, to attain and keep certain standards of behaviour and ability, would have an obligation to abide by those guidelines. I quote from the report: Studies show the poor quality of some Australian goods and services is a major concern to consumers. A point has also been made about quality being defined simply as `customer expectation'. I suggest that the standards that are being established here for both our internal and our export markets would not only meet customer expectations but also begin in another way to educate customers as to what they can expect from a producer who is working at a high level of efficiency and quality. I do not think it is such a terrible thing to satisfy customer expectation, because anyone who reads about economics and the way the manufacturing industry works would know how important it is to have people coming back again and repeating business. If someone produces a quality product at the right price and there is a guaranteed delivery date, he will get repeat business. I believe the proposition contained in this paper will enable that to take place and will in fact guarantee it. The paper talks further about the choice the Government has as to whether to establish additional bodies with authority to make the changes. It points out that quality is primarily a matter for industry and that the Government is keen to ensure that industry based initiatives are given every opportunity to develop. It again emphasises the need for both sides of industry, both labour and management, to accept the sort of responsibility that needs to be accepted, to look at the question of quality and the way in which the enterprise operates and have a stake in that to make sure it works. I think the quality ethic is important. People in this country have for many years looked at culture as being the opera, ballet or something of that nature, but culture is about the way we live. It is about time the people in the manufacturing industry, given support and a framework by this Government, were able to develop that feeling of wanting to have quality and wanting to be able to perform and deliver, thus ensuring a brighter and better economic future for this country. I commend the statement and I think it is an excellent one. Senator PARER(Queensland)(4.02) —I will speak briefly because I have only just had the opportunity to read the paper entitled `Ministerial Statement on Standards, Accreditation and Quality'. I think the paper is a lot of waffle, and I think Senator Button would agree with that. I imagine that he has brought this paper in here with tongue in cheek. The Government made the discovery that quality is defined as meeting customer expectations. That is a profound discovery after all these years. It really is, as stated in the latter part of the paper, a matter for the industry, which is made up of the management, the union, the work force and so on. Great emphasis is laid upon the Japanese. I think we must touch upon the Japanese, because Japan is the country that has done best over the past 15 or 20 years. When Japan started its great industrial push some 25 years ago, Japan's quality was not as good as it is today. It was simply a matter of trial and error. But probably what was more important was the effort by the whole of the Japanese community to make sure that it got it right. There was a team effort across the board. Whilst I commend the reference to the Japanese, I think it is worth pointing out that, while the Government and Senator Button apparently would commend that, it was an across the board effort. One of the areas that this Government will not touch, will not have a bar of, is industrial relations of the type that occurs in Japan. Senator Burns —Why would they? Senator PARER —There are thousands and thousands of enterprise-based unions throughout the country and the emphasis is put on the type of product that is made and the competitive nature of the Japanese. By that I mean the ability to compete with the rest of the world. I heard an interjection from Senator Burns. He wants to have a centralised system, through the Australian Council of Trade Unions. This has brought this country to its knees. Surely we can learn from the success of countries such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan? If Senator Burns listens, he might learn something. It works because the people who work in that atmosphere are oriented towards their own company. They sit down and discuss with management in a positive fashion and say things such as, `How can we become more productive and how can be beat the competition?', not `How can we featherbed this and have four people doing the job of one?'. The Japanese know that if they do that, they will go out of business. It might interest Senator Burns to know that on one occasion when I visited Tokyo there was a strike at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. It was very embarrassing for the Japanese because strikes are very rare indeed in the Japanese system. I asked why the strike was on and the answer came back, `It is embarrassing. We do not have too many industrial disputations in Japan, but the reason is that we in Mitsubishi Heavy Industries have decided to cut the working week back from six days to 5 1/2. We have had a series of warnings from the men who work for us and they are now out on strike because they believe we will lose competitiveness compared to the rest of the world'. That was the reason for the disputation. I said earlier in my speech that I thought Senator Button had brought in this paper with tongue in cheek. I do not disagree for one minute with the aim of improving quality or with the need of this country to improve its export performance and its import replacement, particularly in respect of the manufacturing industry. But before we can get to that stage we must get other things right. I think we must look at this country compared to our competing neighbours. One of the important things about quality of production is reliability of supply. Surely that is a priority. Unless we can get reliability of supply right, we will not have much of a chance. We need only to talk to some of the more successful industries in Australia, such as the one Senator Button quotes from time to time, and quite correctly-Nucleonics Pty Ltd. Why is it so successful? One of the major reasons is that it can avoid using the ports. It does not have to pay the extortionate charges that have been put on people who wish to ship goods out of Australia. It uses Qantas and other airlines and is able to compete with other countries round the world. I think it now has about 40 per cent of the world market in pacemakers. Our ports are another weakness that has to be looked at. One of the areas in which the Japanese are leaders in the world is packaging. We can go to other parts of Asia and see goods equally as good as or better than those of Japan, but the packaging is not as good. I have never really thought that our packaging was bad, but that is just another example. I think the most important thing is reliability of supply, because unless we can guarantee that the customer is going to receive the goods we sell on the market, there is going to be only one sale because the next time that company will go somewhere else. This is one of the major problems we have had in Australia. Another problem is the interest rates which have to be paid in Australia and which have been imposed by this Government ever since it has been in power. They place us at a tremendous disadvantage compared with other parts of the world. Another is the cost of upgrading plant, which is such that people postpone doing so. Another is the devaluation of the dollar, which is a reflection of some of the economic policies that have been in place in Australia for many years. The punitive tax scheme is another. We have one of the highest tax regimes in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and it is getting worse. Senator Button —Who has? Senator PARER —We have, Senator. There are further talks going on within the Government about taxing things such as superannuation. Four or five times in the last few days we have asked in this Parliament of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) whether the Government is going to tax the income on investment of superannuation funds. He will not give us a reply. He equivocates the whole time-another tax. We talk about improving our export performance, and the next thing that happens is that this Government says, `If you go overseas and try to entice customers by providing them with entertainment'-I might say that they do that when they come here-`it is no longer a tax deduction'. That is another disincentive to marketing goods overseas and in the import replacement area. There is a whole series of reasons why we have problems with increasing our manufacturing industry's export market and improving the level of import replacement. As I have mentioned a few times, I agree with the approach taken in the paper but it is really up to industry to take action, notwithstanding what Senator Coulter said. I think he provided us with a new discovery when he said that the situation we are in really shows the failure of the market system. I would have thought that the problems we have in Australia today show the market system at work and, unless we confront that, address it, there is no way in the world that we will get the sort of recovery that I am sure people on both sides of this House interested in the future of Australia would desire. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.10) —in reply-For the benefit of anybody who might be listening, this little debate is about a statement which the Government brought down on standards, accreditation and quality in Australian industry. Senator Parer seemed to think that the debate was a suitable vehicle for discussing superannuation, which I suppose he currently regards as a hot topic; the reliability of supply; and the inability of businesses to gain tax-free entertainment entitlements, for lunches and so on. That is not what the statement is about. It is about standards, quality and accreditation. After listening to his speech, nobody would have had the slightest idea that that was what the statement was about. I encountered some intellectual and philosophical problems when listening to this debate. Senator Lewis says we should leave it to the companies, to the businesses, to get on with it. One of the tragedies is that governments have done that for a very long time, and nothing has happened. That is why we are in the mess we are in today with some of these issues. Senator Parer —But you are not suggesting anything. It is all waffle. Senator BUTTON —It is easy to characterise the statement as all waffle. Anybody who read the statement with an impartial mind and then listened to the honourable senator's speech about superannuation, free lunches and things of that kind would be pardoned for drawing the conclusion that his speech was all waffle and that he had not read the statement. I would like to draw the Senate's attention to the fact that honourable senators opposite notably failed to mention some important points in the statement. First of all, for the first time in the history of this country there has been an effort to ensure co-operative arrangements between Commonwealth and State governments on this question of uniform standards. We see that effort referred to in the statement. Senator Lewis chastises us for slowness-his was a churlish speech, I thought-but we now see that effort for the first time. For the first time in the history of this country we also see an attempt in this statement to address having a uniform quality standard for Australian companies-ISO 9000. That has never been done before. That is not a matter of leaving it to the private sector; it is a matter of getting, if you like, six or seven spheres of government operating uniformly throughout Australia so that people producing an article in South Australia do not have to produce several different versions of it-one to meet the South Australian standard, one to meet the New South Wales standard and one to meet the Queensland standard-which is an example of hitherto totally inept government interference in the affairs of the private sector. The getting of some uniformity in relation to those standards provided by various State instrumentalities and, where appropriate, by the Commonwealth Government will relieve the productive sector of the Australian economy of a considerable burden. Those two points in the statement were not mentioned by any of the speakers who purported to have read the statement. It was disappointing that such chastisers of the government system as Senator Lewis and Senator Parer should not have thought fit to mention those very important issues raised in the statement. It is not, as Senator Parer says, a matter for the industries; it is a matter requiring an appropriate relationship between governments and industries. This statement is about securing a more appropriate relationship. I do not want to follow Senator Parer at length down the track of discussing the Japanese miracle. Certainly Japan's achievement in regard to standards and quality has been outstanding, but many things have contributed to that. Probably the greatest contribution to the Japanese miracle is the fact that Japan is a country without natural resources. All its resources are very much human resources, so the Japanese economy is totally dependent on a successful productive, manufacturing and services sector. It is in that area that resources are, of course, very important for them. Senator Parer —It should be tough for them. Senator BUTTON —There is a whole range of issues, cultural and others, which have affected the phenomenally good performance of Japanese industry in relation to these matters. It is no good saying that the Japanese have devoted a lot of attention to packaging and therefore we in Australia should leave standards in relation to packaging entirely to the private sector. I think that would be a counsel of doom, looking at the performance over time of the packaging industry in Australia. It is getting better now, I hope, but trying to achieve some uniformity of approach to, and quality in, standards is of tremendous importance. Senator Coulter chastised me from the point of view of the moral minority. He gave us a moral minority speech, but I prefer not to take any time to discuss the economic implications of that speech. Some day somebody will write a very fat book called The Economic Implications of Senator Coulter. It will take years to read, and it will be a very gloomy book indeed. He saw fit to embark on a number of points which he saw as relevant to that question. I again remind the honourable senator that this is a limited exercise on quality and the relationship between government and the private sector on quality issues. He said that the Government had a narrow view and that it was interested in having quality ball-bearings and quality motor cars but did not offer any concern for the quality and richness of people's lives. I just want to say this to the honourable senator: the quality of their motor cars is of great concern to most citizens in this community. Very often the quality of their cars and the amounts they spend on them affect the quality of their lives, so the relationships are not quite as simple as Senator Coulter would perhaps have us wish. Senator Coulter said that this statement regarded workers as people to be manipulated in the interests of providing quality products. I have had the advantage in the last few months of having numerous discussions with people in industry, shop stewards, workers and so on about this question of quality, and quality in the industrial process is something which can lend enrichment to the lives of those who are engaged in the production of goods in this country. They recognise that much better than Senator Coulter does, if he does not mind me saying so. Senator Coulter —It is a matter of priority: which one you seek first. Senator BUTTON —What I seek first is a situation in industry where as far as possible people have some freedom of choice about the sort of work they do, because of labour market conditions; people have some opportunities, in terms of the work they do, to make inputs into the decision-making process; and people have some opportunities in respect of the work they do to follow some sort of career path in industry. In that context, people working in industry see quality as essential to the whole productive pro- cess and not something which is attended to by some quality inspector at the end of the process. If we look at the most successful manufacturing economies, we find that those sorts of views are inherent in the nature of work in societies such as Germany and Sweden, and not much detriment flows to people in the work force from those qualities being inherent. In this document, we are not talking about satisfying a domestic market. A very important point, which I made earlier, is that the adoption of the ISO 9000, an international standard for quality control, is tremendously important to the future of this country. It is not just a matter of satisfying consumers here; it is a question of satisfying consumers internationally, if we are to make the right sorts of changes, which I think all of us would wish, in the performance of Australian industry and its outward orientation. I invite honourable senators to look at the recent publication from the Australian Institute of Management. It contains a very interesting block graph which is devoted to what the Institute calls high and low achievers in exports in Australian industry. The characteristics of the low achievers are that their concentration very much is on satisfying a domestic market; they are very concerned about issues such as tariffs and a whole range of negative things which they see as threatening them and bearing down on them. The characteristics of the high achieving companies in export performance are that they have a very strong commitment to management leadership in all sorts of issues-industrial relations, quality and so on. They have a very strong commitment to research and development and to bringing the work force with them, in a sense, in terms of what they are doing in the manufacturing process. All these things are very important and have to be referred to in any statement about quality. This statement is not intended to be the be all and end all of government attitudes to standards accreditation and quality. This has to be an ongoing process. It is no good my pretending, or any government pretending, that we can wave a magic wand about these things. We cannot just run up a flag and say, `Righto, fellows, it is quality from now on. We are all changing tonight and as from 1 March we will all be like the Japanese'. With the greatest of respect, there is not much point in any Minister or government saying that. Governments have to try to set directions in these matters and try to encourage in this case as quickly as possible the introduction of the ISO 9000 standard and try to encourage the initiatives of the Total Quality Management Institute of Australia and State governments as quickly as possible to reach agreement on uniformity in these matters and so on. If I might say so, it is in respect of those things that this Government really has had some historic successes. It was this Government which, for the first time in the history of this country, got rid of the very debilitating State purchasing preferences which were fragmenting and ruining Australian industry is some ways, making it impossible for such considerations as the agreement on standards and quality to be pursued amongst the States. It was this Government which has pursued, and just about concluded, a national offsets agreement, replacing the fragmented policies of seven different governments. It was this Government which was successful in creating a national industry extension service, which is a co-operative effort between State and Federal governments-not the duplicating, competitive system of the past, but a co-operative effort-to provide advisory services to businesses. Each of those things, in some ways, is an enormous breakthrough in the context of a very conservative Federation such as we are. Concerning standards, quality and accreditation of standards, we will pursue the same course. As I said a minute ago, there are no magic wands. We cannot turn the culture of an industry and the whole system around overnight. We have to do it gradually. There are phenomenal examples-I should not mention specific companies-of success in seeking and attaining these results. This has been done by a number of very important companies. Far more than anything governments or politicians can say, the demonstration effect of the success of those companies, success in terms of export performance, improved recognition of quality, work force commitment and so on, will be very important in the debate on this quality issue. In so far as we are in a political process, let me say that I hope Senator Lewis, as is appropriate in a political process, will pursue me from time to time on the basis of this statement and say, `What has the Government done about this? How far are you getting in negotiations about these things with State governments? How is the Standards Association of Australia proceeding with its plans to try to introduce a greater degree of rationality and common sense into the matter of standards and accreditation? How are you going in adopting the international standard? What responses are you getting from companies?' They are all legitimate questions. I hope Senator Lewis writes them down because otherwise-- Senator Watson —What has happened to the Productivity Council? Senator BUTTON —If I might use a colloquialism, it has hit the fence. It is not sufficient to establish an organisation, as was done in the 1970s, called the Productivity Council, then look for improved productivity in Australia over the next five or 10 years, see that not much has happened, and say, `We must maintain the Productivity Council because that is why we set it up'. Senator Watson —What are you doing in its place? Senator BUTTON —In a whole range of areas the work of the Productivity Council-- Senator Watson —You gave us the challenge. We are just rising to it. Senator Lewis —He is pursuing you, Senator Button. Senator BUTTON —I see now that that is what he is doing. Senator Lewis devoted much of his speech to saying, `I am so glad the Government did not yield to its normal temptations, the temptations of socialist flesh, to set up yet another statutory authority'. We did not set up a statutory authority in relation to this matter, in spite of the suggestions of the Foley Committee of Review of Standards, Accreditation and Quality Control and Assurance and the strong support by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Metal Trades Industry Association Inc. and others of the Foley report, because we see the issue as about changing minds and attitudes. What are the best instruments to do that? Are there already instruments here which can be adapted to help with that process? Our answer to those questions is yes. I will just finish my point. Senator Lewis chastised me because he knows that the setting up of another statutory authority is never necessarily a solution to problems. That is what the Productivity Council was. It was set up under the Fraser Government, which said, `We have to address the issue of productivity so we will set up a council to look at it'. The question remains of whether it worked satisfactorily. I do not want to be judgmental about that but in answer to Senator Watson, the Productivity Council is not continuing its operations in its previous form. I do not want to take up too much of the Senate's time. In contradistinction to those who have spoken in the debate thus far-I distinguish myself from what I am about to say-I commend the statement to intelligent students of this issue and to the public at large. I have no doubt that they will read it much more carefully and thoughtfully than have those who contributed to the Senate debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(4.30) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The most pleasing thing about this report on Aboriginal Hostels Ltd is the unqualified statement by the Auditor-General on page 70. It is pleasing to note that it can attract an unqualified Auditor-General's report. I also draw on my own experience from the northern and central Australian regions of Aboriginal Hostels in the Northern Territory where the very special needs of the Aboriginal community of the Northern Territory are being met. I draw those sections of the report to honourable senators' attention. But in particular I would like to look at several points arising from the report. Honourable senators should look at the conclusion drawn in the Director's overview on page 26. It states: Lack of accommodation, poor health, poverty and racial discrimination must be overcome, if Aboriginal people are to improve their lives and regain their dignity and rightful place in Australian society. With Aboriginal Hostels direct and positive service to the indigenous people of this country, many have lifted themselves and their families out of the endless cycle of poverty. Again honourable senators should look at the report of the Chairman, Lois O'Donoghue. She is a very well known and active person in this area and has written a number of very important statements about the future. She states: AHL is just one milestone along the road of Aboriginal achievements and gives cause for the company to approach the future positively. Further, she states: The hopes and aspirations of many of these people depend on the service AHL provides and on the funding the Government is prepared to invest. . . . . Much continues to be done and though the problems may appear to be insurmountable, AHL will continue to be a model of what Aborigines can do-given the right opportunity and allowed to get on with the job. What a comparison to the change of direction that is now being forced on this company and on other groups by the new Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Hand. In his December statement entitled Foundations for the Future, he proposes to gobble this company up along with a number of successful Aboriginal organisations. He states: It is envisaged that its management functions will become integrated with other related housing type functions within the new Commission . . . Further, he states: . . . the proposed Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation (AEDC) and Aboriginal Hostels Ltd (AHL) will each have a Board of nine part-time members, appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the Commission. Each Board will include at least three commissioners. The Hand hand is being pushed in and is right through it. The specific powers of the new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission that are proposed again highlight this gobbling up and absorbing into something else. The Minister's appointments to the board of Aboriginal Hostels Ltd and the oversight of the operations of the Aboriginal Housing Trust will have tremendous impact. It is taking the advancement of Aboriginal affairs back into something that is out of control and unnecessary. This company has had an economic impact and success. It is now being forced to be absorbed in a new great octopus. What about the regional considerations that the report reflects on and which highlight the success? The new Commission has now got to cope with a new absorption process, a whole new series of events of Government policy that are being forced on Aboriginal Hostels Ltd and also on the very successful Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC). Senator Button just made a very exciting statement when speaking to the report on standards accreditation and quality. He referred to the Australian Labor Party again yielding to its `socialist flesh'. He tried to move the Productivity Council away from commission status and yet Minister Hand is now proposing to introduce for Aboriginal people throughout Australia nothing but a new left wing bias of the Caucus in attempting to dominate Aboriginal policies throughout Australia. I commend this report. I believe that it is an excellent document. It certainly calls counter from the Aboriginal viewpoint and from Aboriginal directors the very direction the Government is now imposing. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(4.35) —As Senator Tambling has just pointed out, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd is a company run by and for Aboriginals and is very much a symbol of Aboriginal achievement. It has been available to assist both Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders with temporary hostel accommodation and it has been largely Commonwealth funded. I would like to draw the Senate's attention to the reduction in funding which occurred last year. In 1986-87 the Commonwealth effectively reduced funding by 17 per cent. That has placed very severe restraints on Aboriginal Hostels Ltd in its ability to provide accommodation for Aborigines. I will give an example of that situation. Recently I was approached by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders who came to Adelaide to take part in tertiary education. Those Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders were accommodated in the May Wilson House in Alberton. I understand that was formerly a house for alcoholic Aborigines and it has been in the process of refurbishment as a place for student accommodation. But such are the restraints on Aboriginal Hostels Ltd that these students came in and had to begin their tertiary year while the refurbishment was still in progress. There are four or five students to a room; there is mixed accommodation; the bathrooms are in poor condition; and the food was poorly prepared. The accommodation is totally unsuitable to serve the needs of students. They are very great distances away from home and are suffering all the problems associated with being separated from family and the conditions they knew and understood. Furthermore, they are having to cope with the beginning of their academic year. I simply draw the attention of the Senate to the reduction in funding which went on last year under this Labor Government. Staff in Aboriginal Hostels Ltd was cut by 25-a 5 per cent reduction-and there was a 14 per cent reduction in beds overall. This is occurring at a time when one would hope that there would have been an extension of these services so that more Aborigines could come in and avail themselves of tertiary education, which is available only in the urban areas. I share some of Senator Tambling's misgivings over the future success of Aboriginal Hostels Ltd and only hope that with incorporation into the new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission the worst fears which Senator Tambling has expressed are not realised. We have an organisation which has been highly successful. It has come under considerable financial restraint. It has sought to perform better. It has not performed as well as it might under those financial restraints and one hopes that the well-being of Aborigines, particularly Aboriginal students coming from great distances into urban areas to participate in tertiary studies, will be better served than it has been in its last year. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.40) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I quote from the preface of the report: `Vale Department of Science!'. As the preface points out, following its election in late 1972, the Labor Government moved to establish a number of new departments, including the Department of Science. The preface goes on to relate the history of the Department. It states: In December 1984 the Government- it is referring to the current Hawke Labor Government- decided to link technology more directly to the industry activities of Government. The preface goes on to explain the changes made to the Department of Science at that stage. It then states: Finally, on 14 July 1987, following the re-election of the Hawke Government, the Department of Science was formally abolished in the major restructuring of the Commonwealth Government administration. Its functions are now the responsibility of the Departments of Industry, Technology and Commerce; Administrative Services; Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories; and Employment, Education and Training. The preface finishes off as follows: In various manifestations, the Department had existed for 14 years. Vale Department of Science! As is pointed out in that preface, the Department's functions have been taken over by four different superministries. I do not criticise that decision by this Government, but I point out that this Australian Labor Party Government has always endeavoured to big-note itself with people in the scientific community. In particular, my old school colleague the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, Mr Barry Jones, with whom I also went to university, has always tried to big-note himself with the science community. He has done it very successfully. But under his stewardship the Department has been abolished. In other words, he has had so little influence on his own Cabinet, his own Treasurer and his own Minister for Finance that this Department, under the Labor Party, has been abolished. The Minister, Mr Jones, concerns himself with the day to day administration of the Customs Service. He is now called the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business. He is still referred to as the Minister for Science, but there is no Department of Science. It is a matter that ought to be of great interest to the Australian scientific community that there is much talk in the Labor Party, yet the free enterprise policies which we espouse would be of greater benefit to the scientific community than this nonsense of trying to have the Federal Government, in some way or other, fund it and, of course, in due course, the Federal Government running out of funds and this rebounding on the scientific community. The Australian taxpayers cannot keep employing scientists along these lines with the expectations established by people such as Mr Barry Jones within the scientific community. There must be funding from an organisation which is profitable as a result of the activities of the scientific community. It must be involved in areas where a profit is coming through from it and not just be simply dependent upon the taxpayer, who cannot afford to keep maintaining it. Then, when the Government runs out of funds and has to reduce its expenditure, it all ends up to the detriment of the scientific community. I draw the Senate's attention to the result of the Australian Labor Party taking over the Department of Science and what it has done to that Department. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(4.45) —Science and technology can have complex social effects. I draw the Senate's attention, not by seeking leave to incorporate it in Hansard but by tabling it in the Senate, to an article by Allan Pidgeon entitled `Amusing Ourselves to Death'. I seek leave to table that article. Leave granted. Senator TEAGUE —I table the document. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.46) —I, too, wish to speak to the annual report of the Department of Science. The people in the community who are involved in the scientific area are absolutely fed up with this Government. Never were they promised so much and never have they received so little. Never has a Minister tried to do more for the scientific community than has Mr Barry Jones-I was going to say `the present Minister', but whatever his appointment now is. I feel terribly sorry for the man because he has done everything possible and his own enthusiasm and dedication to the job cannot be doubted. But the way in which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and others have treated him over the whole question of science is absolutely deplorable. To see a department that was making progress as one of the great science departments of the world, of any government, now shot to pieces and scattered to the winds is no more than one could expect from a group such as that which we have running the country at present. It is disgraceful. The excellent scientists that we had in many areas have now become so despondent about it all that I think it will take years to get them back into good working condition. To split them up and put them through a whole range of other departments with which they have no affinity and where they have lost their relationship with one another can only be disastrous in the long term. To break them up, as I have said, and to put, say, the Bureau of Meteorology into one area, patents into another and the Antarctic into another is absolute craziness the likes of which nobody in the world can possibly imagine. The annual report is an excellent report. It speaks great volumes for the senior staff of the Department that they were able to produce a report which says exactly what the Parliament has asked it to say. The details are full. They are open. The report is well constructed. It shows clearly the forward thinking of the Department in its presentation. It is one of the few departmental reports to show the proper use of corporate budgeting and planning. It is an excellent, clear presentation of the material. Now all those people who put this together and who are involved with science through the community are scattered. How are they supposed to get together to talk about issues that run from one to the other, matters of scientific development and presentation? That has gone. It is a great shame to see the Department blown to pieces. I developed great respect for the Secretary to the Department, Dr Tegart, as well the Minister. Dr Tegart was a very fine officer as a departmental leader. Now he has been shunted off into some byroad. I hope that he will still be able to exert an influence on the development of science policy in Australia. The changes that have been made cannot possibly be allowed to last indefinitely. We need to work entirely on how these can be brought back together again so that the members of the scientific community, be they participants or users, are able to get the benefit from science at a time like this, when Australia is supposedly trying to get out of the rut it is in. We shall not do that by breaking up one of the few areas that really offer a long term future for the nation. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(4.49) —The Senate is discussing the annual report of the Department of Science. A short time ago the Senate was discussing the statement which Senator Button had made on quality. In that earlier debate I drew attention to the fact that this Government was orienting everything according to very narrowly defined economic criteria. In the report we are now discussing, which tells us that the Department of Science is to be scrapped, we see yet another example of exactly the same attitude at work. We see that science is to be incorporated with industry, technology and commerce. It is to be made answerable in a very short time frame to that which somehow or other is conceived to be economically profitable. A few moments ago Senator Lewis seemed to be arguing in support of what the Government was doing and was suggesting that science needed to be linked to profitable activities. I point out to Senator Lewis that science in this country has always been profitable. If any assessment at all is made of the contribution which science had made to the overall well-being of humankind, it will be found that Australian science has been extremely profitable. We need make no apologies whatsoever for that. Very often it is difficult to measure precisely in dollar terms the benefits which flow from science. Many of our discoveries have been taken up by overseas companies, much to our financial detriment. Nonetheless, the original discoveries which have been made in this country have been entirely humanly beneficial. Consequently, continued government support for science in this country is warranted, without this rather stupid, short-sighted linking of science to that which will result in the return of some sort of measurable dollar profit in the very short time frame of two to three years. It is noted, for instance, that funding for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has been cut back. That organisation has been forced to curtail its research work into solar and alternative energy systems-research which would be extremely beneficial to many parts of the world. Such energy systems are desperately required as fossil fuel reserves are run down and as the environmental problems of fossil fuel usage become evident. It is noted that funding has been cut back on many other environmental programs run by the CSIRO-I refer to such programs as those that examine the greenhouse effect, ozone depletion and so on-because these programs are not seen to be immediately profitable in dollar terms. However, in the long run these programs are desperately required for our benefit and for the benefit of mankind generally. The Government is taking a very retrograde step. In his contribution Senator Archer mentioned Barry Jones. I reflect on the fact that Barry Jones sought to put some information on his book Sleepers, Wake before the National Economic Summit Conference which the Government conducted when it first came to office. Barry Jones was prevented by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) from even addressing that summit on the ground that industrialists would be concerned if they heard his message. Of course, that is precisely the sort of message that industrialists needed to learn. That is the point I was making earlier this afternoon and that is the point that clearly needs to be made repeatedly to this Government, which clearly is not listening. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.54) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The annual report of the Foreign Investment Review Board provides us with an interesting exposition of the nature of foreign investment in Australia. Principally it outlines developments in foreign investment over the financial year and offers comparisons with the situation in previous years. But that is where the accolades end, because the disturbing feature of this report is its lack of clarity in outlining the objectives of the Board and the extent to which those objectives have been met. The report is disturbing also because of its lack of detail about the cost of the Board's operations. Private sector reports show the costs of operations, revenues and so on for the period under review. But this document is rather short on financial statistics. We all realise that politicians tend to be preoccupied more with policy matters than with financial management. Therefore, those issues are seldom raised in the Parliament. However, I put it to the Senate that the Parliament should know, and it needs to be told in a subsequent report, the cost-effectiveness of the operations of organisations such as the Foreign Investment Review Board. It needs to know the management effectiveness of the organisation and the management information programs undertaken by the organisation, as well as the extent to which those programs have been implemented. All agencies of government, be they statutory authorities, departments or instrumentalities, have a responsibility to disclose in their annual reports their objectives, their standards, the costs they incur, the revenue they receive and the degree to which they have attained the objectives of the Government's programs. It is my belief that an annual report should provide information about not only the activities of the instrumentality but also its financial management and the administrative arrangements to be adopted in implementing government policy and objectives. All too often these reports become propaganda mechanisms of the Government and they do not provide adequate financial information. If such information is not provided, how can the informed reader appraise the effectiveness of the Foreign Investment Review Board? Yet in this 70-page document there are only two paragraphs, which can be found on pages 16 and 17, that relate to the costs of the operation. In those two paragraphs it is revealed that some $900,000 of taxpayers' money was expended in 1986-87. We are told very little about the manner in which those funds were expended. The report states: . . . expenditure was directed mostly to salaries, with minor expenses being incurred for travelling and computer services. Whatever happened to accountability? What reference points are there? For any evaluation of the effectiveness of the Foreign Investment Review Board to be carried out, much more information would be required about the nature of its expenditure and the yardsticks that are used to evaluate its performance. In the private sector, businesses are increasingly called upon to streamline their operations and to be more accountable to their shareholders. There is absolutely no reason why these same principles which apply in the private sector should not apply to government instrumentalities. Government objectives need to be defined and evaluated. Resource allocations, management procedures, management information systems and government programs all need to be carefully evaluated. However, this report does not reveal how we can undertake that task. It does not reveal any trends or point to any specific performance indicators. Only by using this sort of criteria can a clear picture of the efficiency of an instrumentality be drawn. In our current environment of economic constraint, in which we are all obliged to tighten our belts, I would have thought it would be obligatory for such information to be clearly shown. As I said earlier, without such information these reports become little more than vehicles for government propaganda. In its description of the year's activities, the report notes that changes to the foreign investment policy were introduced last year. As a result of these changes, there has been a significant increase in the level of foreign investment. However, this should be a warning to us, because Australia should be careful not to lose the initiative in some areas. There is a considerable degree of concern in the community about the extent to which Asian interests are buying the farm. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(4.59) —In speaking to the annual report of the Foreign Investment Review Board I particularly wish to refer to the purchase of rural properties by foreign proprietors. The report shows an alarming increase over the last two years in foreign purchases of Australian property, to the extent of 3,650,000 hectares. I accept that these figures are open to different interpretations, but they show an increase in the ownership of our rural properties by overseas proprietors. Considering that the vast majority of our farms are valued at less than $3m and do not fall within the scope of the Foreign Investment Review Board-most of these farms are family farms-there is a gaping hole in exactly what foreign proprietors can purchase. They have wide scope to purchase freely and are unleashed upon any of our rural properties valued at under $3m. Within that regulation there are many loopholes. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for consideration of Government Papers has expired. Senator BURNS(Queensland) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present reports relating to the construction of the new telephone exchange building at Charlotte Street, Brisbane, and the construction of the State Head Office of Australia Post, Prince Alfred Park Centre, 219-241 Cleveland Street, Redfern, New South Wales. Ordered that the reports be printed. Motion (by Senator McLean) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to repeal the Koongarra Project Area Act 1981. Motion (by Senator McLean) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(5.02) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is, clearly, to repeal the Koongarra Project Area Act of 1981. As honourable senators will be aware, the Koongarra Project Area Act was submitted to this House on 12 June 1981-the last day on which the Government then led by Mr Fraser had the number of senators needed to force any Bill it wished through the Parliament. The Koongarra Project Area Bill was brought on with total disregard for the sections of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 which provide for at least 15 sitting days notice to both Houses of Parliament, and 60 days for public comment after publication in the Commonwealth Gazette of any intention by any government to remove land from a national park. This Parliament now has the opportunity to correct that act of piracy by repealing the Koongarra Project Area Act and thereby returning the Koongarra mining project area to stage one of the Kakadu National Park. Honourable senators will be interested and, I am sure, relieved, to hear that section 3 of the Koongarra Project Area Act has not yet been proclaimed. Section 3 is that section of the Act which actually excises the Koongarra mining project area from the national park. It is therefore most appropriate that the Koongarra Project Area Act 1981 be repealed immediately, while its repeal is a simple and straightforward one. In the Koongarra area as it now stands, the Australian people have an invaluable treasure-an area of unique scenic, archaeological and ecological importance. The Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report 1977-known as the Fox report-opposed the exploitation of the Koongarra deposit, and suggested that the South Alligator River catchment area was the most suitable large total river catchment for inclusion in the Kakadu National Park. Any mining at Koongarra would cause irreparable damage to the South Alligator River catchment area. The Fox Commission also pointed out that the Koongarra area is: located upstream from the extremely valuable Woolwonga Wildlife Sanctuary . . . the Woolwonga area is so valuable ecologically that we would oppose in principle any mining development upstream of it. If the Government allowed any damage to the Woolwonga area, which is now incorporated in Kakadu National Park, it would be abrogating its responsibilities under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance and Australia's agreement with Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds in Danger of Extinction. Even the original mining company's environmental impact statement described the Koongarra area as: containing a most diversified range of ecosystems, wildlife, wetlands and landscape formations not found elsewhere in the continent . . . the region has a number of Aboriginal sacred areas, relics and features. The ancient Aboriginal art work found in many of the caves and galleries of the rock outcrops has no equivalent in Australia. Indeed, the archaeological value of the prehistoric sites of Kakadu National Park, of which Nourlangie Rock is one of the most important, is massive. In a report on archaeological research in Kakadu National Park, leading Australian archaeologist, Dr Rhys Jones, and Tia Negerevich wrote: Along the base of the great cliffs . . . are rock shelters which constitute one of the world's most important storehouses of information about the prehistory and the art of hunting and gathering man. In terms of the number and age of occupied rock shelters, and the staggering profusion and antiquity of the brilliant rock art sites, the Kakadu area can be compared with some of the classic archaeological locations of the world. . . . in Kakadu, the Aboriginal owners are the direct descendants of the people who lived in the rock shelters and who painted the art . . . The conjunction of living Aboriginal traditions, and extremely diverse and rich landscape and the wealth of archaeological sites, some with proven antiquity back to 23,000 years ago, makes the Kakadu a key zone for research into the prehistory of Australia. The writers liken the importance of the Kakadu sites to the Dordogne cave paintings in France, with the added factor of the direct descent of the traditional owners from the inhabitants of the area over 23,000 years ago. The unique beauty of the Koongarra area, including Nourlangie Rock, the South Alligator River catchment area and the Nourlangie Creek catchment area, would be destroyed forever if mining were allowed to take place at Koongarra. Explosions from a mine site there might cause falls or slides of segments of Nourlangie Rock itself-one of the most significant archaeological sites in Australia. There would be a significant increase of dust in the atmosphere, and that, as well as other adverse ecological effects of such a mine would cause direct degradation of the archaeological sites, as well as the indirect degradation caused by scars on the landscape from roads to the mining area, noise and air pollution, and pollution of the water table. None of this must be allowed to occur. With the repeal of the Koongarra Project Area Act 1981, the area will be returned to its rightful place in Kakadu National Park. The area is of such obvious international significance that I am sure its inclusion in the World Heritage listing for Kakadu National Park Stage One would be merely a formality. I remember reading with great interest the very strong views put forward in this place in June 1981 by Australian Labor Party (ALP) senators when the original Bill was brought on. They were horrified that such a unique area should be excised from a national park so it could be destroyed in the commercial interests of a mining company-and a Canadian-owned mining company at that. On that occasion all Labor senators joined with the Australian Democrats to vote against the Bill. I am sure, with the Prime Minister and the ALP speaking so strongly against any new mining in this area, the Government will be consistent in its attitude, and will join with us once again on this issue to replace this beautiful area in the middle of Kakadu National Park and preserve it for future generations to enjoy and to wonder at. I commend the Bill to the Senate, and I look forward to its speedy passage through both Houses. Debate (on motion by Senator McKiernan) adjourned. Motion (by Senator McLean) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the Defence Act 1903 to provide for Parliamentary approval for overseas service by members of the Defence Force. Motion (by Senator McLean) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(5.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to place the responsibility for the decision to send Australian troops overseas with both Houses of Federal Parliament subject to exceptions covering the movement of personnel in the normal course of their peacetime activities and the need to take swift action in an emergency. In an emergency, the Governor-General may require Defence Force personnel to serve outside Australia's territorial limits, provided the Government then obtains parliamentary approval within two days. The Bill excludes overseas service by members of the Defence Force pursuant to their temporary attachment as provided in section 116b of the Defence Act; as part of an Australian diplomatic or consular mission; on an Australian vessel or aircraft not engaged in hostilities or in operations during which hostilities are likely to occur; for the purpose of their education or training; and for purposes related to the procurement of equipment or stores. The provision for parliamentary approval of overseas service of troops applies in other countries. In Canada, the Governor-in-Council may deploy troops anywhere, any time, subject to Parliament meeting within 10 days to approve action taken. In the Federal Republic of Germany there are limitations: there is constitutional prohibition against German forces participating in a war of aggression. Participation in a collective military action for the preservation of peace is permissible only if that force is deployed in a situation which, at that time, represents an illegal attack on the Bundesrepublik. In Japan, the 1947 Constitution of Japan, in article 9, provides: . . . the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation . . . The Self Defence Forces are authorised to protect the peace and stability of Japan against direct and indirect aggression. Self Defence Force personnel may not be deployed outside Japan. This has been interpreted by successive governments as precluding participation in United Nations peace-keeping and observation teams. One of the most divisive issues that has ever oppressed our history occurred between 1962 and 1971 when some 50,000 Australian servicemen from all three services were engaged in the war in Vietnam, the result of which was a communist government for the whole of Vietnam. The hostilities almost certainly resulted also in the later destruction of the free governments in neighbouring Cambodia and Laos and the incorporation of all of what was once French Indochina into the communist state. During that decade of war, 500 members of the Australian forces were killed. Of those deaths, 187 were young men who had no choice as to this tragic early end to their lives because they were conscripts sent to fight in an unjustifiable and unwinnable foreign adventure which, judged by any standard, was a disaster, and which, far from deterring the spread of communism in Asia, actually contributed significantly to it. As well as those deaths, many more young Australians were injured-nearly 3,000 of them. Of these, more than 1,000 were conscripts. All this came about as a result of a decision taken to involve Australia in a war without the proper consultation of its people and of its Parliament. In view of this, it is worth looking at the origins of the Vietnam War. There are several versions of how Australia was inveigled into supporting the United States in that tragic and wasteful episode. For many years it was stated officially that Australia was there in answer to a call for help from the Government of South Vietnam. That story is now, of course, completely discredited. Papers released in the United States as a result of the effective freedom of information law there indicated that the United States wanted Australia and other countries involved in that war so the United States would not be seen to be acting alone. That was the motivation; that was why Australia was there. What are the motivations of government, the pressures on it to conceal and dissimulate? A nation which cannot learn from the lessons of history has no future. We must look at the history of the Vietnam War to see what we can learn from it. Australian involvement in that war before it ended was opposed by the majority of Australians. It was passionately and actively opposed by scores of thousands. It became a deeply divisive issue in our community, and we still bear the scars of it. If this Bill is passed, it will at least ensure a full debate on any such move in both Houses of Federal Parliament, with a subsequent vote of all our elected Federal representatives. This must, as it does in other countries, lead to a more reasoned basis for sending Defence Force personnel overseas. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator McKiernan) adjourned. Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(5.06) —The Child Support Bill 1987 is the first in a series of Bills to reform the collection of maintenance from the parents of children. There is a desperate need for such a Bill. We on this side of the chamber acknowledge the need for that Bill and we support it, with a second reading motion amendment. We have believed for many years that change was needed in this area. The Government members, on the other side of this chamber, have consistently rejected the changes we have put forward. They have consistently turned their backs on the desperate situation that children of parents who do not live together find themselves in. We can ask ourselves why they have done this. The only credible answer that we can come up with is that there is no political kudos for this Government in accepting that since 1982 this side of the chamber has been in touch with community needs and that the Government side of the chamber is out of touch. That could not have been more perfectly demonstrated than in the by-election for the Federal seat of Adelaide held recently, with enormous swings against the Government clearly indicating that what we have believed for a long time is true-that this Government is out of touch. Now, in 1988, in the autumn session of Parliament, this Government is introducing legislation which, as I understand it, it originally intended to introduce in the autumn session last year. The paper entitled Child Support-A Discussion Paper on Child Maintenance was released in October 1986. In the early part of the following year legislation was to come forward, but the legislation missed that session. It then missed the Budget session of 1987 and made it into this one, at last. The delay is typical of a government that blows its trumpet about ideas but lacks the administrative skill to implement them. When I say that we on this side of the chamber have understood for some time the desperate plight of the children of parents who no longer live together I am not simply referring to the fact that we have understood that plight since 1986 when the Government came up with the preliminaries of this proposal. Those people who care to turn their minds and eyes back to September 1983 and look at the Hansard of that year recording discussion on the Family Law Amendment Bill 1983 will see that Senators Chaney and Durack have acknowledged, since 1982, and perhaps even before that, the desperate need for something to be done to reform the maintenance collection system throughout Australia. One of the sorest points in the community is that the children of separated parents are clearly not receiving adequate maintenance. The Fraser Government had intended, if it was returned to office, to address that problem. The new Labor Government, elected in March 1983, rejected those ideas. Half a decade has gone by in which Labor has consistently ignored the problems of the children of separated parents. Many thousands of couples have separated in that time without the benefit of the changes that, had we remained in office, would have been implemented. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber know how many times and for how long Senator Durack tried to improve the situation of separating custodial parents. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber know what Labor has consistently done to his proposals. It has consistently rejected them. As I say, one of the reasons is that the Government is not politically broad-minded enough to acknowledge that when a good idea that will benefit the children of separated parents comes from the Opposition it should accept it. A point used by the Government in favour of ignoring the problems of these children is that it was all very well for Senator Durack to have these ideas but the Government had greater plans which would be revealed later. Changes to the maintenance collection system were to be included in that legislation, that is, this legislation which has just been introduced. Even Marie Antoinette, so out of touch with the people, when told that the peasants were starving, that there was not any bread and that she was disregarding the needs of her constituents, was prepared at least to let them have cake. She at least had some positive intentions. But this Government does not even offer any cake in the meantime. It just says, `Let them wait'. At least Marie Antoinette was prepared to offer something. But not this lot. The Government says, `Let them wait until we sort out our administrative act and then perhaps we will do something about the collection of maintenance for the children of separated parents'. I have referred in my remarks thus far to the out of touch aspect of this Government. The arrogant Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that we have does not accept that he is out of touch; he does not even accept that he is arrogant. To back up that point I refer to an article in the Australian of 10 February in which Paul Kelly said: Let's talk about style though. For instance, a number of comments have been made about you as a result of the by-election defeat. People say you're arrogant, the Government is too arrogant, there needs to be more dialogue. What is your response to this sort of thing? That was Mr Kelly asking the Prime Minister after a devastating by-election loss whether there is a possibility that he and his Government have become arrogant and out of touch. The Prime Minister's response is as follows: I repudiate any suggestion of arrogance. I mean, arrogance is not my nature. I have been on the public stage for a long time. I'm confident but arrogance-I am not an arrogant fellow. I think I'm right about issues. I think the Prime Minister said it in his own words: that he does think he is right all the time and he does not think he is arrogant and he does not think his Government is out of touch. But if we turn to reports of a meeting that the Prime Minister had with some pensioners we see that when it was put to the pensioners outside Parliament House who had come on buses from various country areas of New South Wales that they were better off under the Hawke Labor Government than they were under the Fraser Government, the booed and hissed the Prime Minister. No-one likes to be booed and hissed-I accept that-but the report says: Even Mr Hawke found it necessary to refer to their ``empty boos and hisses''. He said . . . ``If you want to deride and pour contempt on your fellow pensioners, that's your right.'' What an arrogant way to handle the concerns of pensioners who come before him. One of the pensioners, a 76-year old, Mr Fred Diamond, from the Sydney seaside suburb of Manly, said that the Prime Minister was `Bluff and incorrect'. He said: We have lost between 25 and 30 per cent of purchasing power in the past few years. That should indicate at least some of the concern that this Government should now have with whether it is in touch and whether it has become an arrogant government. The Child Support Bill 1987, dealing with a reform of the maintenance collection system, provides an opportunity for a discussion of families and children in general and necessarily raises the Prime Minister's promise set in the election in 1987 when he said: So we set ourselves this first goal, by 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty. Mr Mick Young, the retired member for Port Adelaide-- Senator Puplick —Retired hurt member for Port Adelaide. Senator VANSTONE —The retired hurt, spit out dummy, I suppose, member for Port Adelaide, said in response to the question of whether it was possible to achieve this promise: It becomes, well I think when you're saying every single child, you know, if you're going to go around and take a census on it whether every single child is going to be out of poverty, of course you're talking about an impossibility. That is an indication again of what this Government thinks about and how much it cares about children in the community. It is prepared to make rash promises, promises that its own then Ministers agreed could not be fulfilled. The intention is laudable but to overstate the capacity to fulfil that intention is not laudable; it is quite the opposite. we on this side of the chamber all remember the 1985 announcement of Priority One: Young Australia which related to the setting up of traineeships for young Australians, who are members of families. We remember the Prime Minister saying that in the bicentennial year-that is this year-there would be 70,000 traineeships per annum. That is just another example of how Australians have been let down by the overstated promises of this Government. A viewing of the Budget Papers will show that even the Government now admits that in the bicentennial year there is not the slightest hope of getting anything like 70,000 trainees. The target is, I think, less than 15,000. The statistics that can be produced by the Parliamentary Library and looked up by anybody in the wide variety of welfare information that is made available can tell us the numbers of single parent beneficiaries, very largely made up of separated custodial parents. Statistics, however, are very impersonal indicators. They give no indication of the depth of suffering felt by the single parent beneficiaries who are custodial parents; they are simply signposts on a highway, some sort of indication of where we are going. The Government acknowledged in 1986 that we were going the wrong way. Now, in 1988, we have the legislation to do something about that. The complaint that I am making at the commencement of this debate is that we say it is far too long to wait; it should have been done earlier. We are pleased that the reforms are here. The reforms put forward by Senator Durack, the opportunities to improve the position of children of separated couples, should have been taken up. Members on the other side of the chamber offered no good reason why those reforms were not taken up. While those reforms might not have been part of a grand plan, they would, at least, have been proceeded with and at least some children would have been the recipients of the beneficial consequences of those reforms. Senator Giles —Very few. Senator VANSTONE —I hear some senators on the other side saying `very few', as though to say that very few people have separated in the last two years and very few children would have benefited from the results of Senator Durack's change. I remind those honourable senators opposite they will have their opportunity to speak and they can take it when it comes. There is a growing publicised resentment in the community in relation to the spiralling of the welfare dollar. Frequently the resentment is expressed by people who would not in principle refuse to pay welfare to anyone in need. The resentment is an expression of sheer inability to cope with rising family expenses and frustration at the level of taxation imposed by this Government. It is frustration with Labor's mismanagement, with people being worse off, that occasions people feeling that level of frustration to look around at how they can relieve their burden in some way. In other words, the frustration is vented by negative remarks towards welfare recipients. It is my belief and my hope that it is not indicative of a policy decision on behalf of those people to leave people in need without assistance; it is simply an absolute cry for help from the burden of the Government's ineptitude. Regrettably, there is a section of people in the community who believe and promulgate the view as widely as they can that young women have babies to get the supporting parent benefit and that they as taxpayers are somehow paying for the indulgence of young women. I invite members of the community who have that view to cast their eyes over the available statistics. They will note that only 4 per cent of supporting parents are teenagers. That should at least give them some indication about what I think about that view. The concept that a woman would have a child simply to get some welfare payment is far too simplistic and unacceptable. A further portion of people regard welfare recipients as the undeserving poor, and regrettably all of us in this chamber on both sides have met with some people who believe that. There has been a degree of selective welfare bashing. People have picked out supporting parents as the people who ought to be bashed, as the welfare group to have a go at. I point out that, unless there has been something in the nature of an immaculate conception, or many thousands thereof, there are no sole parents. The people we call sole parents fall into two categories. A small proportion of them may be surviving parents; that is, the other parent has died. But generally there are two living parents, one forced onto welfare, battling to raise children in difficult circumstances created by this Government, and the other in 70 per cent of cases, departing the scene and failing properly to meet his or-I suppose sometimes-her maintenance obligations. Non-custodial parents are ignoring their responsibilities. Therefore, we have more supporting parent beneficiaries. This Government has failed to make parents face up to the responsibilities they have created. Ian Warden, a columnist with the Canberra Times whom I believe to be a talented wordsmith, frequently makes a point, sometimes by vitriol, sometimes in jest. He did so in the Canberra Times on 19 February. In reporting this debate he said: But to return to the wart in question, the aforementioned debate- that is, the debate on this Bill- has yielded the information that seven out of every 10 Australians required to pay maintenance to keep the wolverine from the door of the children they chose to usher into the world failed to do so. Seven out of 10. Is it worth celebrating a society which has somehow created a species of parent so estranged from feelings of shame and guilt . . . that they are able to ogle themselves in the mirror in the mornings while knowing that their blameless children are suffering . . . He goes on to amplify the Labor Government's failure to make parents face up to the responsibility that they, as parents, have created; the Labor Government's failure to remedy the system which can be fairly described as one which encourages women to be locked into welfare; its failure to remedy a system which encourages the courts to put predominantly women on welfare; its failure to remedy a situation which has allowed parents in the past to take on extra financial commitments after separation but prior to the custody and maintenance hearings, thereby reducing their capacity to pay for the children that they created; its failure to accept that it is out of touch; and its failure to accept the positive proposals put forward by Senator Durack which could have been implemented a long time ago to save many from falling into the welfare trap. With the passage of this Bill, in future non-custodial parents will pay their maintenance to the agency created by this legislation. In many cases it will simply be taken out of their salary and transferred. The Opposition is concerned that the burden on business in this respect ought to be kept to a minimum. Consultations that we have had with members of the business community have indicated that the consultation on this point has been inadequate. We draw to the Government's attention that concern of the business community that has been expressed to us and hope that that concern is addressed in the implementation of this Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to assist children-not to punish parents for their relationship having failed, but to make it clear that, when a relationship does fail, we expect both parties to be responsible for the children that they have created; to make it clear that it is completely unacceptable for custodial parents to be left out in the cold, their partners giving them little or no support; and to make it clear that the community does not blame sole parents for their plight, but blames the irresponsible non-custodial parents who are ignoring their responsibilities. I repeat that figures indicate that 70 per cent of people who should be paying maintenance are paying none or not enough. The support for this Bill makes it clear that for too long when couples separate it is the custodial parent whose standard of living takes a far bigger fall than that of the non-custodial parent, who is of course usually the father. It seems odd that for so long we have tolerated a situation where the parent with responsibility for the children is worse off than the parent who is not. It is unfortunate that this Government has taken so long to acknowledge the merits of Senator Durack's proposed amendments to the Family Law Act which, if the Government had accepted them at the time, would have improved the situation of many supporting parents and their children in that they would have been beneficiaries years earlier. I am referring here to the amendments that removed the priority given to consideration of the supporting parent's benefit and proposed to change the arrangements for people who sought to minimise the maintenance payments they made by taking on financial obligations. In summary, the Opposition supports the Bill. It very deeply resents the fact that the Government has taken so long to get its act together. It is all very well to say, `Now we have this agency established'. As I pointed out, this is the first Bill in a series of Bills. It deals only with the agency. We have a lot further to go. But at least this Bill will mean that the children of separated parents will receive far better maintenance then they have for many years. However, we do have a concern that the couples who are not seeking to place any drain on the taxpayer and who are happy to keep their arrangements in order ought not to be covered by this particular piece of legislation. Accordingly, we wish to move a second reading amendment. We believe that, if couples separate, come to a suitable agreement and agree that they would rather handle their affairs privately, they ought to be able to do so. They ought not to lose their privacy unless they wish to claim from the taxpayer or the non-custodial parent defaults. This view is expressed in the following amendment. I move: At the end of motion, add ``, but the Senate- (a) wishes to ensure the protection of the rights of non-custodial parents who have entered into maintenance arrangements to share in the cost of supporting their children at no extra cost to the Commonwealth, by not requiring these agreements to be registered with the Child Support Agency, except in the event that maintenance arrangements are not honoured, and (b) condemns the fact that the welfare of Australian children has rapidly declined under the Hawke Labor Government''. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(5.27) —It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Child Support Bill 1987. In my opening comments I would like to put on the record that I welcome the Opposition's support for the Child Support Bill. It is unfortunate though that Senator Vanstone, in leading the debate for the Opposition, did not confine her remarks to the Bill that is before us. I think Senator Vanstone could be safely accused of attempting to score some cheap political points over a by-election result we recently had in Adelaide. In trying to score those points she made the point that the other side of the chamber had been in touch with the people and that this side of the chamber had lost touch with the people. I remind Senator Vanstone and other honourable senators on the other side of the chamber that since 1982 the Opposition parties have lost about 14 out of 18 elections held in this country. Those figures may not be exact, but I know that, at the Commonwealth level, when they went to the people with their policies they lost in 1983, in 1984 and again in 1987. If they can take comfort from just one aberration, one by-election, it will probably do them good, because they need something to shake them up. They might perform the role which they are here to perform-to provide opposition to the Government. I have said in the past that one of the things a party needs when it is in government is to be put under pressure from time to time. It is a sad reflection on honourable senators on the opposite side of the chamber that they have not been doing that. They have been too concerned with their internal fighting between parties and inside parties to concentrate on putting pressure on the Government. I would now like to speak specifically on the Bill. Prior to doing so, I want to paint a broader picture into which this Bill fits quite neatly. This Bill is the result of widespread and much needed consultation throughout the community, consultation in which the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and his departmental staff participated. The consultation has spread beyond that; it has spread right through the system of Caucus committees that we have operating in the Parliament, with the members of Parliament themselves discussing within the community the ramifications of a Bill such as this. Needless to say, there will be sections of the community that will not be at all happy with what is being proposed in the Bill, and I think all sides of the chamber will agree that certain people will be upset. Through the series of consultations we have sought to find the best medium to introduce the initiatives we are putting forward in this legislation. To take the point that Senator Vanstone made, this legislation is not to be seen in isolation. A number of other complementary pieces of legislation will need to come before us to put the whole package into perspective. It is not to be seen in isolation from other Government initiatives in this area. The family allowance supplement, increased funding for education and restructuring in the area of education, employment and training programs for sole parents fit quite neatly into what we are proposing here. The child support scheme is an integral part of a resolution passed at the Australian Labor Party's national conference in 1986, accepting the case for the adoption of a national social justice strategy. The social justice strategy had four key objectives. Those were equity, equality, access and participation. Equity encompasses the notion of fairness for all in the distribution of economic resources and political power. Equality means the equality of rights for all people. Access means access to essential services, which include housing, health and education, on a fair and equal basis. Participation means giving all Australians the opportunity to participate fully in personal development, social and community life and decision-making. The Government had made significant advances in the achievement of the social justice objectives, especially when we consider them in the context of the previous seven destructive years of the Fraser Government. I have already said, and it is worth repeating, that this has lead to increased social security benefits, increased spending on housing and increased spending on child-care, education, employment and training. We have not got it all right. Economic difficulties have ensured that we have not been able to move at the pace we would have liked. Hardship, inequality and injustice still persist in our society. The basis of the social justice strategy is the need to attack the causes of inequality and not merely to remedy the effects. The social justice strategy is an attempt to change social structures and attitudes that institutionalise inequity in the distribution of economic and social resources. One of the key issues the conference identified as an integral part of the implementation of its social justice strategy was that concerning all children living in poverty. The child support scheme is an essential component of the Government's strategy to alleviate the social tragedy, and a tragedy it is. During his last Federal election policy speech, Mr Hawke, the leader of the Australian Labor Party, made a promise that by 1990 no Australian child would be living in poverty. Both he and the Australian Labor Party were maligned by sections of the Australian community for making that promise. It was said by people on the Opposition benches that we could not deliver. Here is yet another component in the delivery of that promise. To ensure that the commitment that was made prior to the election was kept, the Caucus of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, at its first meeting following our historic election victory for a third term-and indeed it was an historic occasion not only for those of us who participated in that election but also for the Australian population as a whole-carried by an overwhelming vote the following motion: Caucus welcomes and unites behind the Prime Minister's stated first goal of the third Hawke Labor Government announced in the campaign policy launch that by 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty. That was the promise. It has been reaffirmed and now we have the delivery. The passage of the Child Support Bill is undoubted because of the support which we are receiving from all sides of the chamber and which we received in the other place, and it is certainly needed in our community. Over half of the Australian children living in poverty, some 800,000-and that is not a figure we are proud of; indeed we do not accept all of the blame for the fact that there are today 800,000 children in this country living in poverty-are the children of sole parents, the majority of whom are women who for the most part have had to rely solely on social security pensions and benefits to support those children. In the last 10 years the proportion of sole parents on a pension or benefit has increased from 65 per cent to 85 per cent. The consequences of this for these families is a continuing cycle of poverty traps. Even in those families where the non-custodial parent does not pay regular maintenance to support his or her children, and they are some 30 per cent, the maintenance orders set by the courts are generally so low-they average about $25 a week for one child or $40 a week for two children; some people are getting off with paying a lot less and obviously some are paying slightly more-that most custodial parents receiving regular maintenance still need to seek social security assistance. Of the non-custodial parents who do make regular maintenance payments, more than 70 per cent pay very little and more often than not pay nothing to support their families. This legislation will redress that problem and will put the onus for the welfare and future of their children back on those parents. Unfortunately the resources the Government has at its disposal to alleviate the tragedy of children living in poverty in sole-parent families are finite. There are limitations to the amounts governments can spend, thus the imperative need to introduce this Bill being discussed here is immediately obvious. I repeat that I welcome the support we are getting from the Opposition benches. It is a national scandal that so many non-custodial parents are able, and have been able for so long, to escape their obligations. The consequences of their actions, while they might be living in cream, are twofold: their children have little possibility of escaping from the trap of poverty and they are tossing the burden for those children's support onto the ordinary taxpayers of this nation. From the figures I quoted earlier, this burden has obviously increased enormously over the years. The cost of supporting sole-parent families in the 1986-87 Budget was $1,886m. I repeat that figure because it is well worth repeating-$1,886m. That is money that comes from the pockets of the ordinary wage and salary earner in this country. In the vast majority of cases the non-custodial parents are employed and hence are able to contribute to their children's support, and yet are making no attempt to accept the responsibility for the children of a relationship that they have abandoned for whatever reason. Rather, they have abrogated the responsibility of supporting their children, placing that responsibility onto the shoulders of all Australian taxpayers. In many cases the children are left in a state of perpetual poverty. This legislation will increase substantially the numbers of sole parent families who receive regular child maintenance payments. It will assist in ensuring that court orders for child maintenance are enforced and obeyed. It will provide for more adequate levels of maintenance payments to be set in court maintenance orders after the start of the scheme by setting realistic levels of support, rather than maintenance at a maximum allowable, without affecting the custodial parent's right to a full social security benefit or pension. A survey of Department of Social Security regional office files, published in the Social Security Journal in the winter of 1987, found that levels of cash maintenance were usually set below the free area of income and were very rarely increased. The legislation will also relieve the burden on ordinary taxpayers by ensuring that non-custodial parents accept a fair share of the financial responsibility for their children. In the first full year of the scheme's operation, 1989-90, savings to the ordinary taxpayer, to government revenue, are estimated to be $192.8m. That is $192.8m which can be diverted to other areas of the Government's social justice program-areas which can, and will, include further employment and training initiatives for sole parents. The Opposition has made some criticisms of the Bill, and some of them have been nitpicking or have been made in an attempt to point score now that some of the States are in an election mode. The point was made in the other place, and here again by Senator Vanstone, that the scheme is compulsory. The Opposition has moved an amendment in this regard. The scheme has to be compulsory to be effective. Senator Reid —No, it doesn't, Senator. Senator McKIERNAN —We on this side of the chamber believe it does. If we leave too many holes in the scheme, it will be exploited. The best way of ensuring that the sole parent is left in a non-confrontation position is to have such a scheme. In many cases the non-custodial parent is not making a contribution because the custodial parent is scared to make an approach. If the payments are handled by the agency, it should alleviate that potential difficulty. Experience up until now has shown that when maintenance payments have been left effectively to the discretion of the non-custodial parent, only 30 per cent of such parents have exercised the option to make such payments. Further, the amounts these parents pay have been hopelessly inadequate and bear no relationship to the cost of rearing children. We all know that that can be mightily expensive these days. Some concern was expressed about the privacy provisions in the legislation. It is not the intention of this Government, nor indeed the departments that will administer this legislation, to seek out and delve into the private lives of individuals. There is provision in the Bill for the privacy of the individuals involved to be protected at all costs. I believe that the Australian society is more concerned about the welfare of the children of sole parents than it is about attaching stigmas to non-custodial parents who will be required to pay maintenance through this scheme, especially given the large number of non-custodial parents who will be required to register with the child support agency. Marital breakdown can sometimes be a tragedy for the children involved. Whilst this Bill does not seek to stop the breakdown of marriages, it does seek to ensure that parents accept responsibility for their children. I believe the child support scheme will do this, and that it is a major initiative towards realising the Government's objective of alleviating child poverty by 1990. I put on record my congratulations to the Minister for Social Security for his hard work in guiding this legislation through a long and arduous period of consultation-consultation I alluded to when opening my remarks this afternoon-and for having the courage and determination to tackle the problem head on and place the issue of child poverty at the forefront of the Government's social policy agenda. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(5.46) —On behalf of the Australian Democrats I support the Child Support Bill 1987, which, as previous speakers have said, is landmark legislation and the first Bill of a package designed to address the problems of children of separated couples-problems which manifest themselves in all too many cases in children living in poverty, along with their custodial parent. The Bill provides for the collection of certain periodic child and spousal maintenance, which is payable under court orders and maintenance agreements. To do that the Bill sets up mechanisms such as the Child Support Register, the Child Support Registrar and a system of periodic collections. I make that point because Senator Vanstone, in concluding her remarks, said that all that this legislation is doing is establishing a child support agency. I believe it does more than that, and I think these are essential elements to be recognised because, after all, if we are to address the problems of children of separated couples who are living in poverty the essential feature is the collection of maintenance which, as we have already heard in the debate, does not happen in 70 per cent of cases. That is a rather horrific figure. Over recent times the number of children living in single parent families has increased vastly, rising by 73 per cent in the period 1974 to 1985. The figure is now close to 500,000 children. In the mid-1970s, 9 per cent of all families were single parent families, and now the figure is 14 per cent. The proportion of sole parents dependent on support payments-on the ordinary Australian taxpayer, as Senator McKiernan said-has risen from 65 per cent to 85 per cent, and most of these families, as has been pointed out, are headed by women. The figure which concerns many people and has meant that we finally have legislation in this area is the figure that indicates that expenditure in this area has risen by some 245 per cent in the period 1974 to 1986, and of course because of the situation we do have a large number of children living in poverty. As I have said, this is largely because of the failure of the non-custodial parents to pay maintenance. Perhaps it is worth noting that even where maintenance is paid-that is, in only 30 per cent of the cases of family breakdown-it is a low amount, and the Department of Social Security figures tell us that the amount is mostly between $10 and $30 a week. Two-thirds of all payments are less than $31 a week, and yet figures from the Institute of Family Studies show that we should be looking at an average figure of around $47 a week to keep a child. Of course, that figure varies according to the age of the child, and it should be noted that the older the child the more expensive it becomes. The situation has not been meeting the need and has forced many sole parent families into quite abysmal poverty-and it is happening to more and more of them over time. So we are happy to see at least the beginning, and a very significant beginning, of the addressing of that problem. It is worth making some comments on the rate of marriage breakdown in that period. The number of separated wives in the period of 1974 to currently has risen from 9,000 to over 100,000. This is an enormously distressing figure. Some say that the fault all lies with changes to the Family Law Act and, most significantly, to the requirement for only one year of separation before divorce. But I do not believe that we can condemn the Family Law Act, nor that more liberal provision, for this increasing figure. The establishment of the Family Law Act, as it is now, has enabled particularly very many women to more readily get out of situations which have been emotionally, if not physically, damaging, not only for them, but also for their children. It is important to look at the whole issue. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), in response to an accusation in the second reading debate that there had been cuts in funding for marriage guidance, denied that. But there have not been the sorts of rises in funding for preventive measures which obviously are necessary to assist people in the community who are taking on the responsibility of marriage in particular, and of parenting specifically, to be able to do that with some community support and understanding of what they are taking on. Dr Warwick Hartin, Secretary of the National Marriage Guidance Council, said in an article in the Melbourne Sun last year: This year the government will spend a miserable $5.1 million in grants to marriage counselling organisations but it will spend a massive $1.5 billion on divorce and its consequences. He went on to say: The Government has not learned money spent on the prevention of marriage breakdown is money saved in payments disrupted by divorce. It is worth considering that there is a role for preventive exercises and certainly for the Marriage Guidance Council. It was rather distressing last year to have to put up a fight for the continuation of the family conciliation centre in Noble Park in Melbourne and to find that the other pilot program in New South Wales was not refunded. The Government needs to address these issues. In our community now we are not saying to women that they must stay in unsatisfactory or, indeed, dangerous relationships. In view of that, we should recognise that this very changed nature of human relationships-one which I applaud and which the Democrats fully understand and do not condemn-means we need to assist all people, men and women and, in particular, young people while they are forming their views. Democrat policy of long standing involves support for education for parenting and education in human relationships generally. Those factors need to be taken into consideration in terms of preventing the sort of horrific poverty, distress and expenditure which we now find before us, given the rate of family breakdown. We must not ignore the fact that family breakdown brings its problems for men. This whole exercise of prevention and community support for people undertaking relationships will be of benefit not only to those women who quite visibly are disadvantaged in this whole exercise, but also to men. It is interesting that only on Friday last, the day this Bill was due to be debated, a major article in the Australian pointed out several very interesting facts about male parenting, and, in particular, male sole parenting. It said that the incidence of children remaining with their fathers after family breakdown is increasing. According to the Institute of Family Studies, single father-headed families represent 13 per cent of all one-parent families. It is becoming more usual for the Family Court of Australia to give custody of children to their male parents. The question is asked in this article by Berwyn Lewis: Will the increase in single fathers mean extended shopping hours, more child-minding facilities and will paternity leave become the rule rather than the exception? I certainly commend this article to members of the Senate because it gives a clear picture of some of the changes in attitudes that exist because of the increased incidence of male parenting in sole-parent families. The particular point is made that the average Australian father is said to spend 30 minutes a day with his children-so these are quite exceptional fathers. I will go on to detail some of these facts. While female parents are those who, in the breakdown of a relationship, most commonly are recognised to have suffered, because it is clear that their economic situation suffers severely, we must not lose sight of the other research which shows that in a family breakdown, whether or not the male parent becomes a custodial parent, there is an enormous amount of emotional distress for men. We must not ignore that fact in this kind of debate. Anything that can be done to enable relationships to survive is worth doing and anything that can be done to assist and provide community support is worth doing, not just for women, but also for men. However, we cannot escape the fact that the majority of affected children that we are talking about are living in single-parent families with their mothers and, as I have said, the economic effect on women is quite severe. As I understand it, the following figures are from the Institute of Family Studies. They are quite clear. After divorce, men who are living alone are, on average, $72 a week better off than women in that situation. Men who subsequently have custody of a child are $60 a week better off, even though they have custody. Men who have repartnered and have no further children in the new partnership are $149 a week better off. Of course there are reasons for this. We must not forget the inherent disadvantages that still exist in our community for women who need or want to be in the paid work force. If any women need to be in the paid work force, sole supporting parents who are women are the ones. Let us make no mistake: most people on pensions or benefits of any kind, the young unemployed included, want very much to work to earn their own living and have their independence. Let us also make no mistake: the only real way out of poverty, in spite of what we might do here in this Parliament, for people who are on pensions and benefits, is for them to enter or re-enter the paid work force. But when women do that, if they do get off benefits they are still disadvantaged. Women are still clustered in low-paying jobs and, on average, still do not receive anywhere near the male average wage. The last figures I saw were in the high 60 per cents. There is still the impediment, particularly for women about whom we are speaking specifically today, of a lack of child-care facilities. This Government makes great moment of its goals and achievements in child-care. I think child-care is the biggest issue that we face in terms of equity, participation and access, particularly for women but also for men. Let us bear in mind the increasing proportion of male sole parents. Child-care must be flexible, it must be available and it must be affordable. Inflexibility and unavailability are also problems for women when it comes to attempting to enter or re-enter the paid work force by training or retraining. Since the demise of the class B widow's pension and the reduction last year in the availability of sole parent's benefit beyond the dependent child reaching the age of 16, I have had a flood of letters and phone calls from women who are finding it virtually impossible to get the sort of retraining that they need. They cannot get Austudy unless they study full time. Many of these women need to study part time. The training programs which are available and funded and for which income support is available while they are being undertaken are very restricted. They are short courses. For women in particular-one woman phoned my office about this last week-they are very stereotyped in their application. This particular woman, who wanted to become a social worker, needed to study part time because she had young children. She wanted to assist people like herself in the future. She was not able to get Austudy because she could only study part time and the only options through the Commonwealth Employment Service for her were computer work and typing. The Government has got a long way to go on that. We heard in the mini-Budget period last year, when those other benefits were removed, that money would be spent and that there would be new programs. We are hearing now that there will be savings from this legislation and that when those savings are made we will get the programs. These women cannot wait. They need those programs now. I have not mentioned the isolated women. If a woman lives in a country town that is only 25 or 30 kilometres away from the nearest technical and further education college, she has enough problems. But if she lives in a country town that is 120 kilometres away or further, she has really got problems. The greatest motivation for this legislation-I will give the Government some credit for this; certainly it is our greatest motivation in supporting this legislation-is breaking the cycle of poverty in which these women and their children find themselves. Another motivation for this legislation is to lay emphasis on the responsibility which all parents have, not just those who have the custody of the children after there is a breakdown of a relationship. I think we all agree that that is a responsible approach and that it is something that we should be doing. I am disturbed at the increased community hostility which is being directed towards sole parents. As Senator Vanstone pointed out, the myth that teenagers are having babies to get on the gravy train of social welfare is killed, if not by the fact that only 4 per cent of sole parent beneficiaries are teenagers, then certainly when one looks at the figures, sees the abysmal amount of money and knows that these people are living in poverty. I think it is very important that all of us, whichever side of the chamber we are on, do everything we can to break down this rather distressing attitude which appears to be building up. There is a third motivation; that is, to save money. I notice that the Minister, in his response in the second reading debate in the other place, was annoyed-I think he used that word himself-at the accusation that this was a money saving exercise. I am interested that the accusation was actually made in any case because I would have thought that the people in opposition down there seemed very interested in money saving. However, I am glad it was made, and it did annoy the Minister. We are told that the estimated savings will be $7.6m for the first partial year; $120m in 1987-88; and $192m in the two subsequent years to 1990. That is a lot of money. Certainly they are significant savings, but those savings must not be made at the cost of children who are still living in poverty. The major flaw of this package is that there is to be no maintenance guarantee. That is an essential factor. The Government has been very heavily lobbied by the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and by people from the Welfare Rights Unit. I am not sure whether the Institute of Family Studies actually lobbies, but there have been quite disturbed comments by people, including Tricia Harper from the Institute of Family Studies. An excellent article by Marianne Latham last Wednesday on the `Accent' page of the Age, of which Rosemary West is the excellent editor, said of this legislation: Some of these savings should go to some form of guaranteed child maintenance payment for those the scheme won't assist. These included women who do not know the location of their ex-partner and those whose partner is dead or on a very low income. The article points out that a maintenance guarantee was part of the initial proposal for a better scheme for maintenance payments which came from the Institute of Family Studies. As I have said, Tricia Harper has commented: `It's a major flaw that the Government hasn't included a maintenance guarantee'. We share those concerns, as do ACOSS, the Brotherhood of St Laurence and others. I note that in the article the Minister said that the Government would be looking at the recommendations for a maintenance guarantee next year. He warns: There is not unlimited money to go around; it will become a budgetary matter. Currently our priority for single parents is education and training. I have made my comments on education and training for single parents. Putting those programs in place is lagging very badly behind. Meanwhile the labour market oriented legislation which is removing benefits is going through this Parliament. I think the Government needs to worry a great deal about that. It is very distressing to hear from these women who need retraining, who want retraining and who must have it if they are not going to continue to live in poverty. They are just simply not getting it at the levels it is needed. At this point it is important that I give credit for the changes which have been made before this legislation came into the Parliament and subsequent to the original announcements. The reduction of benefit under the income test from 60c to 50c in the dollar was an anomaly which I think the Government was very wise to remove. There has been a deferral of the starting date for the savings clause. I think that is good. The income test on housing has had a limit of 25 per cent put on it. I commend the work of ACOSS, and Julian Disney in particular; his consultations on this matter were strongly supported by the Australian Democrats. We have before us a Bill which, as I say, is deficient in that there is no maintenance guarantee but in very little else. There are, though, some other concerns with the legislation in a range of areas. One is the requirement of the custodial parent to take maintenance action to gather and provide information about the non-custodial parent. That is a major concern, since so many people who are moving out of a relationship are doing so because of fear for their personal safety. We are still concerned about that. In that process, bearing in mind that these custodial parents are very often people who are on very low incomes and who are therefore going to require some legal aid in taking these actions, I think I need to raise here the issue of legal aid funding, particularly through community legal services whose resources are enormously stretched at the moment. I plead with the Government to recognise that, if custodial parents pursue this action, it should look to ensure that there are no hitches simply because legal aid and legal assistance, particularly through the community legal services, are available to these people. Very often they will need someone to act for them, especially when they have particular problems in pursuing their former partner or providing information about that person. There are some issues to come in the subsequent legislation relating to income testing, about which we shall have specific things to say at that time; but there are major concerns that, while currently sole parents on benefits have an entitlement to earn $40 per week plus $12 per week per extra child before there is any impact, under the new system the figures are much lower. I recognise that it is a different system, but we shall be pressing for higher figures and, of course, for indexation of those figures. The imputation of in-kind maintenance is a fairly sensitive area. We believe that a phase-in period is needed; but, as I said, we welcome the 25 per cent threshold that is put on that. I shall also address some of the concerns that have been put to the Australian Democrats, as well as to other parties, about the effect of the collection scheme on business. Of course we need automatic collection. That issue has been addressed. The honourable member for Gippsland in the other House, Mr McGauran, asked why we were lumping together all non-custodial parents as irresponsible defaulters. It is true that they are not all irresponsible defaulters-just the vast majority of them. That is the reason, as has been pointed out-because the previous system has not had any compulsory aspects to it, it has failed. It is clear, and it is clear from overseas evidence as well, that a national register is terribly important in this matter. We need, too, a system without stigma. That is important. I do not think that what we are trying to do here is to label `responsible' versus `irresponsible' parents, because to do that would drive people into the woodwork or underground and we would have the same problems as we have had before. I certainly support Marie Meggitt, a single mothers representative in the consultation, when she said that automatic collection promotes a community view that this is an accepted part of ordinary everyday life. I remind the Senate that one of our goals here is to promote the view that people should have a responsibility for their children whether or not they are custodial parents. As Marie Meggitt said, one pays for one's children, just as one pays one's taxes. She said: What has a man got to hide? Why should he be ashamed of his offspring? That is a very pertinent remark. Concerns have been expressed by business. Many of those concerns are not legitimate. I point to remarks made in an interview with the honourable member for Bradfield, Mr David Connolly. I refer again to the article in the Age last week, in which he is objecting to the fact that `everybody must pay'. He says: But there are cases where the boss gets his secretary pregnant. Are you achieving anything by making that a great public exercise? It's even more complicated in cases of incest. If that is promoted as an argument against automatic payment, I could scarcely think of an argument which would be more deserving of condemnation. There is no circumstance in which one should be ashamed of one's child. I just cannot think of any less rational argument than that. In fact, it is not the case that the actual collection is automatic, because there is an opt out procedure; it is simply the registration of the commitment which is compulsory. For that reason, we shall not be supporting the Opposition's second reading amendment. As I have said, unless the registration is there for everyone, in the sort of circumstance which would exist if the Opposition's proposal were accepted we would still have the case in which, if there were a default, the custodial parent would have to go through exactly the procedure that she currently does, and that is to search the jurisdictions all over Australia to find that in which the order was made. In some cases that might have occurred many years ago, and the jurisdiction may now be very far distant from where she and her children are living. It may be very distressing, or even dangerous, to return to that jurisdiction. She may need someone to act for her, and that would be expensive. So the automatic registration is very important. It is important, however, that the provisions of the legislation and subsequent provisions of privacy legislation, which the Australian Democrats consider to be of enormous priority in this Parliament, ensure that the information is subject only to the Agency as it is established under this legislation. The other area, from complaints that we have had from businesses, with which I have considerable sympathy is that of those very small businesses which are still using tax stamps. There are discretionary clauses in the Bill. I urge the Government to fully inform and assist these very small businesses, particularly through the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, using some innovate ways of informing people-indeed, even individual letters to individual businesses. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.16) —Is it not just extraordinary how long it takes the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats to pick up the Opposition's policies? Tonight we are dealing with the Child Support Bill, a Bill that makes, according to the speech of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh): the legal right of children to be supported by both their parents a real right. The Bill sets up a maintenance collection agency for children of broken families-the Child Support Agency. Its aim is to enforce the payment of maintenance from non-custodial parents. Two steps are needed before that stage is reached. The first step was to remove from the Family Law Act the requirement that when considering maintenance judges should take into account eligibility for the social security supporting parent's benefit. This the Government did just a few months ago. In 1983 Senator Durack first proposed his amendments to this Senate, suggesting that the Family Law Act be changed so as to stop judges being able to take into consideration eligibility for social security benefit. And what did this Senate do? The Labor senators and the Democrats voted against it. As I say, a couple of months ago they put through identical legislation. In 1985 Senator Durack again tried to bring the Government to its senses. He introduced a private member's Bill proposing exactly the same amendment as that which had been defeated. And what did this Government do? It voted against it, and so did the Democrats. A couple of months ago they brought up identical legislation. What excuse has the Government got? What excuse have the Democrats got? They are certainly slow learners. Senator Stone —No, they are quite consistent. They always support the Labor Party. There is nothing inconsistent in that. Senator WALTERS —Well, as far as the Democrats go. In January 1983, while we were still in government, we recognised the need for a collection agency and foreshadowed such an agency. The present Government, then in opposition, was completely opposed to it. We cited all the problems that have been mentioned here tonight, all the problems that are now acknowledged by the Government. We said that it was imperative and that-to quote from the Government's second reading speech: The only way to ensure that children receive the support to which they are entitled is by a collection system that does not depend on voluntary payment. We said in 1983 that that was imperative. We pointed out very clearly that it was the legal right of children to be supported by both their parents. We said that it was the responsibility of both parents to bring up their children, not the responsibility of the taxpayers. We pointed out that 70 per cent of children of separated parents did not receive cash maintenance payments on a regular basis. We said that more than half of the estimated numbers of children living in poverty were from sole-parent families. We said all those things. Indeed, we said that the child maintenance obligation must be given priority over all other commitments of the non-custodial parent. We said that it was imperative that the father pay maintenance before he spent money on luxuries that he considered he should have. We explained all of those things. We pleaded with the Government to alleviate child poverty in this area. The Government refused to take that first step, and it refused to take that second step. By its refusal it allowed more than 400,000 children, according to the Minister's figures, to remain in poverty from 1983. Suddenly the penny dropped. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) needed an election gimmick. Consequently, we have before us the legislation that we advocated should be introduced in 1983. We all remember in July last year-I am sure that you would remember it, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I am sure you were appalled by it-the Prime Minister said that no Australian child would be living in poverty by 1990. I am sure you were appalled because I know that you would know it was an impossible thing for a Prime Minister to promise. Yet tonight Senator McKiernan said that that promise had just now been restated by the Minister. Senator McKiernan did not read the Minister's second reading speech, because not one word of it is along those lines. What the Minister said was that no child need live in poverty by 1990. Senator Stone —Just a change of one word! Senator WALTERS —Just a change of one word but a whole host of difference. Tonight Senator McKiernan said that that promise had been restated by the Minister. He had better be very careful because he is going just the same way as John Brown has gone in the other place. John Brown has come out telling the truth and the Prime Minister has jumped on him like a sack of potatoes. I do not know how Senator Walsh, who presented the second reading speech in this place, proposes to fulfil either or both of those promises. We are told that the Government believes that this legislation will cover 40 per cent of those 70 per cent of sole parents who do not receive maintenance payments. What about the other 30 per cent? It means that 30 per cent of those sole parents who are not receiving maintenance payments at present will be in no different position from the position they are in today. And the Prime Minister says that no child will be living in poverty by 1990! An additional 200,000 children have been placed in poverty since this Government came to office according to what is contained in two reports that have recently been presented. It is any wonder, considering that families are not among this Government's priorities? Let us examine what the Government has done. It has introduced divorce by post. What will that do for families? If that does not encourage the break-up of families, I do not know what will. Under legislation that was introduced recently and that we in this place have debated only in part, magistrates will be able to deal with divorces. Under the present system judges who deal with non-contested divorces must ensure that correct and adequate arrangements are made for children. This Government, with its priorities geared towards introducing anything that saves money, has said that it will allow magistrates to deal with those matters. There is no requirement for magistrates to have been judges or even legal practitioners. The Government has abolished the payment of the family allowance for children aged 16 years and over. That is the sort of commitment that this Government has to the family. It has means tested the family allowances, resulting in more families being on skid row. This Government has gone down in history as the only government since 1941, when the Liberal Menzies Government introduced child endowment, to tear down the concept, which recognises the added financial burden on families of raising children, that all families should receive some tax relief in order to assist them with that additional financial burden. The Government has refused to increase the family allowance. It has refused to increase the dependent spouse rebate. When the Liberal and National parties came to power in 1975 the dependent spouse rebate was $400 a year. In 1976-77 we increased it to $500; in 1977-78 we increased it to $555; in 1978-79 we increased it to $597; and in 1981 we increased it to $800. In 1981-82 it was increased to $830. We said that that $830 rebate should apply only to a dependent spouse without children; the rebate for a dependent spouse with children was increased to $1,030. That was a deliberate effort to assist families with children. What has this Government done in the four years it has been in office? This Government has not given an additional cent to dependent spouses with children. That is the sort of priority that I have been talking about. Do not tell me that the Hawke Government has any feeling for families or gives them any priority at all. The family assistance package has been introduced only because of Mr Hawke's statement in his election speech that no child will be living in poverty by the year 1990. The Government pretends a lot. With a great flourish it commissioned Bettina Cass to review family allowances. Bettina Cass presented a report in which she said that the family allowance should not be means tested. She asked, `Why do governments support families with children?'. Her answer to that question was: Firstly, governments assist all families with their expenditure on children's needs, in recognition of the increased costs which they must meet. Secondly, governments provide additional assistance to low income families whose circumstances make it very hard for them to be in the workforce or whose workforce earnings are low. When dealing with horizontal equity, which means a fair share for all families, the report says: This principal recognises that at any level of family income people with children incur greater costs and have greater needs than do people without children at the same level of income. She went on to say: All families have experienced a decline in their disposable incomes relative to individuals and couples without children. She also said: As noted previously, income-testing or taxing family allowance payments would involve redistribution of resources between families. This would not address the problem of maintaining the disposable incomes of all families with children as a form of tax equity. In conclusion she said: In summary, when formulating future directions for reform of family income support programs in Australia we need to address the fundamental objective of redistributing income to all families with children so as to improve and maintain their position in the tax/transfer systems. As a community we need to reassess the value which we place on children and focus again on the concept of the shared parental/community obligation to recognise the increased costs which parents bear. She stressed that the family allowance must not be means tested. But what happened? The Government means tested it. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator WALTERS —Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was pointing out that this Government has a very poor record in its priorities when it says that it is concerned with the family. I pointed out that the Government has introduced divorce by post, lowered the hearing of the divorce proceedings from the Family Court by allowing magistrates to deal with divorce cases and removed the family allowances for 16-year-olds and upwards and means tested it, even though it commissioned a report by Bettina Cass who recommended that the family allowance should not be means tested. With a great flourish the Government pretends that families are its priority. Following the statement of the Prime Minister that by 1990 there would not be a child in poverty the Government introduced the family assistance package. We all remember it well. Mr Hawke, in his election speech, told the Australian people cynically that there would not be a child in poverty by 1990. The family assistance package created dreadful anomalies, dreadful poverty traps. I quote from my last speech on this subject. I said: We have a new poverty trap. Let us take the case of a single income family with two children where the wage earner, the father, earns $330 a week and, with a little overtime-say 7 1/2 hours-earns an extra $90, which brings him up to $420 a week. By working an extra 7 1/2 hours a week, what will he get? . . . if he is in private rental accommodation he will get the princely sum of $8.59. That is what he gets from the family assistance package. I pointed out then that this Government has done nothing to give incentive to families, nothing to allow that father to work a little overtime even though he is on a low income. That is one of the cynical approaches the Government has taken when it says it believes that families have a high priority. What is in the latest Bill the Government has brought before us? As I said, this Bill sets up a collection agency which will be called the Child Support Agency. It establishes the Child Support Register, which is a record of the detail of maintenance liabilities. The registrar in charge of these records will be the Commissioner of Taxation. The Child Support Agency will be administered within the Australian Taxation Office. The Minister's second reading speech states: . . . all child maintenance liabilities that are payable on a periodic basis under a court order or a registered maintenance agreement are registrable on the Child Support Register. This will not be retrospective. It will apply only to those who have separated after the Bill's introduction and only to those supporting parents who are in receipt of a pension, allowance or benefit. It applies to another category of people but they-I will come to this later-will be able to get some sort of opting out system. A matter that worries me-I will refer to this more in the committee stage-is the proposal concerning a person receiving maintenance. The opting out situation can apply. The majority of cases by far will involve an automatic deduction from salaries and wages. The Government says, and the Australian Democrats certainly agreed, that it rejects the suggestion that automatic withholding be imposed only when default in payment occurs. The Government maintains that a stigma is attached to automatic withholding if it is imposed only when people default and that this would detract from the success of the scheme. I do not believe that it is proper to stop an arrangement that has been successfully orchestrated between a former husband and wife, if the father regularly visits his children, takes pleasure in payment for their maintenance and likes to have the children understand that he is still supporting them. He should be allowed to undertake this. But this Government will not allow that to occur, except in very special circumstances. I will explain what those special circumstances are. New section 23 (3) of the Bill states: . . . the payee- that is usually the father- is not required to furnish the form to the Registrar if the payee, within that period of 14 days, elects, by furnishing a duly completed approved form to the Registrar, not to have the registrable maintenance liable enforced under this Act. That is, the payee cannot do that if he is in receipt of an income tested pension, allowance or benefit. So only if the person receiving the pension is not in receipt of an income tested pension, allowance or benefit is a special dispensation allowed for the payee to be able to opt out of the system. If, as the Government says, a stigma is attached to automatic withholding why is it allowing this special opting out clause? I do not understand what the Government is talking about. If it is good enough for someone whose ex-wife is not on the income tested pension, why is not good enough for someone whose ex-wife is? To me it is a lot of rubbish. The Government is taking away from the father the opportunity of visiting his child regularly and being able to stress that he is still vitally interested in the child's maintenance and is clearly maintaining the child under the separated circumstances. The Bill contains very strict secrecy clauses which are supposed to entail both Commonwealth officers and employers. I would be very interested to know how the Government intends every employer, who has an employee paying maintenance, in casual conversation not to say to some friend, `So and so is separated from his wife and is paying her x number of dollars'. This is an infringement of people's privacy. I believe that unless there is default people should be able to arrange their circumstances as they choose. The self-employed will be required to pay maintenance directly to the Agency. If they fail to do so there will be a penalty. This Bill has been extended to spousal maintenance where orders or agreements have been lodged for collection with a State collection agency. This is necessary as the new Child Support Agency takes over from the State collection agencies. In clause 67 of the Bill penalties are referred to. This Bill will make a considerable burden for the employer. It will require more paperwork. It will certainly cost the businessman a certain amount because he will have to take out maintenance payments from the wages of his employees and pay them over to the Registrar. The Bill says that there will be a fine of $20 if such payments are not paid by a certain date. It is extremely difficult for every employer in the country, particularly the thousands and thousands of small businessmen, to become aware quickly of legislation that passes this Parliament. I would be interested if the Minister later could explain to me how he will be able to overcome this problem and make sure that all employers are aware of their liability. I am not sure how the Government intends to cope with the problem of fining employers $20 if they do not come up with the payment to the Registrar in time. It is a draconian provision. As I said, this Bill is a farce as the Government is saying that it is really concerned about child-care. It has been accused of putting forward the Bill as a money making exercise only. If the Government's priorities were different I would not make such an accusation, but the Government has an extremely bad history with its priorities for families. I believe the $192.8m to be made by the Government by 1989-90 is a great incentive for the Government to introduce this legislation. I agree that a collection agency is absolutely essential, as was the first step that was undertaken a couple of months ago. However, this legislation is far too late. This Government should have taken both those steps in 1983 when the Opposition first brought them to the Government's attention. The Government is well behind the eight ball. It has now allowed an extra 200,000 children to move into poverty during its term of office. According to the Minister's own figures it has allowed 400,000 children of sole parents to remain in poverty since 1983 without the benefit of this legislation. I believe it is disgraceful for the Government to treat the people of Australia in this way. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(8.14) —The Senate tonight is debating the Child Support Bill of 1987, a Bill for an Act to make provision for the collection of certain periodic maintenance payments and for related purposes. The principal objects of the Bill are that children receive from their parents the financial support that parents are liable to provide and that periodic amounts payable by non-custodial parents towards the maintenance of their children are paid on a regular and timely basis. Further, it is the intention of the Parliament that this Bill shall be construed and administered to the greatest extent consistent with the attainment of its objects to limit interferences with the privacy of persons. I have quoted that set of objectives for two reasons: firstly, to put the debate into its context, and also to give some indication of what an extremely lucid and well-written Bill we have before us. It is one of the easiest Bills to read that I have ever been given. I find it all very straightforward and I also find that there is no excuse for those people in the Opposition who insist on misconstruing what is in the Bill and the intentions of the Government in relation to this Bill and its other initiatives, particularly as regards those families on low incomes with dependent children. It is very easy for Senator Walters, for example, to roll out her familiar barrow of dependent spouse rebate, completely ignoring that this is not of any real, direct assistance to those families on low incomes with children and ignoring what we have been able to do as part of a well-constructed plan of direct assistance carefully targeting those families on the lowest incomes. The Federal Government will be paying the family allowance supplement to around 100,000 families by early March. This is a half-way mark of the estimated population in the relevant income range. The Department of Social Security has approved 80,000 applications and 22,000 claims are waiting to be processed. The average payment to low income working families is in the range of $40 to $60 a week, a very substantial contribution to the disposable incomes of low income families. The typical recipient is aged 25 to 35 with a very young family. There are now more than 200,000 children in working families on the family allowance supplement. I repeat: these families are now receiving on average between $40 and $60 per week in non-taxable payments as a supplement to the family allowance. Our other initiatives include working through the notorious poverty traps that have blighted our system for years and our child support scheme, which itself is one of a series of measures to ensure that families with dependent children which are in distress currently, as has been pointed out time and time again, because of their low incomes have that distress alleviated by whatever measures we can implement. There has been a great deal of emphasis during this debate both here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on the length of time it has taken to produce this legislation. Also, some rather misleading statements have been made about a private member's Bill introduced by Senator Durack on two occasions, I believe. Just to set the record straight, I point out that this is not a modern problem; in fact Australia's history is rich in accounts of non-custodial parents avoiding their family responsibilities. In view of the fact that this has been the state of affairs for a great many years-decades, even generations-it is hardly surprising that it has taken us several years to get the system that we want into place, to get the procedures sorted out and all the very many complexities thought through carefully to the point where we feel now able to introduce this legislation and to see the system working within the next few months. I would like to refer to a paper given by Dr Meredith Edwards to the National Law Council Conference in 1986. Dr Meredith Edwards, I might add, is probably the Australian expert on the subject that is under discussion tonight, the collection of maintenance and the payment to custodial parents. To paraphrase a little the introduction to this paper on the Family Law Council proposal, Dr Edwards says that the issue of maintenance reform was given particular attention by the Family Law Council following the release of the report on a maintenance agency for Australia produced in 1984 by the Attorney-General's Department. That report came out of the joint parliamentary review of the Family Law Act. Dr Edwards said that at that time, while the Family Law Council generally endorsed the concept of a maintenance collection agency, it did have some reservations about the narrow terms of reference on which that report was based. As it transpired, the very thorough and comprehensive report by the Attorney-General's Department was not acted upon-for a number of very good reasons, I might add. Meanwhile, it was known to the Family Law Council that the Commonwealth Government was still considering the issue and had before it many options, including a scheme similar to the New Zealand liable parent contributions scheme. The adoption of a maintenance scheme similar to that operating in New Zealand was, according to the Family Law Council, too narrow a solution and fraught with dangers, particularly the possibility that all maintenance collected would go directly into government revenue. On the basis of the work of the sub-committee that was set up by the Family Law Council, a specific reform proposal was submitted to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in December 1985. Work was being done behind the scenes on this extremely complicated problem at about the same time as the Government announced that it would set up a sub-committee of Ministers to examine maintenance issues and options. As has been pointed out earlier in this debate, in the last session we dealt with the necessary amendments to the Family Law Act. I remind honourable senators that those amendments picked up the points that were made in Senator Durack's private member's Bill of 1983 and of, I think, 1985. Those points worked very well as far as they went, but they provided for no structure whatsoever. The only way of dealing with recalcitrant non-custodial parents was to gaol them. As I said it was a good start at approaching the problem in a legislative sense but it was only a start and we have built upon what was done on that occasion. The problem of non-custodial parents avoiding their contributions to their children's upkeep and support is not a new problem. Of course, in earlier times sole parents had very few choices available to them. In many cases, if they did not have a supportive family or friends they were forced to part with their children. The Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare was able to work through some of the history of this particular problem in our 1985 report, Children in Institutional and Other Forms of Care. Of course, the solution until very recently was that children went into institutions. In this report it was observed that the institutional care population has decreased markedly since the peak was reached in 1968. In 1968 the number of children in institutional care totalled nearly 28,000 and comprised 0.72 per cent of all Australian children. This compares with 0.15 per cent of children in institutional care in 1984. That is a very marked change. During the last decade or so the number of children in this type of care has fallen by 65 per cent. The decrease is most marked during the early 1970s, when the Commonwealth Government introduced the supporting mother's benefit and took other initiatives in the child care field. There was a similar reduction in the number of children under guardianship in foster care. The reduction between 1972 and 1982 was about 30 per cent-from 8,500 to just on 6,000. I recently read a book that I can highly recommend to anybody with an interest in social change. It is My Place by Sally Morgan and it is still on the best seller lists after months. Sally recounts how her mother grew up in-not to put too fine a point on it-an orphanage in Western Australia. It was not a bad orphanage by the standards of the time. It was a pretty run-of-the-mill one, I would have thought, but the mother of that tiny child had to leave her at the orphanage and was able to see her, when she was lucky, one day a week. The people for whom she worked-a wealthy Western Australian family-were pleased to employ the mother but they were not prepared to tolerate the child in the house. That was the state of affairs facing very many supporting parents, the majority of whom were women, in those days. When one considers for how long non-custodial parents have been avoiding their responsibilities, it is surely not too remarkable that it has taken three or four years for us to produce what we believe will be a very effective and workable scheme that will, one hopes, resolve the problems in Australia. To finish that point, honourable senators may be interested to know that when the responsible Minister-the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe-was in the United States of America recently consulting with authorities who have been working on similar schemes, they expressed their surprise and their congratulations that he had been able, in such a short period, to work up the scheme and to see that it could operate in time. I understand that in Wisconsin he was told that efforts had been made for 10 years to introduce such a scheme. This is a major social initiative. We are setting up new structures and a completely new approach. There are bound to be people in the community who do not like it, but I am afraid they have been given their chance. This is what we feel should be done. Even worse than poverty for many custodial parents has been the dreadful uncertainty of their incomes, and the feeling they have developed-and it is not surprising-that it is better to be in receipt of a pension or benefit because that equals security. They simply have not had the security of knowing that the non-custodial parent was going to pay the maintenance when and if he or she-mostly he-felt like it. The question that was raised in relation to the second reading motion amendment that has been put before us-Senator Walters mentioned it-is one that we find a little puzzling because the amendment actually refers to people who have come to an agreement. Those who are to be covered under the child maintenance legislation are those who, as Senator Walters correctly said earlier in the debate, are receiving some sort of pension or benefit, those who have been having their maintenance collected by existing State authorities, and those who have court orders from the date that the legislation is enacted. It does not apply to people who have come to an arrangement. The amendment mentions maintenance arrangements. Where there are consent arrangements the child support scheme does not really want to know about it. At the point where it is felt by the custodial parent that there is no doubt that the payments will be made and there is every confidence that they will turn up on time, that custodial parent can then apply to the Child Support Registrar to have any order suspended. There is also provision in the Bill for a review of that in case that happy state of affairs does not continue. I am not particularly impressed by the plea that is made about employers and how difficult it is going to be for them, how this might transgress people's privacy and how it will be a great burden for everybody involved. Employers are accustomed to dealing with garnishee orders. In addition, the majority of employers are well organised and arrange for deductions from wages for a number of different reasons. They deduct union dues, insurance and health insurance payments. They deduct amounts for social clubs and all sorts of things. One would have thought that for a cause such as this they would be delighted in many cases actually to take part in what I have described as a major social initiative. I think many workers will actually welcome having this money deducted from their wages. Those who are sincere, those with decent intentions, will be quite grateful to have the money handled in this way. Let us face it, a debt which is the subject of a court order-and this is the same with any other debt-has no less status surely because it is of a domestic nature. It is a little like the argument that violence that occurs within the home is somehow different or of a lesser order or of less concern to society than violence that occurs on the street. Surely a debt which occurs between people who are closely associated, and certainly a debt which is going towards the payment of maintenance for children of a marriage, should be of no less status than any other debt that is handled in that manner. Regardless of where it occurs, this system will deal with debts in that very effective fashion. I am tempted to tell the House one of my favourite maintenance stories, and I will. Mr Justice Fogarty, who is chairing the Child Support Consultative Group which is studying the next stage for this particular structure, has a reputation for giving very innovative decisions. The one I like best is the one that related to a non-custodial parent who was pleading before His Honour that he had no extra resources and that his only sport, his only recreation, was parachuting. His Honour was moved to say, `That is all right, you can go on parachuting; we will have your parachutes.'. The Taxation Office is going to be the obvious and most efficient venue for the setting up of our office. The Child Support Registrar will be the Commissioner of Taxation, and the national child registry, the Child Support Agency, will be within the Tax Office. It is in by far the best position to trace defaulters. It would be in a much better position if it had a universal file tax number, and perhaps we will have that one day. The national register that we are planning for births, deaths and marriages would also be a great deal of assistance to this process. In any case, we will have a national registry which will take much of the confusion, the expense and the distress out of the proceedings regarding custodial and non-custodial parents who are living in different States, who receive orders from different States and who at the time may have a great deal of difficulty in sorting out the orders or even finding out where their orders have been made. Senator Walters mentioned that we would be dealing with spousal maintenance as well as child maintenance. This may surprise some people in view of the fact that very much part of the philosophy behind the Family Law Act was that spousal maintenance would be a rare occurrence, for a number of reasons, many of which go to the question of the spouse who does not have much in the way of resources being encouraged to develop skills and talents and to become independent. The Act, however, does recognise that the spouse who is over 45 years of age and on a pension or benefit, or is currently receiving spousal maintenance, can be included in our scheme. As I said, this is rare but I understand there has been some increase in the last two years in the cases where spousal maintenance is being approved by the court, particularly where the spouse is over 50 and has had a long period of being out of work and does not have any immediately marketable skills. I understand that spousal maintenance is being awarded to younger women for periods of perhaps three or four years to allow them to retrain and to become independent and support their families. We are no doubt going to have some problems. The proportion of non-custodial parents who cannot pay maintenance by reason of their unemployment, sickness or any other incapacity is assessed at about 18 per cent. It may also be likely that a fairly high proportion may not be located easily. I understand that if one goes to northern mining towns with a camera one is not particularly popular in bars late in the evening. A journalist friend of mine who produced a camera was suddenly faced with a completely empty bar, so that might be a fertile field for some solid investigation. One-third of the pensioner beneficiaries who are on a supporting parent's benefit or pension are on it for less than 12 months, and two-thirds of that cohort are on a pension or benefit for less than three years. So we can see that we will be dealing with a shifting population. Another problem is that quite a substantial number of those custodial parents are assumed not to have court orders, but we will be doing whatever we can to help them to get those orders. Eighty-four per cent of these pensioners or beneficiaries are on full pensions or benefits, which gives an indication of the very limited access that the majority of them have to any income outside their social security pensions and benefits. Some reference was made earlier this evening to the enormous disparity of post-separation incomes. If there is no objection, I would like to incorporate in Hansard a table from the Institute of Family Studies headed `Economic Consequences of Marriage Breakdown'. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 1 COMPARISONS OF HOUSEHOLD INCOMES (a) FOR THE PRE-SEPARATION PERIOD AND THE TIME OF INTERVIEW, BY FAMILY TYPE AT INTERVIEW AND SEX OF RESPONDENT Family type in 1984 Men alone couple, no children couple with children sole parent Women alone couple, no children couple with children sole parent Indicator: Median excess/deficit over pre-separation level in dollars per week ... +$72 +$153 -$6 +$69 -$84 +$36 -$6 -$86 Percent better off in 1984 ... 75 75 47 69 29 (b) 48 22 Percent worse off in 1984 ... 25 25 53 31 71 (b) 52 78 Percent below poverty line ... 6 2 12 12 41 (b) 8 35 Percent 0-20% above poverty line ... 7 3 13 3 15 (b) 16 19 Percentage in various family types in 1984 ... 33 20 30 10 8 (c) 5 28 55 + 7 per cent `with others' + 4 per cent `with others' Note: (a) Both pre-separation and 1984 incomes are adjusted using equivalence scales from the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty (1975). Pre-separation income is adjusted to 1984 values. Incomes are net after the payment of tax and the payment or receipt of maintenance by survey respondent; (b) Not reliable due to small numbers; (c) These are all older women. Senator GILES —Maintenance paid by non-custodial parents on average is 13 per cent of their take home pay, and the higher the income of the non-custodial parent, the lower the proportion. Three-quarters of female sole parents are worse off by a median amount of $78 a week, while three-quarters of men are better off by a similar amount. Rather than going any further into that, I will rely on the table to speak for itself. In 80 per cent of the cases the mother has responsibility for the children. However, as has been mentioned here this evening, there are now more cases in which custody is being awarded to the father. One of the criticisms of this Bill is that we are not including at this stage a guaranteed payment which would assist those women, principally those custodial parents, who for some reason or other-low income would be one of the main reasons and failure to locate the non-custodial parent could possibly be more common than that-will not be helped by this Bill. I am amongst the people on this side of the House who have a very strong commitment to seeing some sort of guaranteed payment introduced within a reasonably short time. I think that any- body with a commitment to any sort of social justice, equity and access-all those things-must see that as one of the next steps that we must take. As Senator Powell said in her very perceptive contribution to this debate, breaking the cycle of poverty is the crucial thing to do. We must provide training opportunities and the moral and material support that is required to enable supporting mothers particularly to acquire the skills and confidence to enter the work force, and to get out of the cycle of poverty and make it possible for their children to grow up other than in that environment and amongst that expectation of poverty. Maybe not all the problems have been sorted out but we have spent a lot of time and a lot of energy working through what we saw as the difficulties of this exercise. I am pleased to have been part of that process, as I know many of my colleagues are. I believe the congratulations of the Senate should go to Minister Howe for his commitment to this legislation, and our congratulations go also to those senior people on his staff and in his Department who have spent a lot of their lives over the last two or three years working very hard on this scheme. I believe that this social advance is long overdue. I am delighted that we are now in a position, as the Opposition might never have been, to make the difficult decisions and to include this particular Bill amongst our legislative initiatives. We hear now mourning noises from those people who will now have to pay, who can no longer choose whether or not to support the children of their associations. Surely over the years those people have been given every opportunity in the world to demonstrate whether or not they were going to be responsible. Time and time again in this debate we have heard that 70 per cent of non-custodial parents default in their maintenance payments. I do not see how we could anticipate in the future some amazing change in Australian nature that would mean that any less than those 70 per cent would pay maintenance without being compelled to do so. This Bill will break through the barrier that has kept so many women and children in poverty for far too long. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(8.42) —I wish to speak briefly on the Child Support Bill and to support the amendment moved by the Opposition. This Bill establishes a new system of maintenance collection by enabling the collection of maintenance orders set by the courts via tax mechanisms and by setting up a Child Support Agency. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has stated that more than half the child maintenance orders set by the courts are not complied with, and in most parts of Australia there is no effective collection system and separated parents just do not pay. It has been said that many custodial parents do not bother to obtain an order in the first place because orders are often impossible to enforce. Also, going to court is a very costly business. Just about every time anyone goes to court it costs $1,000 or something like that. The result of all this is that more than 70 per cent of parents no longer living with their children do not pay regular child support. In 1982-83, when the present Opposition was in government, Senator Durack was working to bring in legislation to ensure the payment of maintenance. When Labor came to power it decided not to proceed with it at that time. Finally this legislation has been brought in. It has certainly been a long, drawn out process. The Opposition's amendment is an important one, as it aims to ensure the protection of the rights of non-custodial parents who have entered into maintenance arrangements to share in the cost of supporting their children at no extra cost to the Commonwealth by not requiring these agreements to be registered with the Child Support Agency except in the event of maintenance arrangements not being honoured. Certainly parents, whether married or unmarried, have obligations in terms of their children. The reality is that it is the duty of parents to provide support for their children. There is no way on moral or economic grounds that parents should be able to walk away from their responsibilities and leave it to the Australian taxpayer. However, we have to realise that 30 per cent of non-custodial parents do pay regular maintenance although, as I said before, it is regrettable that 70 per cent do not. These people who pay should be trusted to adhere to their responsibilities without the compulsion of legislation such as we are debating this evening. It is important when parents do the right thing by themselves, their children and the taxpayer that they not have a bureaucrat interfering in their private affairs, that they not be required to have their employer know all about their private affairs and that they have a right to come to a private arrangement. I believe that is what the Opposition's amendment is all about. It is recognised that there is a need to ensure that people make maintenance payments. If the payments are not made, if one former partner does not agree to a private arrangement or if there is a claim on the social security system, the agency certainly should be involved. But if there are none of those things, if the partners agree, if the maintenance is being paid and if there is no claim on the social security system, why should the Government's bureaucracy get involved in their private affairs? It is regrettable that there is so much child poverty and marriage breakdown in our community. We should all be concerned about that. I think we would all accept that there is a role for government in trying to prevent the failure of a marriage having harmful consequences by protecting both children and spouses from destitution-and, indeed, in facilitating easy separation in hopeless cases. The perverse outcome of our system is that the fragmented family instantly receives far more in government support than the family which stays together. To take an average example, a family with two children receives about $12.75 a week in family allowance. If that family breaks up, the supporting parent will receive at least $158.15 a week. I sometimes do wonder whether the Government is doing enough for premarriage counselling which perhaps could help provide a solution to marriage breakdowns. Regrettably this Government has drastically reduced the funding available for premarriage counselling. As a matter of fact, a mere $5m or so a year is allocated to supporting Australia's extremely effective counselling and marriage guidance organisation. It is important that the non-custodial parent make maintenance payments. If a child is brought into the world it is the parents' responsibility to make sure it is looked after, whether the parents are married or unmarried. We must remember that children are a community resource and are entitled to community support, both financial and otherwise, to ensure their optimal development. Children do have a right to expect support of all kinds from both parents. The Government's pre-eminent responsibility should be to assist parents to provide adequate support for their children, thereby minimising the need for substitute care for children which is undertaken at financial cost to the community and at social cost to the child and the community. The sad part of this whole subject is that the figures tell us that there are 800,000 children in poverty, and 400,000 of those are the responsibility of single parents. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has told us more than once-we hear it often-that by 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty. Senator McKiernan —Hear, hear! Do you support that? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I certainly believe that to be a very worthwhile objective, but we are not seeing too much happening about it at the present time. I just want to tell Senator McKiernan that the Government has said that, under the family assistance package, a married couple with two small children and on a single income of $330 a week is eligible to receive a family allowance supplement and rental assistance if they live in privately rented accommodation. But what the Government does is take $40.39 per week from them in tax and give them back a family allowance supplement of $35 a week, plus rental assistance. Should the wage earner work 7 1/2 hours overtime and earn an extra $90 a week, the family will be only $8.59 per week better off after the loss of the family allowance supplement and reduction in rental assistance. Who would want to work an extra 7 1/2 hours for $8.59 per week? People would rather sit back and be assured of the government handout. Those are some of the problems that confront the Government in trying to do away with poverty. We all need to think about that. We know that many of the 400,000 children who are suffering a degree of poverty are suffering purely and simply because their parents decided not to stay married or decided not to bother getting married at all and then parted company. Last year there was in one of the papers an article which said that Minister Howe was saying that girls having babies to claim benefits was a myth; but the article pointed out that Australia has 7,400 teenage single parents. That is a cause for concern. There are 6,300 unmarried teenagers and 1,100 separated de facto teenagers receiving the supporting parent's benefit. The article refers to a study which says: . . . while failing to find any clear evidence that teenagers decided to get pregnant to receive the benefit availability of the benefit might help teenagers decide to keep their babies rather than have them adopted. If motherhood is the most appealing option to some teenage girls, then a broader range of educational and employment programs may be needed for them . . . That is the conclusion of the study. We all know of cases where marriages have broken up. Each partner thinks that he or she is the right. The courts have to look very closely at, and above all must decide, who is best able to support the children, because the children should be the ones we are worried about in this Bill. The reality is that these days many pressures are put on people in receipt of lower incomes because they do not have enough money. We must try to make sure that no further poverty is imposed. Most importantly, we have to do all that we can, as legislators, to make sure that the traditional marriage structure is held together, which, of course, is really the best solution. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(8.54) —I support the Child Support Bill which is before us tonight. It is one part of three significant pieces of legislation, the others being the Family Law Amendment Act and the soon to be introduced Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Bill. Together with this piece of legislation they form a package dealing with changes in maintenance payments. As any reading of the House of Representatives debate would show, we are hearing in the Senate a debate in which both sides are in considerable, if not complete, agreement, apart from one very curious amendment that seems to miss the substance of the legislation. I do not quite understand how that amendment has come in. By way of justifying a slight difference in emphasis or position, Opposition senators have spoken somewhat to the amendment and somewhat to the nature of marriage, the state of parenting, insufficient marriage education and so on, which perhaps are all related to, but certainly slightly wide of, the substance of this legislation. I think it was Senator Bjelke-Petersen who said in her speech that maintenance legislation had been introduced by Senator Durack, both as a member of a government and, since, as a member of the Opposition. She seemed to suggest that it was a bit curious that the Government did not support those proposals but went ahead with its own. Any examination of what the Government is doing would explain why. The Government's legislation tonight, as I said earlier, is part of a package of three pieces of legislation that clearly indicate the comprehensiveness of the proposals in this area by the Government. There was no way that a simple change of maintenance payments under the Family Court system would address the question with anything like the same sufficiency as the Government legislation has done. It is important to appreciate that this legislation is part of those three pieces of legislation which make a very different and much more comprehensive attack on child poverty as a consequence of insufficient maintenance payments. It is important to recognise that this piece of legislation is one part of the continuing Government program on behalf of the people of Australia, particularly those in poverty. It is very much in line with the Government's ambition to see no children in this country in poverty by 1990. It, first of all, recognises that there are children in poverty, and that it certainly has done. Secondly, it has also been able to target where most of that poverty occurs. The largest part of child poverty occurs where there are sole-parent families and, in particular, sole-parent families dependent entirely on welfare payments and denied their just maintenance contribution from a non-custodial parent. The figures are clear. They have been cited by any number of people. Over half the 800,000 Australian children living in poverty are in sole-parent families. There are now more than 250,000 sole-parent families, with 450,000 children, who are forced to rely on pensions or benefits from the social security system. In other words, the social security system by itself is not sufficient to address comprehensively the alleviation of poverty in those families. While it clearly guarantees that no child starves and that children have roofs over their heads, it does not in any way alleviate the poverty consequent on the failure of the non-custodial parent to make a right and proper contribution for the children. As I was saying earlier, this program recognises that poverty occurs and that we should address that poverty. This legislation is part of a number of programs of the Government to try to address that. Senator Knowles has asked how we are planning to do it. I am happy to answer. One of the great achievements of this Government that somehow seems to be easily ignored or overlooked is the creation of one million jobs since coming to office in 1983. (Quorum formed) I was saying that this child support legislation is part of the Government's program to attack the question of poverty in this country. One of its achievements in addressing that problem has been the creation of one million jobs through the creation of an economic climate in which that could be fostered and achieved. Those jobs mean that an income coming into the family is the very best way to address the question of poverty. We have seen other legislation-whether it is the equal employment legislation, the affirmative action legislation or our child care legislation, which is not so much legislation, but programs-which contributes to the opportunity for women to take their place in the work force and to be able to participate in education and training. It is a clear understanding and recognition that the best way out of poverty is having a regular income from employment. I do not quite understand why Opposition senators would feel aggrieved enough on my mentioning those points to feel that they should interrupt this debate. The other comments that I have heard argued against some of the other achievements of Government-for instance, the comments made by Senator Bjelke-Petersen that somehow the family allowance supplement is not really of benefit to families in poverty-I think are very curious. Those families in poverty on that low income were paying their tax before the family allowance supplement. They now receive the family allowance supplement as a tax free addition to that income. Judging from the number of families around Australia who have learned of that program that is to their benefit and have taken it up to this point, I would have thought that they would be very appreciative of any dollar contribution to their family income and to the benefits that that will provide for their children. I find it quite curious that the Opposition would argue that this Government is not concerned to alleviate poverty and that it is not concerned for the welfare of the very people we claim to represent and whom, in fact, we clearly do represent. The other point that needs to be mentioned here is that apart from the questions of social justice-I believe that they are undeniable-that is, of having poverty alleviated, there is also the hard economic good sense it makes to take people out of poverty. Poverty is very expensive for any country. We cannot argue any longer that keeping people in poverty is an economic gain for the country. It is an economic outlay; it is a drain. It is precisely for hard, economic reasons, let alone the questions of social justice, that this Government is very concerned to see the alleviation of poverty and, in particular, the alleviation of poverty for children. Our children are-here I do agree with Senator Bjelke-Petersen-our richest asset. If those children grow up in poverty, unaware of ideas, educational opportunities, books and the possible things that they can try to achieve and are denied opportunities of education and training, they will be the poorer. They will be the poorer as adults and they will, therefore, clearly be a contribution to a poorer society. It is precisely because poverty is a drain that the Government is very concerned to address that question of the alleviation of child poverty. The welfare of our children adds very much to the richness, recovery and economic well-being of our future. Lest I forget later on in this speech, I would like to take the opportunity now to congratulate those people who have been involved in the comprehensive preparation of this legislation and the three pieces of legislation going, as I said earlier, to a package to address the question of maintenance in a comprehensive way. I think the whole social security review, headed by Dr Bettina Cass, the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, and in particular the people on his staff who have been so involved in all of this, needs to be commended. It has been a very long and tough task to arrive at the proposals outlined in this legislation which I think do address the question so comprehensively, as I said before. They go to the changes under family law that mean that in the future no decision about maintenance can call into account the likelihood of a pension or social security payments. Maintenance must be set disregarding social security benefits. That is a very critical change. I think that the courts will welcome the clear outlining of that as a requirement of the courts in addressing the question of maintenance. Under this legislation we have the establishment under the Australian Taxation Office of the Child Support Agency. Attached to that are the benefits that go to the privacy of tax matters that will continue to be provided in all the matters pertaining to the child support agency. As well, there are clauses in the legislation that go to guaranteeing that privacy requirement be extended to employers, particularly those who are involved in providing maintenance payments in employee's wages or salaries. It is very clear that people should not fear an invasion of their privacy under this legislation. They will be assisted to address their rights of maintenance payments properly under this legislation, but they can be assured of the strict privacy guarantees. Why go this way? It seems to me to be fairly obvious. I do not understand the comments made by Senator Bjelke-Petersen that people ought not be required to pay maintenance. If they seem to be people of goodwill and they want to enter into an agreement between themselves and prefer to stay that way and not be required to participate under this legislation and if we were starting out on this path it might be a reasonable way of proceeding. But what we do have to face is the hard evidence that over the last 10 to 20 years or so, more than 70 per cent of non-custodial parents do not pay regular maintenance. It has been tested and it has been found wanting. People, even under an injunction from the court, have not been keeping up their maintenance payments. Clearly, the legislation acknowledges a piece of history; that is, that more than 70 per cent of non-custodial parents despite court orders, have failed in their maintenance payments. I do not believe, in the face of that evidence, that we can continue to be cavalier or to disregard the requirement of that maintenance to be paid. It is not a punitive piece of legislation, it is not a piece of legislation that says that people shall be punished; it is a piece of legislation that goes to what I would have thought was one of the Opposition's considerable claims-that is, the importance and rights of families to have a responsibility for their children. In many other debates Opposition members object to the Government's legislation on the grounds that we somehow seem to be denying parents the rights to and responsibilities for their children. We do not in any legislation; we certainly do not here. But what we have to admit is that many non-custodial parents in times past have not maintained their contribution. They have defaulted on their contribution to their children. We strongly endorse in this legislation the rights of parents to the primary responsibility for and care of their children. The Government is not subsuming the rights to care for children; it is prepared to say that it wants to endorse that primacy, that responsibility of parents to care for their children. It is and it always will be a backup support. In this legislation the Government is guaranteeing the importance of that concern-the primacy of parents to have not only regard for but also responsibility for their children. The other important emphasis in this legislation is that it has separated the importance of maintenance payment away from custody and access. They are separate questions. Maintenance cannot be seen as a payment by which one buys access of custody to children. In separating it in that way, much of the heat and unhappiness consequent on marriage break-up and separation from children will be removed from the debate. That is a separate debate. It can be undertaken in other places. But the rights of children to the maintenance payments from their non-custodial parents are approved and supported in this legislation as part of a principal concern of government that parents have that primary concern and responsibility for their children. That is why I am sure that in many of the speeches from the Opposition there is no dispute with the heart of this legislation. Certainly, as I said earlier, any reading of the House of Representatives debate on this legislation, from both sides, will show that there seems to be some dispute about how we agree-a curious notion-but I believe that it goes to the understanding that nobody in the Opposition is seriously about opposing this legislation. And neither should they be, because this is a thoughtful piece of legislation. It has addressed very comprehensively how people shall come on to the Child Support Register and how the essential decisions will still be made by family courts. The Family Court amendment has made clear which children will be under the jurisdiction of that Court. Some of those children who were previously not able to be dealt with in the Family Court now will be, and as well the other changes will expedite non-contested cases which can be dealt with more speedily in a magistrate's court. All of those things contribute very much to settling the problem quickly consequent on a marriage break-up and allow for the Family Court to make proper orders in this way but with some clearer guidelines about to whom those orders shall apply and how they shall be made. I am sure that the Family Court will welcome the clarification that, for example, it cannot, as I said earlier, take social security payments in to account when making decisions about maintenance. It also will shortly be able to address better what is an appropriate amount of maintenance. Any evidence will show that the going rate of maintenance settlement in the Family Court is about $25 per week for the first child, or $40 per week for two children. Anybody who has the care of children and the responsibility for their upbringing, in this place let alone anywhere in Australia, will say that that is a very small amount of money with which to try to meet the cost of rearing a child. So the courts will, I think, be welcoming of the changes and the clarification on this matter. Under the proposals of this piece of legislation, the Commissioner of Taxation will assume the role of Child Support Registrar and families will be able to register with that Agency for the regular payment of maintenance. As I have said, it will take much of the heat out of the problems of maintenance payment in the past. It will also guarantee a more regular and reliable contribution to the family income of the custodial parent, and that is a matter of importance in itself. Maintenance can be paid sometimes erratically or intermittently, and that in itself is very disruptive for the ongoing decisions that the custodial parent has to take on behalf of the children of that family. The importance of a regular payment is probably equal to the importance of an appropriate amount of payment. Both of those things will be dealt with under the new provisions of this piece of legislation. I think that the clear spelling out-Senator Giles alluded to this-and the clarity of this piece of legislation, addressing these issues as it does, in a way that is very accessible to understanding, needs to be commented on. It is important for people to know precisely what is the emphasis and what are the proposals under this piece of legislation. Fortunately, as spelt out by Senator Giles, the Bill does that very well indeed, and consequent on the proposed changes the Government would expect to see some small savings, in the first year of about $7m and in a full year a proposed $190m or thereabouts. Those savings consequent on the adequate and proper collection of maintenance will also be then available for the Government to better target its other policies, in particular, the further targeting of those children who still need further assistance to contribute to the alleviation of their poverty. As I say, poverty cannot be understood only in terms of dollars. It also has to be understood in terms of children growing up in a family with adequate educational opportunities, training opportunities and so on. The savings under this legislation can be targeted to contribute in this way. One other point that I wanted to make earlier is that another point of change under this Government has been the considerable improvement and change in the education allowances under the heading of Austudy that have been so encouraging of children to stay at school to continue developing their education, taking up those fuller opportunities so as to better proceed to tertiary training of whatever sort they choose and, therefore, a much higher likelihood of employment. That is another very significant area in the alleviation of poverty, and it contributes very significantly; it matches and joins very nicely with the proposals under this legislation. The families who will be taken into the registry after this legislation is enacted include all of those who will be in receipt of a pension and all of those who choose to be registered with the Agency. But the legislation certainly allows that, where people come to an agreement and the custodial parent will not be in receipt of a pension, they do not have to register with the Agency-though the opportunity is there, down the line, if there is a default on maintenance payments for the Agency to pick up that collection if the agreement fails. There is the option for parents, on the occasion of separation, if the custodial parent will not be in receipt of a pension, not necessarily to register. That point needs to be made. I cannot understand why the Opposition's amendment is not covered by that. Despite hearing the debate put by the Opposition, I still do not understand exactly why it is moving the amendment and what exactly it goes to. Perhaps in the course of the debate still to come somebody on the Opposition side can make clearer to me what the Opposition is proposing under its amendment and why, despite the arguments from this side and the hard evidence of what we have done, it would condemn the Government for a rapid decline in the welfare of Australian children. It seems to be quite curious in the face of this piece of legislation, which deliberately and directly has the opposite effect. Just to make it clear, the new collection system will cover the child maintenance payments for parents who separate after the scheme is introduced, for parents who have not lived together when the child is born after the scheme is introduced, for parents receiving income tested pensions, benefits and allowances other than family allowances, regardless of their separation date, and parents using State maintenance collection agencies or whose maintenance orders or agreements are lodged with State agencies when the new Child Support Agency takes over the collection functions of those State agencies. I think that will pick up a considerable number of parents currently in receipt of maintenance or in receipt of insufficient maintenance. The Agency will pick up all of those and, of course, it will take on those other categories of people I have just spelt out. I mentioned earlier the importance of the legislation dealing with the rights to privacy. The legislation specifically addresses the individual's right to privacy. It also has clauses that address the right of individuals not to be discriminated against by, for example, an employer, because of their maintenance obligations. Most importantly of all, it makes sure that the health and safety of children of custodial parents will not be threatened as a result of the operation of the scheme. I have certainly heard some discussion from the Opposition that the requirement of employers to collect the maintenance payment will be, first, a problem and, secondly, a prospective invasion of privacy. Senator Giles, in her speech a little earlier, spelt out very clearly how employers are currently engaged in the collection of a number of contributions from their employees. This will be but one more. Employers will be very well aware of the privacy requirements under this legislation and the penalties provided for should those requirements be breached. I do not believe that employers will want to breach them, not so much because of the proposed penalties but I believe because they will support the privacy requirements of the legislation. Discussing the detail of the legislation could keep us here for quite some time. Senator Coates, who is sitting in front of me, and I are two of the senators on this side of the chamber who have been through many of the debates, discussions and negotiations about how this legislation would come out in its final form. We know how long that task has taken and the sorts of details that have been picked up in the Bill. We are well aware of its detail. I do not believe I should take up the time of the Senate in discussing that detail. I believe this is a significant piece of legislation. It will provide great benefits to those families who would expect not to receive maintenance payments, with the current climate being that maintenance payments are defaulted on by 70 per cent of parents. Parents who separate in the future will have the comfort of knowing that maintenance payments will be made regularly and that such payments will be provided for them under the arrangements set out in this legislation in a way that will free those parents of the worry of making such payments and of the problem of contesting such payments or having to go to court time and again because of continuing defaulting. That will be a thing of the past for all those parents eligible to come under the terms of this legislation. The legislation will also allow the custodial parent to plan on behalf of his or her children in a more satisfactory way, knowing what his or her regular income is likely to be and being able to take that into account. I think that will provide the custodial parent with considerable harmony. It will relieve that parent of the disease and unhappiness that goes with the chronic worry of where the money is coming from. In all sorts of ways it is a splendid piece of legislation. It is very much part of the Government's package designed to alleviate poverty for children. I find specious indeed the Opposition's objections to that claim by the Government. There is really no substance to its cynical rejection of that claim by the Government. The Government is on target. It is addressing poverty in this country in any number of ways. This legislation is very much part of that process. The Opposition's arguments are curious, particularly as the sentiment expressed by all of those who have spoken on this legislation is in support of the substance of the legislation. Though we can take note of the edges of the Opposition's arguments, they do not go to the substance of this legislation. I am very pleased to support it. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(9.23) —Today the Senate is debating the Child Support Bill 1987 which is complementary to the Family Law Amendment Bill 1987 which placed responsibility on parents to maintain their children as a priority at a level not lower than the needs of other children and above all other needs. It was interesting to listen to the remarks of Senator Crowley and a number of other government speakers this evening. However, I think Senator Crowley has topped them all in her total and unequivocal abuse of parliamentary privilege by the way in which she has misrepresented the Opposition's argument and the way in which she camouflaged the Government's inadequacies in this matter. It is a matter of public record that back in 1983-January 1983 to be precise-the then Minister for Social Security, Senator Chaney, foreshadowed the proposal to establish a collection agency. Senator Crowley has chosen to leave the chamber. This Government chose to ignore that proposal because it did not see the benefit of such legislation. My colleague Senator Durack foreshadowed amendments to the legislation in 1983 and moved those amendments when this Government took office. The Government, in cahoots with the Australian Democrats, defeated the amendments that Senator Durack moved to the Family Law Act. In 1985 Senator Durack, via the avenue of a private member's Bill, tried again to have maintenance payments set by the judges without due consideration, before that determination was made, of any social welfare payments that could be obtained by a supporting parent. Of course, once again the Government and the Australian Democrats saw fit not to support Senator Durack's Bill. Today we have before us what Senator Crowley has described as a thoughtful piece of legislation. I suppose `thoughtful' is about the right word to use; it has taken the Government four years to think of it, even though it was not the originator of the idea in the first instance. On behalf of my colleague Senator Bjelke-Petersen, I must state that what Senator Crowley said about Senator Bjelke-Petersen-that she considered that maintenance was not important to the children of a custodial parent-is absolutely and utterly wrong. That is not what Senator Bjelke-Petersen said. Senator Bjelke-Petersen is very much in favour of ensuring that people support their children. Throughout this debate we have heard an absolutely amazing set of words from Government speakers, that they do not understand the amendments moved by the Opposition. I suggest, with all due respect, that they first read it. They might then understand it. Paragraph (b) in particular of the Opposition's amendment seeks to condemn the fact that the welfare of Australian children has rapidly declined under the Hawke Labor Government. I shall give the Senate some facts to support that contention in a moment. I come back to the fact that the Family Law Amendment Bill 1987 was a very important piece of legislation, if belated. What it did was exclude any consideration of the availability of pensions and benefits before the level of maintenance was determined. That is exactly what the Opposition has been advocating for such a long time. Yet it took until the end of 1987 for this Government to wake up. The great tragedy of all this is that more than 800,000 children are living in poverty and half of those children are in single parent families. I believe it is almost sinful for this Government to say not once, not twice, but repeatedly that it will eradicate child poverty by 1990. Even Mick Young did not believe that. During the election campaign he said that that would be impossible to achieve. Tonight Senator Crowley repeated the disposable promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that he would eradicate child poverty by 1990. When asked by way of interjection to demonstrate how the Government would achieve that goal, Senator Crowley chose to ignore the interjection. She did so because she could not answer it, and she knows full well that because of the way in which the Government is proceeding there is no answer to it. This whole exercise becomes especially cynical when the Government says simultaneously that one key element in achieving the abolition of child poverty is the introduction of flexible and effective programs to assist the sole parents to get and keep jobs. Senator Crowley went on at length about this aspect tonight. But the Government needs to wake up to itself and the militant trade unions and create a more flexible working environment in which supporting parents can in fact look after their children and also work. If the Government will not get tough on the unions and allow employees and employers to come to suitable agreements, how can it possibly hope to deliver this wild dream that it keeps repeating? Not so long ago the employers and the employees at a clothing factory in Victoria decided they would start work half an hour early, take only half an hour instead of an hour for lunch and finish work an hour earlier in the afternoon. The employees in that factory were predominantly women. That arrangement enabled them to pick up their children from school and look after them. What happened? The unions, with their typical militant thuggery, threatened to close down the operation if the employees did not return to the original working hours. Where is the flexibility, about which this Government is talking, that is meant to get people back into the work force where they can earn a respectable living? Children deserve to be looked after by their parents under all circumstances. They should not be treated as an item to be thrown away when the fun wears off. A more realistic and just approach to the question of maintenance is essential, both to reduce the taxation demands on the intact families of Australia and to instil the basic moral principle that parents, to the best of their ability, have an overriding responsibility to their children, whom they must not be allowed to divorce. This Government must shoulder a fair slice of responsibility for the incidence of marriage breakdowns and, therefore, child poverty. This is where we come to paragraph (b) of our amendment which poor Senator Crowley could not read or understand. It appears that this Government's national priority is to make it easier financially for people to go to the Family Court to dissolve a marriage rather than encourage them to seek marriage guidance. The funding discrepancies between the two are nothing short of outrageous. I am most concerned about one element of the Child Support Bill 1987. Whilst the measures are all prospective in terms of putting people onto the Register for maintenance collection, why is there a need to breed a sense of injustice by not allowing those who abide by their obligations regularly and privately to continue to do so? I recognise that there is a massive problem with non-payment in many cases. That must be prevented. We must all work to prevent it. But why must we deem all to be guilty before trial? Thirty per cent of separated parents continue to care for their children. They should be given the option of continuing to do so without bureaucratic intervention. I return to the element of poverty eradication to which I referred earlier. This Government claims that it wants more flexible opportunities for sole parents to earn income. With so many people having to go on supporting parent's benefit, why will this Government not look at the realistic opportunities many people, largely women, have to go out and earn a living? At the moment we have dreadful statistics for the supporting parent's benefit. In 1982, under the previous Government, there were 124,000 recipients of supporting parents' benefits, with 216,000 dependants, costing revenue $606m. In 1986, the figure had risen to 176,000, with 308,000 dependants, costing us $1,234m. Those are rises of 42 per cent in recipient numbers, 43 per cent in the number of dependants and 104 per cent in cost-and this Government has the audacity to say that it has done a good job. Even Senator Coates, who is due to follow me, I am sure cannot justify the Government's attitude in saying that these figures represent a good job since 1983 when it came to office. They are disgraceful figures, from which the Government cannot run away. It is significant that from 1982 to 1986 the percentage of separated wives on supporting parents' benefits rose from 54 per cent to 61 per cent. That, too, is evidence of the declining effectiveness of maintenance payments under this Government. I remind the Senate and you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the Government refused to accept solutions to this problem as far back as the early 1980s. It is significant also that since 1982 a greater proportion of sole parents have become reliant on welfare for basic support. Between 1982 and 1985 the proportion of female sole parents dependent on welfare rose from 82 per cent to 90 per cent. These are the people who, the Government maintains, it is trying to get back into work force. According to those statistics, it is not doing a very good job. The figures continue to rise for those who are still reliant on welfare. The proportion of male sole parents so dependent also rose, from 20 per cent to 39 per cent-almost double. In total, the percentage rose from 73 per cent to 83 per cent. Lack of child-care for those most in need-sole parents-has a bearing on the increasing proportion of them who are outside the work force. In 1983 this Government promised 20,000 child-care places. As of 30 June 1987 only 5,700 had been created. I believe that this is due basically to the misdirection of funding for public child-care centres where there are wastefully high staffing numbers and where one-third of children who receive direct and indirect subsidies of $81 a week are not in need. Senator Coates —What was the period of the promise? What was the three-year period? Senator KNOWLES —The Government promised, before the 1983 election, to deliver 20,000 child-care places. As at the end of the last financial year, 1987, it had delivered 5,700. Senator Coates —You get your figures right. Senator KNOWLES —They are right, as of today. Senator Newman —They are Budget figures. Senator KNOWLES —They are from Senator Coates's own Budget Papers. He should go back to his own Budget Papers and check them. If he has come up with some magical figures in the way he seems to come up with them all the time, I suggest that he check his own Budget Papers. Let us look at the public child-care centres which the Government is so wilfully going ahead and wasting public money on. If the 39,000 community care places were shifted to the private sector, 20,000 new child-care placed would be created. The Government would have saved $70m because private care involves an average cost of $60 per week per child compared with $113 for public child-care. There are some classic examples of waste. In South Australia a public child-care centre for 40 children was built for the massive figure of $323,000. A private child-care centre nearby cost $64,000. What is the Government doing spending $323,000 of the taxpayers' money on a child-care centre when it could be privately built for $64,00? Senator Coates —What age group did the private ones take? Senator KNOWLES —I am talking about the child-care bracket in the maintenance area of $81 a week. In Queensland one public child-care centre has a staff of 23 for 65 children, a 1:3 ratio, when the regulations require a ratio of only 1:8. It is a bit like Senator Reynolds providing jobs for the boys and girls. It is what this Government is doing all along the line-spending taxpayers' money and not having any regard to the real output of what the taxpayers' dollar is producing. When we condemn the fact that the welfare of Australian children has declined under this Government we must also consider juvenile crime. Australian Institute of Criminology statistics show a rise of 51 per cent from 1981-82 to 1984-85, the last available year, in incidents, of serious assault by juveniles. The incidence of rape is up by 47 per cent; robbery is up by 37 per cent; fraud is up by 33 per cent; breaking, entering and stealing is up by 8 per cent; and motor vehicle offences are up by 4 per cent. The most distressing aspect is that the Labor mainland State governments, in conjunction with the Federal Government-and it is of major concern in New South Wales and Western Australia-have done nothing about law and order. They have presided over a massive increase in the problem of law and order. Juveniles are showing the worst crime increases among the whole community. I suppose one could be extra cynical and say that juveniles are really graduating to more serious crime because when we look at breaking and entering and car theft we see that 50 per cent in total are committed by juveniles. How can the Federal Government and the mainland State Labor governments be of the opinion that they have provided a better country for Australians to live in? We must make sure that people can live comfortably in our society. Surely it is even more important that custodial parents spend as much time with their children as possible to provide the love, care and supervision that is necessary. Therefore, I come back to the flexible work agreements which are so important and which can permit normal working hours and working days but provide earlier knock off time for people to get home to supervise their children. Those businesses associated with that should not be subject to union thuggery as they are currently experiencing it. Another aspect of cost explosion is the child delinquency about which I spoke in conjunction with juvenile crime. Much of this could be overcome by parental supervision and family stability. Custodial parent obligations would be greatly enhanced by the two-pronged approach of ensuring that the maintenance payments of custodial parents are honoured and providing a working environment where custodial parents can have the opportunity of getting a regular income and making sure of the security of their children. We have seen a situation develop in Australia in which payment of maintenance virtually became optional or maintenance was set at ridiculously low levels. This was started by the atrocious Whitlam Government in the early 1970s and then reintroduced by this Government in 1983. Family allowances have remained unchanged under this Government. If this Government were really dinkum about supporting families in the community it would increase family allowances by over 50 per cent to return them to their original value of 1976. The post-1987 Australian Labor Party Government scheme to assist families with the new family package, in conjunction with marginal tax rates, of course creates another problem: it creates poverty traps for many Australian families. A family with three children and earning $360 a week needs to earn an extra $120 a week to gain a net $9 a week. Such is the nature of the poverty trap this Government has saddled Australian families with. A family allowance worth $386 in 1976 is now worth $273 in real terms. Only the 27 per cent of families below the poverty line will be truly assisted under any of this package. Continued stress on intact families on modest incomes is the continuing underlying factor as to how this Government fails the great majority of Australian children whose welfare cannot be separated from that of the family. Yet at the same time this Government says it is going to eradicate child poverty by 1990. What it is in fact doing is enhancing child poverty by creating these poverty traps, not just for children of single parents but for many other children in intact families. We as Australians must all aim at making people responsible for their own actions and themselves and direct them away from the Government should pay mentality, give them the incentive to get out there and get a job and give them the incentive to make sure they are maintaining their responsibilities to their family. We must get them away from the attitude that the Government should pay: the Government will pay for this, the Government will pay for that. They must recognise sooner or later that governments do not have money of their own; governments have only taxpayers' money. If we ram that home often enough we may get back to a position of personal accountability by individuals. Parents must realise that their children are not animals that they can just send to the pound but are their direct responsibility and not that of the taxpayer. Another important aspect of this Bill is spouse maintenance. Many women, not only children, are living under great poverty after marriage breakdown and a degree of maintenance should be provided for women, particularly those looking after children. Once again it comes back to policies of governments to ensure that there is a true option for people to get out there and get a job that allows them to earn a substantial living for both themselves and their children and at the same time to provide them with the option to look after their children. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(9.46) —I begin by laying to rest this accusation which various Opposition speakers have used and which Senator Knowles repeated that the Government has been slow in its action in this area. It has been frustrating in this period not to have been able to achieve this package of legislation earlier than this but Senator Knowles and all her colleagues ought to be reasonable and acknowledge the very complex nature of this whole issue and the way in which it had to be dealt with in a thorough way which tried to deal with all the issues involved. It involved consultation with the public and with those affected. Yes, it has taken several years to get to this stage but I can assure people that if the Opposition had been in government this package would have been nowhere near this point, if the Opposition had been left in charge to develop such a scheme. Senator Knowles and others point to the fact that in 1983 Senator Durack brought up a Bill to amendment the Family Law Act to require that social security entitlement be ignored for the purpose of calculating maintenance. That is true and at that time-- Senator Knowles —Why did you reject it then? Senator COATES —Because the Government was in the process of developing a package of measures. This is the problem. Senator Knowles suggested that her side had the solutions in the early 1980s. Senator Chaney, in a discussion about this general area, may have foreshadowed a maintenance collection agency as an option but it was never the policy of the previous Government, it was never the policy of those who are now the Opposition. Their only policy was to alter the Family Law Act in that one simple way and to throw people into gaol. Certainly, the next time around that Senator Durack introduced that same Bill, during the proceedings on the Bill he withdrew the reference to gaoling people as the only method for providing for maintenance to be paid. I acknowledge that. He left it just as a simple amendment to the Family Law Act that would ensure that social security entitlement was ignored for maintenance calculation purposes. As has been correctly stated from the other side, we opposed the Bill at the time because we did not want that change to be made in isolation. The Bill that we are dealing with is the second Bill of a package of three Bills that are part of a planned program that is complex, and that ought to be acknowledged by the Opposition. There was the change to the Family Law Act at the end of last year. This Child Support Bill sets up the Child Support Agency and before long we will have the relevant social security amendments as the third Bill in this package. The second stage of this scheme, about which there is community consultation at present, is the development of a formula which can be a guide to how maintenance is collected. That is not part of the scheme at this stage. This scheme involves the family law changes which have already been passed, this child support measure and the social security changes. It is part of a planned package which has involved public consultation and a thorough review. It is due to the efforts of those who have worked so thoroughly on this matter-particularly Dr Meredith Edwards and those others in the various departments who have worked on it-that we have developed it to this state, which would not have happened had the Opposition been in charge. I turn to the amendment that the Opposition has moved to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. The Opposition has suggested that those on the Government side who have spoken do not understand what it is driving at in its opposition. The fact is that we understand only too well that it is driving at. The Opposition is suggesting that there are these rights of non-custodial parents who have entered into maintenance arrangements so that when they are willing to pay the maintenance that has been ordered by the court there should be no registration of the agreement with the Child Support Agency. The Opposition misunderstands the whole scheme in that registration of all such orders from the Family Court will be automatic-that is, the Family Courts around the country will provide to the Child Support Agency, set up as part of the Australian Taxation Office, the details-- Senator Stone —That is what is being objected to in the case of those particular people. Senator COATES —The Opposition says that those agreements should not even be registered. That is what its amendment states. The fact is that there will be that automatic registration but no action will be taken on those registered agreements unless one of the parties involved is a client of the Department of Social Security or the Department of Veterans' Affairs or unless the custodial parent seeks to have that agreement enforced. The point is that enforcement must be a decision of the custodial parent. The Opposition is saying that even if the custodial parent wants the agreement enforced, if the non-custodial parent does not want it enforced he or she can say, `No, I do not want it enforced'. The point is that-- Senator Stone —We are not saying that at all. Senator COATES —That is exactly what the amendment states. It reads, `Wishes to ensure the protection of the rights of non-custodial parents'. The point is that if there is not an amicable agreement, there will obviously be a need for enforcement by the Agency. If there is not agreement about whether it should be enforced, the agreement is hardly an amicable one. Let me make it clear: where both of the parties are happy for their private arrangement to continue, there will be no need for the Child Support Agency to become involved and it will need to become involved only if there is a default and the custodial parent takes action to ask for enforcement. But it still needs to be the choice of the custodial parent to have the collection made by the Agency, even if the non-custodial parent agrees. Even in relatively amicable arrangements there is at least one good reason for that-that is, the at arm's length nature of the payment of the maintenance. It ought to be readily understandable that the custodial parent should be able to say, `I don't want to receive this payment directly but I want it to be done through the Child Support Agency and the Department of Social Security and to receive it in that manner'. I think that that adequately answers that part of the Opposition's amendment. The second part of the amendment purports to condemn the Government for the fact that the welfare of Australian children has rapidly declined under this Government. The Opposition has an absolute cheek to suggest such an amendment at a time when the family allowance supplement (FAS) is in the process of being delivered to tens of thousands of Australian families. Payments to pensioners and beneficiaries over the period of this Government will have increased from $10 per child to $22 or to $28 per week per child, depending on the age of the child. There are so many more people in the work force on relatively low incomes who are now eligible for the family allowance supplement, including those who were eligible for the previous family income supplement. They now receive an increased amount. There are many more who, because of the sliding scale arrangements of the income test for the family allowance supplement, will now qualify for it as well. I hope that more and more people will apply for the FAS payment if they have even the slightest thought that they might be entitled to it. The more people who apply, the greater the success of the scheme in ensuring that those who are eligible obtain it. Those with a relatively large number of children can receive quite a high income-higher than average weekly earnings if there are five or six children-and still qualify for at least some family allowance supplement. So with those few words I dismiss that part of the Opposition's amendment. The whole question of the collection of maintenance for children after the breakdown of a marriage or a relationship has always been a problem. Anything that has been tried in the past to enforce payment has not succeeded. As a result, as everyone acknowledges, the Government has had to take up a large part of the financial responsibility for the children of divorced and separated parents. As has been acknowledged on both sides, the majority of non-custodial parents have reneged completely on their responsibilities towards their children, even in cases where quite inadequate amounts of maintenance have been either awarded or agreed to. This has contributed to the unacceptably high numbers of children living in poverty in Australia, which this Government is tackling. Senator Knowles referred to the promise of the Government that no child need live in poverty by 1990 as a disposable promise. If in 1990 that promise has not been implemented let her then say that it was a disposable promise. But we will wait until then because that was a key part of the Government's election policy which we are determined to stick to, to ensure that the family allowance supplement does not remain at its present level but is adjusted to take into account changes in the consumer price index, and to ensure that no children need to live in poverty by 1990. Senator Knowles —Not one of you will answer how you will do it. Senator COATES —Senator Knowles seems to have a real fixation about this matter. I acknowledge that it was a central promise of the election campaign, which has been implemented for this year and which will continue to be implemented over the next few years to 1990, to ensure that no children need to live in poverty in relation to the amount that is available to them through the family allowance supplement, having regard to the poverty line, as is generally acknowledged. Senator Knowles —Tell us how. You cannot do it. Senator COATES —Just wait until the Budget, and the Budget after that. The establishment of the Child Support Agency, which will be within the Taxation Office, will contribute to relieving the burden of poverty which has been placed on so many children. It will also ensure that the flow of funds which should have occurred up until now, and which has in so many cases not occurred, will occur. There is some opposition to this Bill by interest groups in the community, but perhaps not as much as one might have expected. The bipartisan support generally for the Bill is, I think, a factor in achieving its successful passage. I think it can be asserted that, despite the Opposition's amendment in which it has complained about one aspect of the proposed rules for the use of the Child Support Agency, it generally supports the proposal that there be such an agency, which is in some ways surprising in view of its general attitude to government becoming involved in things. At least on this occasion it has acknowledged the necessity for government to become involved, to have an agency in the Australian Taxation Office responsible for collecting maintenance from those concerned and passing it on through the Department of Social Security to the custodial parents for the benefit of the children involved. It is important to stress that the Bill is not about pursuing, for punishment or degradation, non-custodial parents. It is not about setting up custodial parents in some position of advantage compared with their former spouses. It is about giving the children involved the right to adequate financial support. This will be fully achieved only when the courts award more reasonable maintenance payments. In the meantime, even with the sorts of awards that are presently made, it will certainly help those who have had difficulty up until now in getting their maintenance. It will ensure that the primary consideration of both parents is the proper financial support of the children of their marriage or relationship in accordance with the ability of each to pay. I think this Bill, and this whole legislative package, sets the pace in trying to solve the problem of maintenance collection which is encountered throughout the world. I think we will find that Australia, because of these measures, will improve its reputation. The whole strength of this package is in the linking of the activities of the Family Court of Australia with those of the Department of Social Security through the necessary powers of the Taxation Office. One of the criticisms that are made concerns the automatic deduction of maintenance payments from the salary or wages of non-custodial parents and the fact that this might involve some stigma. I hope that this whole scheme will avoid the attachment of stigma to the collection of maintenance because of its automatic nature, because it will become just part of the general scheme of things. In the same way as people have their pay as you earn taxation deductions made from their wages, so will some employees have their payments to the Child Support Agency deducted. I think that is another answer to the Opposition's amendment. If we were to follow the proposal in its amendment that only those who already had defaulted would have to participate in the scheme, that would make the Child Support Agency a punitive body. It would mean that those who had their collections done that way had already defaulted. I do not think we want that to be the situation. I think we want it to be a neutral arrangement whereby there is no particular stigma or labelling involved in having maintenance orders collected in this way. That is a further argument which I should have mentioned before against the Opposition's second reading amendment. The establishment of a new and separate income test, which is part of the overall scheme, has been criticised, but it is a genuine commitment to improving living standards and ensuring that any earnings that a custodial parent has are treated separately from the question of maintenance. The proposal has been criticised as being too tough, and there is some legitimacy in that criticism. But it is important that the whole question of work force participation be part of the scheme, and a separate maintenance income test free area is a requirement that we really cannot get away from, and in fact it will be of benefit to some of those involved. We have to acknowledge that there are those cases where the collection of maintenance is impossible, where there is no identifiable non-custodial parent or where that person just cannot be found. Such people will not be as well off relative to those in cases where the maintenance order can be enforced. I do not think anyone would suggest that we should therefore abandon the scheme or not implement this part of it just because of that. It would be better, as has been suggested, if there was a maintenance payment or its equivalent available to all of those in this situation. At least the scheme as proposed will go a long way towards improving the situation for custodial parents and the children involved and will ensure that there is a reasonable method of administering the scheme, providing for those who want to use it and for those who are involved in the social security system an arm's length method by which maintenance orders are paid from the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent. I support the Bill and congratulate the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) for getting to this stage with our package of measures. Again I reject the Opposition's criticism of the time taken. I would have been nice to have had all three Bills passed before Christmas. That was not possible. At least this is being done at this stage of the year and a very welcome scheme is being implemented. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(10.08) —The Senate is tonight debating the Child Support Bill and, as has been said several times, this Bill is receiving the support of the Opposition. However, we have a two-part amendment in relation to the legislation, and Senator Coates obviously has some difficulty in understanding the import of our amendments. I think that rather tends to demonstrate the difference between the Opposition's approach to government and the Government's approach to government. It is a pretty basic difference, and that is that we believe that, unless citizens absolutely have to have government intervention in their lives, we should try to keep it out wherever possible. In the case of maintenance payments between parents for the sake of their children, if there is an amicable agreement working we can see absolutely no reason why government should be involved. We believe it is only if that agreement does not work or starts to break down that there should be any reason for government and employers to be involved. So there is a quite clear distinction in the way we approach the matter of how people in this country want to lead their lives and whether they should be forced to lead their lives in a certain way. We do not believe in compulsion and the compulsory involvement of government unless it is necessary. The second part of our amendment condemns the fact that the welfare of Australian children has rapidly declined under the Hawke Labor Government. Any parent in Australia could tell the Government that that is the fact. I do not think that Senator Coates is doing the Government much of a service by trying to pretend otherwise. There cannot be a family outside this chamber who believes that they are better off now than they were when the Hawke Labor Government came to power in 1983. If Senator Coates thinks otherwise, he had better go back to his electorate of Tasmania. I find that families down there have quite a different view of his Government. Nevertheless, the Opposition welcomes this legislation. It is interesting to note in passing the very high proportion of female senators who have spoken in this debate. I think there are 13 speakers on the list, and nine are female. That may say something about the sensitivity of this issue, particularly for women. So many women in our society have been disadvantaged by ending up the custodial parent with no money. Perhaps many of us in the chamber can feel, `There but for the grace of God go I'. We are also saddened so often to see families that need the help of both parents but are getting it from only one and the state. We have heard constantly in this debate the disgraceful figure indicating that currently 70 per cent of maintenance orders in this country are not being complied with. It is a figure that all of us should hang our heads in shame over. This legislation, as was the previous legislation that Senator Coates referred to earlier and that his Party rejected when we tried to introduce it some years ago, is really an admission that the Whitlam Government's provisions in the Family Law Act relating to the need for judges to take into account social security benefits in deciding on maintenance were a form of social engineering which has proved to be a total failure. As a result of this social engineering, many families in this country have come to grief. I am glad to say that at last, and not before time, those mistakes are being wound back. The Institute of Family Studies estimates that 400,000 children living in poverty are supported by sole parents; that is, half the children in poverty in Australia are being supported by sole parents. Between 1976 and 1983 there were 430,773 children in Australia who had lived through a divorce; 30 years ago, the figure was 8,235. We simply have to take more action to tackle the problem of family breakdown at its source. This legislation tackles a symptom, and thank goodness it does, but I do not think this Government is doing enough to help deal with the source of the problem-family breakdown. It is not widely understood that 80 per cent of sole-parent families are in that position because of separation, divorce or the death of a spouse. I think most people outside this chamber would be astonished to know that that is what sole-parent families really are. I think many people have a quite different view. Sole-parent families now make up 14.4 per cent of all families in Australia; in 1974 the figure was only 9.2 per cent. It is quite clear to all of us that we should have measures which keep families together, but this Government seems to be going in the opposite direction. Dr Warwick Hartin, of the National Marriage Guidance Council, says that this year the Government will spend $5.1m in grants to marriage counselling organisations but $5.1 billion on divorce and its consequences-$5.1 billion on sweeping up the mess and only $5.1m on trying to prevent the mess happening. The tax system still disadvantages families with children. It is clear that this is so; every study ever done can demonstrate it. The Government knows it; it has had advice to that effect, but it will not take effective action. The Government believes that by slapping money at people in a welfare manner it can fix the problem of child poverty. Throwing the money around with the family allowance supplement is not the way. An honourable, dignified way to handle the problem is to assist those working families to support themselves by reducing the level of taxation on them. Let them keep what they earn. Raise the threshold. There are many other ways. We have suggested a number of ways. I will not tonight go through them all again, but the Government has had this advice over and over again. It fails to take action. It likes to give people a handout mentality. Senator Coates —What nonsense! Senator NEWMAN —It does. The Government believes in a welfare state, clothed in whatever name Senator Coates wants to call it. The Government wants people to get hooked on its milch cow. Look at the action the Government took over the tertiary allowance and how that affected supporting parents. The Government took action to prevent supporting parents on maintenance from continuing their studies. They could not continue their studies, because they were not eligible for assistance unless they were on the supporting parent's benefit. A woman may have been getting maintenance from her husband and striving to improve her qualifications so that she could be self-sufficient, but this Government did not lift a finger to help her. It said, `You just muddle along'. Day after day Senator Ryan told this chamber what good things she was doing for women in this country, but the ones who wanted to be self-reliant she left floundering because they could not afford last year the $250 per subject, if they were trying to do one subject a year perhaps because they had small children in the home. That charge is now $263. The Government just sits by and lets that happen. Senator Powell —And so did the Opposition. Senator NEWMAN —We did not introduce that legislation, and the honourable senators know that. So we have some misgivings about the legislation. We believe there are very real problems that the Government has to face with self-employed parents who wilfully avoid paying maintenance. I believe it will be extremely difficult to pin down self-employed people. Obviously pay as you earn taxpayers will be picked up fairly easily, but I do not think the problem of self-employed parents will be as easily resolved. I am concerned that we will be another year down the track before we get the formula. I recognise that this is the hard part and the Government has put it at the end. I sympathise with it. That is the real Solomon job-trying to work out whose rights will be paramount. Would it be the rights of the first family or those of the second family? Which spouse will have the better standard of living? Remembering back to my time in practice in the law before the Family Law Act was introduced, we had some real difficulties in establishing paternity. I can see those coming back with a vengeance now and we do not look as though we will be any better equipped to deal with that problem now than we were then. As Senator Panizza said to me before, a father with a stockwhip was perhaps one of the ways of establishing paternity in the past, but I do not know whether fathers these days keep stockwhips. It is a very difficult problem which has to be faced down the track. We will have a lot of difficulty with mothers who will not name the father of their child or cannot name the father of their child, or with fathers who deny paternity. I do not know how that will be dealt with. I have already mentioned the problem we see with parents who have an agreement which they see no reason for the Government to be involved in, and I think they are also entitled to their privacy. One thing that does worry me about the legislation is the very real penalties that will be imposed upon employers. There is a $5,000 fine if payments are not paid over to the maintenance collection agency in the proper time, and a very short time it is too. I think of the small business people who so often do their books at night after having worked all day. These are not the sort of people who can afford to employ bookkeepers and accountants to do their pay records for them and simply add one more item to the pay sheet or the computer. These are people who have to sit up at night to do the pay records and keep the books up to date, waiting for the tax man to inspect them or pop in to have a friendly chat. They are already overburdened with government regulations. This Government, particularly, does not seem to have much concern for those sorts of people. If one is in very big business perhaps the Hawke Government is interested, but small business seems to have been forgotten long ago. That is widely recognised outside. This will be one more pressure on small business. I was very interested to see the Government's commitment to children and poverty already being watered down. On 23 June last year, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said, `By 1990, no Australian child will be living in poverty'. On 1 July he said, `There will be no watering down of the pledge that was made'. Senator Walsh, in his second reading speech, said, `by 1990, no Australian child need live in poverty'. I might be a very suspicious female but I wonder at the slight difference between the Prime Minister's adamant insistence that no child would be living in poverty and Senator Walsh's speech which said that no child need live in poverty. Is that an option, an opt out clause, for the Government-that it will not be its fault if children are living in poverty-when it does not achieve what is claiming? That was a very stupid election commitment by the Prime Minister that he has no hope of keeping-and nobody outside really believes that he will keep. It is the same sort of election comment that we hear from Dr Blewett who recently, with an eye to the New South Wales election, said that 19,000 child-care places have been approved out of the 20,000 that were promised back in 1983. But Senator Knowles tonight gave us some very detailed facts on this matter. The situation is that, as at 30 June last year, only 5,758 places had been created. Dr Blewett has some pretty fast footwork or some very creative accounting if he has achieved 19,000 places since 30 June last year. How many of those are bricks and mortar-in place-and how many are just approvals or pieces of paper he is shuffling over his desk? I have my doubts about that election claim, too. I think it has a lot to do with the New South Wales election. We will be lucky if a formula is worked out. With the time that is needed to put it into law, we will be lucky if it has much impact by 1990. One of the problems that we will be facing, as I said earlier, is: what are we going to do about the quality of life for the second family and the first? I do not believe that a second family's income should be preserved at the expense of the first. These days are the days of contraceptives. No-one is forced to have children that cannot be supported. If people cannot support a second family without disadvantage to the first, they should not have the second family. We are adults and we have opportunities to avoid having new responsibilities. Senator Coates —The second family might already exist. Senator NEWMAN —Presumably that family has a father. Let the responsibility fall where it is due. Senator Coates should not use that as an argument for not supporting the first family. I find that quite unacceptable. I am very pleased to think that this legislation will bring a measure of dignity to supporting parents who, quite unfairly in many ways, have been the subject of a lot of criticism in the community. Senator Aulich —On your side primarily. Senator NEWMAN —Not at all. People right around this country think that supporting mothers are milking the system. As I tried to point our earlier, the figures show quite clearly that over 80 per cent of sole-parent families are in that position because of separation, divorce or death of a spouse. That is quite contrary to what a lot of people believe. When we have a system working through the maintenance collection agency, that will go some way towards giving supporting mothers, struggling in poverty as they are now, some sort of dignity in the community. It is important that these people be encouraged to get out of the welfare cycle and find a means of supporting themselves. When proper maintenance is provided to children by fathers, mothers will feel able to get out and give themselves more of a leg up. But the Government does not give them a leg up by penalising them for trying to improve their qualifications. These mothers are really struggling against the system. We seem to have become a country in which people are always talking about their rights. All of us have rights. Everyone will wander round at some stage with a placard talking about rights. We seem to have given up any idea that we have responsibilities. That is a very old-fashioned idea these days. One is looked on as if one has come out of the ark if one talks about responsibilities. I would like to think that this legislation, at last, is doing just a little towards getting responsibilities back on the agenda, instead of putting rights as priorities. Parents have responsibilities; children have the rights-but they have not been getting them until now. I am glad to think that this legislation is focusing attention back on making people fulfil their responsibilities. What a dreadful thing it is that we need legislation to make people support their own children. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(10.26) —This evening we are debating the Child Support Bill 1987 and the amendment the Opposition has moved. The Bill has already been well explained by previous speakers, so I will not go into it, but it is designed to enforce the collection of maintenance orders from non-custodial parents This Bill arose, no doubt, from the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) last year that `By 1990, there will be no child living in poverty'. However noble his intentions were at the time, many parents at large did not envisage the course of play that the Prime Minister meant. He did not point out that employers were going to take the brunt of collecting the money that he had promised to supporting parents. If the Prime Minister had done so, the Government would have lost as many votes on this issue as it gained. Our side of politics welcomes the Bill. It is a means of forcing onto some parents the responsibility they took on, or should have known they were taking on, when they entered into the institution of marriage and commenced a family. Statistics have shown that there have been an increasing number of parents who leave marriage or a de facto relationship and walk away, leaving the Government to pick up the responsibilities. The time has come to put an end to this and to return to a stricter method of collection of maintenance as existed in the past, though not one by which people are removed to Her Majesty's nearest prison. The Bill is a mechanism to inform people of their responsibilities in bringing children into the world. Mothers and fathers alike no longer will be able to pass the responsibility on to the community. However, my main concern this evening is for the free collectors of the scheme, the employers. Once again, the Government has seen fit to add another responsibility to the ever increasing responsibilities of the gratis collectors of revenue. We already have the pay as you earn collection system, with its inherent penalties. Other free collection services provided by the employers are: Medicare payments; sales tax; the fringe benefits tax-here the employers have the privilege of picking up the tab as well-and prescribed payments, with their own penalties. The Australian Taxation Office sends reminders to employers even if they do not have to send in payments for that month. Another collection service is the voluntary deductions requested by employees, which the employer is obliged to collect, such as union fees and hospital dues. In this case, under clause 47 (1), there is provision for a penalty of up to $5,000, 12 months imprisonment, or both, for failure to furnish particulars in the approved form within the first seven days of the following month. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. I put the question: That the Senate do not adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.30) —I wish briefly to refer to two matters tonight that I hope the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) will take up. The first matter relates to the building that the Smith Family wishes to go ahead with at Woden. The Smith Family and the club next door have come to an arrangement about the block of land and the construction. I do not believe that I need to take up the time of the Senate to recount what is to occur, except to say that I am pleased that the Smith Family will at last be able to get a home of its own from which it can function. The delay seems to be that a portion of the block of land needs to be valued so that the Minister can determine whether or not there is any betterment tax payable in relation to it. I am told that the Australian Taxation Office, which is the appropriate authority, has, in fact, valued the block of land and has advised the Australian Capital Territory Administration businesses leases section that it has valued it and what the value would be. But some weeks seem to have passed since that was the case. It cannot be acted upon until the Smith Family has this invitation in writing. It seems incomprehensible to me that it can take as long as it has taken for a letter to be written and sent. I understand that the Taxation Office has said that it just has not had time to write the letter. In the meantime the Smith Family, which has all arrangements made to enable this project to go ahead, is being held up. I ask that this matter be looked into with a view to expediting what seems to be merely the transfer of a letter from one department to another to enable this to go ahead. The other matter I want to refer to relates to the reimbursement by the ACT Administration of medical bills to a constituent who receives a refund on his medical bills because of a compensation case. By way of compensation he receives $235 per fortnight. He has to pay a number of his own medical bills and expenses and he then applies to the Department of Community Services and Health for a refund. He has to wait from eight to 10 weeks for a payment of this money and he just cannot live in this situation. The Department apparently says that in an absolute emergency it can process a cheque in two to three days, but it thinks it would be pretty lucky actually to achieve that and that eight to 10 weeks is probably the time it takes. Wherever we are dealing with members of the public who depend on government for its services so that they can lead their lives, I think it is important that there are sufficient people to enable this to occur. I ask the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) to look into this section of his Department with a view to expediting medical bills, not just for one constituent but for all of them because for those who are attempting to live on about $235 a fortnight, to be out of pocket $20 or $30 on medical bills is, indeed, a great hardship. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(10.35) —This evening I would like to address myself to the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) annual report. I particularly wish to refer to the purchase of rural properties by foreign investors. The report shows that in the last financial year the amount spent by foreign purchasers of Australian farms rose by more than $100m-from $44m to $143m. In land area Australia lost to foreign ownership 512,000 hectares in 1986-87. Added to the 1985-86 figure, the total new foreign ownership for the past two years has been 3,650,000 hectares. While I do accept that these figures may have many different and debatable interpretations, it is clear that they do show an increasing ownership by foreigners of our rural properties. However, over and above this, the most disturbing aspect of these figures is that they do not give a clear picture of the actual foreign ownership of Australian farms and, even more so, the potential of foreign ownership of Australian farms. This is because the Treasurer, Mr Keating, has directed the FIRB to review the purchase of only those properties costing over $3m. As a consequence, the FIRB has no record of the number of types of farms purchased or the names of the purchasers of farms under the value of $3m. Considering that the vast majority of farms in Australia today are valued under $3m and they are mostly family farms by nature, I see this as a serious flaw in the ability to shape or plan economic policy in Australia, particularly in relation to the family farm. However, what we do know from the Australian Bureau of Statistics is that over the past three years, 4,000 to 5,000 farm units have disappeared from the Australian landscape. While this Government carries out its micro- and macro-economic policies that are distinctly anti-family farm, I believe that freeing up of foreign ownership rules is another serious blow to the survival of the economic and social unit of the family farm. I do not believe that more regulation by the FIRB is the real answer. I believe the answer lies in this Government's will to tackle in the upcoming May economic statement the real problems of family farmers, the dual problems of taxation and tariffs and the improvement of family farm access to cheaper finances-namely, reduced interest rates. I really do not think that the Government is giving Australians a fair go to hang onto their properties. Let us not forget that these properties truly do symbolise ownership of Australian natural resources. This link between ownership and work is probably the most powerful stimulus to personal enterprise. The family farm is an efficient, economic unit, as it must be in these economic times. With the daunting economic challenges ahead of us, it must be part of our future economic strategy and not be handed over-unleashed-to foreigners, worst of all, unrecorded. It has got to a stage where this Government really has to decide to what extent it will allow our farms to be sold off to foreigners or corporatised. It must give Australians an answer in the forthcoming economic May statement. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(10.39) —This evening we have heard from Senator Reid, who raised the issue of unfortunate delays in regard to the paperwork that has to be completed for the building of the Smith Family to proceed. Obviously the Smith Family does a tremendous service for the community and we would all like to see it have its home at Woden as soon as possible. I will certainly undertake to refer the honourable senator's concerns about this delay to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson). The honourable senator also raised the question of reimbursement of medical expenses and, again, the question of delay. I do not know whether Senator Reid will find this to be any consolation, but I sometimes am under the impression that delays occur only when one is distant from Canberra. So I guess, in a sense, I am reassured that delays affect the people of the Australian Capital Territory as well. But on a serious note, I do not accept that the constituent to whom Senator Reid referred is obviously being considerably disadvantaged by delays of up to 10 weeks. I will certainly refer the honourable senator's and the constituent's concern to the Minister. I was interested in Senator McGauran's speech this evening. I wonder whether he has ever taken up the question of a register of foreign ownership with some of his colleagues in Queensland. I am sure that Senator Jones will agree with me when I say that we have been trying for many years to get Senator McGauran's National Party colleagues in Queensland to agree to establish a register of foreign ownership in that State. We have not had the success that we would have liked. Given some of the views that Senator McGauran has expressed so eloquently this evening, perhaps he will be able to take up that matter at the next National Party conference. The honourable senator quoted some interesting figures. He indicated that there were only limited records relating to the purchase of family farms for under $3m. I certainly cannot accept the accusation that this Government is anti-farmers. I think he would have to agree that it was John Kerin who introduced the first ever rural and economic policy, which is a comprehensive policy not only for farmers but for all Australians living in regional and rural Australia. I do not know whether Senator McGauran has seen a copy of that policy, but perhaps if he were to obtain a copy he would better understand the Government's policies in relation to the rural sector. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.42 p.m. The following papers were tabled. Acts Interpretation Act- Correspondence relating to extension of specified period for presentation of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority (SMHEA) Annual Report 1986-87. Defence Act- Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal-Determination 1987 No. 8, dated 4 February 1988. Determinations 1988- No. 3, dated 29 January 1988. No. 4, dated 29 January 1988. No. 5, dated 29 January 1988. No. 7, dated 17 February 1988. No. 8, dated 17 February 1988. Determinations 1987-No. 93-Overseas Rental and Utilities Allowance and others. Determinations 1988- No. 1-Salary of Permanent Force Members and others. No. 2-Child Care Reimbursement Allowance. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendment of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated 16 February 1988. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 160) Senator Coates asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 17 December 1987: (1) What is the historical basis for the title ``the Honourable'' being applied to Ministers. (2) What is the reason for the practice continuing. (3) What would have to be done by an individual Minister or by the Government to avoid the title in any specific case or generally. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Records held by my department indicate that the earliest use of the title ``the Honourable'' in Australia was in October 1856 following the grant of a Constitution to New South Wales when the title was accorded to the President of the Legislative Council and the Speaker of the Assembly. While there was no direct reference to use of the title for members of the Executive Council, they were generally so styled from the inception of responsible government in the Australian colonies. In November 1900, the Secretary of State for the Colonies advised that the use of the title was extended by Queen Victoria to members of the Federal Executive Council. As all Ministers are Executive Councillors they consequently receive the title ``Honourable''. (2) The reasons for continuing the practice of styling Ministers ``The Honourable'' are based on tradition and continuing acceptance. (3) As the honourable senator would know, there is no legislation conferring upon Ministers a right to the title ``Honourable'' and there is no legislative requirement to use the title. It is used by the Government in formal contexts, but individual Ministers may otherwise choose the circumstances in which it is used. Senator Cook —On 26 October 1987 (Hansard, page 1204), Senator Walters asked Senator Ryan, as Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health, the following question without notice: Is the Minister aware of Dr Henry Giaretto's highly successful self help treatment of more than 6,000 sexually abused children and their families at the Californian Institute for the Community as an Extended Family? Will the Minister consider inviting Dr Giaretto to visit Australia so that he can give first-hand help to the Institute's treatment centres here in Australia? If so, when will this take place? The Minister for Community Services and Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Treatment programs for sexually abused children and their families are primarily the responsibility of State Governments as a result of State legislative provisions in the areas of child health and welfare. While the problem of child abuse is of great concern to the Commonwealth Government and this portfolio, the Commonwealth has sought to avoid duplication of State statutory responsibilities in this area. The focus of the Children's Services Program and its enabling legislation, the Child Care Act 1972, is on the provision of child day care services. The Commonwealth/State cost-shared Family Support Program is not directly involved with child abuse. It contributes indirectly to the prevention of child abuse through services funded, which are expected to be oriented to the prevention of family breakdown and to the enhancement of the role of the family. For the reasons outlined, it is not appropriate for the Commonwealth Government to invite Dr Giaretto to Australia.