Monday, 18 April 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: We, the undersigned, (i) are alarmed that many sporting, cultural and community groups have been made to feel that they can attract sponsorship only from promoters of unhealthy products; (ii) call for a National Health Promotion Foundation to be established through an increase in tobacco excise of 10 cents per packet; and (iii) urge that the National Health Promotion Foundation provide national sporting, cultural and community groups with alternative sponsorship funding so that these groups can flourish without the taint of accepting money from tobacco companies and assisting in the promotion of their unhealthy products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McMullan (from 200 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citizens of Australia showeth: (1) That the constitution of the Commonwealth has served Australia well, is not out of date, has proved to be flexible and should not be radically altered. (2) Our deep concern that the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission and its advisory committees which propose radical changes to the constitution are threatening to reduce our rights as citizens of the Commonwealth. (3) Our strongest opposition to any referendum proposals of the Hawke Government which gives more power to the Government and less to the people and which concentrates that power in Canberra at the expense of the states and weakens the role of the Senate. Your petitioners pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should heed the above. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Panizza (from 41 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the proposal for the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra or the Australian Capital Territory. (2) That a casino in Canberra would detract from the unique character and status of our National Capital. Your petitioners therefore most humbly request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to reject any proposal for or legislation which would permit the establishment of a casino in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 309 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in 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 programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Beahan (from 30 citizens) and MacGibbon (from seven citizens). Senator COULTER(South Australia) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition, from 160 petitioners, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders, praying that the Senate support legislation to restrict the use of chlorofluorocarbons: We are very concerned about the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer and the detrimental effect this will have on life. We support your action to present legislation to Federal Parliament to restrict the continued use and escape to the atmosphere of chlorofluorocarbons. Petitions received. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That Senator Jones be granted leave of absence for the period from 12 April to 29 April 1988, inclusive, on account of ill health. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —I give notice that, four sitting days after today, I shall move: That the World Heritage Properties Conservation Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1988 No. 47 and made under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983, be disallowed. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —A paper is 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. Australian Security Intelligence Organization-Report to Parliament 1986-87-section 94 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. I ask: Is the Minister aware that the dispute on the Quadrant building site in Canberra City has now entered its ninth week, despite a direction from the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that all bans and limitations be lifted and that a 10-tonne concrete tank was dropped next to a pump, preventing it from being taken from the site, allegedly because the pump operator refused to provide two cases of grog as demanded by the crane crew? Is he aware that an official of the Transport Workers Union who sought to assist in moving the pump was threatened with violence by an official from the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association and a member of the crane crew? Is he also aware that the Commission, in a hearing on the dispute, has described the Australian Capital Territory building industry as being in a state of anarchy and said that the union was supporting liars and frauds and that events on the site raised a question of criminal action? Is he aware that the staff of White Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd have been intimidated, abused and physically assaulted in relation to the dispute and that the car door of the industrial relations director of the Master Builders Association (MBA) was smashed in while he was attending a meeting at the site? Is the Government aware that it has been put to the Australian Capital Territory Master Builders Association that the solution to this dispute is for him to collect a bag of $10,000 to pay to the crane driver for him to leave town? Is the Government aware that there is a complaint that elements of the union movement have attempted to blackmail members of the council and executive of the MBA into silencing the Association from putting these facts forward? I ask: Why has the Government not responded to the MBA's letter of 23 March seeking assistance in dealing with this appalling situation? What is the Government's attitude to the state of anarchy in the Australian Capital Territory building industry? What action is the Government taking to deal with the matter? Senator BUTTON —I am not aware of all the matters which Senator Chaney refers to in his question. Senator Walters —You darn well ought to be. Senator BUTTON —Thank you, Senator. As I said, I am not aware of all the matters which Senator Chaney refers to in his question but I will endeavour to obtain an answer as quickly as possible. Some of the allegations involve criminality. That is a matter appropriate for the police. In so far as the pure industrial relations matters are concerned, I will ask the Minister to give us an early answer. Certainly, for example, I am not aware of the letter of 23 March and any response to it. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note the Minister's answer and ask for a speedy response. My supplementary question relates to his point about some of the allegations giving rise to the possibility that there have been criminal offences. I ask the Minister: Will he confirm that the fact that criminal offences may take place in some sort of connection with an industrial dispute will not be regarded by the Government as in any sense providing cover or an excuse for such action and that these matters should be investigated even though there is a suggestion of some connection with an industrial dispute? Senator BUTTON —Of course not. Senator Chaney —They should not be investigated? Senator BUTTON —If a criminal action is involved and the allegations are ones of criminality, the fact that it is alleged to have the character of an industrial dispute by some people has nothing to do with it. It is criminal action. Senator McMULLAN —Does the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer agree that productivity improvements are necessary for Australia to improve its international competitiveness? If so, is the Minister persuaded by the argument that the demolition of the Commonwealth system of conciliation and arbitration tribunals would lead to a more efficient allocation of the nation's labour resources and thus to improved productivity? Senator WALSH —There were three parts to the question. The answer to the first two parts is yes. On the question of whether the Government is persuaded about demolitions and so on, I think those who believe that argument are really referring to what some commentators call closed shop arrangements, which are alleged to be detrimental to the allocation of labour. These people usually add that conciliation and arbitration tribunals encourage and support closed shop arrangements and hence the abolition of the conciliation and arbitration tribunals would end the closed shop and improve productivity. Contained in that argument is one major fallacy. A recent publication put out by the Australian Institute for Public Policy, with which, as some people would know, a former member of the House of Representatives, John Hyde, is associated, contained an article written by Dufty and Mulvey, entitled `The sources of Union Power'. It states: Such arrangements- that is, closed shop arrangements- are not included in awards: no tribunal has the power to order or approve a closed shop. So, whether a closed shop is a good idea or not, it is untrue to say that the existence of closed shops depends upon conciliation and arbitration tribunals. Therefore, it follows logically and inescapably that the abolition of conciliation and arbitration tribunals, far from reducing the incidence of closed shops, would be more likely to increase it as bargaining at a plant or company level replaced the awards of tribunals. It is more likely that with more emphasis on bargaining there would be more closed shops. The Dufty and Mulvey study goes on to report that, of the closed shop arrangements that exist in Australia, the overwhelming majority are post-entry closed shops and that 70 per cent of them are the result of agreements at the level of the plant or firm, which emphasises the point I was making earlier. Closed shop arrangements are by no means restricted to the industrial workplace or agreements negotiated usually with the assistance of unions or what people usually regard as unions. If one extends the definition of `union' to include the lawyers union in Queensland-that is, the Queensland Law Society-one finds that it, too, has a closed shop. The Australian Financial Review of 30 March reported that Queensland rules do not allow interstate solicitors to practise in Queensland, and that legal firms which have interstate associations are not permitted to advertise those associations. That rule, I assume, is dependent upon an Act or regulation of the Queensland Government. The Queensland lawyers union-that is, the Queensland Law Society-decided on 29 March that it would retain those closed shop arrangements, which makes me wonder about Senator Stone, who thundered about closed shops in a speech in Perth last week. He said: The closed shop with all its terrible consequences for the present freedoms, and civil liberties more generally, of those who are ground beneath its heel, cannot any longer be tolerated. I therefore anticipate that Senator Stone will use his undoubted influence with the National Party in Queensland to see that the closed shop reinforced by the Queensland lawyers union a couple of weeks ago will be abolished in Queensland. A little further down the track, I look forward to him opening up the biggest closed shop of them all-the Queensland sugar industry. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer to comments made in recent days by the Federation of Metal Trades Unions about the Minister's refusal to end speculation about across-the-board tariff cuts. Has the Government agreed to meet with unions to discuss any destabilisation of manufacturing which may be created by major tariff cuts? Has the Government's decision on this issue been influenced by the metal trade unions' threat to wage a campaign for a 17 per cent pay increase in retaliation for across-the-board tariff cuts? Can the Minister give an assurance that any meeting with unions is part of a general process of consultation with all interested parties and is not simply placing powerful unions above business and consumers? Finally, will the Minister give an undertaking that he will state the Government's policy on industry protection to Parliament before informing the unions of the Government's policy on industry protection? Senator BUTTON —The first part of the question was: Has the Government agreed to meet with unions regarding this matter? The answer to that part of the question is yes. Secondly, is the Government responding to a threat by the metal workers unions in relation to this matter? The answer is no. If the threat which Senator Lewis identified were carried into effect by the metal unions we probably would not have any metal unions in a few years time. I do not think the Government could respond to that threat. Thirdly, is this part of a general process of consultation? There is always a general process of consultation with various parties by this Government. The views of the Business Council of Australia, for example, have been expressed both publicly and elsewhere. The views of the unions on this matter will be expressed to the Government. The views of the Australian Manufacturing Council will be expressed to the Government on these issues. I regard that as a worthwhile process. Senator MAGUIRE —Has the Minister for Finance seen an article in today's Australian Financial Review quoting the shadow Treasurer, Mr Peacock, as saying that the $2,500m in cuts to Commonwealth Government spending proposed by the Business Council of Australia (BCA) did not go far enough? Do the BCA's proposals include incorporating the value of the family home in the age pension assets test? What pressure has been exerted on or representations made to the Government seeking alterations to the assets test for age pensions? Will the Government be implementing a change on the basis of that pressure or those representations? Finally, what is the cost of altering the age pension assets test? Senator WALSH —I have seen the report in today's Australian Financial Review. Before reading the article I had heard that the Business Council had called for cuts of $2.5 billion in the Commonwealth Government's own spending, plus another $1 billion in funding to the States. The Financial Review reports the shadow Treasurer as saying that the BCA submission did not go nearly far enough. The new macho man, the shadow Treasurer, said that a mere $2.5 billion off Commonwealth spending is not nearly enough. Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. Since the Minister has just woken me up, I assume that he is debating the question again. I would ask you, Mr President, to remind him that the Standing Orders do not permit him to debate the question, which he clearly has commenced doing. The PRESIDENT —I will listen carefully to the Minister's answer. Senator WALSH —Thank you, Mr President. I do not believe that I was debating the question. I was just pointing out the facts which are relevant to answering the question. I was asked whether the Business Council's proposals included incorporating the value of the family home in the pension assets text. The Financial Review certainly stated that the BCA had called for that. Whatever one might think of the merit of that, the plain fact is that the BCA proposed not only retention of the assets test, but a major tightening up of the assets test. Whatever merit that policy may have, it is one that has been explicitly rejected both by the would-be macho man who is the shadow Treasurer and by that other would-be macho man, his leader, who, in his reply to the Budget in 1986, said: As a result of this review- that is, a review of Opposition spending commitments- the Opposition remains, on the spending side, committed only to the abolition of the iniquitous assets test. In conclusion, on the one hand the would-be macho man is saying that the BCA proposal does not go nearly far enough, but on the other hand, on the only specific issue addressed, he will not go nearly as far as the BCA has gone. Senator MACKLIN —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Education Services confirm the existence of an efficiency scrutiny review study plan into the Commonwealth Employment Service which proposed, amongst other things, the introduction of a fee for service on client groups, including disadvantaged groups and CES mainstream activities? Since the final report of this internal efficiency scrutiny review was to be presented over a year ago, can the Minister explain what has happened to the report? Can the Minister inform the Senate of the Government's attitude to a fee for service on unemployed and disadvantaged groups which use the services of the CES? Senator WALSH —I do not remember anything about such a review-if it has ever been put to the Expenditure Review Committee, I have forgotten about it; nor do I know anything about its outcome. I will refer the question to Mr Dawkins. Senator BLACK —Is the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories aware of the alleged independent assessment by the Queensland Government of the need for $950m compensation for the World Heritage listing of the north Queensland rainforests? Can the Minister inform the Senate of the basis of this assessment? Does the Minister believe that this is a realistic figure? Senator RICHARDSON —I am aware of the Queensland Government's claim, which is based on something called the Cameron McNamara study. Just what that study was, I am unable to say. But I am able to say that the figure of $950m is, to say the least, extraordinary. For a start, it is already acknowledged that more than half of that sum relates to the Tully-Millstream hydro-electric scheme. That is worth more than $500m. It is still the subject of a feasibility study by the Queensland Government. Not even the Queensland Government has made a decision to proceed with it, let alone see it prohibited by World Heritage listing. Furthermore, from the diagrams that have been shown to us, very little of that project would intrude into the World Heritage area, anyway. Given that the World Heritage convention allows for acts of economic necessity, it would be very difficult for the Government to attempt to prohibit such an undertaking; rather, obviously, we would seek to make sure that it was done in as sensitive a manner as possible with respect to the environment. So it is ludicrous to suggest that that should be part of any figure for compensation when not only has the Queensland Government not made a decision to continue but also the Commonwealth Government has not made a decision to knock it back, anyway. This claim, therefore, is more than ambit; it is in the realm of fantasy land. It has to be put into perspective. The last figures the Australian Bureau of Statistics has for north Queensland-for 1984-85-show that the timber industry in north Queensland was worth $43m per annum. It was worth less than 5 per cent of the north Queensland economy, which rated at more than $3 billion. Manufacturing, apart from the timber industry, was worth almost $1.4 billion. Since 1984-85 the quota for rainforest timber has more than halved, so the value of the industry could not be anything like that figure. Not only would the value be less than 5 per cent, but one would imagine that it would be getting down to the realm of 3 per cent. The cost of the Federal Government's heritage listing decision has been put at $950m. While I would be the first to acknowledge that the economy of north Queensland is booming, no economy can boom that much. One could arrive at that figure only by suggesting that the whole of the north Queensland economy would be destroyed by the decision. No-one would suggest that. Senator Walsh —Not even Ronnie Boswell says that. Senator RICHARDSON —That is right, Senator Walsh; not even Senator Boswell says that. These sorts of ridiculous claims do nothing to assist either north Queenslanders affected by the decision or the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources team here at the moment to evaluate the listing. While it is a ridiculous assertion, it is also obvious that a number of mills will remain open, that the effects of the Government's decision have been wildly exaggerated and, most importantly, that the Commonwealth package of $75m not only adds up to jobs for hundreds of north Queenslanders but also means that the regional economy can take advantage of a tourism infrastructure that can be greatly assisted with that money. Senator PATTERSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. My attention has been drawn to a recent article in the Accountant expressing concern regarding the advertising of interest rates. Has the Trade Practices Commission taken action to halt the practice of many financial institutions of quoting interest rates purely in nominal terms, and, in the light of the Commission's own stated aim of minimising the potential for misleading conduct, has the Government taken steps to ensure the difference between nominal rates and effective rates is made clear to people considering loans to ensure that every Australian borrowing money is aware of the true rate of interest he or she is paying? Senator TATE —I regret that I do not have a brief on the attitude of the Trade Practices Commission to the advertising of interest rates. I will certainly secure an answer as soon as possible as to the view taken by that body. I must say that of course it is of great concern when consumers, beguiled by very effective advertising into making a purchase, are misled into not correctly identifying the real or effective rate of interest they may be required to pay in order to secure the object of their desire, the purchase that they wish to make. That discrepancy between the advertised interest rate and the effective outlay over a period of time is quite large on occasions, and that is a situation which ought to be remedied. I believe that is occurring in some jurisdictions. It may be covered by State consumer protection legislation and so on, with which my colleague Senator Bolkus is probably more familiar than I, whereby such requirements are made so that the purchaser does know exactly how much he or she has to outlay by the end of the period. It may also be the case that this matter has added urgency, in so far as consumer bankruptcies are really more of a worry than business bankruptcies, because of the scale of the problem; and it would be well known that the Government has in mind organising a conference which will look especially at the problem of consumer credit and the associated advertising which can lead people to make commitments far beyond their means. I will certainly look to the specific question of the Trade Practices Commission's attitude towards this matter but, in general, it is a matter with which the Government is concerned. Senator WOOD —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware of proposals by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Hatton, to offer the whole of the Cox Peninsula, west of Darwin, to the United States to develop a deep sea harbour and other facilities as a replacement site for the United States naval base at Subic Bay in the Philippines? Can the Minister seek advice from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on the consequences for the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory of such a proposal and from the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories on the environmental impact of such a move? Does the Minister agree with the statement of Galarrwuy Yunupingu, of the Northern Land Council, that the Chief Minister is either badly informed or incompetent-dare we say both? Does the Minister agree that, if this hare-brained notion were implemented, the social consequences for the people of the Northern Territory as a whole would be disastrous? Will the Government categorically denounce this particular proposal and, further, will the Government reassure Australians, in particular residents around Jervis Bay, that Australia will refuse to host a replacement base for Subic Bay? Senator ROBERT RAY —The Defence Minister has heard of reports of the Northern Territory Chief Minister's proposal. The United States does not wish to replace its facilities at Subic Bay in the Philippines. The United States has not approached the Australian Government seeking alternative sites for these facilities in Australia. A base in Australia could not satisfactorily replace the facilities at Subic Bay because we are too far south of the main focus of US deployments in the Western Pacific. The Government does not intend to approach the United States, as the Northern Territory Chief Minister proposes. Instead, we have stressed the important contribution which the US facilities in the Philippines make to regional security, and we are glad to note a similar view expressed over the weekend by the Malaysian Defence Minister. In view of that advice, I do not intend to seek further information from either the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs or the Environment Minister. Senator REID —Can the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts and Territories say when the new Australian Capital Territory (ACT) firearms ordinance will come into force? Given that the Federal Government's initial justification of this legislation was that it would be consistent with the New South Wales legislation proposed by the former Unsworth Government, has the Minister, for the sake of consistency with New South Wales gun laws, modified the ACT legislation to bring it into line with the Greiner Government's proposals? Senator RICHARDSON —I cannot give Senator Reid a date for when that might happen. I can say, however, that in the light of some developments in a number of States a review of the ACT's position is being conducted. As soon as that review is concluded and we have re-examined the position, I shall let her know. Senator COLSTON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Do full time secondary students who have not previously been in full time employment have to wait 13 weeks after they leave school before they can become eligible for the unemployment benefit? If so, can parents of a student who is under the age of 18 years receive, subject to an income test, family allowance until the student obtains work or becomes eligible for the unemployment benefit? Can family allowance be similarly paid for a former student aged 18 and, if not, could completing students who are 18 be at a distinct disadvantage compared to those under that age? Senator BOLKUS —I have received advice from the Department on the three specific parts of Senator Colston's question. I am advised that students over 16 leaving secondary school or tertiary education and who are under 21, single and without dependants must serve a deferment period of 13 weeks after leaving that education before unemployment benefit can be paid. During that 13-week period they must also be registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES). The Government believes it would be highly undesirable if simply leaving school were to create immediate access to the unemployment benefit. In this respect the requirement for CES registration ensures a closer link between income support and job search activities. With respect to Senator Colston's second question, the answer is that, while a former student aged 16 to 17 years is serving a deferment period, family allowance can be paid subject to the usual income test on that payment, provided that any educational allowance-that is, Austudy-has ceased and the former student is unemployed and still dependent on his or her parents. Family allowance is also payable to former students in this situation who are aged 18 years or more if their families are in disadvantaged circumstances; that is, if the parents are eligible for pension or benefit, family allowance supplement, orphan's pension or child disability allowance. So in that respect parents of older students, for whom the payment will be most crucial, are not in any way at a disadvantage compared with families of younger students. I should add that education leavers who are independent of their parents and who are not receiving financial support may also be eligible for special benefit during the deferment period. The Government's objectives in this area are to ensure that measures such as these will help ensure that the closer integration of family, education and unemployment payments does not impose unfair burdens on students or parents. Senator CHAPMAN —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to the report of the Australian Automotive Industry Authority upon which last Wednesday's statement of changes to the passenger motor vehicle plan was based. I ask the Minister: Did the Authority recommend that any or all of the report be published? Will the Minister publicly release the report? If not, why not? Are the Government's decisions announced on 13 April 1988 fully consistent with the recommendations in the report? Finally, given that the industry is currently producing about 100,000 units a year less than what might be regarded as its traditional base of production, what did the Authority recommend for the industry to recover that base? Senator BUTTON —I think most people understand, although Senator Chapman clearly does not, that the decline in the industry's fortunes in the last two years is very much due to a variety of more macro-economic factors. We cannot wave any magic wand which will produce demand for the motor vehicle industry as an aspect of the industry's policy. The essential reasons why there has been a decline in the car market, as I said to Senator Lewis at our last Question Time, I think, were, first of all, the depreciation of the Australian dollar, which had a very big effect on prices for both imported cars and components for locally manufactured cars and, secondly, the fact that under the Government's wages policy in the last few years there has been a downward pressure on wages, with the result that people have had less spending power. Senator Chapman will be aware of that because those opposite keep talking about it. Senator Lewis —And the government taxes. Senator BUTTON —I have had a couple of interjections to help me along the way. People say that the reduced market for the car industry is a result of government charges. That was certainly true for a period in 1986 when the fringe benefits tax was first introduced. There is no doubt that the uncertainty associated with that caused a fall in the market. Nonetheless, I think a motor vehicle is still a good fringe benefit compared with other fringe benefits that used to be offered. So I do not think that is an ongoing effect of great significance. Senator Chapman also asked me about the report of the Automotive Industry Authority and whether the Authority recommended that the report be published. As I recall it, no recommendation was made on that issue. The Authority will shortly be publishing its stated industry report and its recommendations to me will probably be included in that. If not, the question of the publication of the report can be looked at. No decision has been made about it. I am not seeking to say that it should not be released. Finally, the honourable senator asked: Was the Government's decision consistent with the recommendations of the Automotive Industry Authority? The answer to that question is yes, although it was not the same in every detail. The Government made some decisions which were different from the initial recommendations of the Authority, but those decisions which were different were discussed with the Authority in the course of reaching a solution. Senator CHILDS —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs seen an article in the Sydney Morning Herald today reporting Senator Stone's views on immigration, supporting the Blainey view? Is the Minister concerned that the longstanding bipartisan approach to Australian immigration has been abandoned as a result of outbursts of this type? Senator REYNOLDS —No, I am not concerned that the bipartisan approach to immigration will be abandoned because, fortunately, Senator Stone is not the Opposition spokesperson on immigration. I certainly could have my differences with Mr Cadman and Senator Short, but I take this occasion to pay tribute to them for most of the views that they have expressed in recent months in regard to immigration policies. Successive governments have had a bipartisan commitment to Australia's global non-discriminatory policy and applicants are assessed, regardless of race, religion or ethnic origin, against universal selection criteria. Multiculturalism policies recognise that the diversity of ethnic backgrounds in this country is a strength. It does not threaten the social cohesion of this country; it is based on equal rights and opportunities for all Australians. I noted the article in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning headed, `Stone stirs the ethnic mix'. I think that is a particularly provocative headline though, of course, it is not necessarily of Senator Stone's choice; nevertheless, he questions cultural compatibility in this context. I am not quite sure what Senator Stone means by this and perhaps on some occasion in this chamber he would care to outline just what his views are on immigration. I think it is highly embarrassing for the coalition to have Senator Stone speaking out in this way. I know that he did not have very much success in regard to his views on a consumption tax last week and apparently this week he thought he would try another tack. I do not believe that immigration is an issue that can be used in this political way. I think it is very important for the future of this country that all sides of the political spectrum adopt a very cohesive, bipartisan approach to immigration. Senator Stone —All sides should agree with the Labor Party; is that your view? Senator REYNOLDS —I am sorry that Senator Stone's interjections seem to suggest that he does have a different view. Professor Blainey has made some statements on this matter in the past and I think he has queried the ethnic mix of recent migrants. I think it is appropriate on this occasion just to quote some statistics that might, for once, set this debate in some context. The Statistics Monthly of the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs dated March 1988 refers to the 1986-87 intake from the top 10 source countries-the percentage total intake from a number of countries. For those whose country of birth was the United Kingdom or Ireland, the figure was 19.9 per cent; New Zealand, 12 per cent; Vietnam, 5.9 per cent; the Philippines, 5.6 per cent; South Africa, 4.1 per cent; Malaysia, 3.5 per cent; China, 3.1 per cent; Hong Kong, 3 per cent; Lebanon, 2.5 per cent; and Sri Lanka, 2.5 per cent. Senator Stone and Senator Sheil have gone on record in regard to their views on non-English speaking migrants. I think that anyone who is reasonably quick at mathematics would be able, by doing a quick calculation, to see that by far the great majority of those migrants do in fact speak English, and that those who do not should obviously be offered every assistance and encouragement with English tuition when they are accepted to settle in this country. Finally, I suggest to Senator Stone, who, after all, is a fellow Queensland senator, that he does not seem to be having very much success on the national stage when it comes to policy advice. Perhaps, in view of the results of the Barambah by-election at the weekend, he would do much better to concentrate on his National Party constituency in Queensland. Senator SHORT —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Does the Minister recall that in the Senate Estimates Committee E hearing last Thursday, 14 April, he revealed that the final report of the Advisory Committee to the Constitutional Commission will not be available to the Australian Government before it takes decisions on the content of the referendum Bills to be introduced into the House of Representatives on 10 May, or before both the House of Representatives and the Senate have debated the Bills? Therefore, on what bases will the Government be taking its decisions on its referendum Bills? How does the Government expect the electorate to regard other than with cynical contempt the Government's totally inexplicable and unwarranted haste in bringing forward referendum proposals in advance of receiving final advice from the very constitutional committee that it established to advise it and make recommendations on these matters? Senator TATE —I do recall some discussion taking place in Estimates Committee E concerning the relationship between the Constitutional Commission and its various committees, Commission reports, and whatever questions might be put to the people by this Parliament by way of the referendum process. I think it was pointed out that, whilst it may be that the Commission itself will not complete its report until the end of this financial year, it is hoped that the Government will have within the next week or so the benefit of an interim report which will cover some of the matters which may well form the subject of consideration by the Government of the questions which it would like the Parliament to put to the Australian people for their consideration. As I think I pointed out on that occasion, there is no necessary relationship between the report of the Commission, whether interim or final, and those questions which the Government might consider worthy of putting by way of referendum, or indeed which might be adopted by this Parliament as being proper to put to the people. Whilst it is obviously beneficial to have the benefit of that report, it is not as though the Government is bound to take the Constitutional Commission's final report as the be-all and end-all in any decision it makes as to the proper questions to put to referendum. We have already been greatly assisted by the committee process of the Constitutional Commission, which has led to the production and consideration in the community and by interested parties of a whole range of very relevant matters. I have no doubt the interim report will be helpful in the same way. The Government will make its decision as to the questions which might be put by way of referendum based on many considerations, including, as I say, those committee reports and one hopes the interim report which will be available at that stage. Senator SHORT —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for that answer, but he seems not to have answered the basic question, and I repeat it: Why did the Government establish a Constitutional Commission to advise it on constitutional change and then take decisions on constitutional change before it received the final report of the Commission? Senator TATE —I think it is well known to honourable senators, and I have tried to explain it already, that, given the type of structure which the Commission established, namely the appointment of various committees of high expertise and wide-ranging representation, we have already had put into the public domain very considerable documentation and consideration of the sorts of issues that could properly form the basis for questions to be put by way of referendum. So in a sense the Commission has already performed its major task, if you like, of identifying those questions which are relevant and proper, given Australia's situation in the late twentieth century, for constitutional change, and has already led to that educative process, which is part of its charter, whereby the general public is made aware of those sorts of matters which really do require the attention of the Australian people. Of course, it is always ultimately up to the people as to whether they regard the questions which this Parliament might put to them as sufficiently weighty to merit their passage into a new constitutional provision. But I believe the Constitutional Commission has already justified its existence, regardless of whether it writes another jot or tittle by way of report, by the fact that it has raised in a very professional and considered way and published in its committee reports already the sorts of considerations which will enable government on the one hand and these two chambers on the other properly to frame the sorts of questions which might be put. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. What is the Government's reaction to the recent signing in Geneva of accords providing for the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think it is appropriate for me formally to put on the record the extent to which the Australian Government does, very obviously, welcome the signing of the Geneva accords on 14 April. The Geneva accords will provide a framework for the withdrawal of all Soviet troops, which the Government has long recognised as the key element of any settlement in Afghanistan. It is now up to the Soviet Union to honour its commitment to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan and to put an end to its eight-year long occupation of this sovereign country. The Geneva accords and the withdrawal of Soviet troops do provide a long overdue opportunity for the Afghan people to decide their own future in accordance with their right to self-determination. While the agreement reached in Geneva holds out the possibility of a better future for the people of Afghanistan, after years of privation and suffering, the Government acknowledges that peace is not yet assured and that much needs to be done to rehabilitate Afghan society and the economy. Australia hopes that in the post-settlement phase the various parties to the dispute within the country will be able to cooperate in the national reconstruction effort. To this end the Australian Government is giving consideration to the provision of emergency assistance for international efforts to facilitate the return of Afghan refugees and to reconstruct the country. Senator PANIZZA —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health read the article in the West Australian of 15 April 1988 which revealed that health officials are issuing Medicare cards and free health insurance to all foreigners who have visas to stay in Australia for at least six months? Is the Minister aware that there are more than 5,000 overseas students attending Western Australian tertiary institutions, a figure expected to jump to 8,500 next year? Bearing in mind that Australia has reciprocal medical rights with only Britain and New Zealand and that virtually all of these students are not from those countries, what does the Minister intend to do to stop this large burden on an already overcrowded public health system and a drain on the public purse? Senator COOK —The answer to the first of those series of questions is no, I have not seen the article in the West Australian of 15 April. Senator Short —Where do you live? Senator COOK —I did not see that particular article. I saw lots of others on the fifteenth and I can give them to the honourable senator chapter and verse, but I did not see this particular article. All of the issues mentioned in that question arise from that article and deserve a full and thorough answer. I will put the matter on notice and provide the honourable senator with one. Senator DEVLIN —Does the Minister for Resources agree with the article in the Canberra Times on 16 April 1988 by Keith Scott that the Minister and the Prime Minister are of a different view with regard to the allegations by Senator Sanders over Australian uranium? Senator COOK —I have seen the article. As a matter of fact, I bought a copy of the Canberra Times on Saturday morning at the Red Hill shops. Much to my surprise on its front page it carried an article headed `Uranium: Hawke in new fight'. I read in subsequent paragraphs after that lead that apparently there is some difference between me and the Prime Minister on the subject. I can say categorically that there is no difference between me and the Prime Minister on the subject. It seems that a journalist decided to write that the Prime Minister had dismissed fresh allegations and make it appear as if allegations that I had not dealt with were dismissed. The article stated that Mr Hawke's comments: contrast with those of the Minister for Resources, Senator Cook. The article continued: Mr Hawke said yesterday that there `doesn't seem to be anything in these new allegations'. Senators in this place who listened to my answers to questions on 16 March from Senator Wood, on 17 March from Senator Sanders and on 22 March from Senator Wood will know that a consistent theme in all my answers on all those occasions was that the original source documents on the allegation about flag swaps of Australian origin uranium were several articles in January and February in the German magazine Der Spiegel; that we had obtained that magazine, translated it into English and found a confused series of contending and misunderstanding issues; that we had found that what had been said in the European Parliament and billed as a separate round of allegations seemed to us to relate to the Der Spiegel ones. That is true also of what Australian politicians have alleged. On that basis `no fresh allegations' is an accurate description. The second part of the article was that the Prime Minister seems to have dismissed the allegations. Honourable senators will know that that is consistent with my answers on those occasions, too. I have used words to the effect that on advice to us from our officers the integrity of Australian safeguards is intact, so there is consistency on that point. On the third point the Prime Minister said-and if anyone wishes to read the full transcript of what the Prime Minister said it will be seen that there was selective quoting from what he said in a doorstop interview here in Parliament House and in a bookshop doorstop interview in Sydney on Friday-that we are, of course, investigating all the allegations to give a full statement on them and that if anyone has any information he wishes to bring forward to include in that investigation, we shall include it and put down a reply to it. Senator Walters —He said that there would be no problems. Senator COOK —I say to Senator Walters, who seems to have a fascination with this subject, that we will put down a reply to it this week. There should be a clear distinction in the minds of honourable senators between an allegation and a fact. Some people who have made allegations choose to describe what they say as fact and some journalists choose to report what they then say as if they are facts. We have consistently categorised allegations based on the Der Spiegel articles as allegations. When honourable senators see our statement later in the week dealing methodically with each of them, they will come to appreciate that the allegations cannot be described as fact. Senator CALVERT —Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware of the report commissioned by the Minister for Science, the Hon. Barry Jones, on cold weather technology and called the Antech report? Is the Minister aware that this report, which recommended in February 1987 the setting up of such a centre in Hobart where the Antarctic Division of the Department of Science and the Marine Centre of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation are already established, has been widely circulated in New Zealand? Because of the interest shown by New Zealand business houses, does the Minister agree that there is a real danger that this enterprise, with a potential market of $200m, could be lost because of the Government's lack of action? Has the Minister in recent times had any representations from the honourable member for Denison on this matter? If so, what was the response? Senator BUTTON —I am not aware of the details of that matter. I will obtain an answer as quickly as I can for the honourable senator. Senator JENKINS —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Has his attention been drawn to a poll in a Canberra newspaper in which some 77 per cent of over 2,500 respondents expressed opposition to a proposed casino development in Canberra? I ask whether the Minister's attention been drawn to the recommendations of the board of inquiry into casinos in the State of Victoria, which-and I quote the Victorian Attorney-General: recommended that casinos should not be permitted in Victoria . . . casinos of whatever variety. What steps would the Minister consider taking to prevent the involvement of organised crime in a proposed Canberra casino? What steps would the Minister take to prevent the stimulation of casino gambling among the population of Canberra? Can the Minister demonstrate that there is a genuine popular demand for a casino in Canberra? Senator RICHARDSON —The Government took a decision on a casino for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) some time ago. It should be noted that the total development involves high quality hotel accommodation, retail and other entertainment facilities. The total investment in the project would be in the order of $300m. It would involve thousands of jobs in the construction phase and over 1,000 permanent jobs once completed. A new Canberra theatre and library would be funded from the payment made by the developer of the site. In short, the Government considers that Canberra cannot afford to reject the proposal. The Government has indicated that it intends to plan this development in a responsible manner. We have commissioned an independent study of the social impact of the casino in the Australian Capital Territory. Recently I gave some details of it in this place. The study will consider the adequacy of the proposed casino control legislation and the likely impact of the casino on gambling activity in the Australian Capital Territory. Part of the study will involve examining measures to prevent the involvement of organised crime. The casino control ordinance will determine the operation of the casino and exclude undesirable elements. The terms of reference for the study require it to have regard to the experience of casinos in other States and reports from other inquiries, such as the one referred to in the question from the Victorian Government. The study is advertising publicly for submissions and will conduct public consultations. The Government is aware of the poll to which Senator Jenkins referred from the Canberra Chronicle. The results of any poll are always interesting, but one must read them in conjunction with a reading of the methodology adopted in the poll. In this case that involved asking people interested to send in coupons-hardly what any of us would consider the best way of conducting a poll into anything. I have some doubt whether that poll would accurately reflect in total the views of the local community. Having said that, I stress that the Government obviously is aware of community concern about the impact of a casino in the ACT. We are conducting a social impact study for that very reason. The Government hopes that ACT residents will take the opportunity the study provides to express their views on any local problems they see emerging. Senator JENKINS —I ask the Minister a supplementary question. Is the Minister suggesting that the citizens of Canberra can have a new theatre and library only on the proceeds of a casino? Senator RICHARDSON —I suggest that if the residents of the Australian Capital Territory want a new theatre and a library, they would get it much more quickly if the casino were approved and payments from the casino operators were being made. Senator BISHOP —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. Following my question last Friday, when I asked the Minister to explain how Telecom spent $608,900 on its analysis of the proposal to time charge for local calls, I draw the Minister's attention to a full page advertisement placed by Telecom in the House Magazine-Volume 6, No. 29 of 9-16 December 1987-a magazine produced for senators and members. The advertisement lauds the commitment of Telecom to provide telephone services in remote areas of outback Australia and states: Recently the six inhabitants of William Creek, reputedly Australia's smallest town, celebrated the arrival of the world's loneliest phone box. This project alone cost Telecom 1.6 million dollars. The advertisement further boasts: Before the program is completed we'll spend closer to 500 million dollars. I ask the Minister whether it is a fact that this $1.6m installation could have been provided at a sum of less than $100,000, that is, less than one-tenth of the final cost of installation, by the Australian Satellite Service, Aussat. Can the Minister tell me whether Aussat was consulted for a quotation before the work commenced? Will the Minister ensure that in future Telecom uses the cheapest means to service its subscribers, in particular those who live in the outback, so that Telecom will save public money and thereby eliminate the necessity to introduce timed local calls as favoured by the board of Telecom, the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers in this Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will respond to that speech in a day or two when I obtain further information. Senator CROWLEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Has the Minister seen the recent brochures and pamphlets put out by the Women's Sport Promotions Unit and launched late last year by Minister John Brown? Can the Minister say whether the Women's Sport Promotion Unit and the national policy for women in sport are receiving wide recognition and whether he will take any further steps to ensure full implementation of that policy? Finally, has the Government any role to play in reviewing the Olympic Games selectors' decision not to choose any women rowers, despite evidence of inaccurate timing of their races? Senator RICHARDSON —I appreciate the opportunity to place on record the Government's position on this issue. From the start it is important to recognise that for too long women have faced barriers which have restrained them from deriving the full benefits available through involvement in sport. Two important points need to be acknowledged. First, in December 1987 the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) national policy and plan for women in sport was announced. The importance of this document can be gauged from the fact that demand for the copies has been so great that it has exceeded supply and it is already into a second print run. I think that every member of parliament has been provided with a copy of that document. The second point relates to the establishment of the Women's Sport Promotion Unit. The ASC has provided staffing and initial funding of $50,000 for this financial year. A brochure outlining the Unit's brief has been printed and I have instructed the ASC to provide a copy to all members and senators. The main objectives of the Women's Sport Promotion Unit are to promote and raise awareness of the involvement of women in sport, to encourage and increase participation, conduct research and provide greater information about the issues affecting women in sport, and to implement the ASC's national policy on women in sport. The Government is fully committed to that issue and the Unit's operations will be given priority in subsequent financial years. I ask that honourable senators also note the bipartisan nature of support for those initiatives. In respect of the honourable senator's last question about women rowers, I think two points should be made. The first is that evidence about whether the timing of their efforts was correct is being looked at. I am certainly prepared to write to the national rowing body if I feel that there is anything in that evidence. The main point to make is that it has never been the role-nor should it ever be the role-of the Minister for sport to choose the team to go to any given Olympics. That must be the role of sporting bodies, and I do not intend to usurp that role. Occasionally the Minister probably has an opportunity to nudge, but there is very little beyond that. I never try to accrue power, as you are well and truly aware, Mr President, and I will not do so on this occasion either. Senator BUTTON — Last Friday Senator Aulich asked me a question about a letter in the Australian Financial Review of 12 April relating to cement production. I began to answer the question but was interrupted by the conclusion of Question Time. I add to that answer the following matters. In recent months unions have lobbied the Government, as have cement companies, not in search of traditional protection but for the implementation of a total ban on cement imports into Australia. The Government will not do that, and I have informed the industry of that decision on at least four occasions. I make the point that that request for a ban on cement imports into Australia comes at a time when between 1 and 2 per cent of the cement used in Australia is imported. Of course the National Party Government in Queensland has announced a ban on imports into that State, but that is its business and the Federal Government will not follow that course. The fact that cement imports are so small in the total scheme of things is not to say that there could never be a problem with unfair competition from imports. I note that Japan, for example, recently has had exports of 14 million tonnes annually and Korea has had a big increase in the export of cement and there are concerns in the Australian industry about dumping. If that occurs and a dumping complaint is properly made, it will be dealt with by the Australian Customs Service in the normal way. Allegations of dumping cannot be relied on. Allegations are insufficient as far as the Government is concerned-dumping must be proved. Further, people in the cement industry are saying that the experience in the United States of America suggests that Australia will be subjected to import penetration by foreign cement manufacturers. Certainly there has been a big rise in cement imports into the USA in search of a very strong market there. Of course, there were no attempts by the United States producers to prevent those imports. Many of the United States producers were clearly uncompetitive. I think the lessons of the United States industry indicate essentially that steps should be taken to ensure that the Australian industry is more competitive, is working for greater efficiency, and is organised to act quickly against dumping if it occurs. The industry here has been slow to argue its case to Customs in relation to dumping. There seems to be little enthusiasm at the present time to become more competitive. I have told the industry that the Government will do everything it can to process the industry's anti-dumping case as quickly as possible. I have asked the Bureau of Industry Economics to conduct a study on the current state of the industry, and we have also established a liaison committee to monitor and review these reports. In relation to that last matter, nearly a month after its announcement of that initiative the industry has still not nominated representatives. There is a second complaint about that which I do not need to deal with during Question Time. Undoubtedly the Australian cement industry is apprehensive about imports, but there must be something more than apprehension to justify some of the conduct which has occurred. It seems to me a particularly unfortunate use of the work force by companies in the industry to encourage activities in pursuit of a campaign which is ultimately designed to protect the vested interests of the companies concerned. Senator COOK —On Thursday, 14 April Senator Panizza asked me a question about the McColl Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport. It is now possible for me to add to the answer that I gave on that occasion. I have spoken to Minister Kerin about the issues raised by Senator Panizza. He has asked me to say that the issues raised by the report are both complex and comprehensive and will require detailed consideration by a range of authorities. To assist informed discussion, the Government has appointed the former commissioner who conducted the Royal Commission, Mr Jim McColl, as a consultant to advise interested parties on the recommendations in the report and the rationale behind them. Mr McColl is due to meet with national growers and employees' representatives later this month, and the Government will need to consult with the State governments and other interested parties in determining its response to the Commission's report. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 24 March Senator Bjelke-Petersen asked me a question relating to the amount of fuel tax revenue spent on improving roads, at which time I undertook to provide the honourable senator with a detailed reply, which I now seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The reply read as follows- The increases in fuel taxes since 1984-85 have occurred for macro-economic reasons. Under the Import Parity Pricing Scheme the 1986 fall in the international price of crude oil had the potential to severely erode general revenue raised by the crude oil levy. The Government therefore decided to increase the excise component in the price of petrol and diesel in order to protect its revenue base. This adjustment to fuel excise was made in such a way as to preserve overall revenue neutrality, but resulted in a significantly higher level of fuel excise collections in 1985-86 and 1986-87. If this action had not been taken as crude oil prices fell, the Government would have needed to increase taxation in other areas or make significant cuts to a wide range of expenditure activities. For budgetary reasons the Government has found it necessary to restrict its outlays on roads, as it has in other areas of Federal expenditure. It is misleading, however, to make comparisons based solely on the proportion of excise returned to roads. Issues relating to the ear-marking of a proportion of fuel excise to roads are being considered by the Government as part of its review of Federal road funding arrangements to replace the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program from the beginning of next year. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Vanstone proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to structure or administer the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse so as to permit the successful achievement of its goals which are shared by all Australians. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(3.12) —This is a matter of public importance. When one considers the attitudes that we find in the community today and the apprehension that parents feel as to whether their children will be caught by the drug menace-when one looks at what is happening-one comes to the conclusion that this Government has failed to structure or administer the National Campaign against Drug Abuse so as to permit the successful achievement of its goals, which are shared by all Australians. I note that the Government considers this such an important matter that it is not even prepared to put forward a Minister to defend its record in terms of administering and controlling the structure of the campaign! Instead, we have a backbencher-a very competent backbencher, I admit. Nonetheless no Minister is prepared to come into this chamber and defend the Government's record in relation to this campaign. At the Liberal Party Federal Council meeting one weekend ago my Leader, John Howard, said: Nothing strikes more terror into the hearts of parents than the fear that their children will fall prey to drug abuse. No family and no child-irrespective of their background-is insulated from the danger of drugs. The drug menace represents one of the most insidious threats to the social fabric of this country. It is an issue which for my part transcends partisan politics. The challenge we face is an immediate one, demanding action in a co-ordinated and genuinely bipartisan manner. It is in that spirit that this matter is brought on today. After all, consideration of something in a bipartisan manner does not mean that one sits back and accepts everything that the Government does on a particular project. Quite the opposite; it means that, with all the resources at hand, one debates a matter as openly and publicly as possible to ensure that the common goals are achieved. I personally hold little hope that the Government will accept my Leader's offer, because this publicity machine for the beleaguered Minister Blewett is not something that he or the Government has any intention of giving away, and they have no intention of being deflected from that path. I mentioned earlier that this matter touched all Australians, and I referred to some quotes detailing the concerns that parents have; but, of course, it is not only parents. One must consider the young children, perhaps too young to be listening to this debate, who go to school hoping that no one will notice the bruises on their bodies, terrified at having to lie yet again to cover up for the fact that the night before mum or dad, with a few drinks under their belt, beat them up; and those same kids who go home on the bus with somewhat of a dark cloud hanging over them hoping that it will not happen again tonight. One thinks of the schoolchildren old enough to be listening to this debate who really need a mother or father who is interested in helping them with their homework and having some discussions about the problems they have in facing the teenage years. Yet they know that just that one extra tranquilliser that has been popped in makes any real discussion with their mother not a high probability. Parents are concerned not only that their children will fall prey to the drug menace but also that perhaps their children on the way home from university or school will be cleaned up by someone driving on the road, a person with far too much alcohol in the blood in charge of a vehicle on the road. One thinks of the mother who hopes that her daughter will take a rightful place in the community, given the changing social expectations of women, only to see that daughter with falling grades at university or at school and with a falling self-respect. One thinks of the father who hopes that his son will achieve far greater things than he was able to but who sees a boy whose only ambition is nothing more than the next fix. Leaving the matter of the mother and the father and the children and the implications that it has for them, one next considers the employers of Australia, faced with a person who has been a good employee but who, due either to family stress or to stress at work, takes to alcohol or some form of drug abuse. An employer is then put in the position of deciding whether to `let the person go' or to try to see that person through the stress period. All these people are concerned with this debate and what we have to say. It is a shared goal to have healthier Australians of all age groups and of both sexes, with an ever-decreasing dependence on drugs and alcohol. That is a shared goal. However, we would choose a different path towards that goal from that chosen by the Government. The Government chose to start with a gigantic media launch which really amounted to advertising its intention to do something about the drug problem in Australia but which did not actually achieve anything. People were making jokes about the drug offensive being called the `drug expensive'. When one thinks back to when that campaign was first launched, one thinks of the concept of a Federal government running round the country throwing glossy booklets into people's backyards, and not even managing that task properly, which was an embarrassment. As to my comment about the Government not even managing that task properly, some people may not remember that some of the drug offensive leaflets that were hurled over the front and back fences had in them an advertisement for the `cannabis defensive' a National Organisation for Reform of Marihuana Laws-NORML-initiative, with little words that said, `Do you think this $100m drug campaign is offensive?'. The Government could not even manage to deliver the booklets in the first place without their being interfered with. Other booklets had the results of the Australian smoking survey inserted in them. So, that is the first point: a general, broad media campaign advertising basically the intention rather than getting to the substance of the matter is not something that the coalition parties would have done. I note that Senator Bolkus-now Minister Bolkus-said when he was last in New York: Expensive PR campaigns are not the answer. The US Government is spending millions on relatively ineffectual drug education programs. One would think that, if a member of the Government is prepared to acknowledge that expensive public relations (PR) campaigns are not the way to go, it would have by now reconsidered its approach. However, apparently this has not yet happened. Not only did people find the general concept of a PR launch offensive-not wishing to use a pun-but some of the contents of that campaign were unsatisfactory. A Ms Mary Benson, head of a self-help group for women alcoholics, said: The Government leaflet which was distributed to about five million homes portrayed girls who drank as cheap in the eyes of boys. They were regarded as real push-overs and an embarrassment. What Ms Benson was saying was that hundreds of thousands of alcoholic women were ashamed to seek treatment because of the stereotype of drunk women as sluts. Her comments on the inclusion of that sort of terminology in this broad campaign were as follows: This has destroyed the work we have been doing for 10 years. On the ground, grassroots drug workers in many States ask, `Why focus on hard drugs? Why not focus on the legal drugs which are the real killers?'. We have yet to have an argument from the Government indicating why it selected the hard drugs to start this campaign with. A Ms Payne from the Independent Association for Recovery from Alcoholism said: The new drug offensive follows in the footsteps of what has happened in NSW. Front line troops, the health workers with long experience in dealing directly with drug affected people, are almost entirely excluded from the policy and planning level. This is not the way to go. If the Government is going to have a big PR campaign the very least it can do is get the information in it right. Since drug abuse is such an important matter, it seems trite to raise a political point but I recall asking then Senator Ryan when she was the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women what she thought about the comments in the drug offensive leaflet Boys on Girls on Drugs. She admitted that she had not been consulted about using that type of terminology. The leaflet having been put out by a government that says it is anti-sexist, she was concerned and said she would raise the matter with those responsible for that campaign. Yet some alcohol campaign advertisements which were released recently follow the same lines. In summary on that point, suffice it to say we would not have gone that way and any PR campaign we would have gone into certainly would not have made those mistakes. We would have consulted with the people on the ground and tried to address the real issues rather than advertising to the community that we had a concern. The reason that the PR campaign was so badly placed and that the campaign has been so poorly co-ordinated since then is the lack of adequate research. I draw the Government's attention to the comments in Trends and Issues, No. 1, July 1986, of the Australian Institute of Criminology. This is what it had to say about the formulation of this campaign: It remains, however, somewhat surprising that this country could launch a $100m National Campaign Against Drug Abuse and that so many extra resources and powers should be granted to law enforcement bodies in the absence of any real knowledge of the size of the illegal drug problem. Statistics on Drug Abuse in Australia of 1986, produced by the Commonwealth Department of Health, as it was then, says: Available information on the extent and patterns of drug use is quite limited, particularly concerning the illegal use of drugs and the use of volatile substances. . . . . In summary, the evidence indicates that alcohol, tobacco, analgesics and cannabis are used more commonly than any other drugs and that the use of alcohol, analgesics and cannabis by the young is increasing. The use of most drugs by adults tends to be decreasing. What that says is that the whole initial focus of this campaign was on the wrong foot. The whole focus was on the hard, illicit drugs and it has only just started to shift to the licit ones with the recent launch of the alcohol campaign. Just to ensure that people understand that these are not the views of an opposition seeking to make capital out of some high profile Government activity, let me quote from Ian Dobinson from the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, which is in the New South Wales Attorney-General's Department. He said: My criticism of the campaign is that there is no way we will be able to say whether or not it has been effective. We don't know what the situation is now. We don't have the information or the capability of determining that. The basic ethnographic research has not been done. The author of the article titled `Why the Drug Offensive may fail' has this to say: The drug offensive has been politically initiated and politically timetabled. . . . . It appears to have been trapped into over-hasty action on insufficient research . . . There have been claims that health professionals have not been adequately consulted. . . . . It was very rushed. I could go on. Article after article confirms the view that we put. Inadequate research was done. If the appropriate research had been done the Government would have been able more properly to target its initial campaign and the campaigns that followed. If it had done that appropriate research it would have understood the problems in having a national campaign against drug abuse in which it tries to push national priorities onto States when those priorities were not necessarily reflected on a State by State basis. The Chairman of the South Australian Drug and Alcohol Services Council, Graham Forbes, said: The smallest States are taking a different approach. We want to see that the real issues are focused upon. That is what the coalition wants to see-the real issues in drug abuse focused on, not the high profile heroin addict issues affecting a smaller proportion of the community. So much of the other drug abuse that is going on in the community appears to be, by and large, being ignored in the high profile national aspect of this campaign. This is an appropriate place to say that it is not being ignored by the States-not at all-but it is being ignored by the national contribution to this campaign. Plenty of research has been done to indicate that the Government is going the wrong way. The campaign against drug abuse bureaucracy will tell us that the research was done, but it is not appropriate to address a campaign on the prejudices of the population. A campaign needs to be directed to the real problems and not the public perceptions of them. I turn to State co-operation. We remember that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) got into government saying this was going to be a consensus government. One does not need to point out how obviously untrue that is. This was going to be a campaign with a large national element and co-operation between the States. The South Australians believe that South Australia should devote the resources that they have to helping to prevent another Kings Cross problem by helping young people at risk before they go onto hard drugs rather than promoting a problem that does not really exist there yet. A newspaper article reports that the Victorians say: NCADA is inspired more by politics than by community needs. ``It has attended far more to the political imperatives than welfare imperatives. The whole idea of a national campaign itself contradicts national guidelines on drug programs''. The problem being raised by the States is that some of them do not have the same problems that Sydney has. My State does not have a Kings Cross with heroin addicts falling about in the back streets. We want to concentrate on other problems. To have a national campaign is fine, provided that national campaign works with the States on such an important matter, takes into account the State differences and works on thorough research to start with. I mentioned earlier that the recent launch of the alcohol campaign contained some advertisements carrying on the problems that had been started in earlier sections of the campaign; namely, the use of sexist stereotypes. But the problems have been much bigger than that. To start with, the timing of the alcohol campaign was changed simply to suit the New South Wales election, not that it did the Australian Labor Party much good. Consternation has been raised over these advertisements. As a result, I wrote to John Loy, the campaign manager, and asked about the basis on which this campaign was launched. I asked for the research material so that the coalition could, in a bipartisan way, assess whether the Government was going the right way. The letter I got back thanked me for my original letter and said that the Minister for Community Services and Health had agreed that the campaign material should be published as soon as possible and as soon as it was public I could have it. I do not regard that as a bipartisan approach to a campaign. When the Opposition coalition seeks to get information and to work with the Government and to find out whether it has done the right thing before criticising it publicly it is told that it can wait until the matter becomes public. Last but not least, let me deal with the matter of women. I sit here day after day listening to Senator Reynolds explaining in dulcet tones that her Government cares about women. I have seen much publicity given to the Government's research into domestic violence. I simply make the point that one does not need yet another survey from the Office of the Status of Women to see the role that alcohol plays in domestic violence. Yet nowhere in this alcohol campaign has consideration been given to the role of alcohol in domestic violence. I would very much like to know-perhaps Senator Giles or Senator Zakharov can tell us later in the debate-what advice the Office of the Status of Women offered the Government on the role of alcohol in domestic violence and the obvious importance that has to women and children who are affected by that violence. There is an additional point. I made the point in the very beginning that we believe that this campaign has gone the wrong way because it concentrated initially on the illicit drugs and left, until the start of the alcohol campaign, the licit drugs, the real problems, up to the States. That brings me to the question of women and tranquillisers. The Prime Minister, when he first announced this campaign, acknowledged this problem. But what has the Federal Government done about it? It has not done much. The States have done something. My State recently started a very good campaign. I think it is called `This Women is now in Charge'. New South Wales, Senator Puplick's State, has done something about it-but not the Federal Government. Again, I would be interested to know what advice the Office of the Status of Women offered this Government in terms of the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse. The Government started this campaign with inadequate research. It has continued it with inadequate research. It has a predetermination to advertise its intention rather than to get at the real problems of drug abuse, which are, as I have said, with the licit drugs more so than the illicit drugs. I look forward to hearing what Senator Collins has to say about what the Government will now do to get the campaign against drug abuse back on the right track and to get appropriate consultation with the States and some decent research on which to base the future of the campaign. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(3.32) —Senator Vanstone has delivered so many furphies and misunderstandings about the campaign that it is extremely difficult to know which one to start with. The one I would like to start with is Senator Vanstone's very common claim that the people in her State do not have a drug problem, unlike those terrible people in Sydney. That is one of the commonest misunderstandings and reactions of people when talking about drugs. One of the most dispiriting things about the entire drug debate from a personal point of view-we have a particular problem with drug abuse, I am prepared to acknowledge, in the Northern Territory-is that so often one hears middle-aged politicians and administrators saying what a dreadful problem the young have with drug abuse while conveniently ignoring the problems they have themselves with drug abuse. We are all drug users, and most of us are drug abusers, whether it is of pharmaceuticals, alcohol, cigarettes, coffee or whatever. Coffee is my particular addiction. I drink far too much coffee. Senator Richardson —Is that all? Senator COLLINS —That is about it. I lead a very pedestrian life. To try to distil what Senator Vanstone was saying, she kept on referring to the `problem with the program in the beginning'. Senator Vanstone is perfectly happy to acknowledge, apparently, that the program as it is currently being administered is going all right. Her major concern appeared to be that she wants the program to concentrate on the abuse of licit drugs rather than illicit drugs. She was prepared to acknowledge that it appears that is being done. Senator Vanstone's apprehensions about that are soundly based in that this year approximately twice as much money is being spent on advertising to do with alcohol, for example, as there is on advertising to do with heroin abuse. The fundamental misunderstanding of Senator Vanstone's address was who is responsible for administering this campaign. If she had the barest understanding of how the organisation works, she would have to acknowledge that it is a cooperative venture, cooperatively administered by the Commonwealth and the States. The Commonwealth Government does not structure or administer the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse. It is a joint program which has met with the approval of all the constituent State governments. Senator Vanstone —You don't talk to the States enough. Senator COLLINS —If there are problems with the States, they do not appear to be bringing them to the national ministerial council that administers this program, which is finally administered by the Premiers Conference. On 6 November 1987 an announcement was made by the then Special Minister of State, Senator Susan Ryan, that the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse had been approved by the national council of Ministers-that is, all State Ministers and the Commonwealth-for a further three years. I will read from the opening paragraph of that Press statement: The Special Minister of State, Senator Susan Ryan, welcomed the decision by all Ministers responsible for drug health and law enforcement to extend the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse-the Drug Offensive-for a further three years. Senator Ryan said that in the next three years of the Campaign, Commonwealth, State and Territory governments will contribute more than $100m. This significant commitment will allow governments to continue the achievements of the first 3 years in the expansion of drug education programs, the provision of treatment and rehabilitation facilities and the development of research into drug abuse. The decision to extend the Campaign is based on the initial success of its balanced approach to combating drug abuse involving both the reduction of the supply and the demand for drugs. That decision was a joint decision of all State Ministers for health and the Federal Government. Senator Vanstone needs, at the very least, to take up her objections to this program with her colleagues at State government level because there has been a cooperative approach. That is the only way that we will succeed. The other misunderstanding Senator Vanstone continually harped on was that the majority of the resources and funding expended on this program concentrate on the slick media campaigns to which she continually referred. That is not the case. Only 15 per cent of the Commonwealth allocation-I am not talking about the State allocation-to this program is being spent on the media. It is probably worthwhile looking at the financial breakdown of that $100m, which is often cited. Each year, $20m is contributed nationally, $8m of which is reserved for the national campaign, with $12m-the majority of it-going, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, to the States. That becomes a total of $32m each year for three years. The majority, the lion's share, of that funding goes to State-Commonwealth programs, not to the media, but how is it possible to heighten community awareness of and debate on a problem without extensive media campaigning? One of the signal successes-and it has been a success, considering the fact that it has been going for only three years-of the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse has been, from where I live, the greatly heightened community awareness of the misuse of licit drugs. I absolutely agree with Senator Vanstone that the misuse of licit drugs is the most serious problem the country has. It is beyond argument. One does not have to look too far for evidence of this. In excess of 20,000 people a year die of tobacco abuse, and 200 or 300 die of drug abuse. Often the deaths of drug abusers are due to other causes such as malnutrition, the general lack of care they take of themselves or the use of dirty needles. One does not have to argue too hard to convince me that the program should concentrate, as it is doing, on licit drugs. In defence of the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse, it is fair to say, considering the program is only three years old, that it cannot attack everywhere at once. It cannot run in a hundred different directions simultaneously. The reason I say that is that I take issue with another statement Senator Vanstone made. Senator Vanstone —Get it right this time. Senator COLLINS —What Senator Vanstone said-I have it exactly right; I quote her-was, `You do not deal with what the public perceives as the problem. You deal with what we know'-we being the alpha group, rather than the beta group, which Senator Vanstone represents-`is the problem'. Could I make the obvious point-I think it is a commonsense point-- Senator Vanstone —Deal with reality, not perceptions. Senator COLLINS —Senator Vanstone should not put words in my mouth; she should listen. If one is starting a campaign from scratch-I am not talking about coming in three or five years on-and trying to get a positive community response to the concerns that one wishes to raise, it makes a great deal of commonsense to me that one start the campaign, not necessarily continue it but start it, in the area where the research tells one that the community already has a concern. The research indicated that those two areas were abuse of alcohol and heroin. In the research that was done they were significantly highlighted as being two areas of considerable, overwhelming community concern. They were perceived as being the major drug problems. It makes an enormous amount of sense to me, if one is trying to start a debate in the community about drugs, to base the campaign in the area in which the research shows that one will get a response. Indeed, we have a response. The research that has since been carried out by the polling organisations indicates that, in respect of some of the heroin advertisements, for example, there has been a 70 per cent recall of the advertisements. That figure is extraordinarily high. If there is a 30 per cent recall for an advertisement for soap powder or whatever, the industry considers that the campaign has been highly successful. On those figures, the national campaign that has been run by the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse has been very highly successful. As far as licit drugs are concerned, I think it is fair to say that, considering that the national campaign is administered as a joint Commonwealth-State effort, the Commonwealth-I think that we have the marks on the board to prove it-has been arguing for years to concentrate on licit drugs and has quite often received a lot of flak and a lot of opposition from the States that are part of the program. It is fair to say that there has not only been opposition from the States but also a considerable amount of pressure from the vested business interests that are concerned with the two major areas of drug abuse-that is, alcohol and tobacco. It has been enormously difficult for the Government. The Government-I commend it for this-has gone on the record in one particular area, in stating its concern about cigarette smoking, by bringing in a legislative ban on cigarette smoking on domestic airline flights in Australia. This is something which I support. The Commonwealth has been arguing for years at meetings of the national council of Ministers that we should concentrate on licit rather than illicit drugs. Senator Vanstone perhaps should direct her attention more to her State colleagues than to the Federal Government. As I have said before, I think it is true to say, at least in the Northern Territory, from visits that I have made to schools and from talking to people in the community, that there has been a profound increase in awareness of the misuse of licit drugs. I give a lot of the credit for that to the media campaigns that Senator Vanstone so trenchantly criticised. As I have said before, the organisation has been operating for only about three years. It is absolutely vital that there be a combined effort between the States and the Commonwealth. I do not think there is too much argument about that. The reality is that most of the money, as I have said before, has not gone into what I consider to be essential media hype; it has gone into grassroots programs, most of which-all of the significant ones-have been administered by the States. Very considerable expansion in those areas has occurred as a result of the money that has been spent. For example, the number of methadone programs has been expanded from 2,203 before the campaign started to over 5,700 at the current time. In 1986-87, 55 residential treatment programs were funded, including halfway houses, prison units and therapeutic communities. If I have time I will discuss a few of the more specific ones that deserve mention around Australia. Eighty-nine non-residential treatment and rehabilitation services were supported in the 1986-87 financial year, including methadone programs, hospital based services and counselling services. In 1986-87 more than 61,000 people looking for help made contact with the telephone counselling services that are provided. I think that shows a fair degree of positive response from the community. Senator Peter Baume —Which of them work? Senator COLLINS —I am sorry, I am having a bit of trouble hearing you, Senator. Senator Peter Baume —Which of the programs work? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Senator Collins, would you please address your remarks through the Chair. Senator Peter Baume, I know that you are on the speakers list, and you will have the opportunity to speak later. Senator COLLINS —Yes, Mr Acting Deputy President, I will address my remarks through the Chair. I am sorry that I was distracted. I blame Senator Baume for that. Senator Vanstone talked about research. In my view it is a valid criticism. Senator Vanstone —Inadequate research, I talked about. Senator COLLINS —Yes, it is a valid criticism in my view. In fact, the program is directing its attention to redressing it. Two research centres of excellence have been established in Sydney and Perth to overcome this problem. But I think it is fair to say that, if one wants to start to tackle the problem, one should not sit on one's hands and wait around for three or four years for the results of research that one has initiated. That is an extraordinary attitude for Senator Vanstone to take. We all know that there are some basic problems. The organisation has carried out fundamental research indicating what the community's main concerns are. Its initial response was to react to that, and I think that is a proper way in which to proceed. In the meantime it is now funding two centres of excellence for research. Hopefully, the research results from those two centres of excellence will result in a better program in future years. I certainly hope so. It is not just a criticism by Senator Vanstone; there seems to be a general theme in the criticisms that are made across the board about funding. There is an apprehension that the majority of the funding is spent on the media. As I have said before, only 15 per cent of it is spent in that area. It is worthwhile looking at where some of the other money is spent. In Victoria, for example, a sobering-up centre-I am talking about licit drugs again-has been established by the St Vincent's Hospital with funding through this program. In Queensland a rehabilitation unit, again concentrating on licit drugs, has been set up in the north Brisbane hospitals area. An Aboriginal alcohol and drug dependence program has been started in Queensland. Logan House, a drug free therapeutic community, has been established. These have all been established as a result of the funding from this program. The lion's share of it goes into these areas. Senator Peter Baume —Do they work? Senator COLLINS —In response to that interjection I must say that I have considerable sympathy for Senator Baume's views on drugs. I have read widely what Senator Baume has said. I do not necessarily go so far as to agree with him that the correct way to go is to descriminalise the use of marijuana. I know that that is Senator Baume's view; it does not happen to be mine. I do not want to be distracted because I have a lot more to say, but I began by philosophically embracing that approach. But we have a new significant drug threat in the Northern Territory now, called kava. It would be in the same category as Senator Baume would put marijuana-in fact, it is considered now to be a food and not a drug. For years that substance, which has turned the residents of some Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory into zombies-that is my personal observation-has not been considered to be a serious problem. People have said, `It doesn't do anything bad to you'. We know now, of course, from excellent world class research that has been carried out by the Menzies School of Health in Darwin, that it probably has a more serious, harmful effect on people physically than alcohol has, in that it causes substantial and measureable liver and kidney damage. It is absolutely legal to obtain, but it is a serious problem. I am not sure-I am prepared to be persuaded-whether going along the route of loosening controls over drugs simply because we are conscious of the fact that licit drugs are being abused even more is necessarily the way to go. The reason that I make those points is that I would like some response from Senator Baume. I would like to take up one specific point. Senator Vanstone alluded to a criticism that she had brought directly to the attention of the public concerning the operations of this organisation. She attempted to do the very thing she accused the organisation of doing-that is, attempting to make political capital out of the drug offensive. In fact, she issued a Press statement in which she made the accusation that the launch of the alcohol campaign was a political stunt. I quote from her Press release: The launch this morning of the campaign against alcohol abuse shows that Labor hijacked the campaign to suit the publicity needs of the ailing Unsworth Government. The timing and preparation of the launch and campaign were rushed so as to allow the New South Wales Premier to launch the New South Wales section of the campaign at the Southern Cross, Goulburn Street, Sydney on the last Sunday before the New South Wales State election. She went on to say, as the basis for her charge: Originally there was to be a staggered launch of the advertisements in each State. The problem is that Senate Vanstone's political attack on the program was utterly wrong. Seeing that it has not been done before, I will correct the record at this stage. It was never planned to have a staggered launch for the campaign. In fact in 1987 the national Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy resolved that a media campaign addressing the issue of alcohol abuse be run simultaneously in all States and Territories, and that the campaign should commence as soon as appropriate. At a meeting on 17 November 1987 of the Commonwealth-State project management group-not the New South Wales Labor Party-which was oversighting the campaign, a timetable leading to the launch on 6 March 1988 was circulated. At a meeting on 18 February 1988 of the media steering committee, which consists of both Commonwealth and State representatives, the Commonwealth stated its intention to launch the campaign on 13 March 1988, and the change was due to the unavailability of Ministers travelling to the health Ministers conference in Alice Springs in the Northern Territory. I might add that both Queensland and Tasmania fully participated in this launch. I have run out of time but, in conclusion, I would say that Senate Vanstone could take some of her own good advice and be a little less political about this campaign and a little more supportive of its goals- goals which I think we have had some success in achieving in the bare three years that the campaign has been in existence. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(3.52) —I am pleased to see that we have in the gallery this afternoon a number of young people, and I hope they will stay for a while. Rather than attack the Government or the Opposition on this matter, I make a plea-I guess this is part of what Senator Vanstone had to say-for a much greater emphasis on the abuse of licit drugs, and notably tobacco because undoubtedly tobacco is the drug which creates more health problems and more deaths in Australia than any other. Indeed, the initial pamphlet put out by the Commonwealth Government to every Australian household indicates that 80 per cent of drug related deaths in Australia involve the use of tobacco. The evidence is quite clear that any smoking, even passive smoking-sidestream smoking, living in a smoking atmosphere where one does not smoke but one's spouse does-carries a health risk. The pamphlet points out that some 10 per cent of drug related deaths and illnesses involve alcohol, only 2 per cent involve hard drugs and the remainder involve many of those drugs which Senator Vanstone has mentioned-sedatives, tranquillisers, and other drugs of that sort. I suppose to the extent that I have a criticism of the program so far it is that initially there has been an overemphasis on a small part of the problem-namely, the abuse of hard drugs-and only more recently have we seen a shift in the program towards a concern for the abuse of alcohol. But even alcohol is only a minor part of the problem. By comparison, if 80 per cent of drug related deaths are due to tobacco, a 2 1/2 per cent reduction in that section of the problem would more than exceed all of the deaths and ill effects related to the abuse of hard drugs. So I guess this afternoon I want to make the plea that there be from here on in a far greater emphasis on all aspects of the use of tobacco and tobacco products, and that the Federal Government do a number of things to control that aspect not only within the drug offensive, as such, but also by way of taxation and a number of other issues which I shall mention. As far as I am aware-and Senator Collins has mentioned this-the only action the Federal Government has taken in relation to tobacco use is to ban smoking on flights and interstate coaches. I do not think any other specific action has been taken. Senator Collins —And office buildings. Senator COULTER —Certainly there have been moves in that direction as far as the Public Service is concerned. Senator Peter Baume —Starting with the Department of Health. Senator COULTER —Starting with the Department of Health, as Senator Baume says. In Australia each year, and I have reminded the Senate of this before, 23,000 deaths result from the consumption of tobacco and tobacco products-63 deaths a day, far more people than are sitting in this chamber at present. This figure is far greater than that for any other area of drug abuse. There are a number of diseases related to tobacco and tobacco products. We are all aware that lung cancer is one, and that is indeed serious because I believe that still, even with the best treatment, 95 per cent of lung cancers eventually prove to be fatal. As I have already mentioned, not only are smokers subject to an increased risk of lung cancer; non-smokers who inhabit smokey rooms are also subject to an increased risk. Professor Dole, from Oxford, who I think is recognised as the world's leading epidemiologist, indicated when he was in Australia that there was an increase of some 25 per cent in the risk of a person developing lung cancer if his or her spouse smoked. We are talking not only about lung cancer. There is an increased risk of bladder cancer. We now know from testing that cancer-causing agents are absorbed through the lungs and get into the circulation. They are circulated through the body and are excreted in the urine. They can be detected in the urine, so not surprisingly we know there is an increased risk of bladder cancer, an increased risk of bowel cancer, and to a lesser extent cancers elsewhere in the body. There is, of course, an effect on the unborn if a woman chooses to smoke during pregnancy. It is well known that children of smoking mothers are more likely to be born undersized or premature and be subject to all the consequences of that condition. Perhaps less well known is that the infants of smoking fathers are more likely to be aborted or to be born with birth defects. The reason for this is quite clear. Most of the carcinogenic substances which we know occur in tobacco smoke are also mutagenic, and quite clearly smoking by the father is capable of causing mutations in the sperm which either in that generation or in later generations can produce defects in the offspring. Even beyond birth we have to consider the effect of smoking on children. The statistics are quite clear: the children of smoking parents are more likely themselves to become smokers. I turn to a few other diseases. Chronic bronchitis is a serious problem, ultimately leading in many cases to emphysema, severe shortness of breath, and an inability to work. Arterial diseases, such as thromboangiitis obliterans, or Buerger's disease, affect a large number of people. I think most of us have seen people who get severe cramps in their legs, and some of us will have seen those who eventually have had to have limbs amputated as a consequence of the exacerbation of this disease. Of course coronary heart disease is also more common among smokers. Smoking is responsible for a quite large proportion of the deaths and illnesses related to coronary heart disease and its consequences. Perhaps less well recognised is the fact that most of the diseases associated with the ageing process are more common in those who smoke. All the diseases which one associates with the ageing process are more likely to come on at an earlier age in a smoker. Finally, we are also aware that smoking synergises the ill effects of exposure to many other substances. Two well known ones are asbestos and uranium mining. The health effects on those who are exposed to radioactive particles or to asbestos and who are also smokers are far more marked and far more serious. I believe that the Government has done very little to stem the tide of ill health related to this most serious drug addiction, which has been called this afternoon a licit drug. But, more than this, I think it has actively taken measures to defeat some of the things which have been done to tackle this problem. In October last year I attempted to move in this chamber that the advertising of tobacco products be no longer tax deductible. I did this on the grounds that companies pay tax at the rate of roughly 50 per cent, so roughly 50 per cent of the cost of advertising tobacco products comes from general tax revenue. It is avoided tax. I pointed out-I see Senator Collins nodding his head on the other side of the chamber-that political advertising by the tobacco companies has also been indulged in, particularly in Victoria and South Australia, and that political advertising to defeat State legislation in relation to tobacco consumption remains tax deductible. The Federal Government, through its tax policy, is allowing the continuation of this form of advertising, which is designed to defeat the efforts by the forces attempting to overcome this most serious problem. It is worth noting in passing at this point that the cost of tobacco advertising is estimated to be between $100m and $150m a year. In terms of revenue alone, removing the tax deductibility of tobacco advertising would bring in further revenue of between $50 and $75m. It should be noted that when I raised this matter in debate on a taxation Bill last year I moved an amendment that was defeated by the combined opposition of both the Government and the Opposition. I note that Senator Peter Baume is to speak after me. Last year, very wisely and bravely, I thought, he absented himself from the chamber and sat in the gallery while the vote was being taken. It is not just the health effects and the financial costs in those forms which are of significance. In 1981-82 the Medical Journal of Australia estimated that the direct dollar costs of smoking and the ill health and deaths associated with it were roughly $1 billion per year-about $400m in the cost of hospital beds and care, $250m associated with deaths and about $350m in social costs related to lost wages and lost productivity. It is worth making the point that those costs have almost certainly risen at least 50 per cent to 100 per cent by now. In the current year, 1987-88, it is estimated that Federal revenue from tobacco and tobacco products will be about $1.068 billion; in other words, the dollar costs of ill health and deaths related to the consumption of tobacco far exceeds the revenue which the Federal Government derives from that source. I notice that the Government actually assists the tobacco industry. The tobacco companies that buy 50 per cent of their leaf from Australian growers get a concessional duty rate on imported leaf. That is direct financial assistance to the tobacco product manufacturers. Moreover, the price of leaf is fixed by a Government-backed marketing authority. In a time of quite considerable government deregulation, we find that the tobacco industry remains very highly regulated. Indeed, the tobacco industry is the most protected of all Australian agricultural industries. Assistance in 1983-84 was well over 100 per cent against an average of 11 per cent for all agricultural industries. This Government has set up the Tobacco Research Council. I have before me the annual report of the Tobacco Research Council for 1986-87. The purpose of the establishment of this Council was, among other things: increasing the commercial returns to industry members and to the community in general by improving the production . . . of tobacco. We find that the research objectives are: new tobacco cultivars which maintain high yields with enhanced leaf quality, including smokeability; new cultivars with desirable agronomic characters; emergent pest, disease and weed control; plant nutrition to enhance leaf quality; improved soil and land management; better farm production and mechanisation; and the development of the professional competence and skills of personnel involved in the tobacco research program. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.07) —It is often asserted that we are in a war against drug abuse. That is fair enough, but we are all entitled to know, if we are engaged in such a war, who is the enemy, who are our allies, what are the goals we are pursuing, what is winning this drug war and what is losing it. Many speakers have implied some answers. I pay tribute to some of the speakers who have preceded me for what I think is a civilised and very reasonable debate, but the answers which come out remain implicit; they are never made quite clear. They have not been clarified, just as the values underlying most approaches to drug campaigns remain unstated most of the time. Since none of these questions have clear public answers, is it any wonder that we, with all our good intentions, do so badly in dealing with drugs? Who are the enemies? Lawyers and enforcement authorities will tell us that the enemies are those who are engaged in the distribution of substances whose use is illegal in Australia. They then design strategies, taken up by governments, which are directed against the supplies and the suppliers of these drugs. The people who design these programs forget that, in the way of classic market operations, there is demand and supply-suppliers bringing the drugs onto the market and users willing and ready to trade, to pay the price to obtain the drugs. If we are to interrupt this process and do it successfully as a nation, we need to interrupt both demand and supply, not to concentrate on the supply side alone. Our policies, our strategies and our campaigns virtually ignore demand. Our strategies and our campaigns virtually ignore demand. Our strategies seek to prevent the production of certain substances which we have designated as illegal, and they fail to prevent that production. Our strategies seek to prevent the importation of substances which we have determined to be illegal, and they fail to prevent that importation. Our policies seek to prevent the distribution of illegal substances, and they fail to prevent that distribution. They seek to prevent the sale of substances which we determine to be illegal, and they fail to prevent the sale of those substances. Our policies seek to prevent the use of the substances, and they fail to do that too. If the dealers are not the enemy, perhaps the substances themselves are the enemy. Heroin, the other opiates, morphia and the other narcotics, properly used, are, of course, a godsend for those with intolerable pain. Making heroin illegal has certainly made it unavailable for those with intolerable pain and suffering, but it has left it readily available in Kings Cross in my city on the illegal market. Who are our allies in this so-called drug war? We are told that they are our police, our doctors, our Australian Customs Service and so on. We are told that they are our prisons, our courts, our judges and our magistrates. But our doctors and therapists have very little success with users, many of whom do not regard themselves as ill or in any need of treatment and may enter a program simply as a lesser evil than going to gaol. That is why I asked Senator Collins whether the programs work, because the figures are depressing. They generally do not seem to work. Today it is probably easier to get illegal drugs inside our prisons than it is to get them outside our prisons. Indeed, the new Minister for prisons in New South Wales announced yesterday that there would be routine spot urine checks of prisoners to try to find out which of them are using drugs. I will tell him now that that is not going to work either. Some of the police throughout Australia have become deeply involved as participants in the game rather than as allies and protectors of the public good. There is more money to be made by corrupt behaviour by a tiny minority of officials than they can ever hope for from their pay or superannuation. Mr Acting Deputy President, you and I come from the same State. We know of Tim Bristow and his associates, to give one example. We have heard of Murray Riley. We have heard of Murray Farquhar. We have heard of the Cessna-Milner case. We have heard of the police who ran dead for almost a decade on the murder of Donald Mackay. We have heard of the Trimbole networks, and so on. Let me tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that my children and my children's generation hold the police in my State in contempt. They believe that the police are deeply and systematically corrupt, and they tell me so. How tragic it is that this should be the case. Yes, there are corrupt officials. They are only a minority, but those corrupt officials can prosper for only one reason, and that is because of laws we have made and the prohibition strategies we have told those officials to enforce on our behalf. What are our goals for drug use? Is our goal to produce a drug-free society, a drug abstinent society? If so, it would be the first such society in history. That has never been the stated goal of any drug initiative in Australia. The problem is that we in this country are two-faced about drugs. We suffer from national hypocrisy in this matter. As Senator Coulter has said, we differentiate between substances, some illegal and some `okay'. Some are illegal and not acceptable; some are legal and quite okay. We act as if some drugs are of themselves inherently evil, that the substance is inherently evil, instead of acknowledging that the drugs themselves are instruments only and that abuse arises from the ways in which drugs are used by human beings. Heroin and morphia, as I said earlier, give pain relief as well as causing addiction. Marijhuana can relieve glaucoma and some of the side effects of cancer therapy at the same time as it can cause motor vehicle crashes. Alcohol serves valued social purposes as well as causing personal and family misery. I could go on and give other examples. Apart from the fact that the divisions between what is illegal and what is legal are quite arbitrary-morphia was legal in this country into this century-let us for one moment reflect on some figures which have already been given to us, certainly by Senator Coulter and I think by Senator Collins too. From Department of Community Services and Health figures we know that drug related deaths in this decade were just under one-fifth of all the deaths recorded. We know that, of the drug related deaths, those due to alcohol and tobacco made up 97 out of every 100 deaths; only three out of every 100 were due to all other drugs, that is, deliberate and accidental poisonings, self-administered poisonings, therapeutic drugs and illicit or illegal drugs. Deaths from opiates are serious, and every death is a personal and family tragedy somewhere. But, as Senator Coulter has said, so is every death from tobacco and so is every victim of a drunk driver. Why is it that the significance of these mortality figures from our own Department of Community Services and Health is so much avoided when policy making occurs or when national programs are constructed? Why are we so willing to devote major resources to addressing deaths from narcotics, and why are we so willing to ignore the deaths from tobacco, which-my arithmetic may not be perfect-are 40 to 50 times more numerous than deaths from narcotics or from the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, to pick out something else that has a high commitment from government at the moment. If we are going to talk about a drug war-and that is a ridiculous intellectual construct anyhow-and if we are going to talk about winning or losing such a so-called war, how is it that we can ignore the cause of 97 per cent of the deaths in that drug war and concentrate so much of our effort, resources and rhetoric on the cause of about 1.5 per cent of the deaths? That is what I have against the national campaign against drug abuse. Why do we give knighthoods and respect and honour to the tobacco retailers and send marijuana retailers to prison? Why do we suggest that alcohol barons might make good Prime Ministers, and suggest, as some people do, the return of the death penalty for opiate barons? That occurs. What is the intrinsic difference between one drug and the other? For one moment let me be a little bit positive. We have to understand some of the dynamics of our present strategy and campaign. We have to understand that we are in a policy situation-I think Senator Collins made this point-where we accept the drug use of the middle-aged and the majority, and we make criminal the drug preferences of the young and the minority. What kind of a country are we? If there is an intrinsic difference between tobacco and heroin in their addictive potential or properties, or in their potential for harm other than the harm caused by the laws we have made, will someone please make that difference clear to me in a reasoned and intellectually acceptable way? No-one has ever done so. How do we get across some concepts that it is the person, not the substance-perhaps it is the society acting on the person-which causes the problem? Substance use is an expression of dysfunction between a person and that person's environment. Senator Giles —It is a symptom. Senator PETER BAUME —That is right, it is a symptom; and laws will not correct that dysfunction or the cause of which that symptom is a manifestation. How do we get it across that attention to poverty, wretchedness, loneliness, hopelessness, alienation and dispossession is needed too? It is a much better strategy for me to be drunk sometimes than for me to face reality which is just too awful. How do we get across the point that supply interruption is only one part of any policy and not the policy itself, unless one wants to continue to fail and fail and fail? We need to adjust to our own drug needs and our own drug use; in my case, to my enjoyment of alcohol and caffeine, like Senator Collins, and my intention to continue to use both of them. Only when each of us here understands that we are drug users and we are members of a drug using society, can we with credibility start to consider the drug problems of others. Our approach, the linchpin of which has been supply interdiction backed by the full majesty of the law, has always failed. It failed in the United States of America during the era of alcohol prohibition. It is failing now. It is corrupting and weakening essential organs of our society, and it will continue to fail because of the way we construct it and because of the laws we have made. We have a problem that we have misstated, misrepresented and therefore that we as a nation have approached in a way which has been doomed to fail from the time that approach was started. That is what is wrong with our national campaign. It is not based on any proper understanding. In some remote parts of Australia the main drug problem is not kava but the inhalation of volatile substances, that is, petrol. Is it seriously suggested by anyone that because young Australians are killing themselves with petrol inhalation we should consider making petrol illegal, or that we should consider that petrol is the problem? Of course it is not the problem. It is the circumstances that are the problem. The Government could change so much by presenting drug use as it really is, by linking us, the drug using majority, with our fellows whose drug use is dysfunctional and by addressing the underlying social and personal needs that make drugs the preferred option for some otherwise quite rational people. Until and unless we do so, we will continue to promote and to operate within a policy framework, attractive to the majority, politically safe, but doomed never to succeed. We can do better, and the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse should be and should have been the program to help us do so. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(4.22) —I wish first to respond to a few statements made by previous speakers. First, I refer to Senator Vanstone's speech in which she talked a lot about the extent of drug abuse. It was because we had some understanding of that extent that we initiated the drug summit, which led to the setting up of the campaign and determined the course of that campaign, but I would make the brief point that domestic violence is not caused by drug abuse. They are both symptoms of other problems. Alcohol, for example, has the effect of reducing inhibition and therefore lowering the threshold of aggressive behaviour, but it does not cause the aggression. Its roots lie elsewhere, and that is what we have to get at. Senator Coulter spoke very eloquently about the effects of smoking tobacco. I would like to reiterate the point, which was referred to by Senator Collins, that it was our Government which made Australia only the second major country in the world to ban smoking on aircraft-a move which has been widely acclaimed both here and overseas, on safety as well as on health grounds. I commend Senator Peter Baume for making an excellent speech with which I am almost totally in agreement, particularly when he referred to our hypocrisy about young people. However I disagree with him on one perhaps minor point, that we are giving insufficient attention to demand. Probably we are giving insufficient attention, but we have raised its importance as against the views of those who see enforcement as the answer to the drug problem or non-enforcement as the sole problem. That emphasis has been shifted over the last few years and, I believe, offers a much better hope for the success that I am sure we all seek. This matter of public importance concerns the alleged failure of the Government: to structure or administer the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse so as to permit the successful achievement of its goals which are shared by all Australians. I wish to refer to the wording of the proposition before speaking to the substance. It seems to demonstrate a very simplistic approach when it assumes, firstly, that there is some hope in the short term of successfully achieving all the goals of the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse and, secondly, that all Australians share those goals. Does successful achievement mean the elimination of drug abuse in all its forms? If so, I would say that that is clearly impossible in the foreseeable future. People mostly abuse drugs for reasons not directly related to the drug itself, but as a perceived way of coping with problems or with pain, whether that be physical or psychological. Realistically, there is probably no chance of eliminating the causes of drug abuse but we can attack the question of abuse on at least two fronts-education about its risks and effects, and meeting needs in non-drug related ways. But neither of those things can be done quickly. However, what can be done, and is being done, is to educate and inform the community on the extent of the problem, the underlying reasons for it, and of the risks which may follow, for example, from experimentation-although I believe that risk is very much exaggerated-and the modelling effect of the behaviour of parents, teachers and community leaders. I turn now to the assumption that the goals of the campaign are shared by all Australians. I know of no evidence which backs this assumption, except in a very general way, mainly related to illicit drugs. Certainly those who have a vested interest in increasing the sales of tobacco and alcohol, for example, clearly do not have the same goals as those who would like to see a marked drop in the consumption of those drugs. It is not very long since the mention of nicotine or alcohol in the context of drug abuse brought angry denials from frequent users of those licit drugs. I think that I have given sufficient attention to the terminology of the proposal we are debating. After all, it has the appearance of having been put together and dashed off in a hurry. I come now to the alleged failure of the Government in the running of the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse. I was involved in the educational and counselling aspects of campaigns against drug abuse for a number of years before my election to the Senate, and I now refer to the years of the previous Government. Most of those campaigns-or isolated activities rather than concerted campaigns-were fragmented in the sense that they dealt with a particular drug or a group of drugs, very rarely the legally obtainable ones, and that the methods used were either based on fear or on highly emotive material. A couple of examples stand out in my memory. I remember a speaker coming to the school where I worked and giving information which was demonstrably false, and known to be so by the students-for example, that smoking marijuana will in itself lead to intravenous drug abuse. This line of so-called education was counterproductive in that the students then mistrusted other information from the same source which was factual. In fact they tended to mistrust any other information that was given to them in that area. The other example was the sort of emotive material, whether in print or on television, which overdramatised the problem. I remember particularly a film on television called No Roses for Michael which raised parents' anxieties in an unproductive way. Similar results flowed from programs which warned parents to watch their children for what could be seen as signs of drug abuse or taking drugs-things such as wanting privacy or stealing money from home. These were seen as signs of possible drug problems, when these behaviours could have arisen from any one of a number of causes. Now, since the initiation of the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse, we are at least undertaking on a national scale a campaign based on sound research and on the facts of drug abuse which, I had believed, had support across parties and across all States and Territories. The Federal Government does not structure or administer the campaign. It is a joint initiative by all Australian governments, and the campaign is overseen by the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, which includes Federal, State and Territory health and police Ministers. That council makes the major decisions about the campaign. At its meeting on 6 November 1987, those Ministers approved a Press release from which I would like to quote a couple of excerpts. It states: The Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy today agreed to a national media campaign on alcohol abuse, particularly targeted at the young, which would begin early next year. That is what we are now seeing in the media. It notes that: as part of the co-operative effort in education for prevention of drug abuse, States and Territories were also conducting their own campaigns according to priorities as determined by them. . . . . In their planning for the next triennium Ministers highlighted the need for a new campaign in the area of pharmaceuticals aimed at reducing the misuse of prescription and over-the-counter drugs. It goes on to deal with other things that were planned and concludes by saying: Ministers of all State and Territory Governments regardless of political persuasion today reaffirmed the national direction and policy of the Drug Offensive. That seems to be contrary to the terms of the matter of public importance today. The Press release continued: They emphasised the solution to drug abuse lies in long-term programs and the continued major commitment of State and Federal resources to ensure that the recommendations of the Drug Summit are maintained. Senator Peter Baume —That's consensus. Senator ZAKHAROV —Yes, that is consensus. There has been a perception in the community, and even among some senators, that the media campaign is all that has taken place. Of course, the media campaign is very important-it is getting the message into everyone's homes-but it is only part of the picture. It is interesting to note that the media and information element amounts to only 15 per cent of the total $100m committed by governments in the first three years. This matter of public importance does not mention the other facets of the campaign. It does not mention the two major research projects being undertaken at the universities of Western Australia and New South Wales, to which Senator Collins referred. It does not mention the rehabilitation programs which importantly have taken place, as Senator Baume mentioned, in prisons, and in the wider community for the adults, the young people and even the children. It does not mention the special programs that are being instituted and targeted to specific groups in the community such as young people, women, children and Aborigines. I place particular importance on the work done in education and training for professionals who work with abusers and potential abusers. I referred before to the needs which people meet by drug use and abuse. It is very important that, parallel with attacking the problem of drug abuse, we show people how to meet their needs in other ways: the need for better relationships with others, which is why many people go to the pub; the need to relieve loneliness or depression, although it is not generally understood that alcohol is a depressant and not a stimulant; and the need to get adequate sleep or pain relief, and that relates to things such as alcohol but also prescription drugs. This work is being done increasingly in schools, community centres, health centres and other places which are not directly related to the drug campaign. Those running the programs need training and information to carry out this task, and this they are getting through those joint Federal, State and Territory initiatives. It is also very important that parents, teachers and community leaders understand that they act as role and behaviour models for young people. The children of alcohol abusers do not have a greater risk of alcoholism itself through heredity but rather because they see their parents dealing with problems by escaping into alcoholic oblivion and they learn to do likewise. Similarly, when I was working in schools I found that many young people, particularly girls, asked for minor pain-killers-not because they had pain but because that is what their mothers did when they had a problem. So they would ask for a few disprin because they were not coping very well with school, perhaps, or with their friends. Finally, I deal with some of the demonstrated achievements of this campaign. We have talked about the aims and what is happening, but there are some demonstrated achievements in concrete terms. For example, 288 new and expanded drug abuse prevention and treatment programs have been developed on a cost sharing basis with the States and Territories. Some information drawn from the 1986-87 evaluation of those projects, and importantly that evaluation is built into the program, includes the fact that more than 1,800 schools, 825 community groups and 233 government offices receive drug educational programs and materials. Another fact is that 562 training courses have been run for teachers and persons who come in contact with drug and alcohol related problems-which is a question I referred to previously-involving a total of more than 18,000 personnel. On top of that many teachers, for example, receive training by way of preparation for teaching itself, particularly if they are to take part in teaching courses such as health and human relations education or personal development. Another fact is that 94 residential treatment centres received support, and 51 per cent of their clients were admitted for the first time. That seems to indicate that we are perhaps getting at the problem of cyclical treatment-clients going back into the community and returning for treatment again-which we used to see in past years, to my knowledge, with alcoholics and, I imagine, with other sorts of drug addicts, as well. Senator Peter Baume —Do they work? Senator ZAKHAROV —The fact that they are coming back seems to indicate that they work, although some may not return for other reasons, of course. A total of 178,000 contacts involving nearly 83,000 individuals were made with non-residential treatment agencies. Some of these, and I am thinking particularly of the Odyssey House scheme in Victoria with which I have been involved in the past, do lead to intensive residential treatment. So I think that the Government has-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HILL(South Australia)(4.37) —The Senate is debating a matter of public importance brought forward in the following terms: The failure of the Government to structure or administer the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse so as to permit the successful achievement of its goals which are shared by all Australians. This matter has been brought before the Senate today by Senator Vanstone to emphasise the fact that the Opposition has again offered a bipartisan approach to tackling the drug abuse problem in this country. Regrettably, that bipartisan approach has not been taken up. The contribution of my colleague Senator Peter Baume in attempting to identify the difficult questions of who the targets in this war against drug abuse are and who our allies are is the type of bipartisan approach that this Government should welcome because it would better contribute to the goal that we all share of countering this abuse for the benefit of all Australians. The Government's attitudes and the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made it very clear that it was of a political nature and that he could see a political advantage in this issue very early in the piece. As honourable senators will recall, he said that as a goal of his second term in government he would initiate a national campaign against drug abuse. As we all know, the problem of drug abuse exists in Australia as it does everywhere in the world. In this country it is primarily a problem of the abuse of alcohol and tobacco, which is a point that has been reiterated by a number of speakers in today's debate. In other words, it is primarily a problem of the abuse of legal drugs. I also remind the Senate, as have other senators, that, if we look as death statistics alone, 97 per cent of drug related deaths in Australia are attributed to the taking of not illegal but legal drugs. This problem ranges from adolescence right through all ages of life. It is not just a problem of the young, as some say, although in the case of the young there might be more opportunity for us to change habits. When the Prime Minister addressed the drug summit he talked about fighting drug abuse and referred to the `devastation which is wrought by the illicit drug trade'. He, like most of Australia, had in mind the high profile and tragic circumstances of what is nevertheless the secondary or ancillary problem and not the primary problem of the abuse of legal drugs. That is the first mistake that he made, because it established a wrong emphasis in the whole campaign. The Prime Minister asked the summit why there should be a focus on illegal drugs and then said: Because governments obviously have a particular responsibility as regards illegal drugs. Our campaign will necessarily focus especially on them. It may well be correct that governments have a responsibility in relation to illegal drugs, but we on this side of the chamber say that governments equally have a responsibility in relation to the losses and suffering that occur in the community from the abuse of the primary problem, that is, the abuse of legal drugs. Of course, it is much easier for the Government to be seen to be doing something in relation to illegal drugs. If governments give enforcement authorities more resources or new powers, it is easy for governments to point to something. Of course, that was the emphasis at the summit because the summit was a political meeting. As the Prime Minister also said: The presence here today of the Premiers of all States, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and many Commonwealth and State Ministers is testimony to the importance of the task that is before us. In other words, everyone wanted to be seen to be doing something, and not to be part of the national summit was to risk being labelled as unconcerned, unaware or, in the worst instance, uncaring. Of course, lots of Commonwealth money would be spent, some of it on worthwhile services, and it was not surprising that all States wanted a share of that cake. But why a national summit, with a communique that was no doubt written before the summit commenced? It was certainly not to illustrate that a problem existed, because everyone knew of the existence of it. It was in order for the Government to be seen to be doing something. That is the wrong emphasis. As one commentator unkindly said, it was an emphasis directed at the ballot box nerve. This perception was, of course, reinforced with the distribution of 5.4 million glossy brochures, at enormous cost to the taxpayer, again to tell the public what it already knew, that is, that there was a problem and that all our kids were at risk. We all know that this problem is with us, and we did not need the Government, through the medium of glossy brochures, to tell us so. But the Government wanted to set the perception, in a very public way, that it was doing something. However, even accepting, which I do not, the priorities that were set by the Government in the campaign, the breakdown of State and Federal spending shows distortions. An article by one academic, Ross Ramsay, in the Legal Services Bulletin indicates that he at least shares my cynicism. He divided anticipated spending at this time into the following categories: law enforcement, extra funding, $58m; public relations/media/advertising, $44m; treatment and rehabilitation, $6m; and drug research, $0.6m. Looking at the lack of emphasis on the low profile treatment and rehabilitation, he said: Because of these inconsistencies we should not be too quick to believe the rhetoric and accept the drug offensive as a humanitarian act of caring government. We all know the public outcry that followed, and in fact the percentage of funds to be spent on treatment and rehabilitation was then increased. I do not mean that more money need not be spent on policing-it still does. It is estimated that only 5 to 10 per cent of all heroin that enters the country is intercepted. Police forces in this country are still under-resourced. Despite the existence now of the National Crime Authority and despite new coercive powers, no-one is suggesting that the Mr Bigs of organised crime in this country are being convicted. The enormous sums of money involved in the international drug trade enable the potential for corruption as in no other area of organised crime. There is no suggestion that what has been contributed so far has resulted in a significant slowdown in the movement of heroin. We all know the shortcomings of the Coast- watch service, which again is under-resourced and subject to major political embarrassment recently. We all accept the importance of education in pointing out the dangers of taking hard drugs. However, I suggest that those primarily who have reached that stage are beyond flashy brochures and healthy living. The young, most particularly, have underlying problems, such as boredom from unemployment, low self-esteem, poor relationships, a sense of worthlessness and a feeling that nobody cares. For those who have reached that stage, I suggest that the real goal is to identify them and to provide programs of rehabilitation for them and, most importantly and what is often neglected, ongoing support. Voluntary organisations, both church and community, do a marvellous job in this area and deserve greater support, and had the Government perhaps provided greater support to them rather than spending the money on glossy brochures we would all be better off. Certainly, prevention is better than cure and, just as important, a role therefore for the Government is to identify and support those people most likely to become at risk. There will always be exceptions, but with caring parents, caring schools and a caring community recognising the inherent importance of each and every individual and on the lookout for problems and willing to proffer support, with proper professional support made available when needed, we can minimise the danger. However, I readily concede that the scenarios of broken homes, unemployed parents and financial stress do not make the ideal easy to achieve. That is why we on this side of the chamber stress support for the family, both marital support through marriage guidance councils and other means and financial support. We also support voluntary organisations and community support mechanisms. I speak in general terms because, although now well down the track, still inadequate research is being done into the cause of abuse and addiction. That is a matter of regret following the Government's campaign. All of this tends to camouflage the greater problem, a problem that has been particularly emphasised by my colleague Senator Peter Baume today, namely, the enormous cost to our society in economical and social terms that flows from an abuse of legal drugs. As every parent knows, the challenge of education of children in the sensible use of alcohol is a great challenge indeed, with so many role models appearing to provide a counter influence. I regret to say that too many parents do not appreciate the importance of the model that they personally offer. Governments can influence behaviour, and in this area governments should be prepared to do so, through means of taxation, subsidies-as was mentioned by Senator Coulter today-prohibitions on certain advertising and types of advertising when the industries involved are not prepared to set sufficiently high standards for themselves, restrictions on smoking when it affects others and random breath tests, which none of us like in some ways but which clearly are contributing to a lower road death toll due to alcohol abuse. They are just some examples of where government can play a role. Those who say that there is not a role for government in this field are wrong. Governments can educate, and I would suggest that they have made insufficient effort to educate people in this country, particularly young children. I commend for the Government's attention the American program of `Say ``No'' to drugs and alcohol', which was initiated particularly to influence the behaviour of young children in American schools recently. If young children can grow up to believe that those who smoke or drink too much are stupid, that those habits show immaturity and a lack of sophistication and failure, rather than what they learn so often in our community, that they represent maturity, sophistication and success, we might be heading in the right direction, But kids have to be given an alternative. Education in itself is insufficient. Their strengths need to be rewarded. They need to be otherwise stimulated and provided with challenging activities. That gets back to the responsibility of all of us to care and to make the effort. So much of the subject of this debate is a human problem. This Government, which saw it simply in terms of interdiction, enforcement, education and rehabilitation, missed the point. It is just not that simple. If the Government were serious about the problem it would not have seen the answer in summitry; it would not have seen the answer in political gain for itself; it would have seen the answer in what we have suggested. It would have tried to find a bipartisan approach to dealing with one of the major problems that face our community so that we could get on and together achieve worthwhile goals, which are not presently being achieved. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(4.51) —Towards the end of Senator Hill's contribution I was beginning to think that he was being quite constructive but he spoilt it again right at the end. This afternoon we are debating a matter of public importance proposed by Senator Vanstone, namely: The failure of the Government to structure or administer the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse so as to permit the successful achievement of its goals which are shared by all Australians. I think the point has already been made this afternoon but I want to make it again: the Government-presumably the Federal Government is what is being referred to-does not structure or administer the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse. The national campaign is a joint initiative by all Australian governments-Federal, State and Territory-to combat drug abuse. I sincerely hope that what I thought Senator Hill was saying when he suggested that when the governments of Australia came together at the summit meeting in April 1985 they agreed to take part in this campaign because of pressure they felt was being brought to bear upon them is not the case. In fact, this is a multipartisan campaign. I suggest that if the Opposition coalition feels itself left out in the cold it must surely be as a result of its own choice. Up until now it has done absolutely nothing but criticise in the most carping fashion, making what political points it could, grasping hold of straws and beating them up into quite spurious allegations in many cases. How could we possibly forget that only eight days ago at the Liberal Party conference the leader of the Party, Mr Howard, made a speech pleading for a bipartisan approach? That is fine-much better late than never. But since then we have had no real indication of the sincerity of that plea. The campaign manager, Dr John Loy, wrote to Senator Vanstone on 12 April, only six days ago, offering to give her a detailed briefing. From the contribution of Senator Vanstone today, one would have thought that her request for information had been totally rejected. That is simply not the case. She has been offered the information that is available at a time when it is widely available. An enormous amount of survey work has been carried out leading up to the campaign on alcohol, probably the best researched such campaign in the world. The massive amount of research that has been done in this respect is to be released within a few weeks to give the campaign a boost. That data will then be available to all of us, including Senator Vanstone, I am happy to report. How much research is enough? As has been said already this afternoon, we could go on researching forever and probably keep coming up with contradictory responses. But surely at some time the nettle has to be grasped, the bullet has to be bitten, and all the other cliches we can think of. We have to go ahead and use what we have available to us in the way of carefully assembled data, analysed as carefully as possible, and make inroads, if at all possible, into the very great challenge that is facing this community and which this Government has been prepared to accept. We would be much more impressed with the call for a bipartisan approach if the matter of public importance being debated this afternoon had not been posited on such completely misleading allegations and statements. The allegation that we are using sexist stereotypes in the advertising was raised by then Senator Ryan early in this campaign, having been given the opportunity to view the advertisements. As a result of this, a series of advertisements have been used back to back-accurate representations of how boys view girls and vice versa. This has all been thoroughly tested for efficacy and acceptability. We all know that an effective advertising campaign contains clear, simple, direct and uncomplicated messages. I will come to the money that has gone into media in a moment but it would be nice if, as a result of the funding for this campaign, we were able to get across a few other messages such as the undesirability of domestic violence and the desirability of eradicating sexist stereotypes that it would be totally impracticable. It would be nicer still if the same amount of dollars were available for such campaigns. That is another question for the Government. On the question of testing of the advertisements, I assure honourable senators as an example of how the testing was done that parents were consulted before the cubbyhouse advertisement was approved. This was seen by parents generally to be a very positive, constructive and useful approach. I have a few more comments to make about the nature of the campaign. Senator Peter Baume, in his typically constructive approach to this question, suggested that any advertising campaign or any attempt to educate the community on these issues should link us-who consider ourselves fairly ordinary and unaddicted members of the community-with those whose problems are clearly a great deal more severe. I think that notion comes through very clearly in the current series of advertisements. They show ordinary people, and try to get the message to them, what may happen to them or their children as a result of the behaviour that they currently consider to be normal, uncomplicated and ordinary. We would be a great deal more impressed by Senator Vanstone's pleas for feminism in a campaign such as this if she were not on record as having voted against the affirmative action legislation not very long ago. I think we would be even more impressed if she had remained in the chamber until the end of this debate to hear the rebuttals of many of the allegations that she had made. I turn to the questions of domestic violence and alcohol and how these two should be linked. We have recently released research-it is now public knowledge-in the first phase of a national campaign to raise awareness of domestic violence. This research shows conflicting beliefs from the people sampled in the survey. Seventy-eight per cent believed that alcohol was a major cause of domestic violence but 77 per cent also believed-this would have to be at least a 50 per cent doubling up with both beliefs-that alcohol was just an excuse. Nearly four out of five people say it is a cause and as many people say it is an excuse. Two-thirds of the respondents say both those things. This suggests to me that in this survey we are being told nothing about the causes of domestic violence. The abuse of alcohol and the abuse of other household members are both symptoms, as has been said before in this debate this afternoon, of responses to perhaps less obvious factors, things that we have not been asking about so far. Once again I am completely in accord with Senator Baume on this-poverty, stress, depressive conditions, loneliness and the awfulness of reality can all be factors in causing both substance abuse and domestic violence. I am quoting Senator Baume. I hope he does not mind. Who knows? There is a failure of society to deal with the really deep and personal problems of many of its members. There has been another charge-that we have been addressing the problems of illicit drugs only. That is not so. We have addressed the problems caused by both illicit and licit drugs. The alcohol campaign would be proof if such were needed. The campaign covers alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceuticals. When the 1986 survey was carried out the common perception was that the two main problems were alcohol and hard drugs. Many of us believe that although alcohol is a serious problem, hard drugs are not necessarily so, the public perception resulting from media which like sensation and which will make a great deal out of the death of one young person from a heroin overdose and practically ignore the death of a thousand people from the use of tobacco. We were also charged that there had been a lack of consultation in the development and philosophy of the campaign. That is also nonsense. From the very beginning, the drug summit in 1985, the campaign has been developed in close coordination with the States. Working groups and task forces have been working on what are identified by the Premiers as their main priorities. I cannot believe that the Premiers and the Ministers, who nominate the members of these working parties, are ignoring the expertise of people in their own States, the many professionals who have been working for many years with the victims of alcohol and other substances. As with many of the statements Senator Vanstone made today, she has been misinformed. She met up with somebody who had not been consulted and has not looked any further to see the many people of worth, experience and talent who have been consulted and who have made an important and valuable contribution to the campaign. Those of us who, like Senator Zakharov and I, have been concerned for many years about issues closely involved with health education and changing the behaviour of individuals know, from very long and painful experience, that behaviour is not changed overnight. Identifying the issues and training the educators are matters that have not been effectively dealt with, either in Australia or anywhere else. Many of us believe that we are experts on these issues but very few people actually have a deep and useful, or effective, understanding of what it is to be an addict, what it is to be part of a society in which all of us are potential addicts of one sort or another. In Western Australia during the 1970s we felt that it was totally inappropriate to target individual issues. We conducted social issues programs in the schools with parents and students. We talked, not about drugs in isolation, but about the whole cohort of social problems. We talked about the use and abuse of alcohol and tobacco, about the problems that affect young people at puberty, the things they need to know about childbirth, contraception and sexually transmitted diseases. We put all these things in a series of programs, not trying to stigmatise groups but saying, `This could happen to any of us. We live in a highly complex society. All of us are going to need help at one time or another. These are the things you need to know'. The National Campaign Against Drug Abuse is probably the most valuable way we could have gone. If it is not, it is certainly not for want of trying. The talents that are available to us throughout Australian society are being focused. Funding is adequate and is being used wisely, as far as I can see. Only 15 per cent of the $100m set aside for the three years goes on media. Fifty-five per cent is spent on treatment and rehabilitation, quite contrary to what Senator Hill would have us believe. I behoves all of us, all parties in both chambers of this Parliament and in all State parliaments, to give the program our support. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(5.06) —Much has been said about the bipartisan approach which needs to be taken to this subject. Having been a professional youth worker before I came to this place, I have to disagree with the direction of the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse. In saying that, I recognise that it is not just this Government that is the problem. I dealt with substance abusers under the McMahon Government, the Whitlam Government, the Fraser Government and, more recently, the Hawke Government. I would like to pay tribute to Senator Peter Baume. He gave a speech here today that I probably would have given had I had the time. As Senator Baume pointed out, the problem of substance abuse is a problem of alienation. It is a problem of loneliness, hopelessness, dispossession and stress-the awfulness of society. Drug abuse is a coping mechanism to deal with those problems and stresses. We are doomed to fail when we gear a program around a substance or the abuse of a substance. Unfortunately, I do not believe that a Liberal-National Party government would be any better than this Government in dealing with this problem. Given the way society views substance abuse, the program as it stands is probably about as good, and possibly even better, that we might expects. What is needed to reduce the scourge of substance abuse is not masses of information about how terrible it is to consume these damaging substances. Senator Collins pointed out, for example, that petrol is the preferred substance of abuse amongst certain communities in certain places. It is not the substance itself that is the problem. What we need is adequate housing, satisfying work and an education system which allows young people to explore, to educate themselves, to find out about the world-an education system that is satisfying, character building and personality building, an education system which enthuses people with a real wonder at the wonders of the world, rather than an education system which produces good little boys and girls who will be good little employees. Of course, the employers get taught at different schools. We need a more equitable distribution of the country's resources. I have worked with the Aboriginal community in the inner city of Sydney. I have worked with young prostitutes, male and female, in King's Cross, a place Senator Baume mentioned. I have dealt with young people right across the board, young people from so-called good homes in the northern beaches, from fairly wealthy families, who were thrown out of home because they could not find a job and who ended up in poverty just down the road, sleeping on the beaches. What we need is a fairer and more just society. The National Campaign Against Drug Abuse, for a start, focuses on drugs and not on other substances. I mention briefly that the effect of the interaction of drugs on elderly people is ignored. If a person gets drugs from the veterinary surgeon for his dog, the vet calibrates the dose according to the size and weight of the dog. When manufacturers produce drugs, they have to calibrate them for children so that at such and such an age, a child receives such and such a dose. This is not the case for the elderly. The problem is that we need a fairer and more just society in which people have equal access to resources; we do not need a campaign against substance abuse. (Extension of time granted) The reason why certain communities abuse petrol is not that petrol is the substance of choice, but that petrol is the only substance that is easily available and easily affordable. It produces the same effect as other substances, but in a more damaging way-it insulates the substance abusers from the pain of the hopelessness and despair about them. These people need effective land rights legislation which grants cultural autonomy to the Aboriginal people. That would get rid of petrol sniffing in Aboriginal communities. It cannot be done by a program designed to teach people how dangerous petrol is. What does one offer them as alternative to petrol? The pain of reality-and the reality is painful. Petrol abuse is a way of dealing with that pain. The same applies to the alienation of the young person who has not been able to find a job for three years. We see hopelessness and despair. All the counselling in the world will not overcome the fact that that young person does not have a job, does not have economic independence and does not have a society and a community which cares for him or her. The myth of the dole bludger is still strong. Those people who are unemployed continue to feel the scourge of being called dole bludgers. I remember when youth unemployment was about 20 per cent. At the time I was working in the community youth support scheme. People such as Doug Anthony castigated young people for being dole bludgers when a quarter of the young people could not find jobs; there were no jobs. Even today, when there are not jobs, one has to jump through hoops and be accused of being a dole bludger just to get the meagre pittance of the dole. These people need some sense of identity, a feeling of worth in the community, and some sense that the community cares. Senator Hill, who was not being terribly bipartisan, talked about caring parents, caring schools and caring communities. We need communities with resources to have some sort of decent cultural life, we need an education system which is caring, and we need economic justice so that parents, free from poverty and homelessness, with the proper resources, can care for their children. We need a caring society, not programs against drug abuse. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The time for the discussion of the matter of public importance has concluded. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.15) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The report of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) is interesting. It reviews a number of matters that have occurred since the operation of the new Act in February 1987. The point that I find most striking-since I have only five minutes I wish to concentrate on this-appears on page 32 of the report, under the heading `Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO'. I refer the Senate to the legislation which we passed with regard to this Organisation, and the fact that it came into being on 1 February 1987. The legislation states: 92b (1) As soon as practicable after the commencement of this part and after the commencement of the first session of each Parliament, a joint committee of members of the Parliament to be known as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organization shall be appointed. It is interesting to read the ASIO report because it reviews the functions of the Committee, the various things that the Committee is able to do, the fact that references can be given by the Government or by either House of the Parliament. It then makes this rather cryptic comment: A Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO was not established during the reporting period. It has not been established. The Act requires it to be established. Earlier today I heard the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, castigate a person because that person had been asked a month ago to nominate people for a committee and had not done so. On 1 February 1987 the Government was required by legislation passed by this Parliament to establish a committee and has not done so, either in the life of the previous Parliament or in the life of this Parliament. I ask: How soon is practicable for the establishment of this Committee? Why has this Committee not been established? What particular machinations are going on in the Government of this country that prevent this Committee being established? Senator Tate —That is completely wrong. Senator MACKLIN —I would like to know why we do not have a parliamentary committee that is required to be established by an Act of this Parliament. The difficulty is that we pass laws about what everybody else should be doing, yet it is virtually impossible-and I have been trying to find out ways and means in which we can enforce this Act-to enforce this particular Act. It is impossible to get the Government to abide by its own legislation. The Senate is being denied the opportunity to send references, as it is permitted to do by this Act, to this Committee which is to oversee the operations of ASIO. The Australian Democrats strongly supported the appointment of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. That position seems to be working extremely well. When we compare this report with previous reports we find that we have much better reporting to the Parliament on the operations of a very sensitive organisation in this community. One of the crucial elements required of this Parliament under the legislation has not been established in either of the two parliaments during which this Act has been operating. We have been given no explanation by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) or by the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate), who represents the Attorney-General in this place. No-one has said anything. I have asked the Government politely and nicely, either by writing letters or having meetings with the appropriate Minister, why this did not occur. I have been given all sorts of reasons but there has been no action. This is an utter and total disgrace. It is an attack on this House and on the other chamber. It is a denial of the operation of legislation. Yet seemingly we are all powerless to do anything about it. Still the Government sits on its hands. I believe it has a case to answer as to why it has failed to obey the law. But, no, we cannot get any answer out of it. I presume it is still caught up in the one of the Caucus committees because the Government does not wish to offer preferment on this particular committee to someone who would be appointed-that is, members of the Left of the Australian Labor Party. It is an extraordinary situation. I believe that is probably the real reason. If the Minister for Justice has a better reason as to why this committee is not being appointed, I hope he might give it to the chamber during this debate. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(5.20) —Senator Sanders has pointed out to me that I have probably had a long and fruitful association with the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), although it has been fairly one-sided. I have not been aware of its ministrations and I have not been privy to its feelings about me. Senator Tambling —Aren't you lucky that freedom of information applies? Senator WOOD —Freedom of information does not apply. The Reverend and Mrs Vile-excuse me, the Reverend and Mrs Nile-attempted by petition to have me thrown out of the Senate. It was an abortive attempt. They requested that ASIO and about 17 other organisations be subpoenaed to find out what ASIO knew about me. I was actually looking forward to such a subpoena so that we might have on the public record what in fact ASIO does have on me and might be able to work out just how ASIO did gather its information. Unfortunately the High Court of Australia declared that the petition was totally incompetent and that there could be no action on it. So we have been left in the dark, so to speak, by the Festival of Light. Senator Macklin has already referred to the joint committee that was supposed to be set up to be ASIO's watchdog. The rumour mill has it that the problem has something to do with the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) not being happy that his Party may not be represented on this committee, so he has been holding out to get National Party representation on it. I do believe, though, that the Government is quite happy to string this committee along for as long as it can to avoid having to regulate its own legislation. Senator Macklin —It is the right wing of the Parliament, not the left wing, that is the problem. Senator WOOD —That is the problem. I wonder, too, how many other security organisations around the world actually advertise for their spooks. Senator Stone —All the respectable ones-that is, the countries that you do not favour, Senator. They all advertise for their spooks. Senator WOOD —I am pleased to know that all the respectable countries advertise for their spies in a good capitalist way. Senator Stone —The Bulgarians, the Russians and people like that do not advertise, they just recruit them. Senator WOOD —The Soviets employ a lot more in their security agencies. I would like to know, but I doubt we will be told, how effective these advertisements have been in recruiting spies. In the good old days the security organisations just used to go to the private schools and the better universities and recruit them straight out of class. These days they seem to have to advertise in a most unseemly manner. They do not actually say they are looking for spies, but advertise for people who enjoy travel and are good communicators and a whole range of things. I would like to know how effective this advertising campaign has been, what sort of response rate there has been and how serious-or perhaps unserious-many of the applicants have really been. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.25) —It is very unusual for a Minister to rise when the Senate is discussing papers, but I thought I might reply to Senator Macklin. It is not the wish of the Government to frustrate the Parliament's will so clearly set out in the statute which reaffirms the existence of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). It is very much of concern to the Government that the parliamentary committee on ASIO has not been able to be established. If I can briefly outline the situation, this is not due to any machinations within the Government Party room. Government nominations were approved as long ago as September 1987. We were ready to run. I understand the Australian Democrats made their nomination. Who would that be? It would be Senator Macklin. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has written on a number of occasions to the leaders of the Liberal and National parties. Their response was to request that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act be amended to increase parliamentary joint committee membership from seven to nine. The Prime Minister has declined to do this. Mr Sinclair nominated two National Party of Australia members on 23 March 1988. No nominations have yet been received from Mr Howard. I simply outline those points as the facts as they have been given to me. They put to rest some of Senator Macklin's untoward comments about machinations in the Government trying to frustrate the establishment of this committee. We would be very willing, if the coalition parties were able to get their act together and come to some mutual arrangement, to establish this committee forthwith. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —by leave-I give notice that, 11 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Schools Authority (Amendment) Ordinance 1988, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 2 of 1988 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short explanation of the notice on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Today is the last day on which the Committee can give a protective notice of motion to safeguard its position while it awaits a reply from the Minister for the Arts and Territories, the Hon. Garry Punch, M.P., concerning the Schools Authority (Amendment) Ordinance. The Committee is seeking the Minister's confirmation that under the Ordinance fee determinations will be legally subject to parliamentary tabling and disallowance, and also his comments on the Committee's view that AAT review rights should be available in connection with the exercise of discretionary powers to exempt certain unspecified persons, or unspecified classes of persons, from fees. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I present the eighty-third report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLLINS —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This report relates to the Committee's scrutiny work during the period July 1986 to July 1987. It describes the way in which the Committee interpreted its scrutiny principles during that period and it sets out various illustrative examples of the way in which the Committee endeavours to protect personal rights and liberties. It is very much the hope of the Committee that this report will be regarded by parliamentarians, Ministers and, most important of all, by Public Service officers as a kind of manual on how to draft certain types of regulations without infringing the Committee's principles. I would strongly urge Ministers in this Senate, and in the other place, to insist that their senior advisers on delegated legislation read this report and keep a copy of it to hand when preparing legislation for their Minister's approval. Senator Tate —I will read it myself. Senator COLLINS —I am encouraged by the Minister's comment. Ministers whose officials do not heed the guidelines set out both in this document and also in the Committee's other major report, the eightieth report in 1986, may well find themselves embroiled in lengthy, complex and time-consuming correspondence from this Committee on technical aspect of their legislation which could very easily have been avoided by a familiarity with the Committee's standards. As honourable senators know, the Committee is in fact a bipartisan committee engaged in the scrutiny of technical and legal aspects of subordinate laws made by Ministers and officials. That scrutiny is designed to ensure that such laws do not unduly affect the rights of individuals or undermine the primary law-making role of Parliament. To sum it up, quite often on this Committee we find that the large print giveth, but the small print taketh away. The Committee has been in existence applying the same four basic principles for the past 56 years since its establishment in 1932. The interpretation and application of those principles by successive committees is subject to evolution and change. However, these adjustments are of such a gradual and predictable nature that there are very few complaints catalogued in this eighty-third report that could not have been anticipated and avoided by conscientious and diligent officials acquainted with the Committee's reports and committed to the protection of personal rights and liberties. Chairing this Committee has been an extremely valuable learning experience for me. I think that the time has come for a little bit of blunt speaking. Some Ministers, who are personally answerable in this Parliament for laws made in their name and under this authority, are not being well served in my view by some of their officials, who do not take the Committee seriously enough. I believe that there are some officials in some departments who, because we scrupulously endeavour to avoid disallowance action, do not take the Committee seriously. As a result of this the Committee finds itself time and time again in repetitive correspondence with Ministers about legislation which fails, and obviously fails, to meet the Committee's standards for the protection of the rights of ordinary people. Time and time again we have to write to Ministers to ask for explanatory statements which actually explain the reasons for making legislation and the impact it might have on people and businesses. Time and time again we have to ask Ministers to explain why they have resorted to the use of lengthy retrospectivity in making administrative arrangements. Time and time again we have to ask Ministers to ensure that inspectors with the necessary powers to walk onto other people's property and examine their private or business documents display proper, official, photographic identity cards and act reasonably in accordance with that express requirement appearing in the law giving them their powers. We heard just recently in a major debate in the Senate on the protection of the environment just how widespread these powers could be. To my astonishment I heard from the Minister for Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) that the semen inspectors of the Queensland Government could knock at a person's door at two o'clock in the morning and demand that person produce his semen at a moment's notice and that that person would be legally bound to oblige them. I can assure the Senate that they would not get mine without a fight. This is a very serious point. It simply illustrates what we on the Regulations and Ordinances Committee know and what a lot of other people do not seem to be aware of; that the powers that are provided by regulations can be very wide ranging indeed. We constantly ask that officials who have these awesome powers to examine people's private and business documents have official, proper photographic identity cards and act reasonably in accordance with that express requirement appearing in the law giving them their powers. Time and time again we have to ask that the exercise of administrative discretion that could seriously affect reputations, businesses or livelihoods be made subject to the justice of merits review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Time and again we have to ask that subdelegated law-making be made subject to the same parliamentary controls as is the delegated legislation that authorises it. I think that it is not an unreasonable demand. Finally, time and again we have to ask Ministers whether undertakings they have given the Committee to make amendments to protect rights are likely to be implemented expeditiously in the near and not the distant future. This is a random sample of certain issues which continually arise in delegated legislation. Not one of these issues is a minor issue. There are, in fact, even more numerous minor issues which I do not want to bore the Senate with tonight. These are all important issues, such as questions of retrospectivity, the reason for government law-making outside parliament, the intrusive powers of government inspectors that I have just referred to, rights of appeal, parliamentary control of government law-making, and delays in carrying out promises by a government Minister. Each of these is a major issue of principle going to the very heart of the kind of free and open parliamentary democracy Australia rightly prides itself on in a world of government tyranny, official oppression and bureaucratic manipulation. The cumulative effect of consistent deviations from the Committee's principles of justice and standards of propriety is a slow but sure decline in the quality and extent of individual freedoms in Australia. The reason for this is clear. A law-maker who is neglectful of, or merely unconscious of, the primacy of personal rights can too easily become a law-maker who is cynical about those same rights. Cynicism and contempt are two closely related attitudes, and the end of a process which perhaps started unconsciously and innocently enough is contempt for people's rights and Parliament's law. In Australia, thankfully, we are a long way from that situation, but one contributing reason for that happy state of affairs has been the existence in this Parliament for the past half century of a scrutiny committee which has been, and continues to be, prepared to put itself on the line in vigorously speaking out with a bipartisan voice when delegated law-making threatens to restrict or undermine the rights and freedoms of Australia's citizens. This consistent preparedness to apply bipartisan principle and criticise technical aspects of delegated legislation without fear or favour has undoubtedly helped to establish within the Senate a climate of sensitivity to issues of personal rights and parliamentary proprieties. It has undoubtedly heightened the interest and the watchfulness of the Parliament regarding the protection of freedom and the accountability of power. Twenty-five years ago former Senator Lionel Murphy said that the Senate: has done something by way of supervision of delegated legislation of which the people of Australia may be proud. Journals on public law have described the Senate's action as a model that might well be emulated by other countries. I hope it will not be wrongly construed if I also say that in 1970 Senator Murphy, as Leader of the Opposition, told the Senate: . . . the Labor Party is so much concerned about the carrying out of these principles, regardless of whether it is in opposition or in government, that at the last federal conference the Australian Labor Party actually adopted as part of the Party's federal platform the standards which have been laid down by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. Regardless of whether it is in government or in opposition the Australian Labor Party has pledged itself to the maintenance of these standards. I do not think that there could be any greater assertion of the intention of the Australian Labor Party. That comment will not be misconstrued, I am sure, because in the same breath I remind the Senate that the senator who at times almost single-handedly made the Regulations and Ordinances Committee a force to be reckoned with on matters of principle was former Liberal Senator Ian Wood. If the present Committee is having an effect it is because of the bipartisan commitment and contribution of all senators on it. Attempts have been made to emulate the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. I am pleased to say that the most recent attempt is occurring in the Western Australian Parliament, the only Australian Parliament that has not had a parliamentary delegated legislation committee, but which has now appointed one. I am also pleased to report that the members of that committee will be visiting Canberra at the end of this month for discussions with the Regulations and Ordinances Committee on the theory and practice of legislative scrutiny. In spite of the role of the Committee it has been my experience, and I think also the experience of my predecessor, Senator Cooney, that some public servants in preparing ministerial replies to the Committee's correspondence will justify problematical aspects of delegated legislation to the point where a disallowance debate begins to look inevitable. At that stage, when Ministers who are smothered in other crucial parliamentary and political work must look in detail at the Committee's concerns, the once intractable problem always seems to disappear. The reason is obvious. Ministers personally will invariably see the problem from the same parliamentary perspective as the Committee and they will readily agree to make appropriate amendments to protect the rights of the people or involve parliament in subsequent oversight of subdelegations-but at that stage, at what expense in wasted time and effort by the Committee and the Minister? One of my early experiences as Chairman of this Committee was to be told very emphatically by departmental officials that a certain course of action recommended by the Committee, which involved the introduction of a very small piece of legislation into the House of Representatives correcting what the department acknowledged was wrong, was impossible for at least 12 months because of the Government's very heavy legislative program. On that occasion a discussion with the Minister's staff resulted in the Bill being drafted 48 hours later. It was quite an instructive experience for me. The Committee urges Ministers to encourage their advisers and officials to adopt as far as they can a parliamentary perspective when dealing with the Committee's concerns about the rights and freedoms of the people. We urge Ministers to re-educate their advisers to a recognition that this Committee is not a political entity, it is not a destabilising force; it is simply a parliamentary editor whose role is to blue pencil bad laws that take away rights, the existence of which will not in the least undermine ministerial or government policy. Indeed, in many cases, by requiring subordinate policy to be predicated on respect for personal rights and parliamentary proprieties, the potential for successful implementation of that policy is enhanced. The Committee's eighty-third report is a long and detailed document. As I said at the beginning of this statement, I hope it becomes another reference book for delegated law-makers. I do not propose at this time to refer to the details of particular inquiries or complaints reported here. After considering the report, other senators may wish to do so before debate concludes. However, I would like to say that all of the case histories summarised here came before the Committee while it was under the chairmanship of Senator Cooney, with Senator Lewis as the Deputy Chairman, the other members being Senators Coates, Giles, Vanstone and Withers. Apart from the long-suffering Senator Pat Giles, the membership of the Committee changed completely last September. However, the report is a tribute to all of the former Committee members for their bipartisanship and for their independence of mind and action while on this Committee. It is a tribute to their strength of resolve in obtaining ministerial undertakings to protect rights. While any scrutiny committee cannot but be greatly assisted by legal advisers of the calibre of Professor Douglas Whalan or Professor Dennis Pearce, obviously committee members take the hard decisions and fight hard for the right outcome. Like so many of their predecessors, Senator Cooney and Senator Lewis set standards of top quality parliamentary scrutiny by a committee whose great strength is that it owes no obligations to any government while doing its special technical work. I think I speak on behalf of all of the present Committee members in expressing an intention to maintain those high standards. Before I conclude, I would like to say that the Committee has included as Chapter 2 of this report a personal statement which Senator Cooney made to the Senate last June summarising his view of the purpose and importance of scrutiny committees. I have no doubt that that statement by Senator Cooney will become a standard text throughout the Commonwealth parliaments of the world where the task of legislative scrutiny is undertaken, and I commend it and the report itself to other senators. Another of the learning experiences that I have had-and I am sure this is shared by all other members of the Committee-is of the expertise and diligence of the staff that serves this Committee. I conclude by paying tribute to them and, in particular, to the Committee's Secretary, Mr Peter O'Keeffe. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(5.43) —I rise as Deputy Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances to speak on the Committee's eighty-third report. This is the first general report tabled by Senator Collins as Chairman of the Committee, and I wish to congratulate him on that. I think I speak for all of the Committee members when I also congratulate Senator Collins for the effective way in which he is chairing and leading the Regulations and Ordinances Committee in a bipartisan spirit, irrespective of the colourful examples that he gives on tabling the report. He serves, as the rest of the Committee, with a commitment to the ideal that citizens' rights should not be undermined by delegated legislation. The latest report is, in my view, one of the most important the Committee has tabled. It is a long document, the longest report in the Committee's 56-year history, but the kernel of it is in the first 50 pages, which should be read by interested senators and by all Ministers in whose names delegated laws are made by the bureaucracy, and in whose names delegated laws are sometimes not well enough made by that same bureaucracy. I strongly endorse Senator Collins's remarks that this report and the Committee's general report for 1986-87 should be treated as if they were a form of manual for the makers of certain kinds of subordinate provisions. There is a little too much repetition in the flaws we encounter. Indeed, this point has been made before. When the Committee tabled its eightieth report, on 15 October 1986, my colleague Senator Vanstone said: One frustrating aspect of our work arises when the Committee writes to a Minister to repeat a point which had already been made to that or another Minister on an earlier occasion. Honourable senators will see in the report a number of themes repeated over and over again. Although the Committee has adopted the practice of being as open as it can be about its work, making statements in the Senate and incorporating or tabling its correspondence, it still seems to take a very long time before particular flaws in delegated legislation are dealt with and weeded out. Senator Vanstone also commented: The Committee is anxious to see that flaws which it identifies are not repeated, because the exercise of drawing these flaws to the attention of Ministers in order to get them fixed is not so much a waste of the Committee's time as it is a waste of the Minister's time, because the problem could have been avoided by reference to the Committee's reports and tabled correspondence before drafting of the offensive instrument. I endorse those remarks. It is regrettable that I feel I have to do so 18 months after they were first made. I wish also to draw the attention of the Senate specifically to some aspects of the report which has been tabled and which I believe are of great significance to the process by which Parliament delegates law-making powers and the subsequent process by which Ministers make laws outside Parliament. Principle (a) of its terms of reference requires the Committee to study delegated legislation to ensure that it is in accordance with the enabling statute. Yet very frequently the statute itself will give little indication of how delegated powers are to be exercised. When general law-making delegations are conferred on Ministers and others by Acts I think it is incumbent on the Parliament to ensure that the limits and, more importantly, the purposes of those powers are clearly expressed. It is the tradition of the Committee in its scrutiny to ignore the policies, the merits or the purposes of delegated legislation unless these expressly or impliedly infringe the Committee's principles. In its eightieth report the Committee clearly stated: In applying its Principles the Committee will not accept that it is the policy of the Executive to so use delegated legislation as to expressly negate those Principles. Such legislation will, by definition, infringe the Committee's Principles. Having said that, and having thus clearly identified the proper limits of the Committee's narrow role, the Committee does not necessarily step outside that role when it criticises the Ministers or other subordinate law-makers who do not make the policies, the merits or the purposes of executive laws obvious enough for parliamentarians and the public to know what they are. That is the function of a good explanatory statement-to set out the legal authority for executive laws, to explain why more of such laws are needed, to indicate what their impact will be, to refer to any community or industry consultations on which they are based and then to describe, in language that a non-lawyer can understand, just what each of the new laws means. In my view, the vast majority of the explanatory statements for delegated legislation are unsatisfactory, for the simple reason that they do not do this-they do not give the Parliament and the people enough information about why a law is necessary, what consultations preceded it or what impact it will have. Explanatory statements that accompany delegated legislation to this place should, in my view, be more carefully drafted than the explanatory memoranda of Bills, for the simple reason that at least a Bill will be thoroughly and publicly debated in two Houses of Parliament in the full glare of the media. Delegated legislation is not like that. Too often it is drafted behind closed doors, without consultation, without circulation of exposure drafts, in the context of enabling legislation which does not clearly spell out the purpose and limits of subordinate law-making powers. Chapter 3 of the Committee's eighty-third report calls for greater attention to be paid to these aspects of the process of making laws outside the confines of the Parliament. I strongly urge senators, Ministers and their advisers to read chapter 3 very carefully. It contains various ideas and proposals for greater openness in the process of subordinate law making. These are ideas whose time has come. Parliament and the people want more information on executive laws made by Ministers in the Federal sphere and it is the job of this Committee to take the lead in asking for that information, not to evaluate or criticise policy or purposes, but so that others may do so in the exercise of their lawful democratic or parliamentary rights. The Committee's main task remains twofold-to protect the rights, freedoms and liberties of the citizen which can so easily and so unwittingly be erased by subordinate laws; and to ensure that such parliamentary protection can continue to be given by protecting the role of the Senate and the Parliament in the oversight and supervision of ministerial law making. On 17 December last year Senator Collins told the Senate that the Committee's function is to `press caution on those who might seek unnecessary subordinate powers for themselves by means of unnecessary subordinate laws made by themselves'. That indeed we seek to do and will continue to do with the bipartisan support of this chamber and in the interests of protecting personal rights. Also, I would also like to endorse Senator Collins's remarks concerning the high standard and quality of the work given by the secretariat to the Committee in the performance of our functions. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(5.52) —I seek leave to table, for discussion purposes, a draft Bill making provision for the self-government of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), together with notes on the draft, and to make a very brief statement. Leave granted. Senator JENKINS —I thank honourable senators and table the draft Bill and the notes. I have tabled these documents today because on Thursday last I introduced the Australian Capital Territory (Constitutional Provisions) Bill to the people of the ACT and the Australian media. I did this because I hoped for the maximum public discussion of this very important transfer of power. The Australian Democrats reject the notion of any form of self-government being imposed by this Parliament. The Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) has indicated that self-government will be a reality, and I welcome this. The ACT branch of the Liberal Party is reported to have endorsed the Minister's proposals. There appears to be therefore some broad agreement: self-government and an elected assembly, elected by proportional representation. This latter element is a most welcome advance out of the deadlock which existed for the past few years. The Bill which I now table does not specify which of the many forms of proportional forms of representation should be applied to the ACT. It does no more than provide a framework for self-government. I ask honourable senators to take the time to examine the Bill, to discuss it and to suggest improvements or adaptations, if necessary. The Australian Democrats welcome input and good advice from all quarters. I thank the Senate for allowing me to make this brief statement. Motion (by Senator Reid) agreed to: That Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Reid for today and relating to the disallowance of the Australian Rifle Club Regulations repeal, be postponed until five sitting days after today. Debate resumed from 15 April, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bills be now read a second time. upon which Senator Short had moved by way of amendment: At end of motion add ``, but the Senate notes that: (a) this Government is the highest taxing Government in the post-war history of Australia; (b) an estimated 24.5 per cent of GDP in 1987-88 will be collected in tax revenue; (c) there will be an estimated $71 billion in taxation revenue in 1987-88, a $5.5 billion increase on the previous year's collection; (d) the Government has increasingly burdened not only individuals but business with new incentive-sapping taxes like the fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax; (e) sales tax, which is Australia's main consumption tax, is growing faster under the Hawke Government than any other of its record breaking taxes; and (f) without the incentive to invest and work productively, Australia will find it increasingly difficult to extricate itself from its $86.77 billion foreign debt straitjacket without further reductions in our standard of living''. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(5.56) —On Friday afternoon when speaking on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) I pointed to this Government's hypocrisy in terms of what it says it will do and what in fact it does. A further recapitulation of my point on Friday is the promise by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that taxes would fall in 1987-88 as a percentage of gross domestic product. One should note the fact that the performance of this Government has meant that the total tax revenue so far in this financial year is up 14.5 per cent instead of the figure of 8.5 per cent in the Budget. The rhetoric simply does not match the performance. The Australian tax bill has jumped by more than 80 per cent from the coalition years in 1982-83. This is double the rate of inflation and after taking inflation into account represents a real rise of 25 per cent. Huge rises in income tax provided most of this tax increase. Tax relief is not on the Government's agenda for Australians generally. As I said on Friday, that process has been assisted in terms of huge consumption taxes which have boomed since this Government came to office. Consumption taxes have been the fastest growing taxes in Australia with 110 per cent growth under the Hawke Labor Government-110 per cent in a mere five years. This year sales tax is up 18 per cent-half as much again as the Budget forecast of 12 per cent. Taxpayers have had to pay out to wipe off the record Hawke 1984 Budget deficit of $8 billion to bring about this year's expected surplus. That deficit should have been removed by cutting Government spending and not by increasing taxes. How hypocritical and cynical it is of this Government, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister, to say that they will have a surplus Budget this year. It is absolutely outrageous. The capital gains tax of which I spoke on Friday also is a big factor in the climate of economic instability through which we are currently passing. I drew attention to the fact that this Government has not permitted relief for those investors who suffered in the stock market crash of October last year. We cannot expect the Government to revise its capital gains legislation in comparison with other Western economies. Whereas private business and investors in Australia are confronted with a maximum long term capital gains tax of 52.25 per cent, the rate is 30 per cent in Britain, 28 per cent in the United States, 18 per cent in socialist Sweden and Canada, 16 per cent in France and zero in Italy and West Germany. One might wonder why investment has increased by only 5 per cent over the past six years. This Bill does nothing to create any major reform of the capital gains tax, nor does it alter such other anti-business impositions as the fringe benefits tax. Last month the Confederation of Western Australian Industry (Inc) stated that taxation was the principal concern of business in my State. This Bill fails to address the fact that the fringe benefits tax is levied on meals provided in the construction industry through recognised awards, a cost estimated last December at $1,000 annually for each worker, with perhaps $100m cost to the construction industry, and an extra $2m cost to the North West Shelf project alone. The cost of meals comprises 15 to 20 per cent of the total fringe benefits tax receipts. That has exceeded expectations by $135m to raise $855m for this Government in 1987-88-a further example of this Government's gross dishonesty. This legislation therefore perpetuates the real taxation story of the Hawke Government, which has obtained on average a real increase in taxation revenue of 4.7 per cent each year since coming to office, culminating in a record 24.8 per cent of gross domestic product in 1986-87. The average increase under the coalition Government was 3.3 per cent-3.3 per cent versus 24.8 per cent. The underlying reason that we have a big taxing Government that requires a succession of taxation Bills is that the Australian Labor Party Government for all its talk of austerity and responsibility is a record spending Government. No other government in this country's history has had the spending capacity of this Government. Since 1983 there has been a real rate of increase in outlays of 3.8 per cent annually, compared with 2.1 per cent under the coalition. We are still paying for the splurge in the early Hawke Government Budgets so that it could go to the polls early, even though it also promised not to do that, and win votes at any cost to the taxpayer. We should not forget that last September Senator Walsh virtually let the cat out of the bag with his reference to 200 programs that the Government lacked the courage to abolish. If the Government had had the courage to abolish those programs, the taxpayer would not have been footing the bill to try to give it a surplus this year. Underneath the technicalities of this and similar legislation lies the reality that ordinary Australians must meet this Government's bills. Last October it was estimated that the tax burden per head for 1986-87 had risen by $403, an increase of 8.5 per cent. Of this, $340 had been imposed by the Federal Government. The Government appears to have rejected valuable evidence from overseas that the best way to obtain revenue and to stimulate economic growth is through lower rates of direct taxation, a remedy being applied in New Zealand and other economies. Cutting the top rate of income tax in the United States under the Reagan Administration resulted in three times as many Americans reporting incomes above $US1m, with revenue rising from $US5 billion to $US15 billion, and the share of tax carried by millionaires rising from 1.7 per cent to 5 per cent. Taxpayers earning more than $US100,000 increased their tax payments by 57 per cent. Reduction in top marginal rates in Britain resulted in the top 5 per cent of taxpayers increasing their contribution to the total tax burden to 27 per cent, it having been 24 per cent under the previous Labour Government. Lower marginal tax rates actually produce a greater degree of equity. We have been pushing for that for a long time. It is something that we put to the electorate at the last election, and we still believe today that it is of great benefit. It is no accident surely that, with drastically lower tax rates, income tax in the United States of America amounts to 12 per cent of gross domestic product, whereas steep marginal rates in Greece and France, for example, yield only 4 per cent and 6 per cent of GDP. The United States, Switzerland and Turkey, which have low or drastically reduced marginal tax rates, enjoyed cumulative increases in real gross national product between 1980 and 1985 of 13 per cent, 9 per cent and 27 per cent respectively. Overtaxed economies such as Belgium, the Netherlands and Greece managed to achieve total growth of only 2 per cent, 3 per cent and 4 per cent. The figures tell the story, but will this Government learn, will it compare and will it adjust its policies? No. The Government is simply hell-bent on taxing people at higher and higher rates. Belgium, a country that markedly increased marginal tax rates, experienced a fall in real tax revenues by 9 per cent from 1981 to 1984. In contrast in the United States of America in 1984 Federal tax revenue rose by 5.4 per cent. As we debate an essentially minor piece of taxation legislation, we should not forget that the taxation and spending policies of this Labor Government have produced a number of warning signals within the economy. Motor vehicle registrations for 1986-87 at 376,000 represented a decline of 21 per cent on the previous year and 26 per cent on 1984-85. A rise last December has to be viewed in the context of this massive two-year decline. It is a significant comment on the way that this Labor Government taxes the small business sector that 1986-87 saw a record level of 8,600 bankruptcies. The Hawke Government has an annual average of 6,570 bankruptcies compared with average figure of 4,700 for the coalition years. Again, it is a useful indication of the effect of Labor policy that in December the Housing Loan Insurance Corporation reported that 1986-87 had been the worst year for mortgage insurance, with $26m in claims and a 28 per cent increase in loans in default. Home buyers are victims of the taxation squeeze. Their disposable income is being reduced all the time. The consumption taxes on day to day things are being put up all the time, and the money available to them to provide for themselves is greatly reduced. We should all take note of predictions, made only two months ago, by the Melbourne University Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research that Australia's continuing economic weaknesses in regard to trade would not allow for a truly sustained fall in interest rates. If we want to attract the domestic and overseas investment that is the only effective long term mechanism for growth and recovery, we must look as a nation at lower corporate taxes, measures of reform that this Bill does not encompass. What this Bill will achieve, indisputably, is to add more pages to Australian taxation legislation. When it comes to adding to the rule book, this Government really knows how to do it and it is probably its greatest achievement. It would not have gone amiss for the Treasurer to have heeded the remarks last November of Mr Geoff Lehmann, of Peat Marwick Hungerfords, who noted that there were now some 200 to 300 pages of inoperative tax law which could be deleted without any effect whatsoever. As a Liberal I do not make this complaint out of a simple concern for legislative tidiness. There is a real evil in unnecessarily complex taxation law in that it allows fewer taxpayers to manage their own affairs and even to understand them. A great responsibility is thrust upon tax agents, while complexity confers yet greater effective powers on the Commissioner of Taxation and his employees. In Western Australia in October 1987 serious allegations were raised that officers of the Australian Taxation Office were increasing assessments on professional and business taxpayers for capricious and intimidatory reasons. A television journalist had her assessment raised from $6,000 to $60,000. A Taxation Office employee actually boasted to an accountant that for the journalist to resist the assessment would be a futile exercise. The officer was actually proud of the fact that the assessment had been raised from $6,000 to $60,000. There has not been a satisfactory denial to allegations raised by a Western Australian colleague at the time of threats to witnesses in taxation cases of a deliberately unsympathetic examination of their own affairs if the information they gave was too favourable to the taxpayer being investigated. Also reported were threats of 200 per cent penalties, or an examination of 4 to 5 years of returns if a Taxation Office decision on a current return was not accepted. I do not suggest for a moment that such capricious and intimidatory behaviour is standard practice among conscientious employees of the Taxation Office. What does lie at the heart of the problem is that the legislative process at the behest of this Government, creates so complex a legal minefield that a few bullies, who are inevitably present in any large organisation, gain scope to intimidate essentially law abiding Australians. We will remove the threat only when taxation legislation becomes simpler, and becomes simpler because we reduce the tax burden on the business community and on the individual. This legislation, while giving effect to some minor improvements, does nothing whatsoever to alter the thrust of policy of a high spending, high taxing Labor Government. Unless this policy is changed, and there is a real lowering of the tax burden, our economic problems can only increase. As a result, the Opposition is particularly concerned about the direction of the economy and we are moving an amendment to the second reading motion which quite clearly states our concern that this Government is the highest taxing government in the postwar history of Australia; that an estimated 24.5 per cent of GDP in 1987-88 will be collected in tax revenue; that there will be an estimated $71 billion in tax revenue in 1987-88, which is a $5.5 billion increase on the previous year's collection; that the Government has increasingly burdened not only individuals but business with new incentive sapping taxes such as the fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax-and sales tax, which is Australia's main consumption tax. I remind the Senate that this consumption tax, which applies to things such as flavoured milk, ice-creams and orange juice, hits families, whom supposedly this Government is out to help. In fact, the Government is in the throes of strangling families. The Government is the master of the consumption tax, and it is growing faster under this Government than any of its other record breaking taxes. Without the incentive to invest in work productively, Australia will find it increasingly difficult to extricate itself from its $86 billion foreign debt. It is just something that we must continue to push the Government on, from a very difficult standpoint, to ensure that we get back to a taxation system which Australians can afford and which is equitable, and one that will not put the next generation and the generation after that into debt. I am terribly concerned at the way taxation in this country is going, and until such time as we have a reversal and a more equitable situation pertains we can only go even further into the taxation minefield. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(6.12) —We are debating the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1987, which makes several changes to the income tax law. They include a withholding tax exemption to encourage offshore banking and rollover relief for reorganisation of trust units involving the insertion of a company between the unit trust and the unit holders. Certain changes are made to the taxation of superannuation payments and the Bill also provides for the abolition of special write-off provisions for buildings used to house research activities, and there are a number of other minor amendments. The Opposition will not oppose the second reading of the Bill but we have chosen to move an amendment at the second reading stage in the following terms: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `Whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the Senate notes that: This Government is the highest taxing government in the post-war history of Australia; An estimated 24.5 per cent of GDP in 1987-88 will be collected in tax revenue; There will be an estimated $71 billion in taxation revenue in 1987-88, A $5.5 billion increase in the previous year's collection; The Government has increasingly burdened not only individuals but business with new incentive sapping taxes like the fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax; and Without the incentive to invest and work productively, Australia will find it increasingly difficult to extricate itself from its $83 billion foreign debt strait-jacket without further reductions in our standard of living'. One feature of this Government's stewardship which stands starkly before all Australians is its avaricious appetite for more and more taxes. Not only has this Government the singular distinction of being the highest taxing government since Federation in respect of personal income tax and many other taxes, but it has also pursued its greed with the introduction of a vast array of indirect taxes. The Government had the absolute audacity to involve itself in the debate which prevailed in the Liberal Party and the National Party for some time as to the relevance of an indirect tax vis-a-vis personal income tax, saying at the same time that it had no intention of introducing a consumption tax. However, the Government's indirect taxes have been increasing at a rate of 15 per cent annually, and the base has been broadened very significantly. The ingenuity and deviousness that this Government has applied in continuing new and different taxes has shown a dedication to rip off the Australian workers and taxpayers matched only by the dishonesty that it has pursued in masking their application. Rather than announcing in the August Budget of each year the hefty hikes in indirect taxes on commodities such as beer, petrol and cigarettes, the Hawke Government has chosen in an obsequious and rather hidden way to automatically index increases on a regular basis without announcing the level that the increases have reached. For the Government to claim that it will not introduce a consumption tax when it has done more than any other government to widen and increase indirect taxes is, frankly, blatantly dishonest. It is another untruth that sits on the mantelpiece with Mr Hawke's promise that he would not introduce a capital gains tax and his more recent promise to all Australians that there would be no child in Australia living in poverty by the year 1990. Let me refer for a moment to the matter of this Government's contribution to the amount of personal income tax that ordinary Australians pay. Such has been the effect of bracket creep that a person on average weekly earnings is now inside the third income bracket and is paying tax at the second highest marginal tax rate. Using the statistics for the 1984-85 taxation year, 65 per cent of male and female taxpayers were earning incomes of less than $19,000 a year, which implies that 35 per cent were paying more. These figures are two years old, so it is reasonable to assume that now decidedly more than 35 per cent of Australian taxpayers are earning more than that amount. We can assume that well over one-third of the population is paying 40c in the dollar taxation at the margin. In September 1985 the Treasurer (Mr Keating) commented that in the early 1970s the top rate of income tax applied to people on five times average weekly earnings, while at the same time he went on to say that in 1985 the top rate of taxation cut in at 1 1/2 times average weekly earnings. Of course, three years later we know that it is cutting in at less than 1 1/2 times average weekly earnings, even after the so-called great taxation reforms. If we convert the income figures at which the top rate of income tax applied in the early 1970s to current dollars we find that to be on the same footing the top rate would have to cut in at $126,000, but, of course, in actual fact it cuts in at $35,000. The Commonwealth's claim on an ever-increasing proportion of people's incomes through the action of inflation continues unabated, and there are certainly no signs from this Government that it intends to do anything about it. While the Government sits by and refuses to address this issue it has to be judged to be as guilty of the same immorality and cheating that is levelled at some of the Australian taxpayers. If wages rise over the next three years at the same rate that they have risen over the past four years, a further 2.25 million people will cross over into higher taxation brackets. In fact, in 1987-88 alone, three-quarters of a million people will move into higher tax brackets; three-quarters of a million people will be paying more taxes than they were last year. Of course, the impact of this process on families is quite dramatic. Families on an average weekly income with two children paid 13.2 per cent of their income in tax in 1983, while by 1990, on the Government's present form, they will be paying 20.8 per cent of their income in tax. That equates to an increase of more than $70 a week in income tax. This Government is asking people of very ordinary means, with modest incomes by any standard, to pay exorbitant amounts of tax on their ordinary incomes and then to pay absolutely punitive rates at the margin if they are prepared to go out and do some overtime to keep their heads above water. The persistent refusal by the Labor Government to adjust the taxation brackets upwards to compensate for inflation now leaves the Government in the ridiculous position that it is actually taxing people on social security benefits. A person over 21 years of age with no dependants receives unemployment benefit of $104.75 per week or an amount of $5,447 per year. This means that he is inside the first tax threshold by $348. We are now at the ludicrous stage where this Government is giving taxpayers' money in the form of social security benefits to people it judges to be in very real need and then taking the same money back in the form of taxes. One wonders just how absurd this Government will allow the situation to become. For this Government to claim that it has performed an economic miracle is, by the measure of even this Government, audacious and outrageous. It is obviously an apparition able to be seen only by Mr Hawke and Mr Keating. The truth of the matter is that Australia's economy is in grave peril, as it was before the recent by-elections, and it remains in grave peril. It will take Labor more than by-election disasters to generate an economic miracle. If this Government imagines that it can convert the view of the public of its economic performance simply by pronouncements that the worst is over, that the miracle is performed, that there is light ahead at the end of the tunnel, it will continue to fail. The Government, in its panic, has chosen to discard honesty and integrity as part of its luggage down the road. The one area where there is some immunity from bracket creep is company tax. But what this Government has done to overcome the problem of not attracting the benefit of additional revenue through inflation is simply to legislate to increase company tax from 46c to 49c in the dollar. This is at a time when competing nations are reducing the levels of corporate taxation. In Great Britain the corporate rate of taxation has been progressively reduced to stand at 35 per cent. In the United States it has been reduced to 34 per cent. In Singapore it has been cut from 40 per cent to 33 per cent. In Hong Kong it has been reduced from 18.5 per cent to 18 per cent. Canada, Germany, France and Japan are examining ways of reducing corporate taxation even further. Australia stands out in the crowd because this is the only country in which corporate tax rates have been significantly increased-from 46 per cent to 49 per cent. Of course, the Australian system is worsened by this Government's foreign tax credits system, which demands payment of Australian tax on repatriated earnings equivalent to the difference between the tax paid on them overseas and the 49 per cent normally imposed in Australia. Yet we are told that there is an economic miracle. The miracle is that any of these companies are able to pay any tax at all. The miracle is that they are able to employ people. One only need ask any of the 600,000 people who are unable to find jobs about the level of the miracle. This Government, with its obsession with extracting more and more tax from ordinary Australians, has with all its additions and amendments to the tax Act made it simply impossible for taxpayers even to begin to read and understand the Act. It has become impossible for ordinary Australians to read the laws and to determine their taxation liability. To begin with, even the numbering of the Act is impossible. In the Income Tax Assessment Act we have a section 124zaga (1) (a) (ii) and a section 124zah (1a) (c). The relatively simple process of renumbering the Act would greatly assist taxpayers and help to make the system fairer and more workable. The continual patch-up of the Act and the complexity of new sections deprive ordinary taxpayers of even being able to read the law. Let us consider this classic from the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act: an employer examining whether a food allowance he pays employees travelling away from home is a fringe benefit finds the following in the definition section. `Living away from home food fringe benefit' he is told, is an `expense payment fringe benefit'. This term is itself defined, so he looks at that definition to find that an `expense payment fringe benefit' means a fringe benefit which is an `expense payment benefit'. `Expense payment benefit' is itself another defined term, so he looks to find that an expense payment benefit is a benefit referred to in section 20. Section 20 contains two further internal definitions but basically says that if an employer pays for something on behalf of an employee the employer is taken to have provided a benefit to that employee. If the taxpayer can still remember what it was he was looking for in the first place, he will be pleased to learn that he has discovered the meaning of the first internal definition in the first line of a definition which runs for six paragraphs. Most taxpayers are forced to seek advice from accountants and in many cases they themselves require to consult the Tax Office. Very often there is no relief to be found there either. A recent survey published in the Australian Financial Review indicated that 30 per cent of people inquiring at the Australian Taxation Office received answers which were either partially or totally wrong. The survey found that 44 per cent of calls were abandoned because the Tax Office was too slow in answering the query. That is not a criticism of the Taxation Office or any of its officers; it is simply a criticism of this Government for continuing to mount upon the legislation more and more amendments whose intention and meaning are obscure. The Office is very understaffed in terms of providing the services and facilities which ordinary Australian taxpayers can properly claim to be entitled to. Not only is the taxation Act now quite impossible to read but also it is being amended in ways which have removed any semblance of equity or fairness. I give two simple examples of how the Act is designed to disadvantage the taxpayer under all circumstances. I refer to section 17. I raise this against the background of recent legislation introduced by the Government to ensure that tax is paid on the earnings of a deferred annuity under an accruals system rather than when the earnings are paid. True to form, this Government does not apply the same principles when failure to use the accruals system would result in the payment of more tax. Section 17 requires tax to be levied on income at the time it is received. Two recent constituent cases demonstrate the unfairness that results. One constituent was underpaid social security benefits for several years. When the error was detected and the appropriate payments were made taxation was imposed on the lump sum and a back payment was required. The lady concerned would not have paid any tax on the pension if it had been correctly paid to her at the time she was entitled to receive it. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was drawing a distinction between the recently introduced legislation which ensures that tax is paid on the earnings of a deferred annuity under an accruals system rather than when they were paid and a situation whereby taxpayers are provided with a payment they were entitled to over a number of years in a complete financial year. I referred to a lady who had been denied pension payments to which she was eligible for a number of years. She was paid in a lump sum for one year. She was required by the law to be assessed and to pay tax. Fortunately, I was able to invoke the extraordinary procedure for waiver of a tax debt and she was not required to pay the tax. The same situation applied with respect to a gentleman who came to my office with a problem in regard to workers compensation payments. He was receiving workers compensation in one financial year for a period which stretched across a number of years and was required to pay tax on that lump sum, notwithstanding the fact that it related to income earned over several years. Regrettably, in this case, like so many others, he paid tax at the higher rate rather than the ordinary rate at which he might have expected to attract tax had he received the benefit and entitlement to which he was due over the period. I understand that the Ombudsman has recommended that this unfair result be changed and the Commissioner of Taxation has undertaken to recommend to the Government that the section be changed. The Treasurer has commissioned an inquiry. In the brief moments remaining to me I will touch upon the question of inflation as it impinges on company tax. As I said earlier, companies have not suffered from inflation-induced bracket creep, but inflation has impacted by rendering historic cost accounting virtually useless. As the Senate will well know, under current accounting practices companies are required to record their assets in their accounts at the price they paid for them-hence the term `historic costs'. A deduction is allowed for depreciation of the asset. So, in theory, by the time the asset has come to the end of its useful life the company will have been able to put away sufficient funds through deductability to ensure that it can purchase new capital or to ensure that the capital it has remains intact. Anything the firm has earned after the payment for expenses and depreciation of equipment is quite properly judged to be profit and taxed accordingly. Of course, inflation makes an absolute nonsense of this. For example, a person who buys $1m worth of plant which has an expected life of 10 years is entitled to put away $100,000 a year by way of depreciation so that at the end of the 10-year period he has written the plant off but has provided himself with accruing cash assets to replace the plant. If he makes a profit of another $1m over the 10-year period it is a taxable profit. Under normal circumstances he would be required to pay $490,000 tax, which would leave him $510,000 to assist in the purchase of new equipment. Given that we have the problem of inflation and the present inflation rate, he would probably be required to find $1.6m to buy the same equipment. Under those circumstances, rather than making a profit of $510,000 after tax, the business proprietor would make a $90,000 loss. No allowance is made for inflation under the present tax law. When depreciation is calculated, the actual profit received by the businessman is far less than that which is shown. That is the great difficulty business has at present with inflation. Perhaps one of the few redeeming features when this Government introduced the obnoxious capital gains tax was that it recognised the insidious effect of inflation and ensured that capital gains as they fell within the tax Act were discounted by the level of inflation. At a time when the Government is telling us that an economic miracle is on the horizon, the vast majority of Australians have a financially worse status in life than they had when this Government was elected. The vast majority of businesses are more significantly disadvantaged than they have ever been. The take-home pay of individuals has been significantly reduced. There is no sign that this Government intends to amend the provisions in any way which would reduce the level of taxation. As I have said, whilst the Opposition is not opposed to the legislation, it has moved amendments which reflect the views not only of the Opposition but also of the community. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(8.07) —I refer to the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition, in two parts. I look at the question of the overall taxation burden placed upon the Australian community, and the plans I foreshadowed in my speech in the adjournment debate last week concerning the proposed common identifying number (CIN)-that is, the determination of the Australian Taxation Office to forge ahead with its Australia Card by another name. There have been no assurances or acknowledgments by the Government that those proposals are afoot, proposals which will again allow the debate to rage. I thought I might begin with a biblical quotation from the Gospel of St Luke, chapter 2, verse 1, which says: And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. The philosophy behind the Government of this day, the Hawke-Keating Government, is to tax as much as it is humanly possible to extract from the unwilling taxpayer. There has been much discussion abroad of late. The Liberal Party was prepared to debate at its Federal Council the nature and question of tax. Yet, this Government's record since it came to office has been an increase in the tax take of 80 per cent, from $40 billion to $73 billion. This has taken place without any real argument or debate on the reason we tax, the justification for the extraction of taxation and the reason for the creation of new taxes such as the fringe benefits tax (FBT) and the capital gains tax. Senator Button even admitted in this place, in a discussion on the new rules that are to apply to the automotive industries, that the FBT had had a depressing effect on the market as a whole in its initial stages. But he said that he considered that a motor car was still a good fringe benefit and, therefore, that the market ought to and should recover. There was no discussion at that time of why the tax was justified per se. The Liberal Party has put its case very firmly. It has said that the FBT would be abolished by us but that any attempts to rort the system, in the common parlance of the day-that is, to avoid justified taxation-would not be acceptable to a Liberal-National Party government. I think it is interesting to look at the areas in which taxation has grown and in particular the breakdown of areas in which that growth has taken place. Since this Government came to power-the only comparable figure we have is in the last Fraser Government Budget-the collection of income taxes, which includes FBT and capital gains taxes, has amounted to $50 billion. That is an increase in the vicinity of $22 billion. We have seen growth in the area which is loosely called consumer taxes-I am not quite sure how that is distinguished from consumption taxes which are paid by the Australian people and which amount to about one-third of all taxes collected. Sales tax has been the fastest growing tax in our community and has gone, in a sense, unchallenged since this Government came to office. Sales tax for this year alone is up by 18 per cent, which is half as much again as the Budget forecast of only 12 per cent. A family on average earnings is now paying an extra $37 a week in income tax. The marginal rate has jumped by one-third to 40 per cent. Let us compare that with how consumption taxes have boomed. Sales tax, as I said, has grown in a completely stealthy fashion. It is the fastest growing tax in Australia. There has been 110 per cent growth under the Hawke Government. This is almost three times the inflation rate, more than double the 50 per cent increase in wages and benefits, and almost double the 60 per cent increase in private consumption spending. The point was very adequately made by Premier Nick Greiner, at the Liberal Party Federal Council meeting in Melbourne only the weekend before last, that this Government imposes taxes on ice-cream, orange juice and flavoured milk but it leaves such things as pornographic magazines free from sales tax. This hidden tax, comprising one-third of the tax intake, has resulted in a massive broadening of the tax base. In fact, the percentage of indirect taxes would be greater were it not for the fact that the international oil price has dropped and therefore the amount of money raised by the oil levy has not been as great as otherwise would have been the case. So the overall take remains at one-third, yet the increase in sales taxes, in particular, has been an enormous 18 per cent this year alone. As I said, in biblical times a directive went out that the whole world should be taxed. It seems that the Government's thesis in Australia is simply that tax shall be raised at whatever cost. A figure that I have cited before is that tax collection between 1983 and this financial year has risen by 80 per cent. It has almost doubled. Does anybody feel twice as well off? Does anybody feel 80 per cent better off? They are very real questions to ask. The second part of the question that I wanted to address tonight is how it is being planned that we should once again be subject to the threatened Australia Card but by another name. The other night in this chamber in the adjournment debate I raised the question of the proposed CIN number. I gave the background, which I will reiterate. On 18 February 1987 the Treasurer (Mr Keating) wrote to the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts advising that the Cabinet had given in-principle approval for the expenditure of $693m, over a 10-year period, to pay for the redevelopment and re-equipment of computer systems for the Australian Taxation Office. In the same letter the Treasurer requested that the Public Accounts Committee consider the matter and report back to enable a request for tender to take place by June 1987. The first submission from the Australian Taxation Office was received on 27 February 1987. Further information was sought by the Committee from the Australian Taxation Office and a public hearing was held on 30 April 1987. The Committee concluded from its review work that the Australian Taxation Office did not have a fall-back position for the possible situation when an Australia Card had not been provided for by legislation. During a further public hearing on the 23rd March 1983 we had the opportunity to question Mr Boucher, the Commissioner of Taxation. It was a fairly rigorous form of questioning. It dealt with the submission that had been put forward in writing to the Public Accounts Committee to justify nearly $700m being spent over the next 10 years. According to that submission, it was to save $519m by way of staff savings over the period. It was interesting that that written submission, which then became the basis of that hearing, in no way dealt with the projected revenue flows over that 10-year period. I pointed out also that a submission is to be made by the Australian Taxation Office to the Cabinet for it to make a decision on how it should proceed with regard to the various proposals concerning the so-called high integrity tax number or the CIN number-the common identifying number. My concern about the CIN number being the Australia Card revisited is simply that, during questioning, at no time was there an ability to distinguish between the proposal for the CIN number with an external power and the Australia Card. The interesting thing is that the Australian Taxation Office has the power now-it had it yesterday; it had it six months ago; it had it a year ago; it had it two years ago-to introduce a common identifying number for internal use, that is, to link on a single number all taxpayers who pay income tax, fringe benefits tax, capital gains tax, sales tax and any other form of tax. It has the power to do that now. When I asked why it had not already been done, the answer was less than convincing. It went along the lines that the Taxation Office had worked out its strategies and that would require more work which would perhaps not be productive. One of the worrying aspects was that officers had given testimony at an earlier public hearing in April 1987 that a major function of the Australian Taxation Office was as a matching mechanism-that is, to match information that came to it so that it could determine whether there was income which was not being disclosed. The officers said that they had a 60 per cent success rate in that matching process. However, they also said in testimony that without the Australia Card or something like that they did not think the success rate with the new computer equipment and matching systems would exceed 60 per cent. However, they did say that the to-be-acquired computers and matching systems could enable them more specifically and in a more worthwhile sense to target the audits that ought to be done which they thought would produce more revenue. As I said, there was no attempt in the submissions to indicate in any way what those additional revenue flows would be. Interestingly enough, the Public Accounts Committee requested the Australian Taxation Office to justify in its fresh submission the $700m purchase that stood alone from the Australia Card, or any other similar number system which would require additional legislation. It chose to interpret the phrase `stood alone' as not including revenue flows. So the concern has arisen, and I think it is a very real concern, that somehow the Australian Taxation Office thinks it can convince the Government-and it may or may not be a party willing to be convinced-that it can proceed along a path that will give it what it sees as the benefits of the Australia Card without the intense and raging debate that took place when the Australia Card was mooted. I back up that belief with, if you will pardon the pun, seven deadly points leading to the CIN number. Firstly, the Government has asked the Tax Office to draw up a proposal which will look at the implementation of the CIN number. Secondly, the development of the preparatory work on the CIN number has already commenced. Thirdly, Government departments will be required to supply information to the Tax Office. Obviously that will include departments such as the Department of Social Security and the Department of Community Services and Health. Fourthly, computer equipment is being purchased specifically to implement the CIN number. That point is hard to substantiate in specific terms but one cannot help but come to the conclusion that the indications are that that is occurring, because the existing mainframes already have that capacity. Fifthly, there will be a need to change existing legislation, as well as introduce new legislation, to make the CIN number legal. I believe that that is contemplated. Sixthly, it will be possible to commence with the CIN number in the course of the next financial year. Seventhly, in testimony given to Estimates Committee Cover the last week, on which I have not yet touched, there was a failure to deny that the impact of the CIN number would be any different from that of the Australia Card. As I have said, the use of the CIN number needs to be brought to the attention of the Senate and the Australian people because of the intensity of the debate which raged previously. I believe it will be a debate which will rage again. I said that there were various indications that had come to light from both the Public Accounts Committee hearings and the Estimates Committee hearings. I would like to go over some of the evidence given. In a written submission to the Public Accounts Committee entitled `Australian Tax Office submission on Re-equipment and Redevelopment Revision of Cost-Benefit analysis account Australia Card'-which in fact was a review of the cost-benefit analysis of the Australian Taxation Office's re-equipment and development program for its new computer equipment-we saw a continual line going through it, with references to how the Australia Card would have assisted and how additional benefits and taxation collections could have been maintained. None of what I have to say in any way disagrees with the proposition that the Tax Office should be more efficient, but I want it to be efficient in the collection of fairly and squarely based taxes. The Australian community is entitled to be aware of the proposals presently being considered, and it is only through such things as the public hearings of the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates committees that any evidence of what is planned has started to come to light. Clearly, in my view, there is a definite attempt to reintroduce the Australia Card mark 2, to be known as the CIN number. The spending of nearly $700m on upgrading computer facilities is part of that strategy and it is developing linkages between Government departments that will be necessary to enforce the usage of that number. There is a definite plan not to inform the people of Australia and have the matter again debated fairly. The Government should tell the Australian people exactly what is planned by both the Australian Taxation Office and the Government itself, and it should allow the debate to take place again. One of the worrying aspects that have come out of the hearings I have mentioned is that there is no security. The lines between the mainframes in the Deakin centre and in Parkes are not secure. One of the Tax Office's senior officers, Mr Seymour, gave testimony that indeed those lines could be hacked into. Further testimony was given that there was no plan to put a scrambler on those lines, to use a layman's term, because that would be subject to budgetary constraints. It may be considered or it may not. When we put that in conjunction with the statement made by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in 1986, when he told the South Australian Labor Party Conference that `privacy . . . is a bourgeois right that is very much associated with the right to private property', we certainly have cause for concern. The point of this debate is to bring to the attention of the Senate and the Australian people generally the problem that we face with this Hawke-Keating Government's collection of taxation. There is quite clearly a determination to collect taxes, and to collect them faster and more extensively than they have been collected by any other government in the history of Australia. I have outlined the enormous increases in indirect taxes, that is, consumer taxes. I have pointed out the enormous increase in the collection of direct taxes. I have said that there has been an increase of some 80 per cent in the collection of tax overall since this Government came to office. Yet where is the benefit to the Australian people? Expenditure has grown by some 13 per cent but we are not seeing an increase in the standard of living of the Australian people. We have seen dramatic swings against the Labor Party in the last month and we have seen New South Wales fall and the ALP suffer by-election catastrophes: The statement has been made that the Labor Party has lost touch with the Australian people. Indeed it has. It has lost touch with the hopes and aspirations of the Australian people-what the people expect the Government to deliver; what they expect as individuals to achieve; what they expect their children, by right, to be able to achieve; what they expect from the education system; and what they expect from the right to work and to earn a place for themselves in the Australian community. That is what the hopes and aspirations of Australia are about. They are not about being told, `That is your box over there; stay in it and like it'. Australians are not like that. When it is said that the Australian Labor Party, and in particular this Labor Government, has lost touch with the grass roots of Australia, that is what it means. It has lost touch with the hopes and the aspirations of the ordinary people. In no other area is it reflected as much as in the taxation area, where initiative is stifled and reward for effort is tightened at every point. It is only by seeing a change of government, a freeing up and realisation by the people of Australia that they can aspire, hope to achieve and be rewarded for that effort, that we will again see a prosperous nation. Senator HILL(South Australia)(8.30) —The Senate is debating tonight two taxation Bills, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) and the Income Tax (Offshore Banking Units) (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill. The Opposition has moved the following amendment to the motion for the second reading. At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate notes that: (a) this Government is the highest taxing government in the post-war history of Australia; (b) an estimated 24.5 per cent of GDP in 1987-88 will be collected in tax revenue; (c) there will be an estimated $71 billion in taxation revenue in 1987-88, a $5.5 billion increase on the previous year's collection; (d) the Government has increasingly burdened not only individuals but business with new incentive-sapping taxes like the fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax; and (e) sales tax, which is Australia's main consumption tax, is growing faster under the Hawke Government than any other of its record breaking taxes; (f) without the incentive to invest and work productively, Australia will find it increasingly difficult to extricate itself from its $86.77 billion foreign debt straitjacket without further reductions in our standard of living''. These Bills and the amendment that I have just read clearly give the Senate an opportunity again to debate fundamental questions relating to the equity, fairness, efficiency and simplicity of this Government's taxation package and its taxation record. It is of regret to us on this side of the chamber that the Government does not seem prepared to participate in the debate, that again tonight, apart from the Minister who in due course will wind up the debate, Government senators have not been prepared to come in and attempt to justify this Government's taxation record. We have had a very one-sided debate; nevertheless, if the Government's supporters are not prepared to stand by its record, they can only expect a one-sided debate. As the previous speaker, Senator Bishop, has indicated, votes around the country in recent times would appear to be indicating that Australia generally is disenchanted with the hypocritical version of social equity, justice and fairness that has been proffered by this Government, particularly in the taxation area. If one looks at these Bills, which on their face appear to deal with establishing a taxation regime for offshore banking units, one soon finds that they deal with a number of other things as well. The first Bill contains a substantial number of amendments to existing taxation laws which Mr Keating calls `unintended consequences' arising from his previous tax changes, which, I would suggest, is an indictment in itself. In other words, what we have before us represents what we have seen so often during this Government's three terms; that is, pieces of taxation legislation introduced and then, within reasonably short periods, subsequent legislation seeking to amend the first Bills because of unintended consequences. That, in effect, means that the job was not done correctly in the first instance, and in taxation law particularly that makes for a most unsatisfactory regime within which business particularly has to operate, but also with which the community has to comply. The offshore banking units part of the first Bill, clauses 20 to 24, amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to provide a tax exemption from withholding tax which would otherwise be payable on the interest received by an Australian financial institution from the recipient of a loan offshore provided certain conditions are complied with as are set out in the Act. These provisions give effect to policy statements of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) dated 1 July 1986 and 9 April 1987. We have in this instance another demonstration of what has also been commonplace taxation practice by this Government; that is, taxation laws by announcement or by Press release and amendments reaching the Parliament a considerable period later. In some instances-as in the case of this Bill-the amendments are introduced almost two years after the laws have, in effect, been put down in the form of an announcement by the Minister. We have expressed over and over again how unsatisfactory we regard that practice to be. We accept that it is not improper to make such an announcement. What is improper is that it takes so long before the legislation reaches the Parliament. Periods extending from announcements on 1 July 1986 to April 1988 are quite unforgivable and show serious flaws in this Government's taxation administration. We therefore find that in this instance the announcements were made in an entirely different economic environment from the one which persists today. These announcements concerning a regime for offshore banking units were made in a climate of expansion in the financial services industry and deregulation in the pre-October crash environment. The legislation was designed to attract the business of offshore banking units to Australia as a necessary function in a major financial centre. What has happened now is that that environment has significantly changed, so we are not debating the legislation in the circumstances that existed when the announcement was made. I suggest that the regime that this Government seeks to set up by this legislation was flawed in any event. It certainly will not work now and it was unlikely to have worked at the time it was first announced. Why is that? The reason is quite simple: for Australia to compete in this area it has to have a corporate tax structure that is competitive with those of our regional competitors, particularly in this instance the offshore financial centres of Hong Kong and Singapore. The corporate tax rate in Hong Kong is about 18 per cent. I have tried to look at these figures fairly, taking into account the range of taxes that corporations have to pay. The corporate tax rate in Singapore is about 33 per cent. Of course, Singapore also has a concessional tax on the profits of offshore banking business of only 10 per cent. Japan has a corporate tax rate of 33 per cent and 43 per cent on undistributed income. New Zealand by its recent announcements has established a corporate tax rate of 28 per cent. How then, is Australia to compete, with its current corporate tax rate of 49 per cent, increased by 3 per cent by this Government? I respectfully suggest that it indicates how out of touch this Government is with international business reality. To want to establish offshore banking units in Australia is desirable, but to do so one has to offer a corporate tax regime that is competitive with those of Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo and New Zealand. Under the current regime that is not possible. This is a matter of great regret, I would suggest, because the Commonwealth, the State and the private sector have spent a great deal of energy, effort and resources in investigating the circumstances required to establish a financial centre in Australia that can compete with other financial centres in the region. All political parties supported what was being sought. Therefore, we had a consensus of opinion amongst political parties and the business community to create the right environment, but this Government was not prepared to offer the necessary inducement. As I indicated, in my opinion and in the opinion of the Opposition, that is a matter of great regret. The other half of the rather petty inducement that is offered in this legislation is a threat of a 300 per cent penalty tax if the exemption is abused. But this show of strength will have little effect because very few offshore banking units will result. Let me pass to another of the changes that are included in the first of these Bills that we are debating tonight, and that concerns another acknowledgment of error by the Government. It concerns the roll-over of capital gains tax liability for certain business reorganisations. This was canvassed in a Press release more than two years ago and again expanded upon in Press releases of September 1987. I am talking about the changes that were to be made to allow certain unit trusts to reorganise by interposing a company between the business and the unit holders. They wished to do this to gain the advantages of full dividend imputation; but unfortunately the imputation legislation, as it was presented to the Parliament and passed by the Parliament, did not allow for unit trusts to do this. So again we have the situation of the Government coming to us with changes which it now says it wants to introduce to revert to a situation which perhaps it intended right from the start but which was inadequately covered. In other words, it is another example of poor planning. I suppose that it is reasonable for taxation advisers to take some time to isolate the shortcomings in this Government's taxation packages. I remind honourable senators that the package we have before us tonight takes an explanatory memorandum of 110 pages, and that is typical of the taxation laws that this Parliament is being required by this Government to pass-legislation that is practically impossible to interpret and therefore, not surprisingly, legislation that requires a series of amending Bills to follow to try to fix up the past mistakes that the first Bill almost certainly incorporates. This same sentiment of concern was expressed only last week, during the Harold Irving endowed lecture to the national conference of the Taxation Institute of Australia, by Mr Mat Walsh, a partner in the law firm of Mallesons Stephen Jaques. He said that the capital gains tax had brought confusion to the business world because of a lack of clarity and ambiguities in the drafting of the legislation. He said that the consequences of the legislation imposed considerable hardship on taxpayers and that the confusion arising out of the legislation was in stark contrast to a promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) after the ill-fated 1985 tax summit. As honourable senators will recall, that was a recognition that tax laws needed to be simple and capable of reasonable interpretation. If one looks at so much of the tax laws that we have passed under this Government, as I said, one sees that it certainly has failed to meet that criterion. I refer specifically to page 39 of Mr Walsh's address, where he said: It is obvious, too, that the Commissioner and the Government have had difficulties in foreseeing the problems in the application of the Act and this has necessitated many changes and proposed changes in the last two years. In my view, the legislation still requires a further extensive review for the purposes of enacting further changes to overcome its lack of clarity in drafting and ambiguities . . . Notwithstanding the continual amendments that are coming before the chamber, here we have a taxation expert saying that it is still not good enough, it is still ambiguous, it still lacks clarity and it needs further reform. Presumably, the Government will take up that invitation and we will find in due course another amending Bill. So, at a time when the Australian public is suffering the ravages of bracket creep, a decline in real disposable income, uncertainty associated with superannuation and, in particular, a drastic reduction in the living standards of parents and dependent children, this Bill is indicative of a government out of touch with reality in the tax area. I want briefly to look at a few of these areas in which the Australian community is suffering under the Government's taxation regime-areas that are brought out specifically in the amendment that we have put in relation to this Bill and that we hope the Senate will endorse. Firstly, let me briefly look at the Government's taxation record in relation to families. One of the major problems associated with the Government's policy towards families is its failure to take account of the inequity associated with this simple comparison: a family with one income earner, a dependent spouse and two dependent children and on $500 a week-which today is a very small amount on which to bring up children-pays 31 per cent more tax than a family with two equal income earners and no dependants and bringing home $500 a week between them. That is a blatant inequity. It is time that it was addressed by this Government. We have brought it to the Senate on many occasions and we bring it again today. I remind the Senate that a family on average weekly earnings, with a dependent spouse and two children, requires $42 a week to restore its real disposable income to the same levels as in March 1983. So, those families are now $42 a week behind where they were in 1983. That is a demonstration of this Government's taxation record in relation to families. Family allowances have fallen 36 per cent in real terms since 1983. The dependent spouse rebate for a family with children has fallen 27 per cent in real terms. These figures are not introduced into the debate simply for academic reasons. As all of us who participate in family law debates in this chamber recognise, the financial stress that is placed upon families is accepted by most experts as the overwhelming reason for break-ups of marriages. Therefore we on this side of the chamber say that in a debate on taxation, where we are looking at the fairness, equity or inequity of this Government's taxation policies, the Government should recognise the extra stress that it is applying to families, the cost in family tension and hardship and in many cases, regrettably, subsequent break-up, and then, if we want to take it one step further, the cost to the community in trying to do something about it. We say that this Government ought to be putting together a taxation record and policy that offers incentive for the family as a cohesive unit to remain together. Let me touch briefly on the subject of superannuation. The Government, as we are all aware, is currently considering levying a tax on funds under management in superannuation schemes. We say that, rather than going out and searching for further additional taxes to apply in this area, the Government should be looking at the place of superannuation in the context of an examination of the total retirement welfare benefits and incomes generally within our community. In other words, rather than providing something that will have the effect of dissuading members of the community from participating in superannuation funds and planning for their own security and well-being in retirement, this Government is now talking about implementing further taxes that will dissuade them from doing so. Surely at this time that would be a most unproductive way for the Government to operate. Surely this Government ought to be looking at the difficulties in superannuation, looking at its shortcomings in the areas of portability, preservation and vesting, and looking for ways in which we can encourage more of the community to get into superannuation funds, to invest, to provide that pool of funds that as a whole can be invested and therefore provide that security during their retirement and in turn provide less pressure upon the public purse. That is the direction the Opposition would argue that this Government should be taking at the moment. We regret that the Government in its public discussions is going in the opposite direction. I touch on one specific aspect of the superannuation changes in this Bill which also causes me concern. I refer to the change that relates to taxation which introduces in effect, a death tax. If this Government wants to introduce a death tax that may well be so, but why not come out and say so? I am talking of the situation in which superannuation funds are not permitted to be rolled over, but rather on the death of the superannuant have to be taxed in full. This is an area on which we have heard very little from this Government. It introduces a significant change in our superannuation laws of which the public of Australia should beware because people should take these matters into account in their taxation planning. On the face of it, I respectfully suggest that this amounts to a death tax. If it dissuades people from entering into superannuation schemes of this type, surely that is not in the best interests of the community as a whole. We want to see the spouse able to depend on the deceased spouses' investment rather than to have to turn to the welfare of the State. I also touch briefly on the subject of sales tax. This touches the indirect tax debate, a matter on which the Opposition has been criticised for raising and discussing. We have had the gall to raise the question of the correct balance between direct and indirect tax within our community. I am not surprised that members of the Labor Party are not participating in this part of the tax debate tonight. When one looks at their record on indirect tax-consumption taxes, that is-one finds some rather surprising facts. The first is that in this financial year sales tax revenue is estimated to be 9.1 per cent of total revenue. Sales tax has got up to nearly 10 per cent of total revenue-$7.1 billion, which is almost equivalent to the total corporate tax take. If we look more closely at the matter, we find that sales tax has increased at a faster rate than has any other of the Labor Government's taxes. As I have said, sales tax is simply another consumption tax. It is not a sales tax that is in all ways equitable, it can be argued to be inequitable. It is imposed on foods like ice cream, orange juice and snack foods, but not on some luxury items or items such as pornographic magazines, to name a few. In addition to the sales tax examples I have just quoted, we must bear in mind the hefty excise duty and customs duties that are being paid as a result of this Government's policies. Excise duty, which is now indexed and is taxation by stealth, is imposed on petroleum, cigarettes and alcohol. In this financial year the duty is estimated to amount to $9.7 billion-over 10 per cent of the tax take. Customs duties amount to a further $3.2 billion, nearly 5 per cent of the total tax take. As a percentage of total tax take, sales tax, excise duty and customs duty now represent a staggering 28.1 per cent-over $20 billion. Let not this Government criticise the Opposition for trying to find a correct balance between direct and indirect tax when we look at the massive escalation of indirect tax that has occurred under Labor policies. In summary, we are examining these tax Bills in a depressing atmosphere. I submit that they amount to an indictment of this Government's taxation performance. The Bills attempt to remedy past errors-and it is a pity that the errors existed and that the Government did not get its tax legislation right in the first instance. The Government legislates announcements that were made a long time ago, in some instances almost two years ago. Anyone looking at the matter objectively would regard it as unsatisfactory tax law. The legislation makes proposals for reform in the international sphere that are simply not competitive and therefore will not produce the benefits that are claimed. It reinforces the inequity that has been evident in the Government's policies against families. Those inequities have been shown up in its direct taxes and specifically in relation to this debate in the massive growth of its indirect tax-sales tax, excise duties and customs duty. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(8.55) —Tonight I wish to speak on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) and the Income Tax (Offshore Banking Units) (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill and to support the amendment moved by my colleague Senator Short. In this debate I shall direct my remarks to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill and its effects on the people and industries of the rural and mining areas. How this Bill affects the bulk of the population has been very ably put by numerous of my own colleagues. This amendment Bill is but another in the string of Government moves to deal with the taxation system on an ad hoc basis, and generally with a knee-jerk reaction. It is well documented that this Government is now the highest taxing government ever in the postwar history of Australia. An estimated 24.5 per cent of gross domestic product in 1987-88 will be collected in tax revenue. Not only has this Government a record number of taxpayers in the highest tax bracket, but it has pushed up company tax to a record 49 per cent. In 1983 it introduced the fringe benefits tax (FBT)-a tax that falls heaviest on the inland industries. This tax has collected far in excess of what the Government said it intended to collect in the first place. In this Budget an estimated $750m in fringe benefits tax is to be collected, an increase of 40.1 per cent. I say that it falls heaviest in the country because industry has no option but to build homes or to supply cheap accommodation. If these measures are not taken in the country we will not get men to man the farms and the mines, and country businesses will not be able to carry on. Fuel taxes have gone from 6c a litre to 20c a litre in the life of this Government. With country areas being very dependent on road travel for the transport of people, input of goods and outward transport of production, this tax is hitting those areas twice as hard. With this record collection of fuel tax, the Government is doing the country twice the injustice. It is returning a record lower amount to local government in the percentage of fuel tax collected. With no increase in the last four years, there has been in effect a 40 per cent reduction in finance going to local roads in real terms. I turn to the subject of capital gains tax-the tax that the Government told us was not to be introduced. When the Government did introduce it, again we were told that the collections would not amount to a great deal. One has only to look at the projected collection figures for 1990 and beyond to see for oneself what the Government will eventually collect. With capital gains tax along came its anomalies. Ask any share trader during the 1987 share market boom what all this means, when share traders are trying to offset losses on shares against profits on other shares. It is a one way track to the Australian Taxation Office. Incidentally, I received a letter today from the Taxpayers' Association of Western Australia and I should like to quote that letter briefly: We understand that the Taxation Office are shortly to issue assessments to taxpayers whereby profits on disposal of property with 12 months are assessed under section 26aaa and losses on disposal of property within 12 months are treated as a capital loss. . . . . A simple example would be a taxpayer with two transactions, one resulting in a profit of $30,000 and one in a loss of $30,000. In other words, the net result is nil-he would not make any money nor would he lose any. He would simply receive a tax bill on $30,000, at the highest rate, of $12,000 or $13,000 and, the same amount plus 11 per cent for provisional tax. He would receive a total bill of over $30,000 even though he has not made a profit. That speaks for itself. In relation to sales tax, we have the biggest lie that any government could ever perpetrate. The Government is running around making big noises about consumption tax. Sales tax collections totalled $6.38 billion in 1986-87, which is 10.8 per cent greater than in 1985-86. The projection for 1987-88 is that it will rise by another 12 per cent. Sales tax collections as a proportion of total revenue in 1987-88 are 9.1 per cent. The consumption tax of this Government is greater than anything mooted by anyone else. The only difference is that it is not a flat rate. The Government should get its priorities right in relation to sales tax, but it chooses to apply sales tax on such basic commodities as orange juice, flavoured milk, snack foods, bathroom fittings and everyday household items including bread; at the same time it excludes pornographic material. Sales tax is heavier, believe it or not, on those who live in the country. This is because it is mandatory for country retailers to charge sales tax on the `into stock' cost rather than the wholesaler cost. One of the greatest `honours' of living in a country area which is 80 per cent urbanised is that one must pay sales tax and other costs on freight, and so on. Senator Collins —We do it in the Northern Territory every day on everything. Senator PANIZZA —That is correct. So much for Senator Walsh's cry that the Liberal Party would place a consumption tax on the pies eaten in the outer at the football. I doubt whether Senator Walsh has eaten many pies in the outer at the football, whether in Kellerberrin, Melbourne or anywhere else. Children in the country, where 10.5 per cent of the population provide 84 per cent of Australia's export income, pay a consumption tax not only on the ice-cream they eat at the local football but on the freight that takes the ice-cream to the various towns. So much for the sham of no consumption tax, which has been mooted by honourable senators opposite! This Government has also introduced sales tax on agricultural input costs. If senators do not believe me they have only to look at the sales tax of 20 per cent on farm lubricants. We considered it to be a production cost and it was an item exempt prior to the 1983-84 Budget. This tax on farm lubricants was applied just in case farmers used them-mainly grease and high grade high detergent diesel motor oil-in their cars. That is a very unlikely event unless they possess a diesel Mercedes. I now turn to one of my favourite subjects-superannuation. We have seen under this Government the introduction of a tax on superannuation, and we will probably see more later on this year with the help of the Democrats-and I will return to them later. It could be said that the Australian population through the golden years of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, when we had full employment-- Senator Short —And no Democrats. Senator PANIZZA —That is correct, Senator Short-and no Democrats. During those golden years there was a choice of many jobs when one completed one's education and, in fact, the population expected these golden years to keep rolling on. The House of Representatives Hansard of 17 February shows that the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) pointed out during debate on this Bill that Australia should have made a big drive in superannuation in 1948. I do not expect that the ideology of Mr Edwards on superannuation would be the same as mine, but I can only say how right he was. During the good years people with foresight generally built up their superannuation and property to tide them over in their old age. Trying to make up for lost time, this Government now comes along and imposes tax on those funds-I am sure with more to come-and capital gains tax on property that they have put aside. This was all done on the pretext of preventing double dipping. I maintain that double dipping came about because of the lowering of retirement age to 55. This gave people 10 years, if they so wished, to arrange that sort of double dipping. However, in retirement, with the present costs and taxes, one will probably run out of funds in 10 years, anyhow. I now return to the Democrats before I forget. Last week Senator Powell decried the fact that some people retire with $200,000 in superannuation while others to so with only $100,000 and said that she could not see why there was a difference. Is there no reward for excellence and supreme effort in this world any more? What hypocrites the Democrats are in this place. There probably is not one Democrat in this place who has risked a dollar in his or her life, yet the Democrats have the gall to berate people who have worked hard in a profession or a business or as an ordinary worker and saved their money. Those who took the risk or deprived themselves in younger years have paid heaps of taxes and have provided for the less fortunate and the less willing. They have provided for their retirement, yet hypocrites gripe. In Italy, which now has its forty-eighth government-give or take a couple-since the war, people who have retired as early as 45 for life on a pension that they have provided for themselves are not taxed to high heaven by the Government. Australia would do well to look at the system in that country. Before I finish with the Democrats, I remember Senator Haines last year carping that the Government was reintroducing negative gearing-taking away from the poor to sop the rich. If Senator Haines looked at the recent building figures, she would see how stupid her argument was. Since the reintroduction of negative gearing the number of buildings erected and sold around Australia has jumped. Of course negative gearing was another measure that the Government had to back down on, and I commend it for doing that. I could go on all evening but I will not do that. I support the amendment moved by Senator Short, which reads: but the Senate notes that: (a) this Government is the highest taxing government in the post-war history of Australia; (b) an estimated 24.5 per cent of GDP in 1987-88 will be collected in tax revenue; (c) there will be an estimated $71 billion in taxation revenue in 1987-88, a $5.5 billion increase on the previous year's collection; (d) the Government has increasingly burdened not only individuals but business with new incentive-sapping taxes like the fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax; and (e) sales tax, which is Australia's main consumption tax, is growing faster under the Hawke Government than any other of its record breaking taxes; (f) without the incentive to invest and work productively, Australia will find it increasingly difficult to extricate itself from its $86.77 billion foreign debt strait jacket without further reductions in our standard of living. I fully support that amendment, as do all my colleagues on this side who have contributed to this debate. I shall conclude with a few sobering thoughts. As I have said before, in Australia an estimated 24.5 per cent of gross domestic product in 1987-88 will be collected in tax revenue. Tax will increase by $5.5 billion on last year's collection. Taxation revenue for 1987-88 is estimated at $71 billion. Presently, our foreign debt is $83 billion. In 1985 it was $50.334 billion; in 1986 it was $73.879 billion; and in 1987 it was $82.178 billion. So, we have a $5 billion increase even on last year. Last year the Government raised company tax from 46c to 49c in the dollar. This was up 9.9 per cent in 1986-87 from the previous year. Comparing this corporate tax with that of our trade competitors, ours is 49c as against 18c in Hong Kong, 39c in Singapore-and there is a host of others, including New Zealand, that are far below us. I can see that we are fast running down the taxation hill in Australia and it is time that the Government sorted out its taxation measures in a proper and equitable way, rather than this ad hoc system that it has, with knee-jerk reactions. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(9.11) —This has been a wide-ranging debate to which mostly Opposition senators have contributed. It is not that Government senators are not interested in the matters that have been raised but, I guess, had we matched the Opposition in speakers, the program would have been put behind by another week. The various Opposition senators who have contributed to this debate have ranged far and wide on taxation matters. They have used it as an opportunity on which to get rid of those guilty feelings in their system that they have had for many years about their failure in the Fraser years to address any decent tax reform at all. We have this fairly long-winded and pious amendment added on which I, as a Government representative, certainly cannot accept. The first part of the amendment refers to our being the highest taxing government in the post war history of Australia. It does not define what it means by the `highest'. Does it mean as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP)? What does it mean? Is it talking just in global terms? If so, that first part of the amendment is dishonest; and if it is not dishonest, it is irrelevant. The second part of the amendment refers to 24.5 per cent of GDP being collected in taxation. One could put a whole range of analysis into that but, at the very least, one could say that the Government is providing far more wide-ranging services to the community than a Liberal government ever would. There is no question that 24.5 per cent of GDP is not the highest figure in postwar history; it has been considerably higher than that over time. In later parts of the amendment reference is made to new incentive-sapping taxes, like fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax. It is the hoary old chestnut thrown out again by the Liberal Party; those opposite do not like fringe benefits taxes or capital gains taxes and they maintain that whenever they come back into power they will remove those taxes. What a great life it will be again-back into the free lunch and the free school fees, back into all the rorts and ramps in the tax system, which those opposite always failed to address and did nothing about. All the bludgers in the community will come back out and cheer the election of a Liberal government, so that they can get all the old entitlements put back. I think it is time for the Opposition to show a bit of maturity. I can tell those opposite right now that if they ever won government again it is pounds to peanuts that they would never alter the fringe benefits tax or the capital gains tax. They would sit down on the first day of government and just as Greiner has said, `Time for a reassessment, the monorail stays, there will be just a small re-routing', those opposite would say, `Here we have the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax, they exist and we cannot afford to do away with them'. Of course, they could not do away with them because they have been a monumentally successful venture by this Government, in taking the rorts and ramps out of the tax system. They have also been responsible for transferring other income and other tax into income tax, because there is no point any more in getting into a lot of these lurks, and thus they have increased income tax. So, again, this amendment has very little value. Over the years we have seen a lot of changes by the Labor Party to the tax Act. It was in desperate need of repair. The only time that I have ever seen in this chamber the Liberals get excited about taxation was during 1982 when the McCabe-Lafranchi report came out, followed by the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Suddenly the panic was on in this chamber; suddenly something had to be done about tax avoidance schemes-not because those opposite particularly condemned tax avoidance schemes but because it meant that they would be kicked out of office if they did not try to do something about the matter. We saw a majority of Liberal senators come over and vote with the Labor Party to establish retrospectivity in relation to these matters. They included Senator Watson and other honourable senators opposite. They came over and supported retrospectivity. They have never supported it since, because their reason for supporting it then was all based on electoral survival. If it was such an inviolable principle then, one wonders why they have never supported it since, thus depriving this Government, or any government, of much needed tax revenue. The moment retrospectivity is introduced all tax avoidance schemes go down the tubes. The Government rejects the Opposition's second reading amendment. Whether or not it is passed will not be of great moment in the world; plenty of second reading amendments go through and unfortunately, or fortunately, it is the last we ever hear of them. These sorts of tax measures are vital for us to clean up the tax Act and get a clear exposition of what the taxation necessities in this country are. I wish the Bills a relatively speedy passage. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Short's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E.Chaney, F. M. Short, J. R.Chapman, H. G. P. Stone, J. O.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Tambling, G. E. J.Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Hill, R. M. Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Watson, J. O. W.Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. G. Giles, P. J.Beahan, M. E. Haines, J.Black, J. R. Jenkins, J. A.Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Button, J. N. Macklin, M. J.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Coates, J. Morris, J. J.Collins, R. L. Powell, J. F.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Crowley, R. A. Schacht, C. C.Devereux, J. R. Sibraa, K. W.Devlin, A. R. Walsh, P. A.Evans, Gareth Wood, W. R.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Patterson, K. C. L. Cook, P. F. S.Archer, B. R. Foreman, D. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Jones, G. N.Sheil, G. McKiernan, J. P.Messner, A. J. Tate, M. C. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.25) —I want to address some of the clauses in Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1987 with reference to the roll-over annuity tax provisions. I refer basically to clauses 11, 17, 18 and 19, which give effect to the proposal which was announced, as many proposals are announced, by Press release. This one was announced in January this year. It provides for new eligibility conditions for roll-over annuities. I raise this point in committee because I think it is important to draw the attention of the Government, perhaps in general terms, to some of the problems of legislation by Press release, although, as has already been noted in the debate on this legislation, the Bill is perhaps remarkable in that it has been introduced relatively soon after the Press release announcing these provisions as opposed to some other cases where more time has elapsed. Specifically, I raise the matter because it has caused considerable problems for individuals. Individuals have not been able to prove that their intentions were such that, had the Press release not been issued on the day it had, they would not have been disadvantaged but, because the statement was made and the Government's intention was made clear, they now are suffering a disadvantage. I was contacted by a constituent of mine in this very situation. I think the difficulty here occurs when the situation is out of the control of the individual. In this case the constituent's lump sum was due on 6 January 1987 and the only reason that the investment was not made before the announcement, which precluded the arrangements into which he was going to enter, was delays in the operations of the State Superannuation Board of Victoria. The constituent concerned contacted, I think, the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, who replied: Whilst this office is unable to offer firm advice until amending legislation has been enacted- that, of course, is the legislation we are now addressing- it would appear that you will be affected by the proposed changes as, despite your intentions on or before 12 January 1987, you had not entered into a legally enforceable contract to purchase the annuity as at that date. The point the constituent makes to me is that in his case, at least to a certain extent, the legislation which we are now debating is in effect retrospective. As he says in his letter to me: Those retirees, like myself, who had completed all the documents necessary for depositing their lump sum before 13th January 1987 should be allowed to invest their lump sum under the regulations which existed before 13th January, especially when payment was delayed by a State Superannuation Board. I simply raise this case, which I am sure is not isolated, for the attention of the Minister and the Government to indicate the continuing problem that once there are cut-off dates and levels in any legislation or regulation this causes problems. But I think in enacting legislation such as this we should be aware that such situations arise. In this case it has been indicated that paperwork was completed, so there was obviously documented, dated and, no doubt, witnessed evidence that this transaction was all but completed before that time. We should bear this in mind and make a genuine attempt to redress any similar problems in future cases. Bills agreed to. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1987 reported without amendment and Income Tax (Offshore Banking Units) (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill 1987 reported without requests; reports adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Debate resumed from 13 April, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(9.30) —Before proceeding to the details of the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements (Maintenance Income Test) Amendment Bill 1988, it is relevant to make a point that perhaps should be made more often in the media. Certainly parliamentarians should make this point in the community. One so often hears of the public perception of Parliament as a place where rowdy battles ensue, although perhaps more so in the lower House than here, and where partisan politics override goodwill and commonsense. It is a matter of regret that we so rarely read of the occasions such as tonight when we agree, not only on what the problem is, but also on the manner in which it should be resolved. We have supported the earlier elements of this package of Bills, although `package' is perhaps somewhat too bipartisan a word to use to describe the Bills that have come before us. I say that because arguably it would be much better if the Bills dealing with this matter, that is, improvements in the collection of child maintenance, had come in together. We could then perhaps have debated them cognately. That is not suggested in terms of speeding debating time or reducing the number of speeches as a consequence of a cognate debate, but in terms of having a sensible debate in which one can address the full range of issues in one speech. The centrepiece of the Government's child support scheme was the Child Support Act, followed by the Family Law Amendment Act. There is no point in repeating elements of speeches that were made on those two Bills. Suffice it to say that it is monumental hypocrisy, in my view, on the part of this Government to reject the consistent attempts by Senator Durack to have some elements of the Family Law Act amended that would go a long way towards doing what the Government has finally come around to doing. Senator Durack's attempts were consistently rejected. It seems a pity that the people whom those amendments could have benefited had to wait so long to get them when at least that part of it could have been done before. I recall arguments put forward by Senator Crowley that it was not appropriate to do this in a piecemeal fashion; it had to be done in one big load. This legislation is not being taken as one group, either. It has to be taken separately. I do not believe that to be a satisfactory reason for rejecting the very sensible and proper amendments that were suggested by Senator Durack some time ago-almost two years ago, I think. The object of the series of Bills is to ensure that those who have the financial capacity do not discard their responsibility to their children. This will increase the number of families receiving maintenance and the amount of maintenance they receive. I wish to repeat some remarks I made about sole parents in a debate in one of the earlier Bills. We frequently hear in the community that it is sole parents who are a drain on welfare, and a variety of other negative remarks. We seem to forget that, unless immaculate conception has become a daily occurrence as opposed to a miracle, there are no sole parents. There may be deserted parents and sole surviving parents but there are no children who have only ever had one parent. Therefore, when we refer to sole parents we mean people who are living without partners, trying desperately to bring up their kids, with inadequate support because the community has turned away from the responsibility of making them responsible. It is in recognition of this appalling situation that the Government has brought forward this package of Bills and that we are supporting it. This Bill details the interrelationship between the still developing child support scheme and social security entitlements. It introduces a separate income test on maintenance received. The maintenance which attracts this test will take a variety of forms, some of which have previously escaped attention, or assessment. The most obvious form of maintenance that can be paid to a custodial parent is regular cash maintenance. Two other sorts of maintenance will now be caught in the maintenance test; in kind maintenance, which may take the form of school fees, health insurance premiums, power bills and some forms of housing assistance and last, but certainly not least, capitalised maintenance, big lump sums of cash and share settlements and, obviously, other forms. It is a good thing that the variety of maintenance that has been paid for many years will now be caught by this test. There are people who have had the capacity to be paid what, in reality, has been maintenance in ways that have escaped social security income testing, so putting themselves in a substantially better position vis-a-vis the collection of social security than someone who has not had those kinds of resources and been able so to arrange their affairs. In that respect, as in many others, it is a gigantic improvement. The Bill contains hardship provisions which ensure that benefits or allowances will not be reduced by more than 25 per cent. In discussions with, admittedly, the very helpful staff of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), I asked whether someone-there might be only one or two people in this position-who had settled upon her a very small sum of cash maintenance but a multi-million dollar house, something like Paradis Sur Mer, someone with little income but huge assets, would still lose only 25 per cent of her pension. The answer was yes. I confess to not having pursued the matter and to some surprise if that really is the case. But no system is perfect and this system is a gigantic improvement on what has been operating in the past. Provision is also made in the Bill for sole parents to be required to take reasonable action to obtain available maintenance before they can qualify for a benefit. A balance will need to be struck in this matter between the interests of the community, which are obviously not served by allowing individuals to say to the taxpayer that they do not want to pursue avenues of maintenance that are open to them, for a whole variety of personal and undisclosed reasons-that would not be acceptable-and the interests of individuals in sensitive situations. There are sensitive situations in which women, in particular, are not keen to pursue a father for maintenance. Fears of domestic violence are not low on the list in that category. The Government is on the right track with this Bill, but it would not assume that our support for these measures indicates general support for what it has done to Australian families across the board. After all, one good move does not clear the decks for everything else. It is in acknowledgment of that view that I propose to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. I will not debate the amendment because I think it has been phrased so as to make abundantly clear what we think this Government has done to Australian families. While, admittedly, it has fixed this aspect of the problem-an important and serious aspect-it has let down other areas very badly by paying inadequate attention to them. I move: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate deplores the fact that the economic and social policies pursued by the Hawke Government since March 1983 have directly contributed to the continuing high level of marriage break-ups by: (a) increasing the number of Australian families living below the poverty line and bearing the brunt of unemployment, including an additional 165,000 children; (b) pursuing policies which have resulted in single income families on average weekly earnings with 2 children facing a decline of $42 a week in their standard of living in real terms; (c) abolishing negative gearing between July 1985 and September 1987 which resulted in a decline in rental accommodation, and a steep rise in rental costs which has contributed to 160,000 Australians waiting for public housing, while thousands of families and individuals live in refuges, emergency accommodation or on the streets; (d) failing to give recognition to the increased burdens of families with dependants other than the approximately 23% eligible for assistance under the Family Assistance Scheme; and (e) contributing to a marked decline in the standard of living of veterans, war widows, ex-service personnel and serving personnel''. That list is a very sad story that the Government must address. I will be interested to hear Government senators address each of those points. We cannot really have a debate on the proposals that have been put forward. As I hope I have made abundantly clear, we support them. There is really no point in everybody standing up to say that they support them. By moving this second reading amendment I have indicated that, while we support these measures, there are these other issues that we think the Government should address. If it is really concerned about Australian families it should consider that not just sole parent families need assistance. All families would be affected by these actions. Sole-parent families would also benefit if the Government cleaned up its act in this regard. I look forward in the debate to hearing what Government senators have to say with respect to the five points which we say are indicative of the appalling economic and social record of the Hawke Government in relation to families. Senator POWELL(Victoria) 9.43)-As the previous speaker, Senator Vanstone, has indicated, tonight we are looking at the third part of a package of legislation which is designed to bring to children in particular much more support-we are dealing here with financial support-from their non-custodial parent in instances where the partnership, be it marriage or otherwise, has broken down for one reason or another. It is a set of measures which has gained multi-partisan support in the Parliament. It has been a matter of great regret and probably some shame to most of us in the community that a very high proportion of non-custodial parents have not been contributing adequately-and in many cases not at all-to the ongoing welfare of their children once partnerships have broken down. That is the first point. The second point-perhaps, unfortunately, I might take the cynical view-is that a major motivating force for getting this legislation before us from this or any other government is that that process has led to a very great drain on the public purse. The result has been that very many children and their supporting parent-largely the mother-have become dependent upon social security payments of one kind or another, particularly supporting parent benefit payments and other children's payments. I think it is important in this debate to make it clear that the majority of the people we are talking about are children and their female parents, although that is not absolutely the case. It appears from recent figures that increasing numbers of male parents are being granted custody of their children by the Family Court of Australia. When we debated the Child Support Bill in this place a few weeks ago I made the comment that as increasing numbers of male parents become responsible for their children we may see an exponential rise in changes in attitudes towards sole supporting parents and, in general, changes in attitudes towards parenting, so that we might reach the stage where parenting is seen as a joint responsibility, not simply as the responsibility of female parents. I say that not because I am a female parent but because I believe it is greatly to the detriment, not just of mothers, who have the burden of almost total responsibility, even in intact families, for their children, but also of children, who do not always-perhaps all too often this is the case-have sufficient emotional as well as financial support from their male parents. In our traditional society we have largely said to men, `This really isn't your business. Go out there and earn the money so that we can have a comfortable existence'. I deplore that as much as I deplore the problem we are addressing here of males turning a blind eye to their responsibilities. I hope that some of the trends that we are seeing will escalate and that the children will benefit from joint parenting. Joint parenting can only advantage men in our society, because along with burdening them almost totally through most of modern times with the breadwinning role we have excluded them from caring and nurturing in our society. I think that the trends now are much better as far as men are concerned. They are able to experience all aspects of parenting, not just the financial responsibilities. Tonight we are talking mainly about those parents who have been, in a sense, dodging their financial responsibilities. I would also like to make it clear that while the Australian Democrats have supported this package of legislation-including the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements (Maintenance Income Test) Bill-we do not see it as a perfect solution by any means. In fact, I felt as though I had been goaded almost into opposition by the sorts of statements that are constantly made in reference to this legislation by members of the Government and, in particular, by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as part of the claim that no child need live in poverty by 1990-or, according to the policy speech before the last election, no child will live in poverty by 1990. To say that this piece of legislation is perfect in that context is quite wrong. This Bill fails to do anything for quite a significant group of sole-parent children. When we are talking about collecting maintenance and establishing systems for collecting maintenance, we are not bringing into the ambit those children, for instance, who do not have a second parent as a result of one parent having been widowed, whose non-custodial parent cannot be found for one reason or another, or whose non-custodial parent simply does not have any money to pay maintenance. I know that the Government implemented other measures, such as the family allowance supplement, in the last Budget as part of its family package. Let us look at that family allowance supplement. It is designed to go to all children who live in families which meet the income tests, which are, I believe, quite generous and useful in helping provide more income for those families, but it does not go any more to those children I have spoken of. Sole-parent families are relying on this package for increased support. I am saying that there are still a lot of children living in poverty, living in sole-parent families, who are not picked up by this. When we add that to the fact that the family allowance supplement has been taken up by what the Government believes to be only about 50 per cent of the people who are eligible-that may have gone up in the last week or two, but that is the last figure I have seen-we have to believe that there are more and more out there who are not getting the full benefits of the family package. I think it is important to express those reservations and to point out, as I pointed out when we were speaking on the Child Support Bill, the first of this group of measures after we had dealt with the Family Court of Australia amendments, that for maintenance legislation to help all children in sole-parent families it would have to contain a maintenance guarantee. Such a guaranteed maintenance should be payable to all custodial parents who do not receive maintenance above the level that would be set for such a guarantee. As I have said, there are significant groups of children, along with their parents, in that category. In fact, it could be based on eligibility for the family allowance, since that is now an income tested benefit. The guarantee would recognise the fact that when many family breakdowns occur there is often a period before maintenance collection, even under this new system we are setting up, can be set in train. A maintenance guarantee which came into place immediately upon breakdown could fill in that gap and be paid while maintenance liabilities were being determined, and then be recouped later where the payments come in above that guaranteed level. It is important that we recognise that this is a flaw in this whole package, that there are people who are missing out, and that something of this nature is still very much required. This is one of the recommendations of the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and various of its affiliated bodies. The ACOSS submission to the Government in relation to the May Budget statement this year makes that point. ACOSS has costed its proposal, which it feels could be phased in at reasonably low levels. In fact, it suggested the significantly low level of just $5 a week per child to be introduced in December of this year, with subsequent increases to $15 a week and so on, these rates to be indexed. Its costing for the first year is $35m. This is, we should be reminded, a system being introduced by the Government which will save it considerable money. In the face of those savings it really is not too much to ask that they be spent on child support of one kind or another. When we know there is a group of children whose needs are not being met by this package of legislation and when we are told in the financial impact statement of the legislation that the package so far would give a net gain of $120m in 1988-89 and $192m in 1989-90, with further savings beyond that, I really do not think it is too much to ask for a maintenance guarantee which would cost some $35m in the first year. The Australian Democrats have said all along about this package of maintenance legislation-and it has been said also by many community groups concerned with children and particularly with the children of sole parents, such as the Council of the Single Mother and her Child-that this should not be a measure which will boost the Government's coffers. It should be a measure to redistribute to all children in need the money which is currently in the kitty, if you like, for child welfare payments and which is boosted as a result of the collection of maintenance from people who should be paying maintenance. ACOSS has also been critical, as have a number of other groups and individuals concerned with this legislation, that the free area is too low at $15, and $5 for subsequent children, and that that should be raised. ACOSS makes a more costly recommendation, which would involve $76m, but I believe it is part of what I have suggested ought to be a redistributive piece of legislation rather than legislation to swell the Government's coffers and help us to balance our Budget, if not have a surplus. There is also a proposal from ACOSS which addresses the issue of those children for whom maintenance collection is no advantage, and that is that the mother's guardian's allowance be increased from $12 a week to $20 a week. These are the sorts of proposals which the Democrats believe should be given very serious consideration in the context of this legislation. As Senator Vanstone has said, it is significant that we do have a considerable degree of multipartisan support for this legislation, but again I do not think we should fool ourselves that we are necessarily going a very long way down the track in relation to this issue which concerns so many of us-the issue of children living in poverty. It is useful that we have and that the Government has spearheaded a recognition of the problem of children in poverty. It has been difficult to raise in the community the consciousness of poverty-which of course has been increasing, to our shame, in recent years, very much because of employment difficulties for people. Even in the face of an increasing number of jobs, the distribution of work and the problems of people being in the right place at the right time with the right qualifications and so on are still causing enormous difficulties. Addressing child poverty in the very direct way that the Government is doing it is a major contribution to having us face up to our responsibilities as a community, and a community in which increasing numbers of people are living in poverty. Of course, anything we can do to help in that circumstance we all want to do, but I draw to the attention of honourable senators and even of people in the other place-members of the Government in particular but also those who may think that they could be an alternative government-a particularly significant contribution in the debate on poverty in Australia which I had the honour to hear being given by Don Edgar, the Director of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, in Melbourne a week or so ago at a national conference on child poverty sponsored jointly by the Institute of Family Studies and ACOSS. I thought Don Edgar's opening address to that conference was, as I said, a significant contribution to the debate on poverty in Australia. There is not a great deal of time to go through his address point by point, nor is there much profit in doing so, but I would like to make a couple of the points which he made because, while we are passing specific legislation to address a specific problem, we should never lose sight of the overall problem and the overall issues. Don Edgar said-I think this is something that we all need to take note of: Poverty is not merely a lack of financial resources. In many cases, for all the additional $5 here, $10 there, indexation here and maintenance collection there, we can be comforted into believing that we are making significant inroads if we believe that poverty is merely a lack of financial resources. Don Edgar went on to say: It is a denial of power and hence responsibility. Inequality leaves power and responsibility in the hands of the better off, the `over-rewarded' who, we know, feel less of a sense of unfairness about their ratio of reward exceeding their input than do those whose efforts are not adequately rewarded. I think that is something that we should all bear in mind. If we are going to eliminate poverty in this country, we should be doing a great deal more than putting some dollars in some people's pockets. At another point he addressed this very issue, relating it to the question of employment and to research work that has been done in that area. There has been ample work in this area, of course. He said in his speech: The most common ways of entering and leaving poverty were changes in employment-related earnings and changes in family composition. Of course, we are specifically addressing family composition changes in this legislation. He went on to say: So the poverty debate in Australia must not talk as if `the poor' comprises one group that can be `targetted'. It must address `the poverty' into which varied types of people are pushed by structural changes in employment and family life. Thus, targetting payments to the poor may alleviate some of the temporary disadvantages they suffer, but only programs which address the broader causes which push people into poverty and keep them down and out will solve the poverty problem. Perhaps the major point that Don Edgar made in his speech was that we need a new social compact if we are to address issues of poverty in any substantive way. I certainly recommend this speech to people who are concerned, as I think all those who have participated in this debate and previous debates on this legislation have demonstrated they are. I think it is useful to point in that direction. It is important to pick up a couple of points again just to make sure that we do not think that what we are doing here will have an enormous effect in the form of those structural changes and social resources to which all people need equal access if they are to avoid falling into poverty. For instance, on the question of housing it is increasingly being recognised that people from time to time in the pattern of their lives find it difficult to make ends meet and are falling below the poverty line which we have established as a measure. It will not necessarily help if we put a few more dollars in the pockets of these families if there is not adequate housing for them at reasonable rates and if the only housing available is, for instance, private rental housing. Recent research clearly shows that this is a major factor involved in people-in particular, families with children and, most particularly, sole parents with children in their care-falling below the poverty line. Senator Vanstone moved an amendment to the second reading motion. Before addressing those points specifically, I would like to point out one area that we have to think about-I am sure we all do-when addressing problems of children in particular and of families who do not have adequate incomes, who are powerless and whose lives are a misery as a result. I am looking at some recent figures on child abuse which were part of an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday and which draw a link between poverty and child abuse. We are doing much more here than simply trying to see that people have enough money for food; we are trying to alleviate as far as possible the stresses and the consequences of poverty. Senator Vanstone's second reading amendment, as with many second reading amendments, makes statements which can be supported and statements which are not necessarily supported. I think we all deplore the fact that the number of families living below the poverty line is increasing. One of the reasons why we are all supporting this legislation is that we believe that it goes at least some of the way to addressing that problem. However, the Democrats cannot support paragraph (c) of the amendment, which relates to the abolition of negative gearing and a decline in rental accommodation. Earlier tonight in another debate Opposition speakers proclaimed loudly that the reintroduction of negative gearing has made a significant difference to the housing industry. But I think we need to be more than simplistic about it and recognise that what is happening in the building industry is largely, if not exclusively, an increase in the building of accommodation which is far beyond the reach of the sort of people that we are talking about here. When the Government reintroduced negative gearing in the last Budget, on which the Opposition congratulated it here tonight, the Australian Democrats said that it was not an answer to the housing problem. It is certainly not an answer to the housing problem for the very people we are talking about in this legislation. Those people need low cost housing. In large measure that will be housing under a variety of kinds of cooperative and mixed administration, but particularly public housing. The Government's record here is not good in that State governments have been squeezed. Since public housing is, in large measure, the direct responsibility of State governments, this has been a major problem at State level and one which, in the new federalism that we have seen from this Government, has been passed off like the inevitable buck that is passed down the line. Those who have suffered are the people in the low income groups, particularly the people we are addressing in this legislation-sole parent families. The question of public housing is not directly addressed by the negative gearing issue. That is a point which the Democrats have made quite often. In legislation which we all support, for all the reasons that we have already heard and will hear in this debate, it is not particularly helpful to make the sorts of points made in the Opposition's amendment, and the Democrats do not see any particular advantage at this point in supporting that amendment. We will have some questions to raise in the committee stage about specific issues in the legislation, particularly with regard to some concerns we have about the administrative arrangements. But at this point of the second reading debate I think it is important to say that the Democrats agree that this legislation goes in the right direction. We are very unhappy about the fact that it is seen not so much as a redistributive measure but as something which has a bottom line with a plus sign in front of it when it comes to the financial impact of the legislation. We would have much preferred to have seen a commitment by the Government to a redistributive process through a maintenance guarantee. We hope that some of the pressures which are now operating on the Government and some of the messages which the Government is getting and which say that it is not going far enough in meeting and understanding the needs of the electorate and that it is much more concerned with doing things for some of its big business mates are getting through. We hope that Mr Howe, the Minister who introduced this Bill in the House of Representatives and who, just last weekend in Melbourne at the conference of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party conference, had quite a bit to say on this subject, will be able to give us some good news in the near future about a maintenance guarantee and an increase in the levels of the income test free areas in this legislation, in recognition of the fact that it is important that we eliminate child poverty and that we look at this kind of legislation in a redistributive fashion and not just as an exercise in balancing the books. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.12) —The Senate is debating the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements (Maintenance Income Test) Amendment Bill 1988. As the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) said in his second reading speech, it is the second part of the Child Support Act 1988. That Act set up an agency for the collection of family maintenance. As such, the Bill before the Senate is being supported by the Opposition. The Bill deals with the support of the many hundreds of thousands of children who have been affected by marriage breakup. The latest figures show that in 1986 there was one divorce for every 2.9 marriages-horrific figures. These figures mean that in 1986 alone there were 45,200 children affected by divorce-an incredibly large figure and one that substantiates the Minister's claim that 400,000 children have been affected by this trauma. As I have said, the Opposition supports the intention of the Bill. Indeed, as I pointed out in this chamber when we were debating the Child Support Bill in February of this year, it was the Opposition-indeed, Senator Durack-which, as far back as 1983, instigated the principle in these amendments, and the Government and the Democrats voted against it. In 1975, when Senator Durack brought in a private member's Bill, he pointed out all the problems that this Bill is now facing, and once again the Government and the Democrats voted against it. It surprised me to hear Senator Powell being so concerned tonight about the poverty of the supporting parents. This Bill, as she said tonight, does in some ways alleviate this poverty. This could have been done five years ago if the Democrats had voted with us. Senator Powell talked tonight as though suddenly, out of the blue, the penny has dropped and she now recognises that supporting parents are indeed living in poverty with many of their children, but she put forward no reason for the fact that her Party defeated this precise legislation five years ago. Senator Powell —I was not here then. Senator WALTERS —That statement is ridiculous, because the Australian Democrats certainly were. If she was sincere in her statement that she was not here then and, therefore, that is an excuse for not voting for us at that time, she should have put in her speech tonight the reasons why the Democrats now see that they were wrong five years ago. I think it is acknowledged by all parties that the supporting mother, struggling without maintenance to bring up her children, is in the poorest section of our community. She is, as I say, left struggling to bring up her children, and at times here problems all become too great for her. Yet, because of the stupidity of the Government and the Democrats, these mothers have had to struggle for an additional five years and bear the brunt of poverty. We could have passed this sort of legislation in 1983 if we had had the support of the whole Senate. A few years after the defeat of our Bill, Mr Hawke was scrambling around for a good election gimmick and he gave the people that well known cynical promise that no Australian child would be living in poverty by 1990. Because of the rubbishing he got for making that statement he changed, or attempted to change, those words. Nevertheless, the words he used were that no Australian child would be living in poverty by 1990. He does not like to be reminded of those words because there are so many children living in poverty, not only those being supported by the custodial parents surviving without maintenance but also the very large number-an estimated 30,000 children-in the homeless youth brigade who, for a number of reasons, have been totally deserted by their natural parents. I hope that the plight of the homeless youth will be alleviated by the additional support given to the custodial parents of broken marriages because the survey proves that the majority of these young people come from broken families. The Minister's second reading speech states: The Bill will bring into account a wide range of maintenance income received by social security and veteran pensioners and beneficiaries. The most straightforward of these is cash maintenance paid on a regular basis. At present this is taken into account as income for only some pensions and benefits. The Bill goes further in assessing maintenance for income and it has two additional types of maintenance. The first is in-kind maintenance, and that may take various forms. The Minister says: For example it may be food provided, household items supplied, payments of medical benefits insurance, the provision of housing or payment of rent, payments of household accounts or educational or child care expenses. The next type is the type of capital maintenance and takes into consideration such things as the house and lump sum capital expenditures and capital payments, and these, of course, will be taken into account as maintenance for the first time. There are the two new areas of assessing maintenance which is not simply cash. However, the maintenance income test is less severe than other forms of income testing. The aim of the Bill is to ensure the payment of maintenance by the new custodial parent to the degree that has been decided on by the court and so shift the responsibility of maintaining the children who presently rely on social security to their parents. Consequently the Bill emphasises-and I refer to the Minister's second reading speech-the requirement that sole parents in order to qualify for pensions must take reasonable action to obtain available maintenance. `Reasonable action' is not defined in the Bill. However, it is set out in the Department of Social Security manual of instructions and I shall refer to a few of them. The condition is met where the claimant has instituted court proceedings in the matter; a court has refused to make an order or awarded only a small amount; voluntary maintenance is being paid; the claimant does not know the whereabouts of the other parent of the child; legal advice has been obtained to the effect that the court would be unlikely to make an order; the other parent of the child is a pensioner of beneficiary; or the name of the father of the child is unknown. It is the Department's policy that there are circumstances in which it would not be reasonable for a claimant to take action-for example, where there is fear of violence from the other party and similar issues. The Government has said that these amendments along with the Child Support Act and the amendments to the Family Law Act will save the Government $120m in 1988-89 and $192.8m in 1989-90 and substantially more in future years. Senator Powell has made great play that if this is the case, the money will go into government coffers. I sincerely hope not. If these figures are anywhere near accurate, it means that this money can be returned to the taxpayer. If these figures are anywhere near accurate, it only means that if this type of legislation had indeed been instigated when the Opposition wanted it instigated five years ago, the taxpayers of this country would have been saved over $1 billion. The Government has been irresponsible in delaying this legislation. I have very much pleasure in supporting the Opposition's amendment, which reads as follows: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate deplores the fact that the economic and social policies pursued by the Hawke Government since March 1983 have directly contributed to the continuing high level of marriage break-ups by: (a) increasing the number of Australian families living below the poverty line and bearing the brunt of unemployment, including an additional 165,000 children; (b) pursuing policies which have resulted in single income families on average weekly earnings with 2 children facing a decline of $42 a week in their standard of living in real terms; (c) abolishing negative gearing between July 1985 and September 1987 which resulted in a decline in rental accommodation, and a steep rise in rental costs which has contributed to 160,000 Australians waiting for public housing, while thousands of families and individuals live in refuges, emergency accommodation or on the streets; (d) failing to give recognition to the increased burdens of families with dependants other than the approximately 23% eligible for assistance under the Family Assistance Scheme; and (e) contributing to a marked decline in the standard of living of veterans, war widows, ex-service personnel and serving personnel''. I have noted that no Labor senators intend to speak on this Bill. Indeed, no Labor senator spoke on the previous Bill, and it surprises me that the Government can pass legislation without the support of its back bench. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Senate adjourned at 10.27 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Acts Interpretation Act-Correspondence and Statement relating to an extension of a specified period of time for presentation of the Merit Protection and Review Agency Annual Report 1986-87. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders 1988- No. 3-Prescribed Goods (General) as amended (Amendment). No. 4-Export Control (Fees) as amended (Amendment). World Heritage Properties Conservation Act-Proclamation pursuant to subsection 6 (3), dated 31 March 1988.