Wednesday, 27 April 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the imposition of sales tax, import duties and other financial constraints on Telecom Australia will have effects of: Increasing local and STD call charges. Increasing telephone rental charges. Increasing delays in providing services to new, rural, most small business and domestic subscribers. Decreasing service standards generally. Leading to the destruction of the Australian telecommunications manufacturing industry. Increasing the internal and external pressures for the deregulation and/or privatisation of Telecom Australia. Leading to the abandonment of the ``service to all Australians'' principle on which Telecom Australia has always operated if deregulation and/or privatisation continues further. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government revokes its recent decisions applying extra financial burdens on Telecom Australia and takes appropriate steps to ensure that Telecom Australia has the legal, and financial ability to discharge its statutory obligations to provide universal service under its present monopoly status as the national telecommunications provider. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Cooney (from eight citizens) and Zakharov (from 48 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: But for a High Court decision narrowly favouring the Federal Government, 20,000 years old archaeological cave sites near the Franklin River, Tasmania, would have been destroyed, like a United Kingdom Government unable to stop a Wiltshire authority from clearing Stonehenge for a freeway. Constitutional protection for historical and environmental assets is needed. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should request the Government to hold a referendum to amend the Constitution so that: The Federal Government has the bounden constitutional duty, which any citizen may legally require it to perform and a right superior to state and local governments, to set above the commercial advantage of one generation, protect and restore all we hold in trust for the future- Including relics, sites, features, areas, wildlife, buildings or things of Aboriginal and other historical, cultural, architectural, scientific, aesthetic, ecological or environmental importance, and- To care for the maintenance of the balance of nature, manage land, marine and atmospheric use so as to avoid their degradation and act nationally and internationally in any matter seen as related to these, including- To prevent military and commercial use of uranium and derivatives, beach and related mining; to preserve Heritage Areas, The Great Barrier Reef Region at least as originally defined in the 1975 Act and extended into Torres Strait. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Maguire (from 65 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That 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. by Senators Durack (from 140 citizens) and Panizza (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament assembled. The petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth. that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with the only nation-wide independent radio and television service. that the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia. that the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Maguire (from 77 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizen, respectfully showeth: That we express grave concern about the public release of confidential medical information by the Government, sufficient to enable the public identification of Doctors and their patients and calls upon the Parliament to censure all those involved in this gross abuse of the privacy of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 187 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Senators assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out that aged and disabled people who require accommodation and support in nursing homes are entitled to the highest possible standard and quality of nursing care. We the petitioners, request the Government to ensure that provision of funds for nursing homes in Victoria is sustained at least at a level sufficient to maintain the high standard of care now available in nursing homes in this State. by Senators Patterson (from 15,613 citizens) and Robert Ray (from nine citizens). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —by leave-I present to the Senate a petition, from 410 citizens, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form, praying that the Senate request the Government to oppose the process of food irradiation. Petitions received. Senator LEWIS (Victoria)-I seek leave to make a short statement about petitions not in conformity with Standing Orders. Leave granted. Senator LEWIS-The coalition parties have become concerned about the large number of petitions not in conformity with Standing Orders which seem always to be presented on broadcast days. As a result of that, I have indicated to Senator Robert Ray, on the Government side, and Senator Haines of the Australian Democrats-and I now publicly indicate this to Senator Wood and Senator Vallentine-that hereafter the coalition parties will refuse leave for the presentation of petitions not in conformity with Standing Orders on broadcast days, so that they may be given then on non-broadcast days. Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)-by leave-The Government takes the same view as the coalition on this matter. Whilst not imputing motives to people presenting these petitions, I point out that five or six years ago, when we used to abuse the petition process when in opposition, we had a long debate on this matter. I might just say that one day I counted 45 minutes of reading out petitions. That is why we got rid of that process. If it is relegated to non-radio days, there can be no accusation that anyone is trying to duck the system, and it still maintains the democratic rights of senators to present petitions not in conformity with Standing Orders. The Government agrees with the Opposition, and we also will be opposing the presentation of these petitions on radio days. Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania)-by leave-This is the first time I have heard of this proposal. The right is available to any honourable senator to refuse leave if he or she considers that it is not appropriate for this to occur on broadcast days. Other than that, if it is to be a general rule, the appropriate procedure to be followed would be to refer the matter to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration and report to the Senate, so that matters upon which that Committee has reported can be properly discussed and debated in this chamber. If that is what Senator Lewis and Senator Ray want as a general rule, that is what they should do-not exercise de facto power on behalf of the Government or the Opposition to decide what shall or shall not be done. That is what the Standing Orders Committee is for and that is the procedure it should follow. Petitions received. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I withdraw General Business, Notice of Motion No. 27, standing in my name and relating to the establishment of a select committee on agricultural chemicals. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that 25 April 1988 was the second anniversary of the disastrous nuclear accident at Chernobyl, full ramifications of which are still unknown in terms of suffering of hundreds of thousands of people from stress, future cancer and other health problems; (b) further notes growing opposition around the world to nuclear power since the accident and the continued slowing down of the nuclear industry in terms of the construction of new plants; (c) expresses its concern over calls by politicians in both parties as well as mining company interests to mine and export even more uranium from Australia despite the inadequacy of safeguards revealed by recent reports from Europe; (d) commends the work being done around the world to explore renewable energy alternatives and develop the potential of conservation; (e) notes, too, the latest public opinion poll on the mining and export of uranium which indicates that more people are opposed to it than in favour; and (f) calls on the Federal Government to revert to its original party policy and leave uranium in the ground, otherwise we could be accused of ignoring the lessons of the Chernobyl disaster. Senator HAMER(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) endorses the findings of the Draft Report of the Industries Assistance Commission on Coastal Shipping that coastal shipping in Australia is uncompetitive and inefficient; (b) notes the disastrous effect on the Australian economy of the high costs of coastal shipping; and (c) condemns the Government for its negative reaction to this report and urges the Government to take immediate action to prevent inefficient coastal shipping services from further jeopardising growth and employment opportunities in the rest of the economy. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the Federal Government's abandonment of its much publicised free market for the Australian dollar following the confused and contradictory statements over the past week by the Treasurer, Mr Keating, ending with his support for substantial Government interference in the foreign exchange market aimed at forcing down the value of the Australian dollar; and (b) calls on the Federal Government to give a full and frank explanation of Government policy in relation to the integrity of the market for the Australian dollar along with whatever proposals it has, if any, to prevent inflation and excessive imports worsening our already disastrous level of foreign debt in order to end the confusion and uncertainty that the Treasurer has created. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian National Airlines Commission (Australian Airlines) and Ansett Transport Industries Limited-joint report on air fare consultations held during 1987-sub-clause 7 (11) of the Schedule to the Airlines Agreement Act 1981. 2. Australian National Airlines Commission (Australian Airlines) and subsidiaries-financial information relating to the total operation of air services for 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's report-clause 13 of the Schedule to the Airlines Agreement Act 1981. 3. Ansett Transport Industries Limited-financial information relating to the total operation of passenger air services for 1986-87-including the Auditor's report-clause 13 of the Schedule to the Airlines Agreement Act 1981. 4. Advisory Group on Australian Airlines-March 1988-Report. Debate resumed from 26 April, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Lewis had moved by way of amendment: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate is of the opinion that the Hawke Government should be condemned: (a) for its failure to limit the role, the duties and the accountability of the Office of the Supervising Scientist in the light of 10 years' experience in its monitoring of the Alligator Rivers region, the grant of self-government to the Northern Territory and the establishment of the University College of the Northern Territory; and (b) for the imposition of this additional levy on uranium at a time when Australian uranium exporters are struggling to remain competitive on world markets''. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(10.09) —We have been discussing the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1988. As I said in my earlier remarks, this Bill seeks to raise the duty on exported uranium concentrate mined in the Alligator Rivers region. This is to support the Office of the Supervising Scientist (OSS), which has been doing an excellent job of monitoring results of uranium mining in Kakadu National Park and which is a necessary part of the operation of the mine itself. I would like now to take a look at the uses of the uranium. Some organisation-may be beyond the scope of the OSS, certainly beyond the scope of the Australian Safeguards office-should be looking after the use of the concentrate, where it goes, and how it is tracked through the system. I will not go through all the details but in the past few months there have been revelations in Europe that our uranium basically enters a worldwide pool of uranium. The atoms enter the pool and we track the paper through our safeguards systems but we do not track the atoms. Our uranium has been involved in a swap in Europe which has caused a scandal in which three people in the two companies involved have committed suicide. In fact, Nukem and Transnuklear have been closed down. They have admitted to $14m in bribes. It is a massive scandal in Europe and our uranium was involved through flag swapping. More recently, we have seen surfacing Euratom documents which show that it is enthusiastic about flag swapping, and they actually maintain that Australia should be `re-educated' in relation to the need for flag swapping-`re-educated' is the exact word used in the Euratom documents. Today at 1.30 there will be a Press conference where Ms Undine-Ura Bloch von Blottnitz will tell of an incident in Europe where South African uranium and Australian uranium have been involved with the Soviet Union-swapping involving South African uranium intended to go to the Soviet Union. Ms Undine-Ura Bloch von Blottnitz is a member of the Greens Party and a member of the European Parliament and she has passed most of the documents in relation to flag swaps to me and to others. She will lay on the table this evidence, which represents another frightening indictment of the fact that we simply do not know what happens to our uranium. The Government's response over this issue has been predictable. It has manned the barricades and simply dug a hole. It has said that everything is fine, that it will not change, that its position is static and fixed. Its position should not be fixed because there are great difficulties with the Government's present position in relation to uranium, and certainly there are equivalent difficulties with the Opposition's stance. On Thursday, 21 April 1988, I asked a question in Parliament of the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook). In my question I referred to an article in the December 1984-January 1985 edition of Cogemagazine, which is the journal of the French company Cogema, which is responsible for producing nuclear reactor and bomb fuel in France. The article is entitled `The enrichment factory's function in stages' and it states that the low and medium level cascades in the Pierrelatte military uranium enrichment plant were closed in October 1982, leaving only the high level cascades operating. I point out that at Pierrelatte low and medium level enrichment of a batch of uranium must occur before high level enrichment. The only other place where low and medium level enrichment is possible in France is at the Tricastin enrichment plant since Pierrelatte closed down its first two stages. In this chamber on 22 August 1986 the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) said that Australian uranium was enriched at Tricastin, which he then described as a civil nuclear enrichment facility. I asked Senator Cook a number of questions as to whether he was aware of this and whether it indicated that our uranium from Ranger was entering what is in fact a joint military-civil plant at Tricastin. Senator Cook replied: I am pleased to observe also from the question that at last there is a recognition that there are two French factories, the Tricastin factory and the Pierrelatte factory, and that the Tricastin one enriches for the civil program and the Pierrelatte factory enriches for the weapons program. I did not say that at all. Senator Cook continued: Up to 20 per cent is enriched for the civil program, and up to 90 per cent for the weapons program. The important point to make in answering Senator Sanders's question is that Australian uranium goes to the Tricastin plant- he did admit this- and not the Pierrelatte plant . . . At this point I interjected and the Hansard record continues: Senator Sanders —But they have closed down the first stage at Pierrelatte. Senator COOK —It is entirely irrelevant, in terms of Australian uranium, whether the first or all of the stages at Pierrelatte have been closed down, because Pierrelatte is dedicated to the making of bombs. Australian origin nuclear material is put into the civil cycle in France, which is, as Senator Sanders properly identified, the Tricastin plant. Senator Cook, the Minister in charge of this matter in this chamber, is obviously ignorant of the functions of the Tricastin plant and did not understand the question. He did not understand the situation in France and he does not understand that our uranium, once it goes to France, enters a joint civil-military plant. There is no guarantee that our uranium does not end up in French bombs-no guarantee whatsoever, except that the French tell us that it does not end up in bombs. The French tell us that; the safeguards do not say it. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin, the Minister in this chamber, Senator Cook, and Hans Blix of the International Atomic Energy Agency have all said that we cannot track our molecules of uranium but we can track equivalent amounts. That is not good enough. We want to know where our uranium is going once it leaves the Ranger mine. We need an organisation, such as the Office of the Supervising Scientist, but further downstream, to track our uranium. This organisation must have the funds and the will-and the Government must have the political will-to find out where our uranium is going. In fact, I say with certainty that our uranium-some of our molecules-has ended up in French bombs which were exploded at Mururoa. There is another track for our uranium. As I discovered in Finland last August, that track is through the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. When Finland bought uranium from us it first went to France where it was made into a gas at Tricastin. From there it went to the Soviet Union where it was enriched. The enriched uranium was then sent to West Germany or Sweden where it was made into fuel rods, and then it ended up in Finland. There is a good chance that our molecules of uranium have actually ended up in Soviet weapons-statistically it is a certainty. Are we to continue exporting uranium when we cannot control it, when there is a statistical certainty that it has ended up in French bombs-which we protest against in the Pacific-and in Soviet nuclear weapons? Many on the Opposition side would claim that the Soviet Union is our greatest threat to peace. They say we must guard ourselves against Soviet nuclear weapons with the presence of the United States bases here. Yet the Opposition condones the use of our own uranium in Soviet weapons. I would like to hear the Opposition's opinion on this. I doubt very much whether Opposition members would condone this, yet they are doing so when they advocate the shipment of uranium from Ranger or anywhere else in Australia into the world uranium pool. There is only one obvious conclusion that can be drawn from all this: since there are no safeguards on our uranium it must be left in the ground. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(10.18) —The Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1988 amends the 1980 Act to incorporate the tariff proposal of the 1987-88 Budget. It increases the duty on uranium mined in the Alligator Rivers region from 80c to $1.02 per kilogram as from September 1987. The duty is to support the supervisory, coordination and research roles of the Office of the Supervising Scientist and is expected to raise $600,000 in the financial year and $900,000 over the full year, which is estimated to cover 75 per cent of the costs of the Office of Supervising Scientist. The Australian Democrats have proposed amendments to increase the export duty on uranium concentrate to $1.36 a kilo to cover 100 per cent of the costs of the operation of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. I will speak in support of both the amendment and the Bill. Even though I do not support in principle the mining of uranium, it is at least welcome that the Bill moves towards the recovery of more of the cost of the monitoring of the uranium industry-an industry which, I might say, is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. Whilst I will continue to work as hard as I can for the closure of all uranium mines in Australia, at least in the interim it is not at all unreasonable to expect that those companies which will get the profits from the mining of uranium should also pay the costs, not the taxpayers. Why should taxpayers' money be used to provide the infrastructure necessary for the mining companies? It is adding insult to injury to ask taxpayers to pay for the service of monitoring the environmental impact of uranium mining in the heart of one of their national parks and an area of international significance. The Office of the Supervising Scientist was set up under the Fraser Government after the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. Its role is regulatory-monitoring and research-and it collaborates with the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. The Office of the Supervising Scientist monitors tailings storage and worker health-exposure to radiation. The Office will be very important in the future in monitoring the water disposal, the revegetation and all of the other very real problems associated with the decommissioning of the Nabarlek mine. I will come to this matter later, but one of the things which economists on both sides of the House tend to ignore in their economic models is the end cost of disposing the waste. The Alligator Rivers region is 220 kilometres east of Darwin and covers an area of 28,000 square kilometres. Much of it is Aboriginal land with many sites of great cultural significance to the Aboriginal people. It is of outstanding universal value as an area of unique natural beauty and includes examples of an enormous range of ecosystems. The Alligator Rivers region includes Ranger, Jabiluka and Koongarra. Anyone who doubts the devastating impact of uranium mining and the environmental damage caused by the mining of uranium needs only to look back at what the mining at Rum Jungle inflicted on the environment. The mining created major pollution by heavy metals, sulphate and acids which leached into the East Finniss River. The rehabilitation cost was in the region of $16m. The Office of the Supervising Scientist can monitor Ranger but it cannot prevent accidents. For example, in February this year about 10 cubic metres of contaminated treatment material overflowed into a drainage system and from there into a waste retention pond. The problem is that the Office of the Supervising Scientist can monitor but cannot prevent that sort of thing from happening. The Office can tell us when such an incident occurs, but once the damage occurs it is too late. Since 1981 there has been a legacy of spills of radioactive waste, diesel oil and contaminated water at the mine. Numerous tailing pipes have broken down. Between 1981 and 1986, 24 incidents relating to water management have been of concern. Sixteen of those incidents involved pipeline failure. The situation became so severe that the Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy, who is hardly known as a rabid conservationist or a rampant greenie, ordered the company not to use the tailing pipes until they were repaired. I would not have terribly much confidence in mine management, either in its ability or intentions, in terms of environmental protection. This places a great burden on the Office of the Supervising Scientist. Under the environmental protection legislation, a company must take the option that produces minimal environmental impact within reasonable economic constraints. The question is: what is a reasonable risk? Ranger appears consistently to have avoided seriously examining wider options which are more expensive, such as more storage dams, which would be the better option. Ranger prefers, as does any other large economic enterprise, the cheapest option. In the past the Government has been prepared repeatedly to compromise its environmental integrity. Last year it decided to allow periodic contaminated water releases in direct opposition to the report of the then House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment and Conservation. That Committee was highly critical of some of Ranger's operations, such as the high number of spillages, the sulphur dump state, the exposed chemicals around the place and the unfenced tailings area in which animals were seen to traipse through continually. Even the House of Representatives Standing Committee described the company's operations as warranting criticism and said that the number of failures was alarming. We have yet to see just how much more mining will be allowed in this environmentally sensitive area-for example, in Coronation Hill, where there is gold and platinum, and the conservation zone of Kakadu stage 3. It is simply not enough to trust the platitudes of the industry or the technology that it will employ. We are talking about the World Heritage wetland area in which the risks are just too great. It is of concern that the Office of the Supervising Scientist is expressing views on water release which are in direct contradiction of the wishes of the Aboriginal custodians. I believe that the wishes of the Aboriginal custodians should be predominant over the current scientific advice; that the traditional owners' points of view should take precedence. This raises a thorny question, which I will not avoid: that of Aboriginal support in the Northern Territory for uranium mining. I believe that the choice should rest with the traditional owners, even if that choice is to mine uranium. I would seek to dissuade them from such a decision. I would seek to present points of view to them, but, in the final analysis, I believe-I have campaigned strongly for Aboriginal sovereignty-that the decision should be theirs. However, the Aboriginal people do not have much choice. With an independent resource base, a fair and equitable access to this country's resources and reasonable alternative resource options, I do not believe for one minute that the Aboriginal people would opt for the uranium industry as the source of their income. Once again we see the importance of land rights. Once again we see the importance of justice for the Aboriginal people. In my view, the Aboriginal people have been, if you like, economically manoeuvred into a position of supporting the mining and export of uranium. I will go no further than that. But the royalties accruing to the Aboriginal people from the mining of uranium are probably the only benefits that may accrue from that mining. I do not believe that in the long term anybody benefits. However, in the short term uranium mining royalties offer the Aboriginal people who are fortunate or unfortunate to have uranium on their land one of the few independent resource bases they have. Warren Snowdon, in the other place, believes that uranium mining has a minimal effect on the Northern Territory economy. He agrees also that the only real contribution from that mining is the royalties paid to the Aboriginal people. During this debate and other debates we have heard members of the Opposition parties and some Government members saying that the increase in the tariff is an unnecessary fetter on the uranium industry. The reason for that being the case is that there is a decline in demand for uranium. Uranium is attracting such a low price that the industry needs to export more to make some sort of profit. The Opposition claims that the industry should not have to fund the Office of the Supervising Scientist because that is putting a burden on an industry whose export potential it wants to maximise. Senator Stone is not in the chamber, but I would like to ask him something. We hear so much about the free market and market forces, yet whenever an industry looks as though its profitability is going out the window it seems to demand subsidies and tariffs. Asking the taxpayer to fund the Office of the Supervising Scientist is asking the taxpayer to subsidise the profitability of the uranium industry. If the uranium industry is not profitable, let it close down. That is what is being done to other industries. That is what is happening to the car industry and to the textile, footwear and clothing industry. Senator Robert Ray —Let us get back to the subject. Senator WOOD —This is the subject. Other industries are being asked to accept a reduction in tariffs and protection and the amount of subsidies being paid to them. Yet here we have an Opposition demanding subsidies for the uranium because it is in a parlous state. It is in a parlous state because there has been a decline in reactor building since Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. An Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development report showed that between 1973 and 1986 the nuclear fuel industry revised its estimated needs downwards by 78 1/2 per cent. The same report showed that uranium production will continue to outstrip non-military demand until at least 1995. What that suggests to me is that we are putting more uranium on a market in which there is already a glut. When we do that with wheat, sugar or any other commodity, prices go down, marginal profits become smaller, we need to export more and there are fewer safety measures. We end up with an industry either going bankrupt or not being able to afford the sort of protection for the environment that is required. If we need any authority to show that uranium is in increasingly less demand, we can look at the words of Peter Bradfield, the Chief Executive of Energy Resources of Australia Ltd, who says: At the moment there simply isn't enough world-wide demand to justify bringing onstream mines like Yeelirrie, the CRA Rudall River project in Western Australia, in addition to the huge Roxby Downs project and the huge Ranger project, and the Queensland Mines project (Nabarlek) which is a terminal project but is nevertheless very important. There's plenty of scope for Ranger and Roxby Downs to supply worldwide demand from Australia in the next 15 years and I don't think it's wise to see another coal industry developed in this country where, for example, we have roughly forty mines and ten are profitable . . . It frustrates me- that is, Peter Bradfield- that we can't sell any more (uranium), but here again . . . it's a buyers market . . . that's the reason why a three mine policy is defensible. The coal industry is a salutary lesson. We have more coal than we can sell and the prices we get for the coal that we do sell are continually less than are hoped for by the industry. The proliferation of coal mines and of coal makes the whole industry a lot less profitable than it could be. I would suggest that the same will happen with uranium. If we open more mines and mine more uranium, it will become less profitable and we will have another coal industry situation on our hands. The Opposition seems to take the approach that we have a moral obligation to export uranium, to provide energy for the Third World and to feed the hungry. It speaks about mining uranium, nuclear energy and nuclear power reactors as if they were foreign aid, as if by creating a light switch in a Third World country that somehow or other manages to feed the poor. Third World countries with nuclear reactor power generators tend to produce electricity for the wealthy who can afford it, and they do very little for the poor, many of whom do not have a home, let alone things to plug into electric power sockets. The Office of the Supervising Scientist should not have to exist, because we should not have a major uranium mine in one of the most beautiful areas of Australia, and we should not be mining uranium at all. The reason we should not is this-and I alluded to it earlier: we have ignored totally the cost to the environment of uranium and the whole nuclear industry. When this uranium is not being used in the military cycle to create plutonium for weapons, it is creating electricity. But the end product of uranium mining is not energy, it is not electricity, because that is just a by-product of the whole industry. What we are producing is nuclear waste. When we produce electricity from uranium we create nuclear waste which we will have to manage for thousands and thousands of years, for longer than the human race has existed. There are so-called intelligent people in the United States, professional communicators, who sit around in think tanks trying to dream up symbols for `danger: radioactivity', which will still be recognisable in 200,000 years time-because that is how long some of this waste will be around and how long someone is going to have to protect and monitor the waste. Long after these uranium mines, the mines we are talking about today, have closed down there will need to be a body such as the Office of the Supervising Scientist, not to monitor the mining, but to monitor the waste. Who is going to pay for it? Obviously, it will be the taxpayers, not only those here in Australia but also those in the United States, Canada and around the world. For the next hundred thousand years they will be paying to look after the waste product, the end product of uranium mining. I make the point again: the end product of uranium mining is nuclear waste, as are the bombs that are produced-which hopefully we will make obsolete very soon. Once disarmament has been achieved and we have dismantled nuclear weapons-and I am pretty hopeful that in the future we will decide to do so-and once the nuclear power generators have been closed down, there will still be the end product of the mining of uranium: rods of radioactive waste which someone is going to have to pay to look after. It is my view that we should take a responsible attitude to this matter and see that any profit that may be made from the export of uranium mining is not a profit at all, because the cost of monitoring way into the future is going to be astronomical. So the people who are profiting from the mining and export of uranium are profiting from a transient phase in the nuclear cycle-and the costs are something we cannot calculate. I support the proposed amendments of the Australian Democrats because of the reality of the political situation in this country and because the alternative to the Democrats' amendments is the Government proposal-and the Democrats' amendments are preferable to that. But the ideal would be to raise the tariff so that we take out of the profits of uranium mining the future costs of monitoring uranium waste, of dismantling nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons and of repairing the environmental and health damage that is inevitable. If we do the right thing and, instead of just privatising the profits and socialising the costs, we privatise the costs as well, there is only one clear answer-namely, that the mining of uranium is unprofitable and costly, that no amount of levy could pay for the damage that it will create, and that therefore we should leave it in the ground. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(10.46) —I, also, will be supporting Senator Coulter's amendment to ensure that the mining industry pays for the Office of the Supervising Scientist. I think that that is the least we can expect it to do. I support my colleague's comments; taxpayers should not be footing that bill, because we are already paying an inestimable amount in terms of environmental costs and human health costs. As Senator Wood has just pointed out, at the moment we can but guess at what future costs will be, which matter must be taken into account if we are to take a responsible position in relation to the uranium industry in total and the future consequences of it on the environment and for the people of this planet. It was interesting to note the comments made by Dr Hans Blix, from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), when he was in Sydney and Canberra last week. They back up what the anti-nuclear lobby has been saying for a long time-namely, that there can be no adequate safeguards on uranium from Australia or anywhere else. He made the comment several times over that there was no guarantee that Australian uranium would not end up in nuclear weapons. He also said that the Australian Government, while it wanted to believe that it had very strong safeguards in place, was not actually prepared to pay enough to ensure the monitoring of those safeguards. This is from the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He said that, although most of the countries that are supplying uranium believe that it will not end up in nuclear weapons programs, they are not prepared to pay enough to ensure that that in fact is the case. The IAEA also promotes the nuclear industry. It has a very important dual function, although an absolutely contradictory one, to monitor and to promote the same industry. It is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop. However, Dr Blix said that there are insufficient monitors to go around the various plants that are operating at the moment and that not enough is being paid by the suppliers of uranium to the IAEA to ensure that it can do a creditable job. It is important to realise that the international nuclear lobby, its chief spokesperson being Dr Blix speaking on behalf of the IAEA, is on its collective back foot since the Chernobyl reactor disaster-and we are just commemorating the second anniversary of that dreadful accident in the Ukraine. We need to learn the lessons from Chernobyl, many of which cannot yet be fully estimated, due to the cancers and leukaemias that will develop in the next 10, 15 or 20 years, to say nothing of the personal stress caused to the people of the Ukraine, who were kept in the dark by their own Government when the accident occurred and who then suffered enormous stresses when they were evacuated hastily, coming to the realisation that their evacuation had taken place too late as they had already been affected by the radiation that was floating around the atmosphere. Not only that, one must consider the long-term consequences for those people and for the people of the whole of Western Europe, whose food chain has been affected by that disaster. Obviously the world's people are learning the lessons of Chernobyl faster than is the world's nuclear industry, which still wants to promote itself and which still feels that it has a role to play. As Senator Wood so eloquently pointed out, the end result of the nuclear industry and uranium mining is the production of radioactive waste. That is the final statement that has to be made on this subject-and that is quite apart from the matter of nuclear weapons, which are one of the intermediate results of the mining of uranium. It is important for Australians to be better educated about Australia's role in the nuclear industry. Last week I was very fortunate to be able to help promote and launch a new documentary on Australia's nuclear responsibilities, called `Cold comfort'. I think it could very easily have been subtitled `Costs and consequences of Australia's involvement in the nuclear industry'. It is an excellent documentary, put together by a team of film-makers who got footage from all around the world. They show the nuclear industry actually promoting itself; they gave the proponents of the nuclear industry a fair go to put their own position, and that was very instructive indeed. They also have footage of the consequences of the Chernobyl reactor disaster which have not generally been seen before. Also, they show the politicians at their pragmatic worst, with table thumping stuff from Bob Hawke and Bill Hayden at the Australian Labor Party conference in 1984, talking about the moral obligation that we have to supply uranium-and the practical obligation. It really is quite sickening stuff. We can also see in that documentary scientists who, when asked about what are safe levels of exposure to radiation, answer, `Well, that is a political question; it is not a scientific question.' This highlights something else which came out of the meeting that was held in Sydney last week-namely, that there is no internationally recognised safe level of exposure to radiation. It is something about which the experts disagree quite vehemently. To say that it is a political question rather than a scientific one is evidence to the fact that politicians and the proponents of the industry will impose on their workers and on the general public as much radiation as they think they can get away with. That is why a scientific expert can say that it is a political question rather than a scientific question. I would like to remind people that the Labor Party conference to be held in Hobart in early June will be a forum at which the Labor Party will again be discussing this whole question of Australia's involvement in the uranium industry. The least we can expect out of that conference is a reimposition of the ban on uranium sales to France. But I hope that it will go further than that and that the conference will reimpose Labor's more sensible policy of phasing out the three mines that already exist, rather than substituting new mines. It is most important that people in the community lobby the delegates to the Labor Party conference on this subject. There is a great opportunity here for a breakthrough on this matter, in the light of the scams-- Senator Robert Ray —On a point of order: I make the point that we have allowed a very free-ranging debate on the Office of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region, but moving on and making a special plea to the delegates to the upcoming Labor Party conference in June is taking it a little too far. I do not mind a general discussion on the matter but it really has gone a little off at a tangent. Senator VALLENTINE —Madam Acting Deputy President, that is about all I wanted to say, except that I reiterate my support for Senator Coulter's amendment that the funding attached to the Office of the Supervising Scientist should be paid for by the industry and not the taxpayers. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(10.53) —I thank all honourable senators for contributing to the debate on the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1988. The Government will not be accepting the Opposition's second reading amendment. With regard to the second limb of the Opposition's amendment, the Government does not accept that the export levy will significantly affect the competitive position of companies mining uranium in the Alligator Rivers region, as the amount raised is small compared to the amount of money made on uranium already mined pursuant to the existing contracts. The amount raised is a small price to pay to protect a part of Australia's heritage that is of international significance. The first limb of the Opposition's amendment, relating to the supposed need to limit the role and functions of the Office of the Supervising Scientist, is also rejected. As to the role and duties of the Office of the Supervising Scientist, I would like to emphasise that the Government is determined to pursue the following points to ensure the highest standard of protection of the Alligator Rivers region, which includes Kakadu National Park, and to be confident in the assurances that it gives to the world that the whole region is in fact being protected. Accordingly, some form of independent and credible scientific advice continues to be required. The Office of the Supervising Scientist is a key element in the environment protection arrangements put in place by the Government. The legislative functions and responsibilities of the Office of the Supervising Scientist have been determined by the Commonwealth as being the minimum necessary to enable the Government to assure this Parliament and the public that a sufficiently high standard of environment protection in the region is being achieved-a region of national significance. The structure of the Office of the Supervising Scientist-and its research program in particular-is based on the program endorsed by the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. Its programs have been reviewed and endorsed on a number of occasions, including by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, scientists, and by the Australian Science and Technology Council. The research program of the Office of the Supervising Scientist is directly related to the practice of environmental protection, assessment, control and monitoring and to the provision to the community of technically sound advice on the state of protection being achieved in the region. The high level of protection of Kakadu National Park from any pollution from any of the uranium mines which have been achieved to date testifies to the success of measures and standards being developed and applied by the Office of the Supervising Scientist. Prominent research activities of the Office of the Supervising Scientist include water and tailings management; geomorphological studies that provide information necessary to ensure that tailings can be contained and isolated from the environment for thousands of years; and the development of strategies for the revegetation of decommissioned mine sites. The Office of the Supervising Scientist work has helped keep radiation exposure of the public and workers well below the national and international health limits. Thus, the Office of the Supervising Scientist program has been strategically applied to major potential environmental impacts arising from the uranium mining both during operation and even more particularly in the long term. The present emphasis is on problems arising during the operational phase of mining in the region and on long term environment considerations. This is entirely consistent with the statutory role of the Office of the Supervising Scientist, and with the research directions envisaged by the Fox Commission. There has been no change in the central role of the Office of the Supervising Scientist, which is to ensure, through continued environmental assessment, control and monitoring, that the unique environment of the region and Kakadu National Park, one of the world's great national parks containing internationally significant wetlands, is fully protected from the effects of mining operations. This is a continuing task. To disband or transfer some of the functions of an internationally renowned scientific operation that is already in the field and doing the job to an infant university college that, as the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Snowdon) conceded during the second reading debate in the House of Representatives, does not have the expertise or size to perform the job would be to walk away from Australia's moral obligation to protect this region. I see no cogent reason, nor has any been given in this debate, in any way to alter the role of the Office of the Supervising Scientist, nor change the arrangements by which the Office of the Supervising Scientist is ultimately responsible to this national parliament. There is one further minor matter raised in debate that I should like to comment on. Both Senator Lewis and Senator Tambling were critical of the fact that one-third of the staff of the Office of the Supervising Scientist is established in Sydney. Two-thirds of the staff of the Supervising Scientist are located at Jabiru in the Northern Territory. Only staff who perform tasks that can be conducted efficiently in Sydney, such as administrative support or the preparation of the Office of the Supervising Scientist scientific journals, are based there, the cost of paying the Northern Territory allowance, extra leave and extra fares and the higher cost of basing people anywhere in the Northern Territory, including the cost of providing adequate housing and the cost of goods and services, are such that it is cost efficient to base these staff in Sydney. The amendment proposed by the Democrats is also rejected by the Government. As Senator Lewis has said, the increase in the export levy is a Budget measure, forming part of the 1987-88 Budget, and thus should not be subject to change. Indeed, this measure already proposes to raise from uranium mining companies 75 per cent of the uranium-related costs of the Office of the Supervising Scientist during 1987-88-up from 50 per cent in 1986-87-thus raising the amount collected by the levy in the order of 25 per cent in one action. It would be inappropriate to burden an export industry with a further unannounced, unexpected duty at this time. Any future amendments to the levy will be made having regard to prevailing budgetary circumstances. Those were the only relevant matters raised in the debate. To catalogue all the irrelevancies, the sidetracks, and the refighting of world war III, going into all Senator Sanders's tawdry allegations again, would be absolutely pointless. Senator Sanders —Even your side has admitted they are facts. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Sanders's views of facts are that if one person on this earth, one of the four billion people, makes an allegation it is automatically a fact if it accords with his prejudices and biases. Fortunately, any approach to these matters will not be done on such stupid criteria as Senator Sanders applies to what he regards as truth and fact. Nor am I going to go into all the byways. Senator Sanders had the chance to debate flag swapping and all the rest of it last week and, as always, failed to come up with the goods. He has had to have a second go today to try to get back the ground. We are not interested in redebating those issues today. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Lewis's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Alston, R. K. R. Knowles, S. C. (Teller)Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Michael McGauran, J. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bishop, B. K. Newman, J. M.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E.Chaney, F. M. Stone, J. O.Chapman, H. G. P. Tambling, G. E. J.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C.Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S.Hill, R. M. Aulich, T. G. Jenkins, J. A.Beahan, M. E. McLean, P. A.Black, J. R. McMullan, R. F.Bolkus, N. Macklin, M. J.Burns, B. R. Maguire, G. R.Childs, B. K. Morris, J. J.Coates, J. Powell, J. F.Collins, R. L. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. (Teller) Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. C. Sanders, N. K.Coulter, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Crowley, R. A. Sibraa, K. W.Devereux, J. R. Tate, M. C.Devlin, A. R. Vallentine, J.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Wood, W. R.Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O.Harradine, B. MacGibbon, D. J. Foreman, D. J.Sheil, G. McKiernan, J. P.Short, J. R. Jones, G. N.Watson, J. O. W. Cook, P. F. S.Parer, W. R. Button, J. N.Boswell, R. L. D. Richardson, G. F.Panizza, J. H. Evans, G. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(11.07) —by leave-I move: That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments: (1) Page 1, clause 2, lines 9 to 11, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: ``2. (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act commences on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent. (2) Subsection 3 (1) shall be deemed to have commenced at the hour of 8 o'clock in the evening by standard time in the Australian Capital Territory on 15 September 1987.''. (2) Page 1, clause 3, at end of clause, add the following new subclause: ``(2) Section 6 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from subsection (1) `1.02' and substituting `1.36'.''. (3) Page 2, clause 4, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: ``4. (1) Notwithstanding the amendment made by subsection 3 (1), the Principal Act as in force immediately before the commencement of that subsection continues to apply in relation to: (a) Alligator Rivers Region uranium concentrate loaded on to a vessel before the commencement of that subsection for export from Australia; and (b) Alligator Rivers Region uranium concentrate loaded on to a vessel after the commencement of that subsection for export from Australia as part of a consignment of Alligator Rivers Region uranium concentrate for export from Australia the loading of which on to that vessel commenced before the commencement of that subsection. ``(2) Notwithstanding the amendment made by subsection 3 (2), the Principal Act as in force immediately before the commencement of that subsection continues to apply in relation to: (a) Alligator Rivers Region uranium concentrate loaded on to a vessel before the commencement of that subsection for export from Australia; and (b) Alligator Rivers Region uranium concentrate loaded on to a vessel before the commencement of that subsection for export from Australia as part of a consignment of Alligator Rivers Region uranium concentrate for export from Australia the loading of which on to that vessel commenced before the commencement of that subsection.''. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the full cost of the Supervising Scientist is borne by uranium miners in the Kakadu World Heritage area, and this is based on the user pays principle. We have the example of another uranium mine in Australia-the Roxby Downs venture-which is not in a World Heritage area. The Australian Democrats believe that if the Ranger operators, Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA), choose to mine uranium in a very environmentally sensitive area such as the Kakadu World Heritage area then the necessary cost of protecting the environment should be borne by that operation. That places the Ranger operators on a level playing field with those in South Australia operating at Roxby, which is in an area not so environmentally sensitive. The amounts are small. As I indicated during the second reading debate, it involves 1.5 per cent of the floor price of uranium which is $US31 per pound or $A91 per kilogram; and $1.36 is 1.5 per cent of that. I agree with Senator Collins's interjection yesterday that the uranium mining operation in the Northern Territory at the moment is well capable of meeting that impost. The uranium industry, contrary to the indication in the Opposition's proposed amendment, is not in dire financial straits and likely to collapse due to this imposition. Another argument in support of the amendments is that the costs associated with protecting the environment will persist long after the mining operation has ceased. We are simply asking that uranium miners meet the year on year costs. Significant costs will still have to be borne by the general public in the future so one could easily justify a much greater increase in duty, but we are not asking for that. Last night I pointed to the situation which obtains at Rum Jungle and the pollution of the Finniss River and the fact that in the last Budget the Government put aside $7m-an amount far in excess of the cost of the Supervising Scientist-in one year out of the public purse as partial redress for the environmental damage which occurred from uranium mining at Rum Jungle more than 30 years ago. One could also point to Port Pirie where uranium processing occurred in the 1950s and very large unprotected tailings dumps were left behind. Until a few years ago children were playing in those dumps and in less than half an hour were exposing themselves to more than a year's worth of radiation, mainly due I believe, to, thorium contamination in those dumps. As a consequence, the South Australian Government-in other words, the taxpayer-has had to pick up the enormous cost of covering those dumps, fencing them and ensuring surveillance virtually in perpetuity. Moreover, as a consequence of the years when those dumps remained unprotected the public has had to pick up an enormous cost to clean up the area around the city of Port Pirie, to cover large areas of soil so that radiation contamination does not return to the air by way of dust and children playing in back yards and school grounds do not pick up radioactively contaminated material. Many houses and buildings have had to be substantially reconstructed as a consequence. These costs have been and are currently being borne by the general taxpayer as a consequence of uranium mining in the past by miners who did not pay the full cost of the consequences of their actions. My amendments merely seek to ensure that uranium miners in this very environmentally sensitive area, which is recognised as such and as a World Heritage area, bear the year on year costs of the Office of the Supervising Scientist (OSS). The point was made, I think by Senator Lewis during the second reading debate, that the Office of the Supervising Scientist may not be functioning as efficiently as it might and that it may be engaging itself in research which is not relevant to its particular task. It is strongly argued that these are two separate issues. The costs associated with the Supervising Scientist should be recovered from those who involve the Australian community in that expense. If that expense is excessive because the Office is running inefficiently, that matter should be addressed. I am not admitting that that is the case, but if it is it should be addressed, and if the costs are reduced then perhaps as a consequence the duty could be reduced. At this point in the debate there is no relationship between the duty which is payable and the principle that that duty should cover the full cost of the Office of the Supervising Scientist on the one hand, and whether the Supervising Scientist is conducting research, all of which is totally relevant to that operation, on the other. Finally, I point out that the other sections in the Australian Democrats' amendments deal with the timing of the imposition of this increase from $1.02 to $1.36. The Bill that we are seeking to amend backdates the increase in duty from 80c to a $1.02 to 15 September 1987. As the Australian Democrats are not in favour of retrospective legislation, we would not seek to increase further that duty from $1.02 to $1.36 and make that increase retrospective to 15 September. Thus, there are clauses in our amendments which mean that the further increase would be payable only from the date on which the amended Bill received assent. The consequent clauses on page 2 are simply to cover the Government and the OSS in the interim period so that no holes are created into which the legislation might fall. I recommend these amendments to the Committee. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.16) —I shall indicate very briefly why the Opposition will not support the amendments put forward by the Australian Democrats. In moving these amendments, Senator Coulter said that they were to provide for additional revenue to cover the full cost of the Office of the Supervising Scientist (OSS), which was to be borne by the miners operating within the World Heritage listed area of the Kakadu region. The first point I make is that in many respects the Opposition does not believe that the full costs of the Office of the Supervising Scientist are entirely justified. Senator Lewis and others on behalf of the Opposition have indicated our concerns about the cost of the operation of the OSS and the sorts of steps that should be taken, not simply to fund that cost but indeed to reduce it. Secondly, Senator Coulter has indicated that it is a matter of principle that the user should pay. I have no objection to that principle-indeed, I think it is very commendable. However, the miners are not the sole users of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. There is a public benefit derived from the work of the Supervising Scientist. There are benefits which flow from the research grants and which are given through the Office of the Supervising Scientist to people who are not directly connected with the uranium mining industry and there are also community benefits which flow through the imposition of taxation. So there is a whole series of areas in which there are public benefits. If it is a question of the user paying, the user in terms of the Office of the Supervising Scientist is in fact a far wider group than simply those people involved in the uranium mining industry. The next point I make is that the Opposition has already indicated its concerns about raising the levy in the principal Act from 80c to $1.02. As a result, it would be quite unreasonable for us to be expected to support the further imposition from $1.02 to $1.36, as proposed by Senator Coulter's amendments. In our second reading amendment we drew attention to what we described as the struggle on the part of the industry to remain competitive on world markets. It is not simply a matter of the impact of domestic taxation, there are a whole series of impacts upon the competitive position of the Australian uranium miners. I cite, for example, the development of the USA-Canada free trade arrangement which puts Canadian uranium producers at a considerable advantage over Australia producers. The disadvantages suffered by Australian producers which are involved in those bilateral arrangements are simply compounded by this additional impost by way of levy. Finally, I draw attention to the fact that the budgetary process is involved here. The reason we do not oppose the legislation is that it is a Budget measure. In the past the Democrats have indicated that they would not interfere with the Government's budgetary processes. They are now saying, `Well it is all right not to interfere with the budgetary process if it means depriving the Government of revenue, but it is perfectly all right to interfere with the budgetary process if it means increasing the Government's revenue from a piece of legislation before the Parliament'. For those reasons, I simply want to indicate that the Opposition will not support any of the amendments to this legislation moved by Senator Coulter. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(11.20) —Perhaps this is the appropriate time for me to indicate that, for the reasons canvassed by Senator Robert Ray at the end of his second reading response, the Government cannot accept the amendments proposed by the Australian Democrats. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(11.21) —I totally reject the double standards of the Government and the Opposition, which call for total `user pays' in the aircraft industry and the general aviation and airline industries-they want a full cost recovery on everything that the aviation industry is involved in-yet on an issue such as uranium mining they want to subsidise the uranium miners. It does not make sense; it is inconsistent. The Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans), who is sitting in this chamber, must admit the inconsistency of asking for full cost recovery in one area but not in another. If the uranium industry wants to mine uranium in Australia it has the responsibility to pay the full cost of that mining. Furthermore, the Office of the Supervising Scientist will be asked to supervise gold mining at Coronation Hill for which it will gain no additional revenue. It is absolutely ludicrous that this Government will not demand that these miners in a national park-a World Heritage park-pay the full cost of their operation. It shows that the Government is not serious about its fiscal policies or the environment. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(11.23) —I shall speak very briefly to answer Senator Puplick who mentioned the `user pays' principle and argued that the uranium producers were not the sole users of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. There is a great deal of research which is publicly funded. I think Senator Lewis yesterday mentioned research which is carried out by the Northern Territory University and I also mentioned the work which is carried out by the northern division of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. A great deal of that work is relevant to the Office of the Supervising Scientist. So, to the extent that it is work that would be necessary within the Kakadu World Heritage area in relation to uranium mining but which does not have to be carried out by the Office of the Supervising Scientist because it is carried out somewhere else at the public expense, the public is already picking up part of the cost of that research work. It is simply not sufficient to say that there are other public benefits flowing from the Office of the Supervising Scientist beyond those which flow to the uranium miners. That may well be true but there is this counter-flow from other publicly funded institutions towards the uranium miners. Moreover, we must not forget that the Office of the Supervising Scientist was initially created solely for the purpose of looking after that environmentally very sensitive area. It came directly out of the report of the Fox Committee-the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. The Office would not have been created in the first place had that operation of uranium mining not begun. For those reasons, I believe the $1.36 impost is entirely justified. Question put: That the requests (Senator Coulter's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 40 —— Coulter, J. R. Powell, J. F.Haines, J. Sanders, N. K.Jenkins, J. A. Vallentine, J.McLean, P. A. Wood, W. R.Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Alston, R. K. R. Giles, P. J.Archer, B. R. Hamer, D. J.Aulich, T. G. Harradine, B.Baume, Michael Hill, R. M.Baume Peter Knowles, S. C.Beahan, M. E. McGauran, J. J.Bishop, B. K. McMullan, R. F.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Maguire, G. R.Black, J. R. Morris, J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M.Brownhill, D. G. C. Panizza, J. H.Burns, B. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Reid, M. E.Childs, B. K. Reynolds, M.Coates, J. Schacht, C. C.Colston, M. A. Sibraa, K. W.Cooney, B. C. Stone, J. O.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Tate, M. C.Devereux, J. R. Teague, B. C.Devlin, A. R. Vanstone, A. E.Durack, P. D. Walters, M. S.Evans, Gareth Zakharov, A. O.Gietzelt, A. T. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment or requests; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 25 February, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(11.34) —As it is some time since the Student Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 was introduced, I will take the opportunity to refresh the memory of honourable senators and interested members of the public of what the Bill is about. According to the long title, it is a Bill for an Act to amend the Student Assistance Act 1973, the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940, the Social Security Act 1947 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, and for related purposes. The Student Assistance Act 1973 actually gives the statutory basis for Austudy and for postgraduate awards schemes. This Bill seeks to amend the Student Assistance Act by including a package of measures to facilitate the prevention of fraud and the recovery of overpayments under these schemes. The proposed measures are comparable to the existing provisions of the Social Security Act 1947. Specifically, the Bill amends the Student Assistance Act to do a number of things, including to require individuals and organisations to provide information needed to verify entitlements and to require debtors to disclose their financial situation. Secondly, it makes it an offence to give false information in relation to an application for assistance. At present this offence is dealt with in the Student Assistance Regulations. Substantial penalties for offences under the Act and Regulations are provided. I note that the Australian Democrats will seek to move some amendments to those penalties. I indicate that the coalition will not support those amendments. The Bill will enable the Department of Employment, Education and Training to recover overpayments from money held for a debtor. Further, it will enable an overpayment to be written off or waived or for agreement to be given to the overpayment being repaid by instalments. The Act currently enables the Regulations to provide for offences with a maximum penalty of $100. It is proposed that the maximum penalty for offences under the Act should be a fine of $2,000 and/or 12 months imprisonment, or $10,000 for corporations, and for offences under the Regulations, a fine of $1,000 and/or six months imprisonment. Those are the purposes of the Bill. I have some general comments to make. If one can paraphrase the purposes to which I have just referred into one sentence, they are to maintain the integrity of delivery of financial assistance through Austudy. It is important to maintain the integrity of any system of government activity. That is obvious. It is particularly important to do so when that activity distributes taxpayers' funds. A common view is held by many in the community that taxpayers predominantly are an unidentified amorphous blob of middle-class, relatively well off Australians. Of course, that is not so. Many thousands of taxpayers earn not very much above the tax-free zone or, if they earn above that, certainly well below average weekly earnings. Some are full time low income earners and many are part time income earners, especially women. Many do not pay much tax in the relative sphere of things, but they are entitled, as are those who pay a lot of tax, to expect that what they do pay is spent well. Madam Acting Deputy President, I think you would accept that we have a greater obligation to those who earn less to ensure that the taxes they pay are spent properly. These amendments seek to provide the bureaucracy with the means to ensure just that, and consequently we support the Bill. Greater power given to an individual or a bureaucracy requires greater responsibility. The powers in the legislation must be used responsibly and with great care because they are extensive powers. A power given to assist in maintaining the integrity of a system demands that the responsibility, to which I referred earlier, is carried out. It also demands that every step is taken to ensure that a system's integrity is not damaged from within. There are two ways in which the integrity of such a system can be damaged. One is by external fraud. However, internal bureaucratic bungling can also damage a system's integrity. If the bureaucracy seeks a greater power, as will be given to it by this Bill, I put forward the argument that the bureaucracy has a greater obligation to ensure that the system's integrity is not damaged by its own internal bungling. The implementation of Austudy last year was a case study par excellence of bureaucratic bungling. I am sure that honourable senators present will remember that on many occasions senators on both sides of the chamber raised their concerns with the then Minister for Education, Senator Ryan. The maladministration of Austudy was a fiasco. The stories of hardship that emanated from honourable senators and honourable members are far too great in number for us to go through today, but they cannot simply be ignored as the complaints of a minority. There was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 17 June last year entitled `50,000 students awaiting money'. That appeared six months after Austudy was launched in a blaze of publicity-a blaze of publicity that we are accustomed to seeing with the launch of any government initiative. Senator Ryan was particularly complacent in this chamber in response to the concerns that were raised, but her complacency did not disguise or in any way alleviate the distress caused by delays which were due, in part, to malfunctioning of a computer system. The canvassed defence that delays were inevitable, as that was the first year of operation, did not hold much sway when students were being forced to get emergency cash to meet the necessities of life. After all, the fact that a program is in its first year of operation is not an excuse. The implementation of a program should be sorted out before it launches into its first year. Another article entitled `Delays in Austudy payments have emptied the loan fund of the University of Western Australia's student guild' appeared in the West Australian of 5 March 1987. That shows how bad the situation was. At that time, Austudy officials were saying that a further eight-week delay in payment was likely. Still we had from the then Minister, Senator Ryan, comments such as, `There is no truth to the rumour that the system has malfunctioned'. If that was not serious, it would be a joke. Every student who was desperate to get his or her Austudy payment was stunned in disbelief at the Minister's response. Whether or not one believes that there was a malfunction of the system depends on one's view of the truth and what a malfunction amounts to. On 20 February last year in this chamber I quoted from a telegram sent to Senator Ryan from Elaine Darling, the Labor member for Lilley. I will repeat the words in that telegram to indicate that both sides of the chamber acknowledged what a fiasco the maladministration of Austudy was: Crisis situation developing in south east Queensland as social security benefits have been cut while Austudy has not come through. Young people in flats with no rent allowance could end up in the street. A month after the matter was raised by not only Elaine Darling but also me, Senator Ryan was still unrepentant. She refused to acknowledge the disaster she was sitting on top of. She commented: . . . the system is working well and I am pleased to assure the Senate that there have been no hardware malfunctions. That was something of a misleading statement because a hardware malfunction is simply a technical problem. The allegations of problems within the administration of Austudy related to software malfunctions. In June, Senator Newman, my colleague from Tasmania, informed Senator Ryan that students who were seeking emergency relief were confronted repeatedly with a recorded message or an apparently continually engaged telephone. Senator Ryan still ignored the bureaucratic disaster by saying that most delays had been substantially overcome. I think that that makes the point. I note that the Minister for Employment and Education Services (Mr Duncan), when closing the second reading debate in the other place, referred to the coalition as having said that the problems with Austudy funding were, in large part, the result of Government maladministration. His response in February this year indicated how things had improved. No-one denies that they have improved, but they are not perfect yet. One can only be grateful for the improvements that have been made, but that does not permit a coalition simply to turn a blind eye to the problems that are still there. I think that Minister Duncan's speech indicated that there is still a problem with 15 per cent of the deliveries. That is a very substantial improvement on the position of last year, but it is of no help to those 15 per cent to know that things have improved for everybody else but themselves. This Bill contains provisions similar to those in the social security legislation. When the Minister responds I would be grateful if he or she at the time could give some indication of the effectiveness of the guidelines that have been established to implement that legislation and whether the same sorts of guidelines will be used with respect to this legislation. It is important to understand the manner in which the Government seeks to control the use of the power that the bureaucracy is to be given by this legislation. I note that in the October 1987 Legal Services Bulletin there was an article entitled `Australia Card by stealth?'. That article detailed that in New South Wales more than 50 per cent of appeals to Social Security Appeals Tribunals were upheld. I realise that to infer that may be the case in regard to allegations of mistakes by Austudy administration involves a cross-departmental and cross-State comparison. Nonetheless, the fact that that is the case with social security payments in New South Wales points to the fact, if it needs to be pointed out, that bureaucracies make mistakes. Of course, the more bureaucracies deal with, the more mistakes they make. That is why it is very important, this legislation giving substantial power to the bureaucracy, that a bureaucracy seeking greater powers to maintain the integrity of its system accepts with those powers the obligation to clean up its own house at the same time. I think a few other points need to be raised. I have canvassed the question of the maladministration of Austudy in terms of the delivery of benefits and the problem that that created. However, there are still other problems in regard to Austudy that need to be addressed. Hopefully, the Minister responding will take the opportunity to address them. The main point I wish to raise is the much publicised loophole for New Zealand students. This matter was raised in February this year by a Queensland backbencher, Mr Wright. Mr Wright was alleging that New Zealand students living in Australia can get more than $4,000 each, regardless of their parents' income. The report of Mr Wright's allegations indicates that Federal Government officials were at that time working on the loop- hole and that the loophole may have been netting New Zealand students in Australia $1.3m. There is no anti-New Zealand sentiment being expressed by Mr Wright, or, indeed, by me in raising this matter; nonetheless, it is an administrative problem that needs to be addressed. The second point I would like to raise in terms of the administration of Austudy is the question of fraud-how broad the problem is and what the Government is doing about it. I note that a commissioned study done by Price Waterhouse, which my colleagues Mr Reith and Mr Carlton had to get under freedom of information because the Government was not prepared initially to release it, found that Austudy fraud was substantial and that departmental prosecution and investigation had not been a high departmental priority. Despite the giving of extra power to the department to maintain the integrity of its system, this report indicates that, if the motivation there at the time of this investigation is at the same level today, perhaps these powers will not be used as they ought to be. The Price Waterhouse study also found that proposals for an inquiry into the extent of fraud had been deferred. I ask the Minister in his response to detail what the Government is now prepared to do with respect to the allegations of fraud in the Price Waterhouse report which referred to Austudy not only for undergraduates but also for masters and doctoral students and to fraud in regard to research grants across the board. I noted also in the Minister's response to the second reading debate in the lower House a comment that the Government had now closed the gap between unemployment benefits and Austudy, reducing the incentive for young Australians to study rather than go on unemployment benefits. No-one denies that improvements have been made. However, there are anomalies. Later in this debate my colleague Senator Patterson will be referring in some detail to those. At this moment I choose simply to refer to one which was raised by Valerie Farfalla in an article in the Age newspaper headed, `Study too good for them'. Ms Farfalla referred to someone going by the pseudonym of Jennie Jones who, along with many other supporting parents with children over 16 years, lost her widow's pension last year. The Government indicated that it was going to alleviate the problem that that would create by encouraging such people to retrain and re-enter the work force. When the alleged Mrs Jones was accepted into a two-year welfare training course, she was delighted and assumed that the Government would be as well. Of course, what she found out was that the program that had been developed would allow her to take a short term training course of up to 12 months. The sorts of courses available for a 12-month period are waitressing or clerical work courses under the adult training program for the unemployed. The situation is that, if Mrs Jones wants to go into tertiary education, she will have to switch to an Austudy allowance of approximately $91 a week whereas on unemployment benefit she would receive $173 a week, including a $30 training allowance. She now faces the difficult choice of surviving on a $91.20 Austudy allowance while she takes the course of her choice longer than one year or remain on the unemployment benefit. This is a difficult area. It is important that people in receipt of pensions and benefits are encouraged to become self-sufficient, but it is also important that, in moving towards that goal, account be taken of the anomalies that can be created, albeit short term, and that something be done about them. I will be interested to hear the Minister's response to this because that particular move hurts women more than it does men. While not denying that changes need to be made to encourage people to become more self-sufficient, this appears to be quite a substantial anomaly which the Government could address in some way. I have no more to say other than that the coalition supports the second reading of the Bill. I move a second reading amendment: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate condemns the Government for its disgraceful mismanagement of the Austudy scheme, causing distress and financial embarrassment to thousands of students and their families who have had to wait for lengthy periods before receiving their entitlements.''. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(11.54) —Senator Vanstone has outlined the purposes of the Student Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. I would use the second reading speech of the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate), representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), when introducing the Bill into the Senate, to remind the Senate of these words: This Bill seeks to amend the Student Assistance Act 1973 which is the legislative basis for the provision of student assistance under Austudy and for the grant of post-graduate awards. The Minister went on to say: The proposed measures are designed to facilitate the prevention of fraud and the recovery of overpayments under student assistance schemes. Furthermore, he stated: to bring it- the Student Assistance Act- into line with the Social Security Act in matters relating to the gathering of information, and the recovery and write-off and waiver of overpayments in relation to the schemes. As Senator Vanstone says, it is important that we maintain the integrity of the student payments system. I believe I am using her term fairly accurately. But I think we very much need to balance that against what we are doing here in this legislation in the light of what has previously been done in this area of prevention of fraud and the recovery of overpayments under the ambit of the Social Security Act. Whilst it is important that where income support is available, in this case for people engaging in both secondary and post-secondary studies, those payments are made to people who are entitled to them, it is also important that any systems which are set in place take into account the rights of people in the community. Recent legislation has given the Department of Social Security new powers to collect and divulge information and to recover debts which are really more extensive, for instance, than the proposed information collection powers for the Australia Card, and which are also more extensive than those given to any other authority or department, for instance, to catch criminals and so on. These changes to the treatment of people alleged to have been overpaid by the Department of Social Security are extraordinarily harsh and punitive. It concerns the Australian Democrats very much that this Bill intends to go down that path as far as the Student Assistance Act is concerned. The rationale cited in the case of the amendments to the Social Security Act was that there is extensive fraud in the Department of Social Security, but statistics have not really shown extensive fraud. The annual report of the Department of Social Security revealed that in 1986-87 only 0.6 per cent of the total social security population was prosecuted for fraud. I think Senator Vanstone referred to the fact that 50 per cent of social security appeals are in fact upheld. She then went on to refer to the difficulty of transposing those sorts of statistics across from State jurisdictions and across various government departments. We would have to believe that there is some kind of guidance to our thinking in those figures, because the powers which are given under the Student Assistance Act in this legislation, are as the Minister mentioned in his second reading speech, the same sorts of powers as are now available to the Department of Social Security. They are based on a premise of extensive fraud. The implication which underpins this is that the administering department, in its accusation of fraud or overpayment, whichever it is, is going to be correct. It is the case, as Senator Vanstone pointed out, that 50 per cent of appeals in New South Wales and 57 per cent in South Australia show that there has been substantial departmental error. I think it is important to look at the sort of scenario which has been created in the social security area and which is being proposed in this legislation in the area of student assistance. For instance, the power to recover debt before proof of liability for that debt, and even before proof of any debt, from the payments or, in the case of this legislation, through court action or a combination of both, and the sorts of powers which are given in the legislation for access to information from third parties about recipients are all powers which need to be looked at quite closely and which the Australian Democrats believe are really beyond what is defensible in terms of people in receipt of, in this case, student assistance funding. The demands can be made of virtually anybody for virtually any purpose without the necessity for, as I say, the requirement to produce proof or the requirement for consent, and information can be divulged about recipients without their consent or knowledge. These are the sorts of issues which very much concern the Australian Democrats about the social security legislation and this legislation in relation to the Student Assistance Act. At the same time, we would emphasise, as I did earlier, that we believe it is important that the payments which are available are made to people who are entitled to those payments. On that point, I point out that, while the Government from time to time makes great moment of its policy to retain more students and have them complete their secondary studies, and to have more students enter into and complete tertiary or post-secondary studies of various kinds, and while in the May statement last year there were various rises in the allowances and some bringing together of questions of Austudy and the unemployment benefit and so on, when we look at the whole picture we see a contradiction in the Government's stated position and its actions with questions of who can and who cannot, fraud and overpayments aside, actually qualify for Austudy payments, and how much there is available through Austudy payments for those people that the Government says it wants to retain in education at various levels. In the Budget Papers of last year under the heading of `Students Assistance Schemes' we see that the change between 1987 and 1988 in the area of tertiary recipients is put at a 2.7 per cent increase. But when we look at the increase in 1987, the preliminary figure in these Budget Papers, in the numbers of students in universities and colleges of advanced education, we see the figure is 2.6 per cent. So the Government cannot claim that at that level Austudy payments are being extended, that more students are being assisted by more Austudy payments. Indeed, looking at the overall cake in terms of how much is available, we need to be reminded that the May statement reduced the forward estimates for student assistance by $27.6m in 1987-88, which is close to $60m in a full year. That is a clear indication that not only are we not getting Austudy to more students, but the actual cake for student assistance has not grown, even in the face of a Government policy which says that the Government wants to have more Australians in tertiary education and education at all levels. The Austudy living allowance and eligibility for Austudy altogether also raises a very important question when we are talking about the sorts of policies which affect young people in our community, and particularly the students. The living allowance is subject to income testing and is of course taxable, and students are classified as either dependent or independent. Last year's Budget Papers state: The entitlement of dependent students is assessed on their family income, the maximum allowances being reduced if that income exceeds certain levels in a year. The qualification for independent status has been moved to 25 years, marriage or participation in the work force. This whole issue raises a question in the minds of the Australian Democrats. We wish the Government would put its mind to the conflicts in Government policy and actions by answering the question: When is an individual considered, under the whole range of income support systems that are available, as an independent functioning adult? There is enormous conflict in this because in the same year the Budget took away from young people under the age of 18 the entitlement to the unemployment benefit. There are differences in the rates of unemployment benefits paid, all the way up to the age of 21. The age of 25 is set for the tertiary allowance before an individual is seen in his own right to have independent status. The issue of the family is bruited around a lot in politics. Certainly, no-one denies that the family is an integral and very vital unit in our society. But many families at the moment are suffering a great deal, particularly in terms of stress, not to mention economic suffering, over the sorts of anomalies that exist in questions of their growing young people's futures and how families can cope with them. It is quite anomalous to be saying to a young person between the ages of 21 and 25 that he is not an independent adult individual unless he can get married-which I suppose is trying to push along the family unit in our society. I suggest that that is hardly the best way to do it. That is another anomaly that ought to be addressed. Either we are individuals or we are not. All too often, questions of where young people fit in their families mean that assumptions are made by decision makers which may not be accurate. As a sideline, I have mentioned the difficulty of qualifying for Austudy. For another group of young people, the young homeless, there are similar difficulties. The young homeless allowance is almost totally unavailable because of the restrictions placed on it. Again, it is part of the whole question of what we are doing for young people and whether we are forcing them and their families to remain together at a period of their lives when forcing them to remain as a unit is causing enormous conflicts. Some of these policies may very well mean-and I have seen case studies-that simply having to stay to qualify for these various entitlements has caused such stress that a young person has left home, become a burden on society, and has lived a miserable life. Usually such a person drops out of education. This major question is raised by this and every other piece of legislation which relates to student allowances. I go back to the point I have been making about the nature of this legislation. In the end, what the Australian Democrats say now is what we have always said: really the only answer is to see education not as a cost in the community but as an asset-and policy decisions should be made on that basis, that by investing in education we are investing in our future. We should not make the sorts of policy decisions which restrict access and which, as I believe this legislation does, determine that people are guilty until proven innocent rather than the other way around. We could mention the tertiary education fee of $250, a fee which has now risen. It is indexed, whereas many of these payments and income tests are not. This again was another contrary decision from a government which purports to believe that access to education should be open and available to all people. I also have to make the point that that decision and that legislation were supported by the Opposition by way of vote, with only the Australian Democrats opposing them-as we continue to do because we believe that education is an investment and that it ought to be free and available to all people. We say liberalisation of Austudy student payments and postgraduate research awards and indexation in accordance with the consumer price index movement ought to be done to encourage access to and utilisation of the education system, in the interests of the economic, social and cultural future of this country. Because we are so concerned about the increase in the powers of yet another government department along the same lines as the powers that have been given now to the Department of Social Security, the Australian Democrats intend to oppose this legislation. My colleague Senator Macklin will move amendments at the committee stage of this Bill which relate to penalties involved in the legislation. In recent legislation on customs and tariffs, Senator Coulter moved amendments, which were successful with the support of the Opposition, to bring into line the sorts of penalties which are now in legislation. We have got to the rather ridiculous stage where the financial penalty and the so-called equivalent penalty of imprisonment are absolutely out of kilter. We will be moving similar amendments to this legislation and we urge the Opposition, which was willing last time to support those amendments on the basis of rationality, to consider seriously doing that again. In the general area of Austudy-and I now refer to the Opposition's amendment to the motion for the second reading-the Democrats, as were members of other political parties, were inundated with complaints and distress calls from students as a consequence of the mismanagement of the introduction of the Austudy scheme, particularly at the beginning of last year. The terms of Senator Vanstone's amendment are terms with which we can agree, because many students and their families, as Senator Vanstone said in her amendment, had to wait a lengthy time before receiving their entitlements. As I have said, entitlements are not readily available and are not generous. They are not indexed to the extent that they ought to be; nor are the tests related to them. To compound that problem with the inefficiency which occurred at that stage, and which still occurs from time to time, is insupportable by the Democrats. Therefore, we are happy to support the amendment to the second reading motion moved by Senator Vanstone. I reiterate our deep concern about giving another government department the sorts of draconian powers to engage in information dissemination and gathering and also debt recovery without the need for proof and without sufficient redress for the individuals involved. So we intend opposing this legislation on the basis that while we believe that fraud should be dealt with and that payments should be made only to those people who are eligible, we also believe that there is a very one-eyed view of this in the Government and probably also within the Opposition, otherwise it might oppose this, along with us. I point here to the absolute paranoia about fraud that we have seen-which resulted in the social security amendments and this legislation-amongst people who are receiving government payments, a paranoia which is not matched by a similar concern about another group in the community which we, the Democrats, do not believe is quite playing the game as it ought to be played. This, of course, is the corporate sector, whose contribution to our tax take has been falling over the past decade and whose taxation activities are now, fortunately, under review. In the past 12 months many organisations in the corporate sector had a pretty good year of it. I do not know whether the fact that 50 per cent of appeals in the Department of Social Security in one State and 57 per cent in another have been upheld really motivates anyone to thinking that people receiving Government payments are perhaps getting a raw deal. However, when looking at the documentation of how people in the corporate sector have been going in the past 12 months, one notes the situation in that regard, as I have pointed out to the Senate on other occasions. The Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd was able to pay tax at something like 25c or 26c in the dollar in the 1986-87 financial year, and in 1987 it staggered up by only 0.18c in the dollar. Industrial Equity Limited has managed to keep its tax payout at about 4 per cent; Westfield Corporation has managed to stagger to 4 per cent; Bond Corporation Pty Ltd is paying about 8 per cent; Elders IXL Limited, headed, of course, by the National President of the Liberal Party of Australia, 10.48 per cent; and News Limited, 12.22 per cent, down from 15.42 per cent. This makes one wonder why equal zeal is not shown elsewhere as regards what is going on. I hope that that zeal is shown in the Government's tax review. If legislation should come before us to enable us to tidy up that little lot, I would certainly not oppose it. Senator Vanstone mentioned the individual taxpayers who in the end, as we would all admit, have to pay costs arising from fraud. In recent times taxpayers have shouldered more of the tax burden. In 1965 personal tax was levied at the rate of 33.4 per cent of the tax take, while by 1985 it had risen to 45.1 per cent. However, overall, the rate paid by the corporate giants has fallen from 16.2 per cent to 9.2 per cent. That is a significant fall. In talking about who is taking what from whom, in a debate like this one would be quite remiss to not point out that fact. Some of these companies that I have mentioned are involved, as businesses and individuals, the most notable among them being Mr Elliott, in very heavy lobbies to further reduce their tax liability-which, of course, they are not meeting anyway. They also involve themselves in all sorts of student bashing, politician bashing and welfare sector bashing-but one must point out that people who live in glass-houses should not throw stones. The Government needs to open its other eye and ascertain where fraud or, at the very least, sleight of hand, whether legal or not, is taking place. The Government must present us with ways of preventing that from happening. As the Democrats have consistently said, it should begin by doing away with the possibilities of negative gearing, transfer pricing and the various other mechanisms that are available to these people involved. Some of these loopholes are being plugged, and the Government deserves credit for that. However, the Democrats are not prepared to support another knee-high jerk, anti-fraud, draconian, search and destroy type piece of legislation in relation to another Government department, and we consider that the Government ought to come up with some initiatives in these areas. As to issues that have arisen in the community, the Democrats have noted the kind of attitude that the Government, and indeed the Opposition, has to groups such as student bodies. The Government is unable to accept the fact that, for instance, the imposition of a $250 fee has reduced access for a significant group of people in the community to tertiary institutions. These are groups that I consider are significant, such as those involving mature age women who want to re-enter the training system. They, of course, have been encouraged to do that by the new labour market programs of this Government, programs such as that abolishing the widow's pension and that which has dramatically reduced access to sole parent benefits. These people then have a fee slapped on them, considered by the Government not to be too much. It is considered that it is only, say, a couple of days travel allowance for a politician, but it might be an awful lot for a woman who is at the beginning of a study course. She might be a sole parent or perhaps be part of a single income family and dependent on her husband for support, or it might involve a woman who is trying to combine part time paid work with part time study. To have to come up with that fee at the beginning of a course, together with all the other start-up payments, is a disincentive that is in-built in the system, and students are not prepared to take it. All senators would be aware that, after a fairly quiet decade in this regard, student militancy is on the increase again-and so it rightly should be. The voice of students needs to be heard at a time when the cake is getting smaller, when access to payments is being reduced and when further impositions are being placed on the student body in our community. At this time students need to exercise their voice, and the Democrats support the students in what they are doing. The second stage of the anti-fees campaign is now under way. I understand that the students have resolved to lobby the Australian Labor Party and the unions before the ALP conference. I would suggest to them that they also need to look very closely at the policies and the actions of all the political parties and, as they have done before, recognise that in this instance the Australian Democrats consider that the provision of education is not an extra cost on the community but the development of a resource. Unfortunately, what is ahead of them is probably the same as what has occurred previously-namely, that getting a policy through the ALP conference is fine, but the next thing is that it has to go through the ALP Cabinet, and very often the Executive Government has not shown itself to be sympathetic to the policies of that party. On the other side of Parliament there is the Opposition, which is prepared to withdraw from exercising its responsibility as an opposition and to say that it will never oppose anything that is part of Budget legislation. However, a smart government opposite can say, `Righto, we have two sitting sessions a year so we will have two Budgets a year, and that will deal with them'. So, the students have very much an uphill battle when it comes to the major conservative parties in this place. They do, however, have the very strong support behind them of the Australian Democrats in policy and in action in this Parliament, as well as out in the community. As I have said, we do deplore the fact that the cake is not increasing, although the Government, mouthing the words, might say otherwise, and that access is constantly being tightened-and the figures show that. It is not the case that more students are getting Austudy payments. Here we are faced with a piece of legislation which is assuming guilt and which is proposing the implementation of draconian measures, such as those that already exist in the Department of Social Security. The Democrats support the Opposition's second reading attachment. We will move some amendments in committee. At this stage I indicate that we oppose the legislation. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(12.23) —As Senator Vanstone has pointed out, the coalition supports the Student Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, the basic aim of which is to prevent fraud and to recover overpayments associated with student assistance provided under the Austudy scheme. Senator Vanstone also referred to a report prepared by Price Waterhouse, which was obtained by my colleagues the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) under the freedom of information legislation. The report indicated that there is evidence of extensive abuse of the student assistance schemes, referring, for example, to post-graduate students undertaking full-time jobs while in receipt of a student's allowance and under- graduate students who withdraw from studies without informing the Education Department. The report further indicates that there has been no detailed review of applications processing since 1982 and that no anti-fraud work has been done in the Department. It is alleged that the extent of the fraud is in the range of tens of millions of dollars. My colleague Senator Watson, in an attempt to clarify the extent of this fraud, asked a question in Senate Estimates Committee C on Tuesday, 19 April regarding the estimate of loss through fraud and overpayment of student assistance allowances since 1982 and, understandably, is still awaiting a reply. So it is not possible at this time to estimate exactly the real cost of this fraud, but one would believe that it is very extensive. This legislation is well overdue when one thinks how much more effectively the money obtained fraudulently would be used if properly directed to students in genuine need. I took some umbrage at Senator Powell's suggestion that the Australian Democrats have a monopoly on student interests. As a former teacher in a tertiary institution, I am very aware of issues confronting students and believe that as a member of the coalition I have an obligation to point out to my colleagues some of the problems and issues faced by students under current situations. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the situation faced by students in receipt of full Austudy, and I am speaking here of some 60 per cent of students receiving assistance. Brian Pitcher, the student welfare office at La Trobe University, in a paper presented to the Australian and New Zealand Student Services Association in Auckland in January of this year, refers to a handout provided by the Department of Education to prospective overseas students which states: A single student will need about $8,000-$9,000 a year for living expenses. The Department is indicating to overseas students the level of finance that it believes is a minimum required to sustain a student throughout a full academic year. On the one hand, the Government is telling one group, the overseas students, that they need $8,000-$9,000 and, on the other hand, eligible students receiving full Austudy by implication are being told something else. Students on full Austudy receive $4,768 and are allowed to earn up to $2,000 before their Austudy is reduced. The student pays $400.32 tax if receiving full Austudy plus earning $2,000, and is left with $6,367.68, which falls short of the recommended amount that overseas students are asked to have if they are to support themselves throughout a year of academic study. To get close to the target suggested by the Education Department for overseas students, a student needs to earn $6,000. Students receive $2,768 in Austudy, having had their Austudy reduced by $1 for every $2 earned over $2,000; they pay tax of $880.32 and are left with $7,887.68, getting close to the recommended amount for overseas students. These figures are given by Mr Pitcher in the paper to which I referred earlier. The $2,000 income allowable before a reduction in Austudy has not been reviewed since 1981. Had it been reviewed or indexed to the consumer price index, it would now be $3,500 and put the student within striking distance of the income recommended for overseas students. Maintenance of this allowable income at the $2,000 level has, I believe, forced a number of students into the black economy-that is, going into jobs, being paid under the counter, and perhaps even being ripped off in the system. Many of us know of students who are working under not ideal conditions to earn money to put themselves through university. As a former undergraduate student in receipt of a scholarship who supported myself fully, I feel great sympathy for students, as I was subjected to this limit. Many of my colleagues thought of all sorts of ways to try to get around it. I do not suggest that we should increase Austudy, but a review of the allowable income could be one way of ensuring that students are not forced into the black economy or forced out of the system. When this Bill was before the House of Representatives, I decided to make inquiries of people closely associated with students who receive assistance. I refer to the student welfare officers at some of the major institutions in Victoria. I received a very extensive reply from the student welfare officers at a number of institutions, including Monash University. I would like to present to the Senate some of the issues that they raised as anomalies that occur with the implementation of Austudy. First, they claim that overseas students who are permanent residents but whose parents earn income in an overseas country are eligible for the full Austudy allowance as their parents' overseas income is not means tested. Essentially a student can have wealthy parents working overseas and still qualify for Austudy. The student welfare officers point out another problem which occurs in the area of spouse income. If a student's spouse earns less than $16,000 a year, the maximum Austudy allowance is payable. However, the allowance is reduced by $1 for every $2 by which the spouse's income exceeds $16,000. However, the parental income test differs. When adjusted family income is payable, the allowance is reduced by $2.50 for each full $10 by which the adjusted family income exceeds $16,000. Another anomaly which is pointed out by these student welfare officers is that students whose parents are separated or divorced can apply for Austudy supplying only the mother's taxable income, which may be minimal. This would entitle the student to full Austudy even if the father is earning an enormous amount and may still be supporting the applicant and well able to afford to do so. Another anomaly that is pointed out is that a student classified as full time for the whole year so far as university status is concerned but who has an unbalanced workload across two semesters may lose Austudy benefits for six months. An example is a student who takes 12 points in first semester and 8 points in second semester. While this workload constitutes 83 per cent of the full time workload over the whole year, it represents only 66.6 per cent for the second semester. For the sake of one point in the second semester students have in some cases been denied Austudy benefits. This seems inconsistent with the requirement that only 50 per cent of subjects must be passed in order to qualify for ongoing Austudy payments. These two student welfare officers pointed out an individual case involving a student who passed three second-year subjects with high distinctions but $1,400-worth of Austudy payments was confiscated from the next year's allowance because her second semester workload had dropped to 66.6 per cent, while the total workload for the whole year was 85 per cent. It seems anomalous, as they point out, that another student with a slightly more balanced workload could continue to receive full Austudy having barely passed two subjects and failed two others. They go on to say that the list of anomalies is endless and that they are sure that they have not covered them all. I am sure that, if they were to sit down and think about more, they would be able to generate them. They indicate that they would be happy if some investigation of Austudy were to take place. I have listed only some of the anomalies they have pointed out. I seek leave to table this letter so that the Government may examine it in more detail, especially since it is from people who are closely associated with students who are receiving student allowances. Leave granted. Senator PATTERSON —I thank the Senate. The Opposition supports this legislation, which aims to reduce fraudulent activity associated with student assistance schemes. However, I would ask the Minister to address some of the problems associated with the administration of the scheme. Senator Vanstone has pointed out some of the problems associated with the introduction of the scheme last year, but I have been advised by the student counsellors and student welfare officers that the processing of Austudy applications has been reduced to about four to six weeks, which the students now accept as realistic. However, I would like to point out that there is one other problem associated with applying for Austudy, that is, it is almost impossible to contact Austudy offices at the beginning of the year. I have had complaints from constituents, and when one of my staff members sought to obtain information about Austudy the final resort was a visit to the office. That is all very well for students who live in the city, but it is an impossibility for rural students who want to know about Austudy. I would ask the Minister whether the problem of the peak traffic jam of inquiries at the beginning of the year could be addressed so that we do not have the problem of students being delayed, not being able to get their applications in by 31 March, and therefore being denied Austudy for some time because their application was not in because they were unable to obtain the information that they required. I would also ask the Minister to address the anomaly of the suggested $8,000-$9,000 required by overseas students and the problems associated in achieving this when the allowable income for Australian students receiving Austudy has not been reviewed since 1981. I would also ask that the Government investigate the anomalies in the scheme, examples of which I have given as provided by the student welfare officers. It is important that student assistance schemes are administered equitably and effectively because the cost to the community, both socially and economically, of students withdrawing from courses, although difficult to quantify, is unacceptable if it can be avoided. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(12.35) —We are debating the Student Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill, which amends the Student Assistance Act 1973 to include a package of measures to facilitate the prevention of fraud and the recovery of overpayments. The proposed measures are comparable to the existing provisions of the Social Security Act which have been labelled as `search and destroy' provisions. The Bill amends the Act in order to require individuals and organisations to provide information needed to verify entitlements and require debtors to disclose their financial situation. It also makes it an offence to give false information in relation to an application for assistance. It also provides substantial penalties for offences under the Act-a fine of $2,000 and/or 12 months imprisonment instead of a maximum of $100. The Bill will also enable the Department of Employment, Education and Training to recover overpayments from money held for a debtor and it will enable an overpayment to be written off or waived, or to be repaid by instalments. With respect to proposed section 31c, which will allow an overpayment to be written off or waived, it is reasonable that these powers be exercised by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) rather than the Minister for Finance, and when I say that I mean no disrespect for Senator Walsh. I do have major concerns, however, about three sections: the size of the penalties, the powers of authorities and the abrogation of a person's protection against self-incrimination. Proposed section 31d, which requires individuals and organisations to provide information, would permit an authorised person to obtain information about a recipient of student assistance. This may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties, since the power is to be exercised `for the purposes of the Act'. Yet a person from whom information was required would not necessarily know what those purposes were. Nor would that person necessarily know his or her rights as to whether the authorised person was justified in seeking information. The Minister has advised that this information cannot be used in criminal proceedings against the person; nevertheless, there remain very real concerns about the potential abuse of personal rights and liberties. Proposed section 31e would repeal a person's protection against self-incrimination. It does not prevent the use of information obtained indirectly from the documents produced being used in evidence. Once again, it may be considered to trespass on a person's rights and liberties. The Minister claims that it is desirable for the Student Assistance Act to follow the provisions of the Social Security Act in this respect, but, just because legislation is based on precedent legislation of search and destroy, it does not mean that it is beyond reproach. I am horrified at the level of the penalty and I cannot believe that it was decided on deliberately. I hope that it was an accident and that the Minister will allow it to be amended, because the penalty is $2,000 or 12 months imprisonment. Something does not seem to add up when a fine of $2,000 is made equivalent to 12 months in prison. It occurs to me, and this seems to be obvious, that if people request Austudy because they feel that they need the absolute pittance that it provides obviously they will not be able to afford a fine of $2,000. So anyone who is convicted of an offence under this section will obviously go to gaol for 12 months. Senator Boswell —It doesn't mean that. That is the maximum fine. Senator WOOD —The maximum term of imprisonment is 12 months, but the maximum fine is only $2,000. I suggest that that is inequitable, and in my view the term of imprisonment should be reduced to about one month. As an aside, I believe that in general the equivalence between fines and imprisonment leaves a lot to be desired in the sense that I would much rather see it based on potential income so that people are fined an amount equivalent to their earning potential. I think that that would be much better. I would certainly support an amendment to this provision and, in fact, I believe that the Democrats will move an amendment during the committee stage. I have much more to say but, given the time, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Reynolds)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders, the Senate sit this day between 12.45 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. (2) That, at 12.45 p.m., the Senate consider Government Business, Order of the Day No. 6 (Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88) for a period not exceeding 1 hour and 15 minutes. Debate resumed from 20 April, on motion by Senator Robert Ray: That the Bill be now read a first time. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(12.45) —I rise to bring before the Senate a matter of extreme importance and to make good, honest and decent Australians aware of the dangers associated with the Australian League of Rights, which is often described as an extreme right wing organisation. The Australian League of Rights was first established in South Australia in 1946 and became a national network in 1960. Its founder, Eric Butler, is still the National Director and until recently he was assisted by Mr Jeremy Lee. The League has exercised varying degrees of influence over Australian politics. It has been both vigorously defended and attacked over its policies and methods of operation. At times it has reared its head, and at other times it has gone to ground. It has been enduring and elusive. It has been claimed that the League is responsible for printing and distributing more political literature than all the other major parties put together. The League attacks elected representatives from all parties and denigrates a democratic system of government, while at the same time running its own organisation on a strictly autocratic basis. The League thrives wherever there is discord, dissension, frustration, fear, resentment and financial hardship. It flourishes in times of drought, low commodity prices, high foreign debt, and high interest rates, and recent events have led to an unprecedented expansion of its powers, influence and number of supporters. My message today is that we-that is, every senator, member, elected representative and community leader, and every citizen of Australia-must take the trouble to be aware of groups like the League of Rights, to investigate what their real policies and motivations are, and especially to understand how they operate. The League should no longer be dismissed as harmless for its subtle pressure is becoming more widespread. Indeed, the League of Rights should be exposed no matter what its degree of influence because it does nothing to advance the rights or welfare of Australians. To the contrary, it sows dissension and preys on people's fears, exploiting and manipulating target groups as tools to promote the League's policies. Let me say from the outset that, because of the way the League operates and the plausible policies it starts with, many Australians have understandably become sympathetic to the League. Because of the League structure and its myriad of front organisations and offshoot associations many people are not even aware that they have become tools and puppets for the League. These ordinary Australians are seeking only to become more involved in community affairs. There is absolutely no blame to attach to them. They come from all walks of life. I personally was briefly an innocent vehicle. On 11 March the Courier-Mail carried a headline `Nats boss tackles League of Rights'. The League responded by replying that I had asked the League to man polling booths. I subsequently made a statement to this House in the affirmative. I also may have launched a book for it, although the invitation to do so did not come from the League itself. I found later the book was published by Veritas Press, which my research has shown to be closely connected to the League, so that now I assume it may have been a League publication. At that time, Madam Acting Deputy President, I, like many other decent and well-meaning Australians today, was under the impression that the League of Rights upheld many of the values my Party espoused. I have since learnt a lot more about the League and have devoted the resources available to me to find out the truth about the League and what it really stands for. My response was then to bring this matter to the attention of my colleagues, which directly led to the letter from Sir Robert Sparkes which was mentioned in the Courier-Mail and to my stand here today. I know from personal experience that the League's outside appeal is strong and real, but I say to all those who may be connected with the League or its offshoot groups: `Do not be used, do not be made a fool of, do not become a pawn in what is really a very dirty game; for the League of Rights is not what it appears'. Australia is a true democracy; one of the very few. I am the first to concede that extremist organisations, whether they be the League of Rights or the Communist Party, have a right to exist and not to be driven underground by legislation. To do otherwise is to deny freedom of speech and assembly to our great Australian democracy. My concern is that the League is not open about what its objectives are. Its members do not tell the people the history of their organisation or what their underlying motives are. They will not tell their followers that they are racist, anti-Semitic and neo-nazi. That is the essence and the dark side of the League of Rights. It is a side that few people are aware of, for naturally the League hides from such a socially unacceptable agenda. The League's public face is for God, Queen and country and support for State rights, free enterprise, the Constitution, the family farm and small business. It is only natural that many decent men and women are attracted to these objectives, which are laudable and noble. However, the more extreme side of the League is introduced insidiously by degrees through its extensive network of organisations and with the aid of offset printing presses to produce masses of literature; now cassettes and videos are the new weapons in its armoury. League speakers travel to targeted groups, hiring halls where necessary. Though seldom flaunting the League's name, they are skilful and articulate speakers and speak with authority on local issues, national and international economic and political issues. Years of experience have taught them how to identify and lock in on local prejudice and resentment. The League's approach is firstly to enlarge on the distressful situation of a particular community; then to describe in elaborate details some conspiracy theory as to how this has happened; and thirdly to propose nice sounding but impractical solutions; a simple method but one which works extremely well. Madam Acting Deputy President, the League of Rights is the pied piper of Australian politics. It draws upright, hardworking men and women closer to its inner circle and hidden agenda. The League of Rights is not fussy about who it targets. Its directors are sophisticated strategists; they promote League ideology to small business groups, churches, women's organisations and many other disaffected groups. The emphasis is not on attracting League members per se but on getting those groups to use League thinking, arguments and literature. In order to reach such a variety of interest groups and to keep their more subversive policies hidden in the background, the League uses a number of front organisations or, if necessary, it will set up a new local organisation on the spot. I should mention that another key part of its structure is the creation of elector policy associations, particularly in targeted electorates. Its most established front organisations have been the Institute for Economic Democracy, Ladies in Line Against Communism, the Christian Institute for Individual Freedom, the Australian Heritage Society and the Conservative Speakers Club. These are only a minority of the groups the League has fostered and I seek leave to have a figure showing the League's structure and a table outlining the front organisations incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- AUSTRALIAN LEAGUE OF RIGHTS: ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE NATIONAL DIRECTOR (Eric D. Butler) DEPUTY NATIONAL DIRECTOR NATIONAL SECRETARIAT OR `COUNCIL' (comprising of Butler, Lee, State Directors, Assistant State Directors and National Co-ordinators of Voters' Policy Associations) STATE COUNCIL REGIONAL COUNCIL METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Electors' associations Voters' policy associations DIVISIONS OR `FRONTS' Christian Institute for Individual Freedom Ladies in Line Against Communism (Lilac League) Institute for (of) Economic Democracy Australian Heritage Society society Conservative Speakers' clubs Institute for Economic Democracy Formation 1967-71 National Secretary-Jeremy Lee Branch Structure Basic philosophy Economic theory explaining the failure of capitalism and offering an alternative to economic depression and inflation through smaller government, smaller tax, decentralisation of government and bureaucracy stresses importance of agriculture as basis for national wealth and security rejects dominance of cities supports free enterprise, private ownership blames all economic and social ills on big business and international finance Activities Runs schools, correspondence courses (Social Dynamic School; Anti-Communist School) Publishes ``Enterprise'' Co-ordinates seminars, speakers etc. Disseminate League literature Target groups Disenchanted right-wing/conservative groups; especially rural Christian Institute for Individual Freedom Formation 1971 Branches-``Icthus Action Groups'' Basic philosophy A moral theory of the rights of man linked to christian fundamentalist beliefs, stressing man's individuality (as opposed to restrictions of the party political system) criticises permissiveness of society rigorously upholds evangelical philosophy-that christianity should find its tangible expression in the whole of society Activities Distributes ``Tape Ministries'' Publishes monthly prayer letter Arranges speaking engagements to christian groups Target groups Fundamental/charismatic christian groups Ladies in Line against Communism (Lilac League) Formation 1967 Queensland based. Branch structure Basic Philosophy Its formation co-incided with strong anti-communist fears stresses alienation and powerlessness of individuals in the face of collectivism and centralisation of political and financial power Activities Publishes ``Ladies Line'' Distributes League literature Arranges seminars, speakers Target Groups Conservative christian women; especially in rural areas Australian Heritage Society Formation 1971 Basic Philosophy Concerned with issues of environment and nationalism; loyalty to God, Queen and country; upholds British Imperialism, White Australia policy Activities Uses well known conservative figures in campaigns, seminars, lectures, publications. Closely connected to Heritage bookshop (League bookshop, Melbourne) Target Groups Variety of ``disaffected'' groups in the community Conservative Speakers Club Formation 1974 Branch structure Basic Philosophy Vehicle for co-ordination and sponsorship of speaking engagements by prominent League and guest speakers general emphasis on ``conservative'' values Activities Organises speakers, forums and literature throughout the country Target Groups Community service organisations e.g. R.S.L., Rotary, Apex, Junior Chambers of Commerce VOTERS POLICY ASSOCIATIONS VPA's were first set up in 1964 and numbered more than 120 by the early 70's. According to the League, they are the foundation of their organisational structure, with a great potential for rapid expansion in ``salient'' times. VPA's are grass roots groups/cells of approx. six members, co-ordinated at State, Regional and District levels. Two functions: Educational (League publications read and studied; Hansard also) Activist (Regular, disciplined programs aimed at press and politicians; e.g. persistent letter writing. (reports forwarded to HQ)) To date, their success has been confined to rural areas in all mainland States. VPA's are the controlling core within the larger elector associations. ELECTORS ASSOCIATIONS EA's grew out of the administrative inconvenience of VPA's during their rapid expansion. Use the Social Credit political theory of individualism and criticism of party system. Aim to give electors more say in policy making by turning elected representatives into (virtually) League delegates. Assume authority to instruct parliamentarians/candidates through the application of ``strategic organised pressure'' on these politicians. Co-ordinate and organise large public meetings (with press coverage) Attempt to obtain written undertakings, ``contracts'' from politicians. League's aim is to have EA's in every electorate; various claims as to the EA's political influence. Note: The League is a dynamic and flexible organisation with a remarkable propensity to set up new groups or fronts. This table is not an exhaustive list, but a summary of the League's major detectable fronts that have been working constantly over the last 25 years. Senator BOSWELL —Most of these groups run school seminars and meetings and issue regular publications such as Enterprise, Intelligence Line, On Target, New Times and Ladies Line. Other reading material and tapes receive wide circulation throughout the supporters community. They are taught to bombard politicians, candidates and the media with letters, telephone calls and meetings in carefully orchestrated campaigns. Instructions on what to do and what to say and how to say it come from an unelected, unopposed, centralised hierarchy, far removed from the supporters and certainly not from the supporters' own initiatives or thoughts. This results in a type of passive coercion on political candidates to gain a more vocal voice at the expense of alternative views. Effectively the minds of Jeremy Lee and Eric Butler feed and control and hence distort the voices of many. The voices of these supporters are themselves trained to be more vocal than the other members of the community and this is certainly not democracy. Over the last 12 months I have seen an alarming escalation of the League's activities. It has made inroads into the churches, the charismatic churches, the fundamentalist churches and established churches. Many are being used as innocent vehicles to spread the word of the League of Rights. While openly admiring the administrative facilities of the churches Jeremy Lee sanctimoniously suggests that the churches need to create a new ministry to inform and educate their members on the terrible conspiracies which threaten their very existence and to learn how to work against them. He adds, in a worried tone, that he does not know where the churches will get their information from or how they will do it. Could it be that the League's printing presses will be galvanised into action to help out? In the particular address that I am referring to Mr Lee then leads a group in prayer before introducing the notorious Peter Sawyer. Before enlarging on the Peter Sawyer connection I would like to cite another example of the League's most visible recent target. As all senators would know, I have vigorously opposed World Heritage listing on the grounds of its intrusion into State rights, the loss of jobs, the effect on family life and the general negative economic impact on small towns in the area. I have visited the area on eight or nine occasions. Now I am in almost daily contact with the people up there. I have been alarmed at the reactionary activity of the League of Rights members who moved in to take advantage of the unrest almost as soon as this Government's intentions were known. They are extremely active up there and are attracting as many as 450 people to their meetings. The League of Rights offers the bewildered timber workers a fascinating theory on why their jobs are being sacrificed. These decent, honest men and their families are told of a plan by Jewish bankers to take over their forests and lands to add to their own equity base under an international treaty. International treaties and organisations are generally equated by the League with one world government conspiracy. While this breathtaking plan may seem ridiculous to senators in this House you must put yourselves in these people's position; that the area is divided and under threat of economic hardship and uncertainty. These convincing League speakers are there on the spot, encouraging the fears and resentments of the local communities. The people are listening to a voice that is a lone cry in the wilderness. The League's original policies and theories were based on Social or Douglas Credit economic policy, which has been soundly thrashed by recognised governments and by recognised economists. This has been done worldwide. Simply put, it states that if only a government would print more money and lend it at token rates of interest, then all problems would be solved and everyone could live in a virtual Utopia. The theories go further than this, however. They contain a strong anti-Semitic content, saying that the economic crises were deliberately engineered by the banks as a result of these institutions being in the control of the Jews, intent on world domination. This is the common theme pushed by the League in its conspiracy theory. The history of the League's anti-Semitism is well recorded, beginning with Butler's venomous anti-Semitic book, The International Jew, which blames the Jews for nearly every calamity in mankind's history and claims that Hitler was Jewish and his policies were part of a Jewish policy aimed at world dominance. The Holocaust is refuted. Butler denies that six million Jews were exterminated. He accepts only that the conditions in concentration camps deteriorated as the war caused difficulties in obtaining adequate food supplies. He says that there may have been isolated acts of barbarism; he concedes that. Butler explains that there was certainly a lot of typhus around and, unfortunately, the crematoriums were inadequate to house all the corpses. The League bookshops are stocked with titles like, The Diary of Ann Frank-a Hoax, Debunking the Genocide Myth and, Non Dare Call it a Conspiracy, in addition to the numerous other racist covers. Should anyone be interested in finding out more about nazism I believe the League bookshop stocks most of the Nazi Party's recommended reading list. Naturally the League tries to distance itself from such strong anti-Semitism, particularly Butler's work, The International Jew, since it was published some time ago. Butler has stated comparatively recently that those views are still his views and the League has never publicly disociated itself from any of his statements. In addition to being the deputy national director of this organisation which disseminates anti-Semitism and racial hatred, Jeremy Lee also publicly defends Butler and as late as October 1987 Lee chaired the annual League dinner in Melbourne. (Extension of time granted) Lee chaired the annual dinner in Melbourne at which David Irving was given a standing ovation. Honourable senators will no doubt recall that Irving was the author of Churchill's War, a book that blamed Churchill for extending the war and botching the Allies' efforts. Mr Irving also claimed that Hitler was innocent of issuing any orders for the Holocaust; that he was not responsible for the annihilation of some six million Jews. Churchill's War, needless to say, was rejected by mainstream publishers worldwide, only to be picked up by Veritas Press in Western Australia, a company that publishes and distributes material strikingly identical to that of the League's Conservative and Heritage bookshops. That the League's heavies should give a man like Irving a standing ovation and actively assist in his promotional tour of Australia shows that essentially nothing has changed in the League's core doctrine of anti-semitism, neo-nazism, and its hate-filled accusation of a Jewish conspiracy to enslave the world. The League's dim view of World War II events should also not come as a surprise if one turns back to a Commonwealth parliamentary board of inquiry in 1946. Mr Justice Reed, who headed the inquiry, compared Butler's writings with those of the British traitor, John Amery Jr, and with nazi propaganda. The inquiry arose as a result of Butler's supporters protesting loudly about the measures being taken to further the Australian war effort. In its examination of Butler's writing, the Reed report concluded: Certain similarities will be observed with Nazi propaganda . . . anti-Semitism and the alleged activities of the international financiers have been prominent points of Nazi propaganda . . . Some of the propaganda used by the enemy coincides with many of the arguments used by those interested in social credit and monetary reform and attacks our institution of government, on wartime measures and on the present monetary system of the nature to which we have referred, may be exactly what the Nazis would desire. I doubt that many service clubs and associations, which have invited Butler and Lee to speak to them in the past, are aware of this commission of inquiry or its findings. A fundamental tenet of the League's policy is to denounce the party political system and its form of democracy. The League engages in smear campaigns against all politicians. Let me quote from an address by a past assistant director of the League, Mr Edward Rock, as reported in the New Times of March 1972: Party representatives, irrespective of their demand for increased salaries, are no more than highly paid slaves of the bureaucracy. They are highly paid to keep them docile, content to serve and fawn, dependent upon the power of the bureaucracy to provide all the answers to our growing problems. They have abdicated their responsibility and, in abdicating their responsibility, they have committed the cardinal sin. We have erected a party political system, through which we are selling our freedom for a mess of pottage. People who listen to too much League propaganda will lose all respect for their elected representatives and the parliamentary institution and all confidence in the parliamentary system of party politics. Their conservatism will turn to frustration and angry radicalism. Australia is one of a minority of countries operating in a democratic system of government. In this year of our Bicentenary our democratic traditions are our proudest achievement. Let us not allow it to be undermined by subversive groups and destructive groups like the League of Rights. Most of the people of this world point to us with envy and admiration. Certainly no system is ever perfect and elected representatives must continually be challenged to work to the best of their ability in the interests of Australians. Such challenges are part of what makes democracy the best form of government. But the League goes much further than this, attacking the very roots of our parliamentary democracy. League publications argue that the `function of parties is to keep people arguing and obsessed with matters of little relevance'. Butler has written that the party system of government can play very little part, if any, in the struggle for real democracy. In principle, it is the antithesis of democracy. This comes from a man who dictates to his supporters what they are to say and feel about political issues; a self-styled and self-declared leader with no democratic support. With this in mind, we must be careful to examine in great detail any proposals backed by the League which alter the present shape of our parliamentary political system. One such proposal was the Swiss voter referendum, which has been strongly advocated by the League, among others. If initiated, it could be exactly the type of tool most useful to the League. It could enable them to use their massive propaganda machine even more effectively to become closer than ever before to setting the political agenda in Australia. As a committed Christian, I find it particularly repulsive that the League has recently chosen to penetrate the churches, particularly as the League, through Butler's writings, has promoted the heretical belief that Jesus Christ was not a Jew. He wrote that the Gospel of John indicates beyond all reasonable doubt that Jesus Christ was not regarded as a Jew, or as having been born in Judea, which is a great contradiction to the Bible. The same organisation that this Eric Butler heads, sends its speakers into churches, not to teach the word of God, but to fascinate Christians with talk of economic conspiracies and political intrigue in the context of end-time events. The League's ideas of the Jewish world conspiracy are cleverly interwoven with prophecies from the Book of Revelation, incorporating references to many current issues, such as the ID card, the stockmarket collapse, and so on. Mr Butler has spoken against what is contained in the Bible on more than one occasion. For example, he claims that one of the most destabilising myths of this century is that the Jews are descendants of the chosen people of the biblical times. Yet Butler's deputy, until earlier this year, Mr Lee, has had numerous invitations to speak to church groups. He also stands up in front of church congregations and preaches, all despite the fact that the essence of the League's policies and philosophies is an anathema to the Christian ideology. I warn all pastors and ministers not to allow their churches to be used as a platform for organisations which relish denigrating parliament, and promote a world conspiracy theory and Social Credit as the panacea to all the worldly problems. As for Mr Peter Sawyer of Deakin Centre fame, who has been responsible for senators and members being inundated with calls from distraught constituents with the most outrageous allegations, I am not sure what his underlying motives are. He is also pushing the League line. As Sawyer's allegations become more eccentric, more lurid, Jeremy Lee has begun to disclaim him and to distance the League from him. Lee has also vacated his official executive position with the League, but is still an active member. It is the same Mr Lee who said this about Mr Sawyer when he introduced him at a church speaking engagement: I believe it is a privilege to be able to come round with Peter, he is new in this field, but he is a man with enormous courage. I suppose you could say he is a rebel. I think we need rebels at this time. He has a stark story. I think it is a frightening story. He's got to tell it dogmatically, because if you spend the time documenting each of these things he has been saying, we would be here for five or six hours. But I want to tell you this documentation is there, and it fits in with my own experience. So all I can do is ask you to listen to Peter. Again on 25 November at a Gold Coast church, Jeremy Lee took the stage and introduced Mr Peter Sawyer, saying that he had invited Sawyer to do a series of meetings and words to the effect that he was concerned and convinced about what Sawyer was saying. From September 1987 to January 1988 Sawyer issued the Inside News which received wide circulation. In addition he distributed thousands of tapes, all carrying the same line as the League, throughout the churches and other organisations. (Extension of time granted) There is neither time nor need to go into all of Sawyer's allegations here. I would, however, seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of his predictions, numbered one to 64. Leave granted. SUMMARY OF PETER SAWYER PREDICTIONS September Issue, 1987 1. Work will be complete by MAY 1988. 2. States ID Card legislation will be passed as rubber stamp for that which already exists. 3. Assures most welfare fraud and abuse could be cleaned up tomorrow. 4. Civil emergency scheduled sometime between NOVEMBER 87 AND MAY 88. 5. Post Offices come on line at CHRISTMAS-1400 post offices are to be inter-connected with a fully integrated computer network. 6. National surveillance network based at Deakin, Canberra. 7. All details will be verified once states feed in their births, deaths and marriages plus Titles office information early in 1988. 8. Only way to prevent this happening is to petition the Governor-General. October-November Issue 1987 9. Spies informed that letters to the Governor-General went straight in the bin and that the petitions went to the Attorney-General, Gareth Evans, who share the dubious title of Rhodes Scholar with Bob Hawke, Charles Copeman and John Stone. 10. Now states ID Card issue was never meant to be passed, contradicting what he said in the September issue. 11. Accuses many businessmen and politicians of being traitors and refers to treason trials. Issues a black hat award for these people some of whom include Bob Ansett, John Elliott, Charles Copeman, John Stone and Sir Robert Sparkes. 12. Bob Ansett made a fringe benefits protest on TV all paid for, presumably, from money sent to him from small businessmen. The letters that the businessmen wrote to him ended up at the Australian Taxation Office. 13. Those in small business and on the land will go to the wall in the hundreds and thousands. 14. Accuses Charles Copeman of being directly involved in conspiracies concerning strikes in Australia as a carefully manipulated publicity plan to allow Bob Hawke to gain office etc. 15. Rhodes Scholarship definition from seven wills of Cecil Rhodes, now administered by Rothschilds of banking fame. ``To promote those young men prepared to strive for a new world order . . . a one world government.'' 16. Cash dispensed with by MAY 1988 apart from $1 and $2 coins. 17. Credit collapse with final curtain probably in first couple of weeks in APRIL 1988 but possibly a lot earlier. 18. Coal strike will start in Northern N.S.W. but become national affair to ensure we run out of fuel and therefore have prolonged blackouts which will lead to violence-Australian against Australian-in JANUARY-FEBRUARY. 19. Strife among conservationist groups and timber workers particularly in Queensland and Tasmania in January-February-March this year allowing introduction of ID Card. 20. Aborigines from Wiluna, WA, say $4000 creamed off communal funds and finding its way into a bank account in Port Hedland controlled by Stephen Hawke, son of the Prime Minister. Also creamed off Jiggalong community. 21. WA police force warning of caches of arms and munitions for great black revolution. 22. Mr Williamson, Senior Assistant Ombudsman, said claims appeared to be substantially true but Social Security and Aboriginal Affairs said it would not happen again so no point in pursuing matter. 23. Says there are 7000 AK47 Russian Assault rifles which arrived in WA some months ago. 24. Shipped in on false documents prepared by Fuller Firearm Group of Dunning Avenue, Rosebery, Sydney. 25. Transfer of funds made through Laurie Connell's Merchant Bank, Rothwells and currently being hidden by moving them around various warehouses owned by Mr Alan Bond. 26. Now can understand why Mr Bond has had to pay millions of dollars in bribes to his senior executives. December Issue 1987 27. Video scan will be installed in automatic teller machines and depending on resolution used can record detail right down to the retina pattern on your eyes. 28. Based on Third Book of John where number is to be on your forehead-in this case will be in your forehead, by identification in your eyes. 29. In January the banks come on line. 30. It was John Stone who oversaw the construction of the Deakin Centre. 31. Overseas Sir Peter Abeles is purportedly known as ``The White Knight'' because of his alleged involvement in the international cocaine trade. 32. Claimed to be the Don of Australia's Drug trafficking and is now the owner of the company specifically charged with the prevention of that traffic. 33. Could he be the same Sir Peter Abeles recently involved in court cases in America because of his association with the mafia there. 34. World Heritage plan is that land is given to UNESCO which plans to put it as collateral into a World Conservation Bank controlled by Edmund Rothschild and David Rockefeller. Peter Sawyer Video-Introduced by Jeremy Lee 35. 12 months ago Peter Sawyer was an agnostic but came to recognise the word of God as events he saw happening compared with the Bible. 36. By May 1988 plan to be totalitarian state. 37. Post offices are going to introduce Electronic Counter Services. 38. Banks are networked. 39. Interest rates in September are 14%-by CHRISTMAS, JANUARY, will cost 27% from banks. 40. MARCH-APRIL 1988 only have $1 or $2 coins. 41. EARLY IN 1988 cashless society based on gold money. 42. ID legislation to be re-introduced in MARCH 1988. 43. Deakin Centre has basement with standby power generators and food and accommodation for eight weeks in case of civil insurrection. 44. Real stock market crash is still coming. 45. Extended National coal strike. 46. First to go will be unemployment benefits to be replaced by part-time paid work instead. 47. Pensioners will receive coupons. 48. Impending riots. 49. Money in account of Stephen Hawke which was used to stockpile weapons for revolution. 50. There will be a civil emergency and the ID card will be re-introduced. 51. If necessary a peace keeping force from outside the country will be brought in. 52. Architect of public service growth in 70s was John Stone. 53. New Parliament House will be the seat of the New World Government. 54. At present Rockefeller is building 22 mansions in national parks where nobody is supposed to be building. 55. Depression state in 1988. After January Newsletter 56. Coming troubles meant to co-incide at END OF MARCH OR BEGINNING OF APRIL including main elements of aboriginal uprising. 57. What was supposed to have happened was some isolated trouble on Australia Day to keep us unsuspecting and then main onslaught a month or two later. 58. Planners however appear to have lost control. 59. Reports suggest major confrontations on AUSTRALIA DAY and that people may be killed. 60. Strife appears to be centred on ring around Sydney, particularly Taree, up through Tamworth to Moree, down through Dubbo, Condobolin, to West Wyalong. 61. Media have all be made aware of coming situation but have chosen to ignore it all to date. 62. Two truckloads of the AK46s which were being tracked by Federal Police disappeared at West Wyalong. 63. Similar weapons have been located and confiscated by the army and police in Moree, Euabalong and elsewhere. 64. Police, army and sections of the State Emergency Service have all been placed on alert. Senator BOSWELL —One of the more topical allegations is, of course, that the new Parliament House is to be the centre of this one world government; Rockefeller is in the throes of building 22 mansions in Canberra's national parks to house the new rulers; the dynamic Rhodes scholar duo of Hawke and Stone are cohorts in this conspiracy; and I assume there is not going to be any consumption tax in that world government. Mr Acting Deputy President, these allegations and predictions have been thoroughly investigated and proved wrong by the events of time. Even the most ardent supporter of Sawyer is doubting his credibility, but never forget that the deputy director of the League of Rights, Mr Jeremy Lee, was on the same platform as Peter Sawyer and, in fact, arranged for Sawyer to speak at a series of meetings which were recorded and the tapes were sent right around Australia. I say to all senators concerned about Mr Sawyer that without going to the root of the problem, it is like trying to bale a boat with a large hole in it. You first must fix the hole before the problem of getting the water out of the boat can be tackled. The problem here is the League of Rights and it is not Mr Sawyer. He has been used as a puppet to exploit the fears of the Australian people, yet Lee made a personality misjudgment which is going to prove expensive. Sawyer became too outrageous in his comments and had to be unceremoniously dumped like a hot potato, but not before the damage had been done and the League left exposed. Mr Acting Deputy President, I make this speech in the Senate today at some political risk but I make it nevertheless, because decent men and women are responding to the League of Rights without knowing its true face. It is wrong for Australia; it is against every tradition which this nation is built on. The Australian League of Rights is subversive, operating through front organisations and massive propaganda campaigns. It is destabilising and manipulative. Although its members call themselves the educators of the masses they are really the manipulators of the fears and ignorance of the masses. I wish to close my contribution with the following quotation from the Bible: No spring pours out a sweet water and bitter water from the same opening. A fig tree, my brothers, cannot bear olives and a grape vine cannot bear figs nor can a salty spring produce sweet water. I seek leave to table my speech notes. They have in them some reference numbers and also the source documents. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(1.12) —Mr Acting Deputy President, the contribution of Senator Boswell on the League of Rights is an important contribution to the Senate and to public debate and I would want to acknowledge that and hope that other honourable senators would share that sentiment. His comments have been detailed, documented, accurate, and therefore important and they are timely. It is not necessary to rehearse the details of the matters which Senator Boswell has brought before the Senate today, but there can be no doubt that the League of Rights espouses values inconsistent with the liberal democratic traditions to which so many of us are committed. These ideals emphasise truth, tolerance, generosity; these ideals value diversity and they seek and promote the empowering of individuals. Those ideals which I just read out are not consistent with a social control paradigm, nor with intolerance, with prejudice, nor with the incitement of hatred. Liberal democratic traditions sit poorly with the authoritarian social control approach of the League of Rights. It is not surprising, indeed it is almost inevitable, that serious political leaders should find the League of Rights message to be anathema to them. Nor is it surprising that the same political leaders should respond so savagely to the League of Rights and to its representatives. The League of Rights is malevolent; it is malignant and it is destructive to people and their values The League of Rights spreads hatred, discord and dissatisfaction. It weakens society rather than strengthening it and the League of Rights hides its activities. As Senator Boswell has laid out, the League of Rights operates not openly but through a myriad of front organisations whose links back to the League are always murky and are constantly changing. Its operations are covert. It is hard for the citizen to know with whom he or she is dealing or to whom they report. The funding of the League is hidden as well. I do not know where the funds come from. I do not know whether a mass of small donors provides the funds or whether some eccentric millionaires do their part as well. Much of the literature which emerges from the organs of the League does not bear its name. So that in its operations and in its practises it is a deceptive organisation. It practices deception on the community within which it operates; on the victims who are subject to its assaults; they never know clearly by whom they are being attacked. It practises its deception, too, on those who join one or more of its organs in good faith. Not only this, but the League of Rights operates within a special and vulnerable constituency. It works on the fears of people rather than on their hopes. It works on their insecurities. It works on their uncertainties and it works on their ignorance. The League of Rights seeks out and finds people as Senator Boswell has said, people who are insecure, fearful, uncertain or ignorant and it finds those people to be fertile ground for its message. Honourable senators would have heard already that the League preaches an anti-immigration line and would know that the League preaches especially an anti-immigration line which is opposed to non-white immigration into Australia. This League of Rights line rests squarely and depends squarely upon those human weaknesses and failings I have already mentioned. It requires that people be ignorant, fearful, uncertain, threatened and insecure and it thrives only because there are people who feel in that way. Saying all this about the League of Rights only brings before us the dilemma-the League of Rights highlights the dilemma-faced always by democrats in an open society. That dilemma is how we deal with those who misuse the arrangements that we make in a democracy or how to deal with those whose agenda might be undemocratic or even antidemocratic. It is not unlike the problem which Israel has had to face in the last few years in dealing with the likes of Rabbi Meir Kahane and the interests which he represents. The answer certainly is not to outlaw them. Israel has certainly not sought to outlaw the activities of Rabbi Kahane. I seem to recall we made that error here in 1951 at the height of the McCarthy years when we in this country attempted a referendum which sought to outlaw the Communist Party. The anticommunist referendum in 1951 was one of the low points of Australian democratic practice. The late Alan Missen saw it for what it was. He, among others, worked tirelessly for the defeat of that referendum. He was successful but he was suspended from the Liberal Party of Australia for his efforts. The answer to the dilemma for liberal democrats, for those working in the liberal democratic tradition, is not to attempt to outlaw or to suppress the enemies of democracy. In its own way the League of Rights is an enemy of liberal democratic values. To outlaw it or to suppress it would itself destroy the values on which the democracy rests. That is why that is not the approach to take, never has been and never will be. Senator Boswell made that point in his address. Of itself such an action-suppression, proscription, banning-would give the enemies of democracy an immediate and lasting victory. Neither is the answer to the dilemma we face to ignore the enemies. To do this, as we have too often done, and as we have done too often with the League of Rights, is to surrender the field without a fight and to lose the battle by inaction. The fact is that bigots, haters, racists, extremists, psychopaths and liars are all citizens, too, and the rights we have developed and which we protect so jealously, we protect for them as well. That is our dilemma. None of us wishes to suppress the League of Rights. None of us wishes to limit its right to operate within our democracy just because its values and its aims and its methods are so offensive to most of us. Our object is different. Our object, and I am sure the object of Senator Boswell today, has been to inform, to expose, to disclose and to reveal the web and the aims and the activities of the League of Rights. This has been a courageous undertaking by Senator Boswell, not without its risk to the honourable senator. Senator Boswell has had some contact previously with the League of Rights, as has his party, and he cannot expect to escape criticism and abuse from the League and from its fellow travellers following his speech today. That makes what he has done all the more courageous and emphasises even more just how deeply he feels about the priority which this exercise requires. This exposure which he has carried out today is necessary. It is necessary to allow more Australians to know more about the League of Rights, to understand more about what it is and to understand more some of the things for which it stands. This exposure will allow existing and intended dupes of the League to assess their positions. I hope that the ministers of the Christian denominations in Brisbane will read and digest the appeal which Senator Boswell has made directly to them about the invitations which they might make to League speakers to occupy their pulpits or to speak in their churches. This exposure will allow citizens to prepare responses within themselves to the blandishments of whichever of the front organisations of the League of Rights they are unfortunate enough to come into contact with. Mr Acting Deputy President, it is likely that a more informed clientele, a more informed public is a more powerful and a more autonomous clientele and, of course, if we can provide more information and make people more informed, we are achieving one of our liberal democratic ideals, which is to empower people everywhere. A policy better able to make reasonable and reasoned individual decisions is a more powerful agent for the preservation of democracy and if that can be the outcome of what Senator Boswell has started today, we will all be well served and better off. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(1.23) —I rise also to congratulate Senator Boswell on his detailed exposure of the evil and covert activities of the League of Rights and I rise to support him for what I believe to be a most courageous speech, as indicated by Senator Peter Baume. This century has seen a massive increase in propaganda. With hindsight, we can see that one of the major causes-perhaps the major cause-of the disastrous First World War was propaganda which built up national pride in Europe prior to 1914 to such a degree that many came to believe that a war was inevitable and, in fact, desirable, as if it was some great sporting contest. Of course, history's greatest example of the evil use of propaganda occurred with the rise of the Third Reich when Dr Goebbels and his Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda manipulated the thoughts and the emotions of a whole nation. The nazis exploited the German people with demagoguery and jingoism and successfully discouraged the sober analysis of facts. The nazi propaganda stratagems involved monopolisation of the media; the displacement of guilt onto others using the Jews as scapegoats, the presentation of Germans as morally superior; the denigration of political opponents and the coordination of propaganda with violence and bribery and charges of conspiracy against all those who were seen as a threat to their aims. Those stratagems have a great deal in common with the stratagems now being used by the Australian League of Rights in this nation. Charges of conspiracy were an important element in nazi propaganda, directing attention away from the truth by manipulating half-truths and exploiting the people's fears. In those days prior to the Second World War in Australia these extremist views were usually confined to such places as the Yarra Bank in Melbourne, Hyde Park in Sydney or similar venues in other cities. In fact, I can remember with great joy going to the Yarra Bank as a young child with my parents and listening to people who, in today's terms, would be described as nutters, but they always provided great fun. I was very young and my father used to explain to me that they were talking about the end of the world being nigh, new religions and new philosophies. Indeed, many of them were con men. What they were talking about was all nonsense and we used to enjoy the afternoon out in the sunshine. Nowadays, of course, with the massive facilities available for communication, with printing machines able to produce thousands of copies of articles, with video cassettes and radio cassettes, these nutters are able to have a greater reach in the community and therefore their extreme and indeed crazy views on many occasions are able to reach a much wider audience. The principles involved by the nazis in generating their propaganda have been subtly refined by the Australian League of Rights utilising these modern technologies that I have referred to and also modern marketing techniques. It is involved in a most sophisticated operation. In Australia back in 1934 a journal called the New Times was launched to popularise the Social Credit theories of an English economist, Major C. H. Douglas, who blamed the banks and Jewish financiers for the 1929-32 World Depression and his writings were violently anti-Semitic. The half- truth employed was that there were some prominent Jewish bankers. That was translated into a conspiracy by Jewish financiers in which it was claimed that they were responsible for the World Depression. The New Times also asserted that the nazis were being maligned by reports in other newspapers of indignities and persecutions being aimed at the Jewish population. It referred to `Those who can always be relied upon to froth at the mouth over the treatment of Jews in Germany and elsewhere, but show little sympathy for the victims of Jewish financiers in many other places'. Until the outbreak of World War II the New Times was markedly pro-Axis, supporting the Japanese invasion of China, the fascist regimes of Germany and Italy and the claims of Hitler in respect of Poland. One Eric Butler was a major contributor to the journal through these years and was a spokesman and organiser for the United Electors movement which was linked with it. The nazi-Soviet pact was hailed as a sign that the power of international finance would soon be crushed and Winston Churchill was attacked as being a tool of the Jews. In 1944 attempts were made by the New Times to undermine the war effort by attacking war loans campaigns and such measures as meat rationing. This culminated in 1944 in what became known as the Dean affair, which ended up with a conspiracy action being alleged by certain people associated with Eric Dean and the League of Rights. A parliamentary inquiry was ultimately set up to investigate the allegations contained in certain circulars and Eric Butler appeared as a witness to that inquiry. The inquiry concluded that the authors of the circulars were not in any way motivated by a bona fide desire to protect the interests of justice, but their objective was to attack the present system of justice as being fraudulent and illegal and a good deal of their opposition to the present financial and monetary system was found to be based solely on anti-Jewish sentiments. The Australian League of Rights was founded by Eric Butler, the author of those extremist anti-Jewish sentiments, and he is still the national director. Until recently he was assisted by a Mr Jeremy Lee. The thread of conspiracy I have outlined has developed into a pattern which continues today. The League has exercised varying degrees of influence over Australian politics since its inception. It is responsible for printing and distributing more political literature than the major Australian political parties. The League attacks and denigrates elected representatives from all parties and points to alleged flaws in our democratic system while at the same time running its own organisation from a strictly autocratic system. Its modus operandi is to operate principally through front networks, using five or six separate organisations or indeed more, if necessary, thereby capitalising on the disaffection of various groups within the community on single or specific issues. The League thrives where there is discord, dissension, frustration, fear, resentment or financial hardship. Such things as drought, low commodity prices, high foreign debt or high interest rates are soon very much the subject of the League's writings. Recently events have led to an unprecedented expansion of its attempted power, influence and the number of its supporters as the League and its front networks through propaganda and half-truths have exploited the concerns of ordinary, decent citizens and especially of ordinary decent Christian citizens. Every State and Federal parliamentarian, every member of local government, every community leader and every Australian citizen should be aware of the extremist and racist views of this dangerous organisation. It can no longer be dismissed as a harmless organisation of a lunatic fringe. Its insidious penetration of all walks of life through front networks is dangerous because it seeks to manipulate target groups to promote racist and undemocratic policies. It uses its extensive front organisations and with modern technology is able to mass-produce pamphlets, literature, sound cassettes and videos. Front speakers travel to targeted groups, hiring halls when they are unable to penetrate local community organisations. The speakers are skilful and articulate and speak with authority on local, national and international issues. Their propaganda exploits local prejudices and resentments and expands them. It then proceeds to describe in elaborate detail some conspiracy theory to justify its arguments and focus attention away from the half-truths or the small element of truth in their arguments. They then apportion the blame, usually racially based, and propose a simple sounding but, in fact, totally impractical solution. Let me say that the League is very skilful in hiding its real agenda behind a screen of what it describes as community concerns. Such community concerns attract a ready audience and most people attending such meetings would be unaware that they are being manipulated by the League. These are ordinary, decent concerned people and they are sucked in by clever, devious manipulative rhetoric. Senator Boswell has told the Senate how he became involved with the League and how he launched a book for it through Veritas Press, which his research indicated subsequently was closely connected with the League. He has told us that, like many other decent and well-meaning Australians today, he was under the impression that the League of Rights upheld many of the values that his Party espoused. It is only when researching the philosophy and writing of the League's director, Eric Butler, that one discovers the carefully hidden agenda of the League, which is extremist, anti-Semitic, anti-democratic and neo-nazi. The hidden agenda is where the danger lies. Members of the League carefully hide their origins, their underlying objectives, their racism, their neo-nazism. They hide this hidden agenda with their claims to stand for decency, God, Queen and country, and support for State rights, support for the Constitution, free enterprise, the family, the farm and small business. These are the covers for their hidden agenda. The League is not fussy who it targets. Its directors are sophisticated propagandists of the Goebbels mould. They promote League ideology to small business groups, churches, women's organisations, service clubs and political parties. The emphasis is on a soft-sell using modern marketing technology and sophisticated propaganda. The League's front organisations range from newly formed specific issue groups to established Australia-wide organisations such as the Lilac League, the Christian Institute for Individual Freedom, the Australian Heritage Society and the Conservative Speakers Club. Senator Boswell in his speech has detailed the extent of these front organisations which issue regular publications such as Enterprise, On Target, the New Times and Ladies Line. Other reading material and tapes receive wide circulation throughout the community, targeting groups such as school teachers, parliamentarians and candidates. I currently have one such set of tapes in which a Mr Peter Sawyer details an alleged conspiracy to which I shall briefly refer in a moment. This conspiracy theme is an essential element in the League's propaganda. The League appears to have made inroads into the fundamental churches, not only charismatic but also Presbyterian, Baptist and Lutheran churches, which are being used as innocent vehicles to spread its propaganda. Jeremy Lee suggested that the churches need to create a new ministry to inform and educate their members about the terrible conspiracies which threaten their very existence-shades of the Third Reich and the attempted and partially successful nazification of the Christian churches in Germany. Tens of thousands of tapes of these talks have been purchased by concerned citizens and circulated throughout Australia. The League has recently targeted small towns throughout Australia with concerns about World Heritage listing. I am running out of time, Mr Deputy President, so I had better move onto my conclusion about all of this. The secret agenda of the League and its front organisations should be anathema to all Christians who believe in brotherly love but I doubt whether many churches, service clubs and associations which have invited Director Butler, Jeremy Lee or Peter Sawyer to speak are aware of the covert racist, anti-Semitic and neo-nazi principles of the League. Among its objects for the purpose of raising concern and hatred have been multiculturism, Aboriginal culture, Asian migration, non-British migration, the Negro race and even former Prime Minister Fraser's selection of Sir Zelman Cowen as Governor-General on the ground that he was Jewish. The League also appeared to have unlimited funds and the question that must be asked is where it is obtaining the funds to operate such a costly propaganda machine through front organisations. The latest conspiracy theory advanced by Peter Sawyer has gone so far and is so unreal and unbelievable that even the League has backed away from it. Amongst some 60-odd predictions Sawyer alleged that the new Parliament House is to be the centre of a one world government; that Rockefeller has 22 grand mansions in the Australian Capital Territory to house the new rulers; and that the dynamic Rhodes scholar duo of Mr Hawke and Senator Stone are co-conspirators, together with other prominent parliamentarians. The danger is that such far-fetched conspiracy theories can lead to the League being dismissed as an organisation of right wing extremist lunatics. The truth is that the League has cast its tentacles wide. It is divisive and subversive and it is exploiting the fears and concerns of ordinary, decent, concerned people to peddle the League's neo-nazi philosophy through numerous front organisations. Unexposed, the covert neo-nazi philosophy of the League poses a real threat to democracy and thousands of ordinary citizens are unaware that they are being manipulated. In the Third Reich, thousands of Germans were manipulated in the same manner in the early 1930s and, too late, they became aware of the evil of the demagoguery of the nazi philosophy. All Australians should be on their guard to ensure that they are not the victims of this evil organisation, the League of Rights. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(1.38) —I rise to detain the Senate very briefly on this matter. I want to begin by congratulating my colleague Senator Ron Boswell on his initiative today in raising this matter and on the remarks which he has made upon it. I cannot speak from full knowledge of Senator Boswell's contribution to this Senate because he has been here longer than I have, but I suspect the truth is that Senator Boswell has probably never made a better, more effective and more important speech than the one he has made today. I want to congratulate him on it and associate myself fully with the remarks he made. My own name has now been mentioned twice in the course of this debate; firstly by Senator Boswell and subsequently a moment ago by Senator Lewis, as part of what I think Senator Boswell first described as `this dynamic Rhodes scholar duo', according to the rantings of Mr Peter Sawyer and his ilk; that is to say, the duo of Mr Robert James Lee Hawke and Mr John Owen Stone, who are between them about to bring down this country into the pit in some way or another, according to Mr Peter Sawyer's fevered imagination. I think, incidentally, that not merely Mr Hawke and I are favoured in Mr Peter Sawyer's rantings in this matter because he has also included a few other well-known Rhodes scholars, such as Mr Charles Copeman, who, like Mr Hawke and me-or like me, at any rate-is alleged to be a Fabian socialist, a remark which, I must say, brings a belly laugh, not merely a smile, to the lips of anyone who knows the slightest thing about Mr Charles Copeman and me. Mr Hawke may be a horse of a different colour in that particular category, but I will leave that there. I want also to express my appreciation of the support given to Senator Boswell in this debate by our Liberal Party colleagues Senator Peter Baume and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party in this place, who has just concluded his speech, Senator Austin Lewis. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(1.40) —How often our interest in politics is limited to the crisis of the moment. I think it is often also very much a contradiction in the constitutional system when we expect the political process to solve all the nation's problems and meet all our desires. The statements here today, at lunchtime in this debate, have centred on the very essence of democracy and the way in which it operates and the way in which it works in our society. It is important that we get exposes such as that from Senator Boswell today that point out that even in a political system as diverse and as contradictory as we have in Australia there still can be an exertion of real evil if we are not careful and not watching it. I share the concerns of Senator Boswell on this particular matter because I have had electoral experience where I believe the hand of the League of Rights has got into the electorate and is causing concern. I would like to mention two particular areas: one is an operation with youth, an operation of trying to influence young Christians in the charismatic and fundamentalist church movements. The second is in whipping up fear against the Aboriginal communities. It really does concern me that when young youth workers attend conferences, in my case away from the Northern Territory but as a delegation, and they are whipped up by speakers who obviously have been either directly or indirectly influenced by the work of the League of Rights, they then come back to their normal church congregations and express, in a multicultural society like the Northern Territory, very real concern about the continuing membership within their congregations of Aboriginal and part- Aboriginal members of those very churches. This is the insidiousness of the manner in which the League of Rights carries out its work. It, of course, also attempts to simplify so many of the activities that are by the very nature of this place, in politics and in parliament, so terribly complex. By attempting to oversimplify them and by the efforts of people like Peter Sawyer and his supposed news information Inside News, which is inside to nothing, I would argue, there is certainly no decent debate, intellectually or politically, nor in fact, is it representing what is the electorate concern of the moment. Senator Stone —Essentially it is a tissue of lies. Senator TAMBLING —Of course, it is a statement of nothing but lies and it attempts to link up with various groups in the community that have genuine political concerns. Therefore I believe the electorate should be most concerned and I would hope that the comments of Senator Boswell today will stimulate a lot of Press and community discussion on this particular issue. They are most timely. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a first time. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(1.44) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88, together with Appropriation Bill (No. 4) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2), which I shall introduce shortly, comprise the Additional Estimates for 1987-88. In these Bills, Parliament is asked to appropriate moneys to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures additional to the appropriations made for 1987-88 under Appropriation Acts (Nos 1 and 2) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act. These additional appropriations are required to meet commitments that have been approved by the Government since the Budget as well as requirements of an on-going nature. The principal factors underlying the requirements include certain unavoidable cost and price increases and other parameter changes since the Budget was prepared. Although the Budget figuring contained allowances for prospective wage and salary increases, those amounts were not then appropriated, and funds are now required to meet the impact of the $6 per week national wage case decision and the Australian Public Service Office based second tier pay agreement, the latter two constituting a total of some $65m of the Additional Estimates in Bill 3. No provision is made in these Bills in anticipation of the negotiation of other second tier increases. Any additional funding required for this purpose will be met under the separate appropriation provisions in section 6 of the Appropriation Act (No. 1) and section 5 of Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act, 1987-88. Of the additional appropriations in the three Additional Estimates Bills totalling $654.7m, $501.0m is sought in Appropriation Bill No. 3, $153.4m in Appropriation Bill No. 4 and $0.3m in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill No. 2. These amounts are offset in part by savings in the appropriations made by Appropriation Acts (Nos 1 and 2) and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1987-88, reflecting the Government's continued determination to improve the efficiency of ongoing programs. These savings, amounting to $566.1m, are detailed under the relevant appropriation headings in the document, ``Statement of Savings Expected in Annual Appropriations'', which has been distributed to senators. After allowance for prospective savings, the appropriations now sought represent a net increase of $88.6m in expenditures financed from annual appropriations. As a proportion of total estimated outlays-encompassing both annual and standing appropriations-this increase amounts to 0.1 per cent. I now outline some of the main areas in respect of which the Government has found it necessary to seek additional provisions in the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) to meet expenditure for the ordinary annual services of the Government. With regard to the Defence portfolio, gross Additional Estimates of $250.6m are sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) significantly offset by savings of $141.2m, giving a net increase in Consolidated Revenue Fund expenditures of $109.4m. The increase reflects price and exchange rate variations since the Budget, together with a number of rearrangements of appropriations to reflect costs associated with the sale of Williamstown Naval Dockyard ($24.8m for which revenue of $100m is recorded elsewhere), the one time costs of arrangements for the takeover of the management and operations of the Government Aircraft Factory by Aerospace Technologies of Australia Pty Ltd ($78m), the proposed acquisition of additional live-in accommodation for the Royal Australian Navy in Sydney and Cairns ($30.5m), and additional funding for the Defence Housing Authority, the bulk of which is to enable the capital program to be advanced from later years ($51.4m). Also included is an amount of $32.0m for the Defence Force second tier wage increase, largely offset by savings against a number of appropriations. Taking account of special appropriations, the unappropriated provision for defence salary increases and other transactions contributing to the defence function, total defence outlays are estimated to increase by $83.1m; $64.0m is included for the Australian Trade Commission to meet a higher than expected level of claims under the export market development grants scheme; $30.0m is included under the Department of Veterans' Affairs for: A shift in activity from the repatriation hospitals to public and private hospitals mainly due to under achievement of the nurse recruitment targets for the former and cost increases since the Budget for the latter; and A reallocation between appropriations necessitated by a delay in implementing the link with the Health Insurance Commission's payments system. $13.7m is sought for the Department of Social Security primarily to cover the national wage case and second tier increases. In addition, a total amount of $1.825m has been provided under the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for the purposes of consultation with the Aboriginal community and costs associated with the establishment of the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Of this amount, some $0.7m has been provided as supplementation to the running costs of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for the establishment of the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. This amount has been offset from the amount of $2.4m provided to the Department for a national consultative program. It is anticipated that $0.525m in savings will be realised from that provision. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Tambling) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 1.45 to 2 p.m. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications and relates to the fact that a number of owners of television stations are in actual or potential breach of the law relating to concentration of ownership. Will the Minister assure the Senate that all owners of television stations will be required to remain within the ownership limits in the manner prescribed by law, that the provisions of the law will be applied and enforced and that no special deals will be done for media mates of the Labor Government seeking to establish a television oligopoly in Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —Of course the Government will ensure that the law that applies to ownership restrictions is enforced very rigorously by the proper body to do so-that is, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, not that the Tribunal needs any guidance from the Government in performing its duty pursuant to that law. It knows the law, it honours it and it has performed admirably in the past within the limits of the legislative regime that we have given it to do that particular job. In fact, the current controversy was, in a sense, triggered off by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal doing just that-setting a very tight time constraint within which Mr Holmes a Court had to divest himself of his Perth television channel if he wanted to retain ownership of his West Australian newspaper. It set 31 March as the last possible target date by which that decision had to be made and it made it clear that that date would be rigorously enforced. In doing so, it created a situation in which Mr Skase was a buyer of that channel rather earlier than he would have liked. Undoubtedly, he would have much preferred to let the policy debate on these issues sort itself out, as it would have, without his being intruded into the forefront of it. I take the occasion yet again to make clear-as I have done on innumerable public occasions in the last few weeks-that there is no question whatsoever in this or any other instance of the Government acting in a particular way to advantage or favour any particular media proprietor. We have approached this in a thoroughly even-handed way with a very careful and keen regard for the public policy issues that are involved. We articulated those issues with a great deal of precision and vigour in the middle of last year when the issue arose-not in the context of any particular player, but just in the context of the general policy issue. On that occasion we made clear that 75 per cent of audience reach was an appropriate limit to set for each of the three commercial channels, that it did enable the achievement of economies of scale and that it did enable the cross-subsidisation of the smaller capital cities which would otherwise be denied the financial base on which to produce the kind of programming that commercial television viewers want. We articulated that case then and we continued to do so over subsequent months after the legislation had been forced into a narrower mould by some rather opportunistic pressure in this place from other parties. We continued to make it clear that if there seemed likely to be any change of heart at any stage on the part of the Opposition parties, making possible a more rational ownership limit, we would be only too pleased and delighted to review the situation and the legislation. It was on the basis of that totally consistent Government position and on the basis of a perceived change of heart on the part of the Opposition as being imminent that the particular course of events developed so far as players such as Mr Skase were concerned. Mr Skase's great problem was to place as much credence as he did on the authority, credibility, reliability and, indeed, integrity of the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Howard, and the shadow communications Minister, who led him to understand, as indeed they led other proprietors to understand, that a change of heart on the part of the Opposition was imminent. Mr Skase has found that he cannot rely on the credibility or the authority of Mr Howard. The whole community is now witnessing the debacle that flows from the Opposition for those reasons alone. I reject absolutely any suggestion that this Government has reacted as it has on any policy issue involving the media, and this one in particular, as a result of any considerations of that kind. The policy reasons are clear. They have been clearly articulated by us over many months and they have been articulated in a very consistent way. That kind of consistency, clarity and understanding of the economic issues involved and that kind of authority and government leadership are all attributes that have been conspicuously absent from the Opposition's performance over the last few weeks. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is also directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. I refer to the Government's reforms of the Australian road transport industry. Can the Minister comment on the Government's current progress on its fast track package of reforms designed to give the road transport industry in Australia a new deal? Senator GARETH EVANS —This is not so dramatic, but it is another demonstration of good government at work. The December 1987 meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council, involving Federal, State and Territory transport Ministers, agreed to a further package of reforms for the road transport industry to be implemented during 1988. This second stage package of reforms which has now come forward for implementation, together with the initial fast track package of reforms which was introduced in January 1987, provides a comprehensive new deal for the road transport industry. The reforms are aimed at providing a realistic and uniform operating environment which will enhance domestic and export competitiveness of Australian goods. The agreed second stage package, which was announced in detail by my colleague Peter Morris yesterday, consists of an increase in the heavy vehicle speed limit, enhanced driving hours arrangements and revised registration charges for Federal interstate registration scheme vehicles. These arrangements will also include new categories operating at higher mass limits. The heavy vehicle speed limit is to be increased from 90 to 100 kilometres per hour from 1 July this year to improve road safety by reducing speed dispersion. The eastern States will introduce uniform hours of driving regulations in the latter half of this year. The new regulations will be enforced by revised log book arrangements and will more realistically reflect current industry conditions. Western States will be reviewing their arrangements in the light of these developments. Mr Morris recently announced-again, I think it was yesterday-the registration charges for vehicles registered under the Federal interstate registration scheme to apply from 1 July. These charges include new categories allowing Federal vehicles to operate at uniform national mass limits. The charges are a further step towards a uniform approach to land transport cost recovery arrangements. These are very far reaching reforms. They have been the subject of debate, discussion, argument and endless controversy at State and Federal ministerial meetings over many years. It represents a major achievement and one of very great economic importance for the nation for that particular package of reforms to come together under Commonwealth Government leadership in the way that it has. Senator WATSON —I refer the Minister for Finance to his answer to a question on 20 April regarding capital gains tax. During his long response the Minister implied that the Chief Executive of Elders Resources Ltd was involved in a shonky scheme to avoid taxation. Is the Minister aware of the provisions of section 26 (e) of the Income Tax Assessment Act, and other provisions, which make it clear that income earned through shares issued under an executive incentive measure is fully assessable as part of the taxpayer's income, although maybe on a deferred basis? In future, will the Minister desist from using Question Time as a forum to accuse erroneously taxpayers of fraud of which they are quite innocent? Senator WALSH —I do not remember precisely what I said on 20 April, but I did on that occasion quote, as I had quoted before, Mr Terry McCrann, who, on 15 April 1986, had an article published in the Age which said that Mr Elliott had picked up a huge tax free gain through setting up a shonky share deal. If that is inaccurate in either of those respects, I am surprised that Mr Elliott has not taken it up with the Age, if not with his lawyers. To the best of my knowledge, he has not done so. I have also pointed out before that Mr McCrann would be offended if anybody described him as a friend of this Government or a friend of the Australian Labor Party. So it was not one of Mr Elliott's political enemies having a pot at him when Mr McCrann wrote that. I also gave details of the mechanism that Mr Elliott used to effectively defraud the other shareholders of a company as, indeed, according to recent Press reports, the Chief Executive of Elders Resources, Mr Geoff Lord, has recently done-that is, to issue shares with a face value of 50c paid to 1c in the expectation that a takeover offer will be made to the company for shares at a price above their face value, at which time the executives who have been issued with the shares paid to 1c in the dollar fully pay up the shares and then pick up the premium that the takeover offerer is bidding, effectively, of course, thereby devaluing the other fully paid up shares held by other shareholders. It is a bit like putting a bet on a racehorse with a bookie by telephone and paying the bookie only if the horse wins. It is very similar to that. Senator Robert Ray —That is what Askin did. Senator WALSH —I did not know that Askin used to do that. I am grateful for that piece of information. It is extremely similar to ringing up a bookie and saying, `I want to put $100 or $1,000 on this horse' and, if the horse wins, one pays the bookie $100 or $1,000; if the horse loses, one does not. I do not know why Senator Watson has asked this question. Perhaps he is toadying to the de facto leader of the Liberal Party in the hope that he will be able to advance a bit further-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. I ask the Minister to withdraw that offensive statement. The PRESIDENT —The word `toadying' has been asked to be withdrawn in the past. I ask the Minister to withdraw it. Senator WALSH —I will withdraw `toadying'. Senator Chaney —Mr President, my point of order goes beyond that. The Minister has cast doubts as to the motives of the honourable senator and he should withdraw unconditionally the slur that he has placed on him. The PRESIDENT —I have asked the Minister to withdraw. Senator WALSH —I withdraw the reference to Senator Watson but I do not withdraw the reference to Mr Elliott being the de facto leader of the Liberal Party. He is not a member of the Parliament and he is the de facto leader of the Liberal Party. Right now, I expect, given the shambles of the present Liberal Party and the Opposition leadership, he is beavering away to get rid of Mr Howard and get himself a safe seat in the Parliament so that he can become the real, as opposed to the de facto, leader of the Liberal Party. I will refer the question about section 26 (e) to the Treasurer, who I expect will refer it to the Commissioner of Taxation. There is, of course, the caveat that the Taxation Commissioner is bound by statute not to reveal details of individual taxation assessments. Senator CROWLEY —I address my question to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport and Communications. Is the Minister aware of a statement issued by Mr Julian Beale on the eve of the Port Adelaide by-election in which he alleged that the port was dying? Can the Minister say whether there is any substance to this claim and can he provide the Senate with the facts concerning the port, particularly in light of the further prospects for the port consequent on Premier Bannon's new shipping arrangements with Japan? Senator ROBERT RAY —I am aware of the statement that Senator Crowley refers to. I always treat with a little suspicion Press releases which are put out immediately before by-elections. Given the hype and excitement of the time, shadow Ministers tend to float through the electorate, throw out a couple of outrageous Press releases and disappear into the sunset, never to be seen again. Usually, the veracity of those statements has to be questioned. I am pleased to inform Senator Crowley that Port Adelaide was in fact a very vigorous and prosperous port last year. It turned over 12 per cent more imports and 9 per cent more exports than in the previous year. For instance, live sheep exports rose by 8 per cent. There is every indication that the port will continue to thrive. Direct calls were made by international shipping lines from all over the world. Last year the ANRO Line introduced a fortnightly South East Asian service and special calls were made by lines servicing the Middle East and the Gulf countries. I am pleased to inform the Senate that as from July ships from Japan will double the frequency of their calls into Adelaide, thus reducing the need to land freight South Australian produced goods for dispatch to Japan from other ports. I also acknowledge the very active role that John Bannon has played. What I have just said is not an indication that there will be an early South Australian election or that I am warming up for that event. He has played a very positive role in getting more ships into the port of Adelaide. Mr Julian Beale, as the shadow transport spokesman-and his role in this has been very shadowy-has again been caught out by a fairly cheap Press release before a by-election. It is just a pity that these things get a run without any critical analysis being made at the time. Senator JENKINS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. By what authority is the Government continuing to collect the so-called administrative fee of $240 from applicants seeking a review of status through the immigration review panels? Is the Minister aware that there is at least some legal opinion that the fee itself is illegal? Approximately how much has been collected since the introduction of the fee? I refer to the then Minister's answer to my question of 15 December last year, in which he said: . . . the Government must come to a view about the continuation of the current administrative based system . . . In the light of the fact that the Migration Amendment Bill was amended in this place to ensure that no fee be paid by appellants to immigration review panels, has the Government `come to a view' about ending the imposition of this fee? Senator REYNOLDS —The Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs advises me that the fee, as its name would suggest, covers administrative costs associated with the reconsideration of certain decision made under the Migration Act. The fee charged is actually less than the full administrative costs involved. In answer to the second part of Senator Jenkins's question, it is not unusual for lawyers to have differing legal opinions on the complex issues of law. In this case, the Department has a senior Queen's Counsel's opinion that the fee is quite lawful. The only legal challenge to the fee has in fact been withdrawn by the litigant. As to Senator Jenkins's third question, in relation to how much has been collected, I am advised that as of 15 April this year an amount in excess of $1m had been received. During the Senate debate on the Migration Amendment Bill 1987, a clause intended to provide legislative entitlement for the reconsideration of certain decisions and a mechanism for the collection of fees for this service was in fact deleted from the Bill. It is my understanding that in opposing the clause, the Opposition did not intend to make invalid the current administratively based appeal mechanism. In actual fact, I understand that comments to this effect were made by Mr Cadman in the House of Representatives. It is also my understanding that the Opposition supports the continued collection of the administratively based fee for the review of decisions under the Migration Act. Senator JENKINS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In view of what the Minister has just said, is it going to be the practice of this Government to act as though legislation has been passed on a promise by the Opposition? As we all know, the Opposition can change its mind. Does the Government intend to continue to act on legislation that has not yet been passed? Senator REYNOLDS —As Senator Jenkins points out, if the Government based its actions on whether the Opposition was going to change its mind, it would be following a very tenuous path in respect of policy implementation. I have nothing further to add to my comments other than to say that if Senator Jenkins wishes to have any further information I would have to take her question on notice. Senator DEVEREUX —Can the Minister for Resources elaborate on an article in the Australian Financial Review of 22 April which outlined his call for a forest accord between timber companies, unions, conservation groups and governments? In what way would such an accord resolve recurring conflict over logging of Australia's forests and ensure that returns from Australia's timber resources are maximised? Senator Bolkus —Don't beat around the bush. Senator COOK —Senator Bolkus has just said, by way of interjection, `Don't beat around the bush' in my answer about a forest accord. That is his humour, not mine. I propose not to beat around the bush because the response to a speech I gave to the National Association of Forest Industries (NAFI) last Thursday night has been very positive from both the forest industries side and the environmental side of the argument in terms of all those who are interested in forests. Indeed, as well as both the industry and the environmental views being put, I have had an opportunity to hold discussions with my reciprocal Minister in Western Australia, Barry Hodge. He too expressed some sort of confidence in the proposal. Yesterday morning I took part in a radio talkback program on 3LO in Melbourne when a Mr Ian Penna of the Australian Conservation Foundation and a Mr Steve Guest of the National Association of Forest Industries said that on behalf of their groups they supported the idea of a forest accord and, while they would reserve their rights on what content would go into such an accord, the idea had a great deal of appeal for them. This morning in Albury I spoke to the Forest and Forest Products Industry Council (FAFPIC), which is a combination of unions, employers and State governments that advise on forest policy under the aegis of the Australian Manufacturing Council. That body also expressed a positive response to the proposal. The proposal for an accord has been advanced because it is quite clear that, in terms of forest issues, there is an endless fight between, on one side, developers and, on the other side, conservationists. That fight is epitomised by exaggerated argument on both sides, calls of defects in the arguments, wrong statistics and arguments about whether a particular coupe should be cut or not and whether a particular stand of trees should remain or not. There is a need for an overarching policy which begins to lay down the basic principles on which we as a nation will manage our forests, and that needs to be through an accord so that all the major players in forest politics are party to it. I believe that an accord would need to look at the $1.5 billion current account deficit that timber products detract from our balance of payments. It would need to address the issue of a value added component for our forest products. At present, woodchips exported from Australia are valued at about $60 per tonne. If we were to export pulp instead of woodchips, the return would be between $300 and $800 per tonne of pulp. Better still, if we were to export paper, the return to us would be between $11,000 and $22,000 per tonne for paper products exported. So one can see why an accord ought to contain as a major feature the value added component which I have identified and which has been supported widely by both environmentalists and the industry. There is also a need to synchronise some of the research that goes into forest technology and to do so at a national-that is, through the Commonwealth Government-and State level and with industry research bodies. There is a need to concentrate on high value furniture so that we have an industry in which we add value to forest products by furniture. Senator Newman —How do you know the conservationists want to-- Senator COOK —As a matter of fact, a Tasmanian company to which I have referred is a shining example of an innovative designer and high quality furniture manufacturer out of Tasmanian forestry products. Senator Newman may not be interested in knowing that, even though she is supposed to be a Tasmanian senator. There is a need to develop local and regional pulp and paper mills, as well as world standard mills, and to streamline issues of land access. As I have said, I have been heartened by the response to the speech I made to NAFI. I regret, given the Opposition's interjections, that the Opposition has not seen fit to indicate what its policy is on the issue. It seems that there is a gaping, yawning gap. There is absolute and endless silence from the Opposition. It seems that its policy, if it were to have one, would be to sell out to the highest bidder. The accord proposal should come down with a coherent and comprehensive forest policy aimed at increasing investment and employment-not just more jobs; better jobs of higher quality and with state of the art technology-which would improve our current account deficit, guarantee forest management policies, which are universally accepted, and protect the environment for future generations. I know that the objectives of that accord are probably too big and too sensible for the Opposition to grasp, but I do urge it to lend it some support. Senator KNOWLES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. In November 1986, I asked the then Minister representing the Minister for Health whether the Government had considered the possibility of screening visitors to Australia for the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) virus. At that time the Minister said that it would be neither practicable nor affordable to screen those people. In view of the dramatic increase in the spread of the AIDS virus, I ask the Minister the following questions. Has the Government reconsidered establishing a screening requirement for immigrants and visitors such as that which was conducted for tuberculosis? What community education programs has the Government planned, other than telling everyone that if they wear a condom they will not get AIDS-programs to alert all high risk groups and their partners? What commitment will the Government make to doctors and operating theatre staff to protect them against the disease? Senator COOK —As I understand it, the first part of the honourable senator's question concerned whether we are going to do more than encourage people to wear condoms. Senator Knowles —Screening. Senator COOK —I think that the Government's position on that is clear. We do not propose to screen visitors to Australia. However, if there is a need to enlarge on that point, I will add to it by putting that part of the honourable senator's question on notice. My understanding is that there is no intention to screen visitors to Australia to see whether they have AIDS. The idea that has been promoted in that quarter with respect to migrants ignores totally the fact that if AIDS is being introduced into the country by visitors all tourists would have to be screened as well. I do not think that that is practical, nor do I think that the screening of people coming into this country as migrants is a practical or reasonably humane proposition. If I need to add to that answer, I will do so after I discuss the honourable senator's question with the Minister, Dr Blewett. In terms of the honourable senator saying that the only thing we are doing is urging people to wear condoms, if she had followed what Dr Blewett has been doing and what the National Advisory Committee on AIDS promotes, she would know that a key aspect of their promotion in terms of AIDS is not exclusively that a person must wear a condom. They also promote abstinence and faithfulness to a sexual partner as well as condom wearing as the three most effective ways in which to deal with the spread of AIDS. As I understood it, the last part of the question echoed some views expressed by Dr Bruce Shepherd in a television interview yesterday when he asserted that all surgical patients should be tested for human immuno-deficiency virus (HIV) so that surgeons could take protective measures where necessary. If I am right in identifying that part of the honourable senator's question, I can say that the Government's underlying position is that testing for HIV infection should be voluntary, undertaken only with the consent of the patient and always accompanied by pre-test and post-test counselling. It must also be pointed out that the New South Wales doctors' recommendation is at odds with the recommendations of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, which has recommended against routine pre-operative screening for HIV. It has also recommended that consent for testing should be obtained. Mass screening would be expensive and time-consuming, particularly where the results necessitate confirmatory testing. Existing sources could not cope with the demands that would be imposed by widespread testing of all surgical patients. Obviously, testing would not be practicable in emergency cases. The best solution is to treat all patients so as to minimise the risk of HIV infection. Whether they are tested or not, the adoption of proper infection control procedures makes the risk of infection minute for most procedures. Doctors have a duty of care to treat all patients, including those infected with HIV. Of course, the Government accepts that, in procedures which carry a significant threat of injury to the surgeon, knowledge of the patient's HIV status may be relevant. The decision whether to test the patient in these circumstances needs to be made in the light of all the relevant information and should be undertaken only in conjunction with the informed consent and counselling of the patient. Senator AULICH —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. His title is in fact longer than my question. Will the Minister please outline the progress and the objectives of the Aussie Sports program of the Australian Sports Commission? What response has there been from the educational and sporting communities? Senator RICHARDSON —I thank Senator Aulich for his question. I will do my best to answer the question. The Aussie Sports program has been a resounding success. At this point in time there are more than 1,700 schools participating in the program. Senator Bolkus —How many? Senator RICHARDSON —There are 1,700 registered schools and more than half a million Australian children taking part. In addition to that, last month over 200 sporting clubs subscribed to the join a club project, which has received support from Telecom Australia, a body sometimes maligned in this place but one which is taking its rightful place in Australian sport. On 30 March I had the pleasure of launching the educational material for the Aussie Sports program entitled `Sport in Australian Society'. The material has three main themes. The first one is Aboriginal sport, the second is colonial sport and the third is twentieth century sport. The program offers children the opportunity to examine-- Senator Puplick —Twentieth century sport! Senator RICHARDSON —Obviously, some honourable senators do not take much of an interest in sport. Sport, of course, has played a very important part in the development of the Australian identity in the last 200 years. That Senator Puplick would not be aware of that fact should be a surprise to no-one. Senator Robert Ray —They are champion log-rollers over there. Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Puplick is a champion log-cutter, rather than a log-roller. The material to which I have just referred has been fully endorsed by the National Aboriginal Education Committee and the Aboriginal Education Advisory Committee. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs has already purchased 5,000 copies of the Aboriginal sports material to which I just referred, for distribution around Australia. At this point in time all State and Territory education departments have a full time Aussie Sports coordinator. The Aussie Sports coaching program has begun. Most importantly, given the concern expressed by so many parents around the country in the last few years, the Aussie Sports code of behaviour has now been adopted by most of our sporting bodies and, certainly, by five States. Hopefully, we will have all States and Territories signed up very soon so that we can emphasise better sporting behaviour. Overall, what we now have is better instruction in Australian sport. Most importantly, we have a program designed to enable children to enjoy it, to get a sense of participation and to get fulfilment from that, rather than just a sense of winning and intense competition. If Aussie Sports can do that for Australian children, it will be doing a great service for our country. I only wish that such a program had been around in the days when Senator Ray and I needed it. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of all honourable senators to the presence in my gallery of a delegation from the European Parliament. On behalf of all senators I extend to the delegation a warm welcome and trust that their stay in Australia is a success. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator HAMER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. Is the Minister aware that the Ships (Capital Grants) Act which the Government introduced last year is very unlikely to improve the international competitiveness of Australian shipping? Is it not a fact that the first vessel with the new crewing levels has not yet come into service and that, with the present rate of replacement, the benefits of reduced crewing levels will not be felt until well into the 1990s? In any case, are not these crew levels still about 25 per cent higher than those of the major maritime nations? To compound this problem are there extraordinary rorts being worked over leave entitlements? Is the Minister doing anything to reduce these entitlements that comprise, for coastal shipping, six weeks on and six weeks off, with first-class air travel and accommodation for the changeover? Would it not cost more than $1m to raise a Swedish ship to Australian accommodation standards? Are not these conditions far more generous than those of any nation of comparable or greater wealth than Australia; indeed, are they not easily the most generous in the world? Bearing in mind that other maritime nations are further lowering the number of their crews, is it not urgent for the Government to take decisive action to bring conditions for our seamen into line with those of countries of comparable economic standing and to stop the rip-offs by the maritime unions, using their monopoly power, which are inflicting very serious economic damage on the whole Australian community? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Hamer asked me what I was doing about various matters in the shipping area. The short answer is that I am not doing very much at all because I have delegated responsibility to my learned and gallant colleague Senator Ray, to whom I now have a great deal of pleasure in flicking the question. Senator ROBERT RAY —We have a saying in Victorian football-the `ambulance hand pass'. It has just come to me. Senator Hamer asked up to nine or 10 questions. I think he abuses Question Time as such by asking so many detailed questions rather than going to the general issues, which is all I will go to here today. He referred to the Ships (Capital Grants) Act. The first major ship to come on stream is already on its way to Portland. I will be visiting there, I think on 5 May, to inspect the ship and to look at the new crewing arrangements. Senator Hamer would realise that under the Maritime Industry Development Committee (MIDC) proposals the manning of that ship has come down to 21 people on board. Senator Hamer —That is still higher than anywhere else. Senator ROBERT RAY —When Senator Hamer's Party left office five years ago there was an average of 38 people on board. When he starts preaching to us what we should be doing in the shipping area, he should realise that his Government did nothing. It did absolutely nothing in this regard. Honourable senators opposite talk about structural reform. They play a really good game in opposition. However, if their promises and desires for the future are ever to be measured one must look at past performance. In all these areas it has been pathetic. All they have ever sought to do is to create conditions of confrontation just for the thrill of it. They have never been into a rational structural reform of any Australian industries. This industry is one that requires structural reform. I make at least one acknowledgment to the Liberal Party; this reform began with the Crawford Committee on Revitalisation of Australian Shipping, which we had to put into action. It has continued through the MIDC process. That cannot be the end of the story. Australian shipping conditions must adjust to a stage where we are competitive with the rest of the world. As it is, the various Australian international ships are in a free and open market. They have to compete against the rest of the world. That is the environment they live in. That is the environment they will either live or die in. They must adapt to those conditions. I will not go into some of the other issues that are floating around today, although I was surprised that I was not asked a question on the report of the Industries Assistance Commission. Senator Hamer asked about leave entitlements. These are determined by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. They have been negotiated by employers and employees and ratified by the Commission. Senator Hamer asked about the amount of money it takes to convert a ship. I think that Senator Hamer used Sweden as an example, which I acknowledge is a fair example. Swedish working conditions are among those most similar to Australia's working conditions. It does sometimes cost more to convert some of these ships. Some of the conversion relates to safety issues. I read from time to time of people saying that safety conditions on Australian ships are too stringent. It was only the other day that another ship broke up in the Atlantic and sank with a loss of 20 or 30 lives. While I have any responsibility in this area, I am not going to preside over a decline in safety standards. We have some of the best safety standards not only in shipping but also in the airline industry and other areas. I do not see why we should try to match the safety standards of the rest of the world. If we have the best, so be it; we should be proud of it. Senator Hamer today raised a lot of other issues and I suspect we will be debating them at another time-and fairly shortly. Senator BEAHAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer to the joint Press release issued this morning by the Minister and his colleague the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, on new workers compensation arrangements for Commonwealth employees. What effect will Comcare have on the incomes of Commonwealth employees currently in receipt of workers compensation benefits? What are the reasons for changes in the level of benefits which current workers compensation beneficiaries will receive? Senator WALSH —The answer to the second part of the question about what effect the new arrangements will have on Commonwealth employees currently in receipt of workers compensation depends on the level of compensation as a proportion of updated former salary that they are currently receiving. If they are receiving presently less than 70 per cent of updated former salary and no other government funded benefit, their payment will be increased to 70 per cent of former salary. However, if they are receiving from both compensation payments and Commonwealth superannuation scheme payments more than 100 per cent of their updated former salary-that is, 100 per cent minus the 5 per cent personal contribution to the Commonwealth superannuation scheme that such people would have had to pay were they still maintaining an employer-employee relationship-they will have their payments cut to 95 per cent of their updated former salary. The 95 per cent figure equates to a 100 per cent figure on a gross basis. The compensation component of the payment they are receiving will then be frozen in dollar terms until, as is conceivable, it falls to 70 per cent of updated former salary. New entrants to the scheme likewise will have a government financed limit of 70 per cent of updated former salary net of the 5 per cent superannuation contribution if they are long term claimants. The scheme had to be changed because under the present arrangements it is possible-and I table one example demonstrating the arithmetic behind this-for people at reasonably low salary levels, if they are over 65 years of age, to receive 132 per cent, in the specific example given in that table, of the salary they would have been receiving were they still employed in their previous job, plus, and by definition people in this category have some entitlement, whatever employee financed benefit either in the form of an ongoing pension or a lump sum they receive or have received from the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. In all the figures that I have quoted, entitlements accruing as a result of employees' own contributions have been excluded. So it is possible for somebody over 65 years of age who was on compensation before reaching the age of 65 and who also had a full Commonwealth superannuation scheme entitlement to have, in the case cited, 132 per cent of former salary. If we look at people presently under 65 years of age and not on compensation, it demonstrates rather forcefully the reason the Government has taken this action. Imagine a Commonwealth public servant of 62 or 63 years of age. If he can get on compensation, and remain on compensation until he reaches retiring age, on reaching retiring age he could qualify, as I said before, for well in excess of 100 per cent of his salary in employment. If he did not get on compensation prior to reaching retiring age, he would get a government financed benefit of 50 per cent or, under certain particularly unusual circumstances, 52 1/2 per cent of his former salary. In other words, there is an enormous incentive, especially for people approaching retirement age, to make an effort to get on compensation before they hit the statutory retiring age of 65. Given also the fact that there are doctors around who will sign anything that is put in front of them, and that it is difficult in any subsequent litigation or appeal proceedings to have an appeal body overrule any doctor's decision, some people might wonder why any relatively lowly paid Commonwealth public servants have retired at age 65 as employees instead of getting on compensation and qualifying for a double dip before having done it. The fact that that has not happened can be attributed only to there being more residual honesty around than some sceptics might have believed, or perhaps they just did not know about the lurk. But it is a lurk that could not be allowed to continue and a lurk which, if I may say so, the previous Government in its seven years of office made absolutely no attempt to close off. There are many other details to the scheme. That detailed information has already been published, and I do not intend to give all of it here. But I anticipate two criticisms of the scheme which are likely to emerge. The first will be that the scheme does not adequately look after low income earners. There are two responses to that. The first is that there is a floor, a minimum payment, regardless of what the former salary may have been, which picks up people on relatively low salaries who have a number of dependants. The second point is that if people really want to push that argument they have to reject the whole basis of the new earnings related scheme and go back to some statutory rate of payment. But they cannot have it both ways. The second criticism that is likely to be made is that it is morally wrong to reduce to the equivalent of 100 per cent of former salary payments presently being made to people who are on both Commonwealth superannuation scheme pensions and compensation payments. Some people will no doubt say that it is retrospective legislation, and all this sort of tear jerking nonsense. The answer to that is that it is a gross anomaly that such people ever received more than 100 per cent of their former salary. That being so, it would be an equally gross anomaly to allow them to continue receiving more than 100 per cent of their former salary. Indeed, it could be argued that that would be an even more gross anomaly, because they have already received payments to which, by any reasonable assessment, they had no reasonable entitlement. It would be even more anomalous to allow those people who have already received such excessive payments to go on receiving them in the future. I trust that the Opposition, even when adopting its normal opportunistic stance on policy questions, will realise that there will be much more to be lost by opposing this legislation-just in case it should contemplate doing so-because out there in the big wide world, when people find out that the present arrangements allow some people, and are presently paying some people, in retirement more than 100 per cent of the salary they received when they were working-- Senator Alston —You have let it go on for five years. Senator WALSH —I hope Senator Alston is listening to this. Out there in voter land people will be very angry. If the Opposition lot, in its typical opportunistic way, tries to stop this legislation getting through, there will be a big backlash against it. So I hope for once that the Opposition's opportunism, which is always there, will be intelligent opportunism. Senator CALVERT —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories and relates to the Minister's response to a question regarding the 20 per cent tax on film production which the Minister acknowledged yesterday is to occur from 1 June this year. Is it true that as reported in today's Hobart Mercury, this 20 per cent tax is also to apply to the video production costs associated with weddings, sporting events and company training films? Does the Minister consider it appropriate that this new tax should impose an additional financial imposition on newlyweds, sports fans and those companies which seek to improve the quality of their work force? Senator RICHARDSON —There is no basis in suggestions that either of the sales tax rulings about which Senator Calvert has asked his question, that is, on video production or sound recording, will impose a tax on Australian films. I just want to get that on the record. Feature films are excluded specifically. What we are going to debate is whether it has an effect on the industry in so far as advertising or something else is concerned. That is a matter about which I will have some discussions with the Treasurer. However, on the question of newlyweds and sports fans, I would hate to do anything to upset them. I cannot claim to be a newlywed: I have been married for 15 years, but I think I am still a sports fan and I would not want to be upset. Having said that, I hope that in looking at this question it is realised that I do not believe it appropriate that I give answers on tax. That is better left for the Treasurer. That being the case, I intend to refer some of this question to him. Senator Puplick —Particularly since he has suddenly become a sports fan. Senator RICHARDSON —I am not quite suggesting that, yet. I will believe Keating's conversion when I see the honourable senator's. I will refer those matters to the Treasurer and get back to Senator Calvert as soon as I can. Senator COLLINS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. What scope is there in Australia for a fourth television channel or for new players to enter the television industry in some other way? Senator GARETH EVANS —As has been spectacularly evident for all the world to see in the last few days, the Liberal-National Party leadership has impaled itself on a large two-horned dilemma. I only wish that James Thurber were here to record the scene. On the one hand it says it wants to expand the number of players in the television industry in pursuit of what it describes as diversity. I am not sure whether Mr Nixon's or Mr Blunt's motives are quite as high-minded as that. It is indicating a willingness along those lines to regulate like crazy to set a 60 per cent or less audience reach limit in order to achieve that result. On the other hand, it seems to want, and Mr Howard seems to need these days to demonstrate, an attachment to freedom from unnecessary business regulation, to try to recover some of the respect from the business community which it and he manifestly have lost. It knows that the kind of regulation that is involved in setting a 60 per cent limit has no rationality and no intellectually or economically credible base. If there is any doubt about that honourable senators need only refer to what the former Minister for Communications, Neil Brown, said on commercial radio at lunchtime today. The only way out of that dilemma seems to be for the Opposition-and Mr Howard has been struggling with the hapless Senator Messner in his tow to articulate this in the last couple of days, not so far with much success, but we may see about that later today-to say, `Do not set limits on how much ownership you can build into any one network or any one commercial channel system, but create new avenues for new players to drive down'. In particular, the argument seems to be, `Let us open up the airwaves to one or more new commercial channels in each of the major capital cities and perhaps in the community as a whole'. Let us explore the credibility of that option. The short answer is that a fourth commercial channel, in the foreseeable future in Australia, is a palpably nonsensical option. I say that for a number of reasons. First of all, overseas comparisons make it very clear that in terms of the broadcast channels-and I will come back to cable and pay television in a few moments-Australia is very well-- Senator Chaney —I think you think you have some explaining to do to the public. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Chaney will have some explaining to do after this. In terms of any rational overseas comparison Australia is very well served with its two national-in the traditional sense of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS)-channels and three commercial channels. The National Party is doing its best to deny those three commercial channels to large swags of the rural community but so far as the metropolitan areas are concerned, we have five channels to choose from around the country. In that respect we are spectacularly well served by any international comparison with countries of roughly comparable size. Canada has only two national networks-a government and a commercial one, together with some independents in the larger population centres. Holland, with 13 million people, has just two channels with some access to new satellite services coming on-but at the moment there are only two. Scandinavian countries, each with populations similar to or less than Australia, have just one or two government stations-and that is all-with some prospect of one or two commercial stations in the future, but not yet. In countries with populations much larger than Australia's, the range of broadcasting networks, if we look around the world, by and large is less than or certainly no greater than is the case in Australia at the moment. West Germany, for example, with 60 million people, has three services. Italy, with 50 or 60 million people, has just one national service plus a limited range of independent stations. There are just a handful of stations in France, with a population of 50 million. In the United Kingdom, with 60 million people, there are just four services-two British Broadcasting Corporation ones and two commercials. In the United States, there are only three national commercial networks with, of course, a whole miscellany of cable services to supplement that. Senator Chaney —What sort of ownership? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is a 25 per cent maximum audience reach which, in the United States population context of over 60 million people, involves an ownership base, for each of those networks, of the top 10 or 12 major cities in the United States. If Senator Chaney applied a 25 per cent limit in Australia, as even his arithmetic should lead him to understand, he would be caught with a population base of less than four million people and only one or one and a bit of major cities in the country being within that limit. That is why it is absolutely nonsensical, against the framework of economies of scale and capacity to cross-subsidise, to use raw percentage figures which are extracted in that way from incomparable jurisdictions. The other point which makes the four-channel idea nonsensical in Australia very simply is the revenue base upon which such a fourth channel would have to be built. Senator Archer —What has that got to do with it? Senator GARETH EVANS —It has everything to do with the viability of a fourth commercial channel as even the honourable senator ought to appreciate, although I know that is a tall order. The particular revenue base being confronted in Australia was acknowledged back in 1976 by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to be insufficient to justify three commercial channels. It argued for two. But it happened and by 1985-86 we had a total revenue base of about $1.2 billion. That is the latest period for which figures are available. For the major cities, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide, that represented a total revenue base of just $846m-per network, it was $280m each. If that total amount had to be shared by a fourth player, each would be receiving about $212m; and that is a reduction of something like $70m per network. There may be room for some additional advertising around the margin in the context of ABC or SBS programming. That is being explored and examined at the moment. But it would only be marginal. It is beyond belief that the revenue base is there in the Australian population at the moment-or in the foreseeable future-to sustain a fourth channel. Let me reinforce that with some figures I have just been handed which make the point that the financial results for the existing commercial television stations are very discouraging. Twenty per cent of them made an operating loss in the year for which the last figures are available, 1985-86, and the trend has all been downward. Back in 1981-82, there were 45 stations making an operating profit and five making an operating loss. The trend line is such that by 1985-86, only 39 were making a profit and 11 were making a loss. The main reason for that declining profit is the increasing competition from all forms of media, the higher cost of Australian programs, the higher cost of imported programs-with devaluation-and, in particular, a very soft advertising market. The reality is that expenditure over the years has been growing much more rapidly than revenue for the stations. That is why the whole point about networking, viability and economies of scale has assumed so much importance. The reality is that a fourth network would distribute an already soft advertising revenue among more players. It would particularly affect Australian production, which is the highest cost item for commercial television stations. Any approach to these issues which fails to come to grips with these matters would indicate a failure to understand the real world. I make the point that this Government has no ideological objection to greater diversity in the broadcasting areas; on the contrary, we have been fostering that. We have been fostering it very assiduously in radio, and let me give some examples of that. After we came into office, by the end of last year there was a total of 139 radio stations, as compared with 108 a generation ago, in 1957. That is an increase of 23 per cent over those 30 years. By 1990, 175 commercial licences will be on issue. That is a 20 per cent increase in just four years. We have made it clear that we are prepared to license audio entertainment services of the Sky Channel variety-not really comparable to pay television but one example of an increasingly diverse electronic media environment. As I have just announced, we have been prepared to license, with multipoint distribution systems, a few days ago, much greater access by a greatly increased number of players to a whole variety of other forms of video communication. The Government has announced already, again just a few days ago, a willingness to open up and explore the prospects for pay television in this country and to examine in a systematic and expeditious way the huge variety of policy issues that are necessarily involved in making any decision to go down that track. If we do go down that track-and at the moment I cannot see any reason in principle why we should not do so-we will necessarily open up a much more diverse electronic media and video entertainment environment for the future. Let me finish by saying that there may well be scope for more players, for new players, in the context of the new emerging media forms of this kind, and we are very keen and very willing to explore that in a rational and systematic way. What we are not prepared to do is to react in the blind, aimless, random and fumbling way that has been characteristic of the Opposition's attempt to square the circle on its media policy over the past few years, and indeed over the past few weeks. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Transport and Communications in response to a Question without Notice, asked by Senator Collins this day, relating to television licensing. I do not wish to speak at length to the issue but I just want to make a single point. As to the 10-minute tirade, which could have been best handled by a ministerial statement and which was, of course, an abuse of Question Time, the simple point must be made that in the country across the Tasman, New Zealand, it was announced today that the television and radio industries will be deregulated to allow access for new people. Why is it, then, that this cannot occur in this country? Why is it that the Government cannot confer the same conditions? I leave that question to the Minister to answer. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that at 8.30 a.m. today, two senators submitted letters in accordance with standing order 64-Senator McLean, proposing a matter of urgency, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Chaney, proposing a matter of public importance. To decide which letter should be submitted to the Senate I determined the matter by ballot in the presence of Senator McLean, the Deputy Opposition Whip-Senator Knowles-and the Clerk of the Senate. In accordance with the result of that procedure, I now read Senator McLean's letter: Dear Mr President, In accordance with Standing Order 64, I intend to move today-That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Minister for Defence to be removed from his portfolio given that over the last three years he has presided over the decline in morale of the defence force indicated by low recruitment, high wastage of personnel, and an apparent inability to control senior departmental officers, thereby losing the confidence of members of the defence force, the Parliament and the public, and as a result of all these factors precipitating an unprecedented crisis in Australia's defence capacity. Yours sincerely, Paul McLean, Senator for New South Wales Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(3.05) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Minister for Defence to be removed from his portfolio given that over the last three years he has presided over the decline in morale of the defence force indicated by low recruitment, high wastage of personnel, and an apparent inability to control senior departmental officers, thereby losing the confidence of members of the defence force, the Parliament and the public, and as a result of all these factors precipitating an unprecedented crisis in Australia's defence capacity. I have proposed this urgency motion today because I feel very strongly, as indeed do all Australian Democrat senators-and, I believe, the Opposition-that the defence of Australia is now not being well served by the appalling attitude of the Government towards our defence and ex-service communities. This state of affairs must have come about because either the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, is not able to efficiently preside over the Department of Defence, or because his recommendations are not being taken up by Cabinet-and if the latter is the case, it is evident that the Minister is just not fighting hard enough for his Department in Cabinet deliberations. Of course, this crisis is not entirely of the Minister's making; nor is it all the Government's fault. Although the crisis of confidence in Australia's defence forces has climaxed only recently, it has existed for several decades and is the product of several governments. Nevertheless, it is very real. The Government appears to have good intentions towards defence. In last year's defence budget the following statement was made: This Government believes that our service men and women should know that they are members of an organisation that has clear cut direction, that they are at the heart of the most fundamental of national responsibilities, the security of the nation, and that the Government takes its responsibilities to defence seriously. Of course, that is a fine sentiment; the Australian Democrats applaud it, but it does not align with the facts. A fact that is obvious to anyone with any interest in defence and veterans' affairs is that these two areas within our community are in crisis. The Government's answer to the defence crisis is to issue us with a series of ministerial statements. We have been treated to two recently, and there was a third one today. They amount merely to an exercise in the Government patting itself on the back. Our defence forces are overwhelmingly and tragically demoralised. In the appropriation debate last year, I quoted a letter from Major-General John Whitelaw of the Regular Defence Force Welfare Association in which he listed the major concerns of service men and women and their families-and there were many of them. Many of those concerns have still not been addressed by the Government, including the matter of the continuing saga of 2 per cent discounting of Defence Force retirement benefits, an inordinate delay in establishing the Defence Housing Authority, the appallingly low repair and maintenance budget, resulting in the continuing deplorable standards of service housing, the unacceptable restrictions on the education allowance payable for children of defence personnel, and a prolonged delay before implementation of most of the recommendations of the Hamilton Review of the Effect of Service Life on Spouses. It was cheering to see today the ministerial statement which supports some progress in relation to the recommendations of the Hamilton report. I shall address some remarks to that ministerial statement later in the afternoon. To these urgent problems can be added those that were cited by a serviceman who wrote to Senator Tambling earlier this year and whom Senator Tambling quoted in debate in this place on 22 March. That serviceman cited a number of problems, and I shall quote from the letter that he sent to Senator Tambling: High incidence of managerial imposed turbulence affecting families. Imposition of a strict code of discipline- one would not find that surprising in the Services- Exposure, during some postings, to varying degrees of arduous working and living conditions- nor would one find that surprising- Inability to effectively demonstrate dissatisfaction, other than by leaving the ADF- Of course, that is what is happening in large numbers. The only way that servicemen can express their dissatisfaction is to leave. The letter also refers to the necessity to acquire service oriented qualifications, some of which attract a compulsory return of service period but which are not broadly transportable outside the Services. Finally, it refers to constant training and practising of skills which rarely, thankfully, are exercised in any real situation. That is not all, of course. After leaving the Defence Force, ex-service men and women can look forward to their entitlements as veterans being downgraded further and further as they get older, and therefore they are less able to overcome this sort of discrimination. Sadly, the neglect of the defence forces is paralleled by an erosion of veterans' entitlements, on which I shall elaborate later. Unfortunately, the Government and Opposition appear to be in collusion on the subject of veterans' affairs. Their objective obviously is to eliminate that grouping of Australians known as veterans and to assimilate them into the social security system with no special identity. I have no other alternative but to arrive at that conclusion from the position taken by members of the Opposition in relation to a number of amendments that I moved in December 1987. Perhaps they have changed their minds-hopefully, they have. All is obviously not well in our defence forces. The recent report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on the management of the Australian defence forces, tabled in this place about two months ago, cited a number of major problems and deficiencies associated with defence establishments and with the policy process. That Committee made many reasonable recommendations, which I hope the Government is now studying in order to decide how fast it can implement the recommendations. Such notable defence experts as Air Marshal Evans, Commodore Alan Robertson, Air Commodore Tex Watson, Admiral Guy Griffiths and Major-General John Whitelaw have all recently reported in many varying publications and at meetings around the country that the defence forces, and consequently the defence of this country, are grossly diminished and inadequate. The recent resignation rates, about which we have heard so much in this place, are a reason for great concern. We all know the figures over the last three years: 25,250 people have left the Defence Force, which amounts to about 12 per cent of the total Defence Force leaving each year-36 per cent in three years. In excess of 50 per cent of the Defence Force has been turned over in the last five years. In 1981-82, 8,200 people left the Defence Force. This figure dropped to a low of 6,700 in 1983-84, but last year rose again dramatically to 9,000. In the eight years 1975-76 to 1982-83 the average of male officer resignations was 502 a year. In the four years 1983-84 to 1986-87 the average was 610 and in the last two years for which we have figures, 1986-87, the average has been 675 commissioned officers a year-an extraordinary wastage rate. Obviously there is a problem in this category which must be addressed immediately. Officers cost the country a great deal to train, and with their experience and expertise they are not easily replaced. Pilot resignations are one of the Government's main areas of concern, and rightly so. Here the figures are even more dramatic. These are also figures that we all know. For more than 20 years the average resignation rate of pilots was 47 a year. In 1984-85 that figure rose to 60, in 1985-86 to 70, and in 1986-87 to 107 pilots a year. That rather alarming figure is expected to be exceeded this year. Those pilots cost the country about $5m each to train to the stage where they resign and take their skills elsewhere. This looming critical shortage of experienced pilots means that there are not enough flying instructors to train the number of new pilots we now need to catch up, approximately 60 pilots each year; so this trend must be reversed, and soon. This is one area in which the Government has been shaken out of its complacency, and it is moving in a very positive direction. Qantas Airways Ltd has been asked to change its recruiting policies. The Government has announced that it intends to increase the service obligation from six to eight years. It does not improve the morale of those who remain in during those six to eight years. The compulsory retirement age of pilots of wing commander rank will probably be increased to 55 years. It does not improve their morale in the additional five years of service. We are assured that other measures are being taken. While retirement rates are a problem, enlistment rates are still also worrying, although there has been some improvement in some categories. In 1981-82, when, it will be remembered, 8,200 people left the Defence Force, 8,500 joined. In 1985-86, 8,700 left and only 6,900 joined. I am advised that this situation has improved, but there are serious difficulties in the recruitment of junior officers, one of the most critical ranks of recruitment. We must ask ourselves why this is the case. Why are we losing Defence Force personnel in droves and not attracting nearly as many new personnel? Obviously Service conditions are a major factor; in many cases housing is deplorable. About half the Defence Force homes now in use fail to meet the requirements of service scales and standards of accommodation and about half are to be demolished as soon as possible. These are the houses in which Defence Force families live. In the last defence budget the allowance for defence housing repairs and maintenance was actually reduced. The Opposition is not innocent in this respect. Most of these service homes were built under a Liberal-National Party government and have been allowed to run down to their present condition by the same administration. If a service home needs urgent maintenance, the problem must be reported by the Defence Force member, not by the spouse, who probably spends most of the time in the house. If the Defence Force member is away on exercises, the spouse is allowed to report the problem to the member's unit. In one case at Holsworthy about which I have been told, it took the New South Wales Housing Commission about six months to fix a leak in a pipe behind a bathroom wall. Defence Force personnel change locations on average every three to five years. This makes it very difficult for children, who have to change schools so often, and for spouses, who find it difficult to find steady jobs as prospective employers know they may be forced to leave in a couple of years. My own children went to 14 schools in 10 years while I was in the Regular Army. New schools mean new uniforms, new books and social dislocation, which the children find particularly difficult and disturbing. Every resignation in the Services today-there are each year literally thousands of them-necessitates a chain of movement, and every movement costs the family lots of money, easily $1,000 each time, and sometimes more per movement. Defence housing tends to be cold in winter and hot in summer, with little or no insulation and unfinished timber flooring. Condensation is also a major problem in most of the houses where there is inadequate ventilation. Despite the very best efforts of defence families, much housing remains in a decrepit and demoralising state. When the Government introduced the Defence Housing Authority Bill last year, it told us that under a single authority there should be increased efficiency and higher standards of housing. We sincerely hope that this will be the case, but the Government is moving so slowly in implementing this Act that there is still very little evidence of improvement. The Hamilton report entitled Supporting Service Families is an excellent document which enunciates clearly the social, domestic and psychological climate in which the families of Australian service personnel live. Although it was released two years ago, there has been considerable delay in implementing some of its most important recommendations. Is it any wonder, therefore, that morale in our Defence Force is so low? Morale is a complex phenomenon. As a former serving officer, I think that I can draw a fairly accurate picture of the social, domestic, working and psychological environment which has engendered this extraordinarily low level of morale. In the work environment in regard to the relevant aspects of pay and conditions, leadership, career structures, opportunities inside the service, a sense of relevance of serving and the organisation in which one is serving holding a sense of relevance to the community at large, appropriateness of training and a comparison with opportunities outside the Services-on all these dimensions service opportunities unfortunately do not rate highly. All this is a very depressing and the Government has every right to ask why we do not offer some constructive suggestions. The Australian Democrats believe that defence thinking in Australia today is basically flawed. It is based on conventional thinking; it is equipment biased, outdated and obsessed with the threat of invasion. This thinking is downright dangerous because it is so far removed from the realities of what we require in forward defence planning. Clearly in a nuclear age in an essentially peace seeking country there is sense and great benefit in shifting emphasis in our defence, thinking, organisation and material from the offensive to the defensive and from the predominantly military to the predominantly civil defence model. This shift in emphasis is desperately needed. In this country we still fund our civil defence, our coastal patrols, our volunteer rescue groups, our bushfire brigades and other critical organisations by selling lamingtons on street corners; yet we resentfully spend billions of dollars annually on the inadequate maintenance of a clearly depleted and demoralised Defence Force. This is fair neither to ourselves nor to those who have chosen to enlist in these inadequate and grossly neglected services. I hasten to add that, having been there myself, I have great admiration for them and sympathy for their circumstances, but the reality is that we can and must do much better. In the 20 years since the end of the Vietnam war the Australian community has gradually become enfolded in a warm blanket of security. Because we have not been forced to think of what it would be like if our forces were again committed to war we have not thought about it, and because we have not thought about it we have allowed our defence forces to run down and our veteran community to be treated as second and third class citizens by a society which should still be treating them as special and giving them a little more than first class treatment because they were prepared to make such enormous sacrifices for the rest of us and our children. The Australian Democrats have not moved this matter of urgency today merely to criticise the Minister for Defence nor indeed the Government in general. We are not attacking Mr Beazley because senior members of his Department have lied to him or given him misleading information, and we are not accusing him of having deliberately misled Parliament. Of course, this is a very serious matter and calls for the sacking of the senior departmental officers involved, but certainly not Mr Beazley's resignation. That precedent is only for senior departmental officers who want to rid themselves of a troublesome Minister and remain immune from retribution. However, we could never again be sure of the accuracy of ministerial statements or answers. The question is much broader than that. We are concerned that Mr Beazley has been Minister for Defence for three years and in that time his Department has deteriorated steadily to a point where it is now facing a crisis unprecedented in Australia's history, with low recruitment, high wastage and very low morale. Mr Beazley no longer has the confidence of his Department, the confidence of service personnel or the confidence of the public in respect of the portfolio which he now holds. The Department of Defence needs a new mind, someone who will be innovative, bring a whole new perspective to the portfolio and begin a new era in Australia's defence, and perhaps it will be Senator Robert Ray. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(3.24) —That was one of the weakest efforts I have heard in this place. Senator McLean put a motion on the books and then tried to square off in his speech. It is pathetic! Let us look at the first two lines of the motion, because this is not a frivolous matter. Senator McLean has basically asked for the resignation of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). It is not a question of his being replaced in his portfolio. If he leaves that portfolio his political career is finished; that is it. That is what Senator McLean has asked for, yet nothing in his speech justifies that action. Senator McLean then tried to square off at the end of his speech by saying that he did not really mean to be critical of the Minister but that it is really just the Department of Defence and that it needs a new mind. As far as I am concerned, that is a weak effort. The only good part in respect of this motion, if it is carried, is that everyone will say, `Ho hum, the Senate has carried another motion', and we will add it to the list of hundreds of other irrelevant motions that the Senate has carried by way of matters of urgency, meaningless second reading amendments, and so on. I take this matter of urgency seriously and I rise to defend the Minister for Defence. To get the proper background I thought that because I am not a defence expert I should obtain the Australian Democrats' policy on defence, so I sent one of my trusty assistants down to the Library where there is a big file entitled `Democrats' Defence Statements'. It was empty-nothing has been put in it over the past few years. I wondered about that and decided that there were only two possibilities. First, the file had been pinched by some other person working here, and there can be only a few suspects among those speaking to this debate; or secondly, the Democrats have made no realistic comments about defence. So I went back a bit further and I looked at the Democrats' 1987 election manifesto and I looked for an extensive defence statement by the Democrats. The only thing I could find was a document headed `Nuclear Disarmament'. It makes some good points about nuclear disarmament, points that I am not here to rubbish, but the Democrats' defence policy is included in just a few points on one page. That is the Democrats' defence policy! Senator McLean —You should have put someone much more thorough on the job and you would have found a copy of our defence policy; then you would be in a position to comment. Senator ROBERT RAY —We are waiting for a copy of the Democrats' defence policy. During the last election campaign did the Democrats feature defence as a major issue? The only coverage in the 1987 election was a six-line summary in the Age giving the Democrats' defence policy. That is the sort of impact that their defence policy has had in this country. As an ex-serving officer and someone who has a real interest in this area Senator McLean must suffer from schizophrenia. His colleagues are not interested. His stance alienates the Democrats' disarmament base. The groups that the Democrats pander to in terms of nuclear disarmament and the other myths that they put around are the groups that the Democrats appeal to, but they do not believe in conventional armament either; they would be in favour of unilateral disarmament right across the board. However, having some sense of responsibility Senator McLean cannot endorse that. The Democrats must downgrade their defence policy during an election campaign in order to pander the peacenik movement. That is the reality. The Democrats can never support defence strongly because, the moment they do, they blow the whole peacenik community, one of the groups they depend on to build their 8 or 10 per cent support. Senator McLean assures me that somewhere-not in the Library but somewhere else-there is a copy of the Democrats' defence policy. I look forward to seeing it and to rigorously analysing it, but it is one of the best kept secrets in Australian politics. During debate on a matter of urgency six months ago Senator McLean said: . . . the Australian Democrats will be attempting in the next few months to put forward models which we believe address the long term problem of reversing morale in the defence forces. Senator McLean said that six months ago but he did not include it in his speech today. Where is it? He promised it six months ago. We have not seen it yet. So the tablets to be handed down from on high by Senator McLean in an attempt to solve these problems are still missing. I refer to what I said at that time because I think it totally justifies what I am saying today. I described Senator McLean as a `harping critic' and I said: I ask Senator McLean: How much of the gross domestic product should we spend on defence? What other Government programs should we take money away from to reallocate to defence? There has been no response from the Democrats. I then said: If I had $2 billion, $3 billion, $4 billion or $5 billion given to me tomorrow and was told that I could spend it on extras for the Defence Force, I would be absolutely delighted . . . Of course, Senator McLean is sitting there in the luxury of never having been in government, the luxury of being a carping critic and the luxury of appealing to every minority group in the community, without ever having realistically to outline the way in which he would raise the revenue, how he would carve it up and how he would deal with thousands of different priorities. That is an easy life. We do not have those sorts of easy lives. What I said six months ago has the same relevance today. There are, of course, other ways in which the Senate can address these matters-more sober and realistic ways. Since the early 1970s the Senate, quite rightly, has been proud of its committee system and, therefore, defence appropriations provide an opportunity for any senator who is concerned with the issues of personnel and materiel to get expert, on-the-spot advice. I just wondered when I read this urgency motion today whether it derived from the end product of Senator McLean's thought and reasoned investigation through the Estimates Committee. Then I said to myself, `Hold on! I am the relevant Minister who sat there the other night through five hours of grilling on the defence forces'. Of course, it suddenly came back to me! Senator Newman asked me many questions, so did Senator Hill and Senator Tambling. I could not recall seeing Senator McLean there. Here is an issue over which he has called for the resignation of a Minister and for which he is prepared to assassinate that person's political career, yet he could not spare the time to come along to the Estimates Committee, ask the basic questions and find out the answers like other diligent senators around here. The whole question of separation rates and the other matters on which Senator McLean has bleated today were raised in that Committee. He claimed that these matters were problems yet, on the whole, he has not justified them statistically. He has never responded to some of the answers that have been given; he would never change his ideas. He just reasserts the same bleatings every time. No matter what the answer, he apparently never changes his views. Yet he had the opportunity to be here last week and to ask the officials in the Department of Defence, whom he criticises, what was going on and what they were doing about the problems. He could have asked them how they justified expenditure in this area, but not that area. But he was in the land of the missing. Today Senator McLean has come into the Senate and said, `We want Mr Beazley out as Minister'. He has suggested that Kim Beazley should commit harakiri, because as I said before, a change of portfolio is political death at that stage of the Minister's career. Yet Senator McLean will not even come to the Estimates Committee and ask the appropriate questions. I want to give the Senate a broad overview of our approach to defence issues. My colleague Senator McMullan will deal with the strategy and capital equipment program of this Government and my colleague Senator Collins will refer to separation and recruitment rates. I will not deal with those issues in any detail because they will be covered later in the debate. On our general defence policy, I point out that this Government has established coherent defence planning for the first time in Australia's history. We have related strategic analysis to Budget realities to produce an achievable and effective mix of defence capabilities. This process requires careful allocation of priorities between capital equipment, facilities, operational costs and personnel. The Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), criticises Mr Beazley for paying too much attention to capital equipment but he does not say which of the capabilities that we are currently acquiring could be dispensed with. In fact, his only idea on equipment involved more spending, not less. His equipment proposals include buying an aircraft carrier, nuclear powered warships and nuclear powered submarines. Of course, these would cost billions of dollars. So when Mr White makes his points on this matter he adopts an even more ridiculous position than Senator McLean does. He wants to spend billions more dollars but that would have to be funded from somewhere else in the Defence Department. Therefore, more would need to be taken from some of the areas that Senator McLean has raised today. I think the reality is that a coalition government would cut defence spending. Given the Opposition's commitment at the last election to take $11 billion off government expenditure, even if it took only a portion out of defence that would mean a $1 billion cut. That is before we add in nuclear powered warships, aircraft carriers and all the rest of the new ticket items that the Opposition wants. Some reference has been made to whether Mr Beazley gets his way in Cabinet. The Opposition regards defence as so minor and trivial that its defence spokesman is not even in the shadow Cabinet. Probably the Liberal Party of Australia will vote for this motion today, yet it cannot even be bothered putting its defence spokesman in the shadow Cabinet. He is somewhere in the outer. If the Liberals were really serious and this was a big issue there would be some good news awaiting Mr White next week-he would be promoted to the shadow Cabinet. Or will the Liberals again speak with forked tongues and just ignore the situation? Senator McLean's assertion that there has been a reduction in the operational capabilities of the Australian Defence Force is, in my view, incorrect. This Government has put in place a comprehensive build-up of the ADF that balances priorities, redresses the Opposition's neglect over past decades and is committed to improving the conditions of service for ADF personnel and their families. I will not refer to-and I am glad Senator McLean did not-to the statement currently being made in the House of Representatives by Mrs Kelly. We should look at some of the Government's achievements. Under the Liberal Government capital spending fell to below 10 per cent of the Defence Force budget. We have raised it to over 30 per cent by efficient planning and a careful setting of priorities. The White Paper presented to the Parliament provides us with a strategy for self-reliance based on defence in depth and the main objectives for Australian defence policy that will take our defence forces into the twenty-first century. Our priorities on defence spending accord with that strategy. For the Navy, capital equipment initiatives include an increase in the major surface combatants to 17; construction of six conventionally powered submarines; development of a mine countermeasures capability; and the purchase of Seahawk helicopters. The Army will have a highly mobile force capable of rapid deployment as a result of the purchase of Black Hawk helicopters, new field artillery and an improved fleet of vehicles. For the Air Force the most significant purchase is the tactical fighter force of 75 FA18 Hornet aircraft. In addition, Australian defence industries are being stimulated to provide the skills and technologies required to support our defence capabilities by the construction of equipment in Australia. Rather than going overseas with a shopping list every year or two, more and more we are trying to get this equipment designed where possible and, if not designed, built in Australia. The Hawke Government has recognised the problems in the conditions of service and has acted to do something constructive about them. Some months ago my colleague the Minister commissioned Sue Hamilton from the Office of the Status of Women to identify and report on the problems facing personnel and their families. Later today-not too late, I hope-I will present a statement which details the manner in which the Government will implement the recommendations in that study. Some of those proposals include a whole range of suggestions to improve conditions for Army personnel. On the question of pay, this Government has established an independent, expert, impartial salary fixing tribunal-the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal-which provides the ADF with a wage fixing system comparable to that enjoyed by other elements in the community. We have recently seen significant increases in the service allowance, the field allowance and a range of other allowances, including the flying allowance to pilots. Separation rates is another matter which this Government is not only concerned about but also is doing something about. I again remind honourable senators that Mrs Kelly is announcing new measures in the House of Representatives. I am a little restricted because of the coincidence in timing of this and I do not want to go into those details concurrently with Mrs Kelly. Senator McLean talks about low recruitment rates, but the facts are that recruitment rates have been maintained in line with the 1987-88 targets. This Government has also given the reserve forces new responsibilities and has passed legislation to enable them to be called out to meet low level contingencies. In his urgency motion, Senator McLean says that the Minister for Defence has an apparent inability to control his Department. In fact, Mr Beazley has undertaken major reforms of his Department. The defence factories and dockyards have been totally overhauled and the huge defence logistics organisation has been reformed-perhaps a few weeks too late, but nevertheless it has been reformed. Very large savings are being achieved. These problem areas in the Department had been subsidised for years under the Opposition. However, I have only briefly outlined some of the steps that this Government has taken in the defence area. One difficulty I had in dealing with Senator McLean's speech was that every old canard was dragged out, irrespective of the fact that many questions have been asked on this matter. Perhaps not all of the answers have been satisfactory but many questions have been answered. It seems to me that Senator McLean never takes account of those answers, he just continues to roll out the old complaints. If it were not for a history of devaluing motions in the Senate, this motion would normally have to be taken very seriously. As I said earlier, one would not believe so from Senator McLean's square-off remarks at the end of his speech where he almost apologised to the Minister, where he almost acknowledged that the Minister is not doing that bad a job, but said that it is his Department, the Cabinet or something else that is letting the country down. The wording of the motion goes directly to the fact that Senator McLean believes that Mr Beazley should resign. I have done a comparison with the Democrats' performance in the defence area. It is almost a black hole; it almost does not exist. In the last election campaign, none of the Democrat spokesmen got any publicity on the defence issue. Probably not even-- Senator Powell —We don't own the media, like you do. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Powell says that the Democrats do not own the Press. I thought at least their favourites, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Times, would have given them some coverage on these issues. But did the Democrats make any major defence statements in the last election campaign? Can I hear Senator McLean nodding or not? It is very hard to detect what his answer is. Where were these statements made? Where are the cohesive policy statements of the Democrats in the defence area? How would they pay for defence spending? What percentage of gross domestic product do they want to allocate to defence? If they want to increase defence spending, what areas of current government spending do they want to take money away from? The Democrats should answer the hard questions. Until they can do that, Senator McLean has no right to come into this chamber and say that Minister X should go. Senator McLean —We have every right. We were elected to come here. Senator ROBERT RAY —No, the honourable senator does not. He has to earn that right. He has to prove intellectually that he can sustain arguments on defence and that he can put up a coherent policy. When he can do that he will have earned his spurs and the right to come in and demand that Kim Beazley get out of politics. That is when the honourable senator earns that right, and not before. We totally recognise that, although this motion deserves to be defeated, it will probably go through as a result of opportunism in the Senate. Nevertheless, I think this is a pity because the Minister for Defence has contributed enormously to many of the defence questions in this country. He has brought a rigour and enthusiasm for the area that was long overdue. I say to Senator McLean and other honourable senators-in some ways, this is a vacuous thing to say and I know that we often say it: I am quite confident that when history is written Mr Beazley will go down as one of the better Defence Ministers in this century. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(3.43) —The Senate is debating a motion moved by Senator McLean on behalf of the Australian Democrats which reads as follows: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: `The need for the Minister for Defence to be removed from his portfolio given that over the last three years he has presided over the decline in morale of the defence force indicated by low recruitment, high wastage of personnel, and an apparent inability to control senior departmental officers, thereby losing the confidence of members of the defence force, the Parliament and the public, and as a result of all these factors precipitating an unprecedented crisis in Australia's defence capacity.'. The Opposition will support this motion. But I have one serious query: if Mr Beazley goes, who will replace him? I hope that it will not be Senator Bolkus, who is on the front bench at the moment. Frankly, if one looks along the ranks of the front bench of the Australian Labor Party, one sees that they are rather thin. That does not apply to Senator Robert Ray; I must say that they are rather thin in quality. I do not know who the Labor Party can produce to replace the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). The only sensible option is, of course, to replace the whole Government. But, in the meantime, the performance of Mr Beazley and the Labor Party on defence has been one that deserves the censure of this Senate, because it has not been satisfactory. What we must establish, as Senator Ray pointed out quite justly, is why the Minister for Defence-the Minister responsible for his Department-should go. After all, he has had some successes. For instance, I agree with the strategic policy which he has announced. It is a line of attack in our defence policy which I have been advocating in public for more than 10 years-that is, that our defence strategy should be based on doing the things that the Australian Defence Force might have to do on its own, at the same time as making our Force interoperable with those of our allies in case something broader breaks out beyond the capability of our Defence Force to deal with. That I agree with. It is to the credit of the Minister that that has been achieved. As I said, I have been advocating this for more than 10 years. In fact, as a member of the joint planning staff of the Defence Force, I was advocating it as far back as 1959. That recommendation, to my regret, was rejected by the then Government. I have been a long term advocate of this and I respect the Minister for having achieved it. But it is one thing to have a strategic policy; it is another to carry it out administratively. The first task of a Minister for Defence in particular is to persuade his colleagues to give sufficient financial support to the Defence Force to achieve the strategic policy which he has got the Government to agree to. In this respect, the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, has been a conspicuous failure. For instance, in his White Paper on defence he announced a 3 per cent real growth over five years to implement his capital equipment program. But he could not persuade his colleagues to give him the resources to make that effective. In fact, there has been a one per cent decrease in real terms in the amount spent on defence. This has happened at a time when he should have had the support of his colleagues and the support of the Australian public. A recent survey shows that 80 per cent of the Australian public are very concerned or somewhat concerned about our defence; and 47 per cent think we spend too little on our defence, as opposed to 16 per cent who think we spend too much. There is overwhelming public support for a proper defence effort. This requires the Minister for Defence, as the representative of the Defence Force in Cabinet, to see that the Defence Force gets the appropriate shares so that it can implement the strategy, the equipment program and the personnel requirements which have already been agreed to by the Cabinet. In that respect, Mr Beazley, the Minister for Defence, has conspicuously failed. Faced with these diminishing resources, what has the Minister done? He seems to have a total hang-up on capital projects. Rather like a small boy with electronic toys, he likes playing with them. But he does not recognise that, although an effective defence force needs proper capital projects, it also must have a support structure, high morale and highly trained forces. If one is totally hung up on the things that look good in the shop window, the new defence capital projects, and does not have a proper balance within the Defence Force as a whole, one will finish up with a very unsatisfactory Defence Force. That is what this Minister has failed to do. Senator McMullan —Which of them would you cancel? Senator HAMER —I would not cancel any of them. I would do what this Minister should have been able to do, even in these harsh economic circumstances. He should have been able to persuade his Cabinet colleagues to provide the proper resources for the strategic policy which that Cabinet had already agreed to. In that persuasive task, the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, has totally failed. The result of this hang-up on capital equipment is that we have high wastage of personnel because of what they perceive as poor pay and conditions. If one looks at recent submissions on wastage in the Defence Force made to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, one can see what is happening. I will take just one example. There is a 12.6 per cent wastage a year in the Navy. Under the present system, the Navy is 1,200 people short of the numbers it needs to do the task the Government has assigned to it. Why does the Navy have this very high wastage? When there is high wastage, more people have to be under training and, therefore, the effective force is diminished. This is one of the reasons why the Navy is 1,200 people short. Let us look at the reasons given by the Chief of Naval Staff that have caused people to leave the Navy-and these reasons apply to all of the three Services: a lack of career satisfaction, and I will come back to that in a moment; insufficient remuneration for additional responsibility; reduced job satisfaction, especially for middle management officers who see themselves permanently posted ashore; dissatisfaction with frequent removals; change of schools; lack of career continuity for spouses; pay and allowances which are perceived as falling behind those of the rest of the community; poor defence housing and inadequate home loans; and a perceived overall deterioration of other conditions of service. As usual with the emergency stopgap ways in which the Government seems to approach these things, it produced a system to stop the drain of highly trained Air Force pilots, or pilots in all three Services. An Air Force pilot probably costs about $2m to train to operational standard. Obviously, it is very unsatisfactory for those pilots to be drained off by the others. What has been offered, just to those people, is $70,000 if they stay for another six years. That might keep some of them in, but when looked at for the Defence Force as a whole, why is this sudden increase in pay given to that particular sector of the Defence Force? That sector is no more important in Defence Force terms than people in other sectors who have less negotiable assets in terms of saying they will go somewhere else. They should be used as a criterion of what proper Defence Force pay should be. That is not the approach being adopted by this Government. Senator Newman has been very articulate over recent years in explaining the great difficulties of pay and conditions. She might like to say something more on those subjects later in this debate. Not only are the pay and conditions unsatisfactory, but also there has been a cutback in the reserves, ammunition supplies and exercises being conducted, all of which reduce the career and job satisfaction of Defence Force personnel. It is not surprising that they are leaving the Defence Force in very large numbers, at great cost to the community and at great cost to the efficiency of our Defence Force. I come back to the reason: the Minister for Defence has a hang-up on capital equipment, which is an important part but is only one part of Defence Force efficiency. I do not know why he is hung up in that way. Certainly one of the reasons is that he is not in charge of his Department. He is the ultimate Minister being `Yes Ministered' by what is going on among his subordinates. I do not think that Yes Minister is the right criterion. I think that he is rather more like The Last Emperor. Honourable senators may have seen that recent film where a figurehead emperor presided with great dignity and apparent diligence but, in fact, was not influencing what was going on under him. The problem is that the Minister is not properly supported in a political sense inside his Department. He has a Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) but, without being rude to the Minister, I think that she is more decorative than useful. I do not think that she does much in any way to improve the efficient working of the Defence Department. What the Minister really needs, in my view, is at least three parliamentary secretaries to do the tasks that he cannot do-that is, to go round on the constant visits to defence establishments to get a feedback of what people's feelings and problems are and to look at the supervision of public servants to see that things are not suppressed and concealed from a Minister who is just too busy to deal with all the details of his Department. This Minister-perhaps any Minister, but particularly this Minister-is unable to run the Department of Defence. He cannot do the tasks that need to be done. One of the reasons we will be supporting the Australian Democrats' motion is that this is of his own making. A scathing report, with which I entirely agreed, produced by the former Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the management of Australia's defence, showed that the structure of the Australian Defence Department was radically unsatisfactory. The report was produced in 1975 when we amalgamated the three Australian defence forces into a single department. I agreed with that; I thought that it was right. But the way in which it was done was outrageous. It handed over control effectively to public servants. It subordinated military advice and gave second guessing and a confrontationist approach to the whole question of Defence Force planning. It set up a maze of committees so that decision-making became almost impossible. Years pass while things go round from one to the other. What did the Minister say when he was confronted with that report? Did he say, `I must do something'? No; he said, `I am satisfied with the present structure. I am not going to change'. If he is faced with a report that says very accurately what are the problems with his Department and he ignores the report and does nothing, that Minister must go. We cannot have a department which is so inefficient, so cumbersome and so unresponsive to real defence needs as our present Defence Department. The Greeks had an expression about enemies: `Give mine enemy a golden sword'. A modern version might be: `Give mine enemy an organisation like the Australian Defence Department'. That is what the present Minister for Defence is determined to preserve and protect. There are all sorts of other problems with which I do not have time to deal, such as the way in which the senior ranks of the defence Forces have been grossly overinflated because of this structure which the Minister is determined to preserve. When this single organisation was set up, the public servants gave themselves quasi-military rank. An assistant secretary was said to rate as a one-star officer-a brigadier; a first assistant secretary, a two-star officer-a major-general; a deputy secretary a three-star officer-a lieutenant-general; and so on. Each service had to introduce a commodore, a brigadier, and an air commodore, which was a grotesque inflation of senior ranks. The Navy has 41 people of the rank of commodore and above. The Army has 60 and the Air Force has 41. There are no proper operational jobs for those people. This is causing an incredible distortion of the whole Defence Force. It is all because this Minister refuses to face up to the reality that his Defence Department is wrongly structured and that the professional advice he is getting is not appropriate. In one answer I got, people were referred to as professional civilians-whoever they may be-giving him advice. He must restructure the Defence Department to make it efficient, responsive and working for the interests of the defence of this country. As this Minister refuses to do this, as he refuses to face up to the responsibilities of his job and to get the Department run efficiently, the only solution is to change the Minister. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(3.57) —I will discuss in a minute some of the comments that Senator McLean made when he launched this debate. I am pleased to see that Senator McLean has come out of hiding from the desk under which he crawled when Senator Ray spoke. If ever I saw a senator in here during a debate obviously more profoundly embarrassed than Senator McLean-in fact, I have not seen a senator more profoundly embarrassed than that-it was when Senator Ray pointed out, quite correctly, the gravity of the wording of the motion we are debating today. I had not noted the distinction of the wording of this motion. When I picked it up, I accepted it as being a call for a Minister's resignation-a call for a Minister to end his parliamentary career, his political life-on the grounds that Senator McLean has alleged. But Senator McLean was kind enough, in his final few moments, trying to crawl out from under, to point out that that was not so; he was simply asking the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) to vacate his portfolio, not to resign. That would have to be a classic Australian Democrats motion. Not only was no substance provided for it; the Australian Democrats do not even have enough intestinal fortitude to simply come out and demand a Minister's resignation. They have to put some shyster legal interpretation on the words-that he is not being asked to resign from political life; he is simply being asked to vacate his portfolio. I will get on to Senator McLean's comments in a minute. First of all, I want to comment very briefly on something that Senator Hamer said. I was looking forward with some interest to Senator Hamer's contribution because he had a very distinguished career as a serving officer in the military forces; but I waited in vain. The same arguments were run: the Government does not spend enough money on defence. Senator Hamer referred to a poll that was done. With the greatest of respect to Senator Hamer, he will get precisely the same answer from any public opinion poll on defence that he will get from any public opinion poll on taxation. It does not matter which government is in office, how much money is spent or how little people are taxed. If we ask people out there whether they are paying too much tax they will say, `Yes, we are'. If we ask people out there, from now for the next 20 years, whether Australia is spending enough on defence, they will say, `No, we are not'. They will say that forever. It is not surprising that, with 16 million people spread across 3 1/2 million square miles and with 12,000 miles of coastline to defend, people obviously would not think that enough money is ever being spent on defence. I concur with them on that. It is an enormous responsibility for any defence force to take on to defend this country, with our low population base and our enormous coastline. Indeed, I agree with Senator Hamer when he says that the one thing that the Minister for Defence has done, and has done in a spectacularly successful fashion, in my view, is to develop a cohesive regional defence policy that recognises the strategic nature of our country. In fact, he has done it for the first time. Senator Newman —He cannot get the money for it, can he? Senator COLLINS —Let us get onto that. The honourable senator has said that he cannot get the money for it. Senator Hamer made another sparkling contribution. Senator McMullan interjected when Senator Hamer was speaking and said, `What would you do? Which program would you cut in terms of this criticism of yours that Mr Beazley has a preoccupation with hardware?'. Senator Hamer replied, `I would not cut any programs. I would persuade my colleagues to spend more money'. Senator Hamer is nodding in agreement with that statement. I just have to point out the obvious to Senator Hamer. Senator Hamer did say that he felt Ros Kelly was more decorative than useful-`with the greatest respect', he said. With the greatest respect to Senator Hamer, I point out that before he can persuade his colleagues to spend more money on defence he will have to take that fundamental step and persuade his colleagues to elect him to the Ministry. Before Senator Hamer can take the second step, he has an enormous step to take in achieving even the first. It is a common argument that we do not spend enough money on defence-`We will not scrap any programs that are there now; we will simply spend more money'. However, the problem is that the Opposition has gone on the public record as saying that it will cut government outlays by $11 billion. Just on a conservative estimate, $1 billion at least of that amount will have to come out of defence spending. It is hardly speculation to say that whoever gets the defence portfolio in any future coalition Ministry will not be able to implement these grandiose plans that have been announced. One simply cannot run a government that way. One simply cannot say that the answer to all of the current Government's problems and deficiencies is that it simply does not spend enough money. As far as Senator McLean is concerned, I have a few more problems with the substance of his delivery. Senator McLean himself cut out the final part of his motion as to the reason why Kim Beazley should end his political career. He was kind enough to say that he did not think that being misled by officers, and I think that, if in fact that is demonstrated to be true, it would be a contemptible action on the part of those servicing officers-- Senator McLean —I said I didn't think it was reason enough alone. Senator COLLINS —I am happy to accept that correction. Senator McLean said that he did not think it was reason enough alone for the Minister to step aside. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the major matters are the other two of the three matters mentioned in the motion-low recruitment and wastage of personnel. I sat here for 15 minutes with my pen poised, waiting to take notes of what Senator McLean said about the low recruitment. I waited in vain. I simply did not hear about it. He ignored it. It is no wonder that Senator Ray could find nothing in the Australian Democrats' defence file. Senator McLean —You must not have been listening. I read out two pages of statistics. You did not write them down. Senator COLLINS —I paid careful attention. The Hansard record will demonstrate-and, in fact, the figures I am going to cite will demonstrate far more conclusively-that Senator McLean said nothing about low recruitment. The only mention of low recruitment was in the motion. He talked about wastage. I will give Senator McLean the so-called low recruitment rates. I invite him to disprove them. They are official Department of Defence figures. Let us hear Senator McLean say that they are wrong. They are for 1986-87, the latest figures available. That is why, according to the Australian Democrats, the Minister for Defence should resign. I ask Senator McLean to listen to these figures because they may be instructive. As there is nothing in the Democrats' defence file in the Library, maybe Senator McLean can put these figures in afterwards. These are the recruitment figures for 1986-87. The budgeted figure for the Navy was 2,101. Enlistments were 1,909. That was 192 personnel short of the targeted budget figure this year. For the Army, the targeted budget figure was 4,577; the actual number enlisted was 4,752. This was 175 above the target figure set this year by the Army. For the Royal Australian Air Force the figure was 2,281; the recruitment figure was 2,167. The actual recruitment was 114 short of that figure for this year. Senator McLean —How long do they stay? Senator COLLINS —Before Senator McLean jumps in where angels fear to tread, I can tell him that there is an even better figure available. Senator McLean —You put them in a married quarter and see how long they stay. Senator COLLINS —I can understand Senator McLean's sensitivity on this point. There is an even better figure available. I will give the total recruitment figures for 1986-87. They are down, in terms of the differences, by 131 personnel out of a total of 8,828. That is resignation stuff, indeed! Senator McLean —They will walk out in droves when their kids go to school. Senator COLLINS —I will give Senator McLean an even better measure of how successful or otherwise current recruitment is in the armed forces of Australia. The better figure is the approved terminal strengths, that is, the total strengths of all the forces concerned. Again I will give Senator McLean the latest figures, which are those for 1986-87. For the Navy the total budgeted strength was 15,732. That was the target set by the service. The Navy recruited 15,803. In other words, it recruited 71 personnel above the targeted figure. Senator McLean —How does that tie up with Senator Hamer's figure of 1,200? Senator COLLINS —I will give Senator McLean the figures for the Army. I know Senator McLean realises that he is on a down slope, but I ask him to hang in there because there is a bit more to come. For 1986-87 the targeted recruitment figure for the Army was 32,000 personnel. The actual number recruited was 32,311-311 personnel above the targeted figure. For the Air Force the budgeted figure was 22,797. The actual recruitment figure was 22,647. The recruitment for one service of a total enlistment of 22,797-almost 23,000-was down by 150 personnel. Out of those total defence service figures, and I say again that these are the most reliable figures used by the Defence Department as a measure of success in enlistment-- Senator McLean-Look beyond the day of entry. Senator COLLINS —I can understand why Senator McLean does not want to listen to this. The total target figure was 70,529. The number actually recruited was 70,761-232 above the target figure. It is no wonder Senator McLean did not say too much about half his reason for calling for Mr Beazley's resignation. They are the official figures. I challenge the honourable senator to prove otherwise. Senator Tambling —How many of these recruits are replacing drop-outs? Senator COLLINS —I hope that my colleague the good senator from the Northern Territory has not got the hide to stand up here this afternoon and attack this Government for defence spending because this Government has made the greatest commitment to the Northern Territory, in terms of personnel and money, of any government since Federation. It has made a spectacular commitment of funds. In fact, only a few weeks ago we visited Tindal air base. In terms of total commitment that base is to have $1 billion of public money spent on it by the time it is completed. The 16th Cavalry Regiment is already on its way. In fact, I must say that to the great relief of some private contractors in Darwin they will have a very considerable amount of work on their plates very shortly. Senator Tambling —What is morale like? Senator COLLINS —I challenge Senator Tambling to start bucketing this Government for its defence commitment on the Northern Territory. He will live to eat his words. I would like to get onto Senator McLean again, before he dives back under the desk. He used the same old furphy-`Let us talk about the separation rates'. That is the only thing he talked about. He said that 12 per cent of the total Defence Force had resigned and what a disgrace it was. The problem is that Senator McLean has gone back to that empty folder in the Parliamentary Library. He has simply picked up the figure that was used by the Opposition in the House of Representatives and he has not bothered to analyse it at all. It is a question once again of lies, damned lies and statistics. Senator McLean —You give us your lies, damned lies and statistics. Senator COLLINS —I know that the honourable senator is naturally ignorant. Prepare to be instructed, Senator. Have a look at the analysis of the 12 per cent figure. The honourable senator should do himself a favour. The 12 per cent figure is made up not only of the two major areas of genuine retirements, that is superannuated and non-superannuated retirements, but of people going on maternity leave, anyone leaving the defence forces on unpaid leave for more than three weeks, and cadets, that is, the entire cadet force, young people leaving school and trying to decide whether they want a career in the defence forces and in fact leaving at a rate more than double the expected average rate of people leaving the Services. All of those people, those on maternity leave or unpaid leave over three weeks and cadets, are all included in the 12 per cent figure. I will tell the honourable senator what the real figure is. In the two main categories of separation of full time serving personnel that I mentioned, those that qualify for superannuation and those that do not, those who are eligible for pensions are leaving at the rate of 5.9 per cent. That figure is in fact up by 0.8 per cent on what it used to be. This compares with a 10-year average of 5.1 per cent. So there has been an increase in that area. The figure for those people who are superannuated and who are leaving is even lower than that. A couple of furphies were delivered about rates of separation from the Services that I will not have time to go into now. But I tell the honourable senator to do himself a favour. If he is asking people to resign on the basis of recruitment rates which are in fact more successful than the target figures set by the Services themselves, the honourable senator should eat his words and should withdraw this motion. If he is asking people to resign over a separation rate of 5 per cent, he should do the same. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Zakharov) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(4.12) —This afternoon we have once again heard the same old tired defence from Senator Ray, and I do not intend to give much time or attention to it because we have heard it all before. We have had a more interesting bombast from Senator Collins, but I feel it is only a diversionary tactic once again designed to distract attention from the very reasonable matter of urgency proposed by Senator McLean. I have too much ammunition to use this afternoon to waste time dealing with tired old noises from the Government. I draw your attention, Madam Acting Deputy President, to the fact that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), the subject of this urgency motion, just one month ago, on 22 March, told the Parliament-and I quote him precisely: Those who see the grey suited mandarins of Russell Hill as regiments of Sir Humphreys, should realise that in fact they are some of the toughest and brightest managers in the country. The Minister said those priceless words himself. Those mandarins must be tough and bright because they have clearly been very effective in managing the Minister for Defence. I wonder just who wrote that speech for the puppet that we call the Minister for Defence. Those very same grey suited mandarins, of course. The sad thing is that, as one who was regarded with such high hopes by the Australian Defence Force, what a terrible disappointment Minister Beazley has been. Firstly, for three years he has been interested only in his equipment purchases. I do not intend to labour that point because Senator Hamer has already covered it well. Secondly, either he is in the total control of his grey suited mandarins or, and this could be an alternative we have to speculate on, he is fully prepared to dump the responsibility for his own inadequacy in the laps of those same mandarins. I do not know what it is. We can only speculate. He has been totally unable to find the money to satisfy the requirements of his own White Paper that he so triumphantly brought to this Parliament not very long ago. It is all very well to ask what the Opposition would do about defence spending. We believe that the Minister made claims that he was very quickly quite unable to live up to, and for that he must be condemned. He was very proud to stump the country talking about his White Paper and his commitment of 3 per cent of gross domestic product to defence spending but he has not had success with his Cabinet colleagues or his Party, and quite clearly because so many of them are left wingers who do not seem to want to protect this country. That is one of his problems. He has been very ineffectual in probably the most important way for any Minister to win his battles in Cabinet-for the money. But we find that he has been unable to get honest advice from his own Department as well. We are all aware of the very serious findings of the Auditor-General that were announced last week on the safety of explosives. I think the findings of the Auditor-General have demanded that scapegoats be found. I ask whether the Minister's defence is a conveniently leaked document which allows the blame to fall on his advisers, or whether we should assume that the advisers are either corrupt, inefficient or just plain perverse. The record shows that they have certainly misled Mrs Kelly in the past. From August to October last year Mrs Kelly was coming out with some incredible statements about separation rates. She was saying that the whole issue was being incredibly exaggerated, and she was saying that the separation rates were pretty well due to the fact that people had served 20 years and were going out on pensions, that they were due to an increase in the number of women in the defence forces and that they were due to the Vietnam hump. My goodness me, we have heard it all from her, but we have also, very interestingly, heard it from Deputy Secretary A, when he gave evidence to the Estimates Committee. In fact he is still trying to give us some of that advice. Clearly Minister Kelly has been making speeches to the Parliament and public statements to the media along the lines that I believe show that she also is in control of those same grey suited mandarins. If they can do it to her, no doubt they can do it to Minister Beazley. The Army submission to the joint parliamentary inquiry into wastage rates has given the lie to those claims made by Mrs Kelly and her advisers. I would like to give some evidence of that. Senator Ray was talking about the need for Senator McLean to address the motion. Let us look at how the Minister for Defence has handled his portfolio and what he has presided over. The motion says that he has presided over an enormous decline in morale. The Army submission that I referred to earlier has spelt out the importance of morale to the defence forces, and I would like to quote what it says: It has often been the quality of morale which has been a deciding factor in battle and is a Principle of War. Morale, firepower and manoeuvre combine to form the basis of combat power . . . The consequence of high wastage is a lowering of this important combat power component-morale. The factors which influence morale include leadership, unity of purpose, discipline, sense of belonging, comradeship, mutual confidence, dependants' well-being, job satisfaction, self- esteem, public image, government support, spiritual belief, and comfort and welfare. Those are the things that the Army is telling the Parliament. It goes on to say that the two exit surveys that have been run by the Army indicate that many soldiers are dissatisfied, as we know only too well. I have had so many letters from and interviews with service families and spouses around the country, and they tell me, `The general feeling is that nobody cares, particularly the Government' or, `I believe it is important to add my voice to the very few who are trying to tell the Australian public how depressed serving members are, and how resigned or angry their families have become' or, `As parents we are most concerned at the low morale developed following a period of high expectation and dedication on enlistment. Surely it is time someone stood for these people and made life a little more bearable for them.' What has the Minister for Defence been doing, for goodness sake? Senator Bolkus —What do you suggest? Senator NEWMAN —He should show some leadership, but perhaps Senator Bolkus would not understand that. He has also presided over high and ever increasing wastage of Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel. A lot of evidence has already been given to the parliamentary inquiry. I am going to have great difficulty in finding time to give some of the information that I would like to give to the Senate today. The regular Army has turned over approximately 10,000 soldiers and approximately 1,200 officers from an authorised strength of about 32,000, just in the two financial years since July 1985, all during the present Minister's period of responsibility. The Army says that this increased wastage is causing concern, primarily because of its deleterious effect on Army capability, dilution of skill and experience, as well as administrative and training costs. Unless brought under control in the near future, it will have long term effects on the viability of the Army component of the Australian Defence Force. The Army points out that there is a finite limit to action beyond which efficiency falls and wastage increases. It says that the Army is close to or even past this limit now. It is terribly serious. Senator McLean —Is this senior officers talking about themselves? Senator NEWMAN —This is the Army's official submission to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiring into separation rates-the very submission, like the Royal Australian Navy submission, that the Minister and his office tried to get withheld from the Committee. The Army says that the wastage rate has had, and will continue to have, adverse effects on operational capabilities, officer manning, soldier manning, experience levels, morale, recruiting costs, training costs and administrative costs. There is an enormous number of categories that we are losing and that we should be aware of. The Government has given great attention to pilots, as if that covers the whole area. Sadly, by concentrating only on the pilots, it is ignoring the great areas of engineering, computers and communications experts in the three Services. It is just as serious that we are losing people in those areas as it is that we are losing pilots. It is much more serious, in fact, because of the long lead time in training their replacements. The Navy has a shortage in principal warfare officers, weapons, electrical and marine engineers and seaman commanders. The very people who are needed to operate and maintain the expensive equipment that Minister Beazley has been so proud of are the ones who are resigning. That is what the Minister has presided over. Of course, as we have already said, he is also unable to control his departmental officers. I received a letter from Minister Beazley the other day, in which he said: . . . the current strategic situation does not require the whole of the 1st Division to be at a high level of operational readiness to deploy at short notice. The Two Battalion 3rd Brigade can be deployed quickly and be sustained for at least six months and probably indefinitely on low level operations. But the Army says: The ODF, despite its manning priority cannot be protected from the effects of wastage. It is presently marginally under strength because the training system cannot replace wastage fast enough. The ODF Logistic Support Group can only be deployed at full strength by redeploying shadow posted personnel from lower priority units. So the Minister is getting briefed by the civilians in the Department of Defence and the Army tells a different story. The Minister does not know what is the truth. The Navy talks about the Hamilton Review of the Effect of Service Life on Spouses. It says: First published in April 1986, not one of the financial conditions recommended was implemented until 15 January, 1988. And here is the interesting bit: This was not for want of trying by the Services, but it was not until the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, acting in a new portfolio, brought pressure to bear that any progress was made. Departmental officers from the departments of Defence, Finance and Industrial Relations all managed to deal with Minister Beazley-and they are doing a pretty good job now in continuing the pressure on Minister Kelly. They are captives of the Public Service. It is charitable, I think, even to say that they are trying. Minister Beazley has also lost the confidence of the ADF. The Army submission says that a large number of older officers reported that they left the Army because they did not trust the Government to keep their pension entitlements intact. They are taking their commutation as soon as they become entitled to it despite there not being better jobs to go to outside the Army and despite a 3 per cent penalty per annum if they leave prior to their notional retirement age. That is how much they trust this Minister and his Government. My visits around Australia confirm that there is a very real lack of confidence in this Government and the Minister that they had such high hopes for. The disappointment is from their families, because of what has happening to them and because of the lack of action they have seen from Minister Beazley over all the time he has been Minister. The Parliament has censured the Minister; the public does not have confidence that he has provided it with a defence force that is adequate. I am interested that Senator Collins does not seem to worry about that poll about Australians. I will leave it to my colleague Senator Tambling to tell him just what the grassroots in the Northern Territory think about his Government's protection in the area of defence. The Minister has precipitated an unprecedented crisis in Australia's defence capacity. The Army says that its training establishments have been able to cope with the increased throughput necessary to replace soldier wastage but it has been done at the expense of operational priorities. Long term vacancies are affecting its efficiency and capability. I could go on and on about the number of people it is short of. The Navy says the same thing in its submission to the inquiry. This problem is affecting, among other things, the achievement of acceptable weapons practice standards. It adds to the likelihood of increased numbers of groundings, collisions and accidents at sea. The trend has gradually worsened. These are serious statements and must be taken very seriously. The Minister for Defence should have known about the urgency of the explosives problem. It is no good his trying to hide behind grey flannel suits. He is a puppet of his Department or he is misleading us. Either way, the ADF, the Parliament and the people deserve better. Puppets should stay in the toy box where they belong. We need a Minister for Defence who knows what is going on, who cares about his troops and who controls his Department. He has failed and he must go. Senator McMULLAN(Australian Capital Territory)(4.27) —This is a very tawdry and sad little motion; and we have had some very pathetic contributions to what is a cavalier call in some way to try to justify the case that the person who has been widely regarded-and I will read some interesting quotes about that in a moment-as perhaps the best Minister for Defence that Australia has had since the Second World War, should stand aside. I will quote some people who would not be called the Australian Labor Party's traditional base or natural constituency. Here are some of the statements they have made about this Defence Minister. In Autumn 1987, the national journal of the Australian Defence Association was giving praise to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the Government for throwing off the shackles of the last 15 years. It was talking about a defence strategy that `represents a victory for commonsense and maturity' and having Australia represented by a government `which has given security issues a relatively high priority', recognising the importance of those defence issues. Sir William Keys, in the last election, told people not to listen to what the Liberal Party says. He said a Liberal government would have to change its defence policies and adopt the programs already begun by the Hawke Government. The Canberra Times-which is of particular significance to me and I do not want to underestimate its importance-said, during the last election: The Government has embarked on the greatest program of re-equipment of the armed forces ever undertaken in peacetime . . . The endorsement of the re-equipment program . . . by the national president of the Returned Services League, Sir William Keys, was powerful ammunition for the Government . . . Many will match the Government's performance to date with that of earlier governments which were long on rhetoric but short on performance. The bleak reality for the Opposition is that so far the Hawke Government has performed a great deal better in the defence area than most of its predecessors in peacetime. This is about the Defence Minister, whose conduct of his portfolio in some way is supposed to mean that he should stand aside, that his political career should be torn up because he is not a success. He is the most successful Defence Minister that Australia has had. We try to understand how this very cavalier call could come about. It is coming from the Australian Dem- ocrats. It is comprehensible when we analyse it politically. It is a typical Australian Democrats proposal. It is breathless and belated and it is made in the frantic search for a constituency that they think might be out there-to add another half per cent to their pathetic little vote. The issue they start to speak about is one that everybody else-even the Opposition, to its credit, as well as the Government-has been talking about for three years. The Democrats are breathlessly discovering that there might be a few thousand votes out there. A couple of people in New South Wales have said, `Perhaps we will vote for you, Senator McLean; why don't you come and make a speech about defence?'. So, he decided that he would just make the speech that his predecessors had made. However, he went to the library and the cupboard was bare, so he came here and made a speech. But the next person who goes there will find that the cupboard is still bare, as Senator McLean had nothing to say. There was no coherent overview of Australia's defence forces whatsoever. How can there be? People who have no pretension to government can just cobble together a series of unrelated policy and finance commitments-all care and no responsibility. They say, `Here we are, we will provide more expenditure here, less tax there, and we will try to reduce the deficit as well'. I shall refer further to the Opposition's lack of a coherent overview in a moment. Basically, it is a very sad and inadequate motion. Even in relation to the matters that it attempts to address in regard to the serious problems of defence personnel, which have developed over a long time and which no one can pretend do not exist, it fails to acknowledge-- Senator Newman —It is not pretending. Senator McMULLAN —What the Minister said, quite accurately, was that this is the first government that has begun to address the serious problems in relation to housing and education and the adjustment problems of defence personnel. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) has never said that defence personnel do not have problems. She has said that the Government is going to start to address them. In relation to what the Government has begun to do in this regard, I refer first to the area of housing. The Hamilton report of the Review of Effect of Service Life on Spouses quite clearly stated that there was a problem and that measures to address it were under way. They certainly are. A Defence Housing Authority has been set up. That, itself, will not build any houses-- Senator McLean —Fifty per cent of the houses are condemned. Senator McMULLAN —That is right; that is exactly why the Government has pledged $750m over the next seven to 10 years for acquisition. Senator Newman —It will not do the job at all; it's not nearly enough. Senator McMULLAN —I would love to talk about the calls for increased defence expenditure made by the Opposition; I will have the time to do that and I will return to that matter in a moment. However, some $750m will be spent over the next 10 years. Of course, the Opposition maintains that it would spend a lot more if it was in government. In fact, the Government has exceeded that promise so far. Some $73m was provided for capital expenditure and an additional $46m has since been given to the Defence Housing Authority-$10m for essential improvements and $36m for spot purchasing of houses. So, $119m has been committed to improve defence housing this financial year. It may be that the Opposition would like $4,000m or $75,000m-perhaps we could go and buy Paradis sur Mer and put a few defence personnel in there! That is a pretty good idea! But, realistically, no-one has ever made that sort of commitment before. Yet, it is claimed that the Minister for Defence who is responsible, should step aside. What positive points have the Australian Democrats made? They criticised the Government for 14 3/4 minutes, or whatever it was, and in the last 30 seconds they were a little bit embarrassed, and Senator Newman correctly said-- Senator McLean —No embarrassment at all. Senator McMULLAN —Well, the honourable senator should have been embarrassed; if he was not, it is to his eternal discredit. The Government may well ask the Democrats what their positive proposals are. The honourable senator's proposal to improve the morale of the Defence Force was to switch the emphasis to civil defence. I can see the pilots flocking back in droves. I can well hear the pilots who are leaving saying, `I won't go to Qantas, this is a wonderful suggestion; perhaps I could be involved in civil defence; I would not dream of going to Qantas with such a boost in morale'. Senator McLean —What about buying some C-124s and surveying our north coast? Senator McMULLAN —The honourable senator is now saying that the Defence Force should take over coastal surveillance. What a silly suggestion. Senator McLean —It's a sensible suggestion and it has been put to the Joint Committee. Senator McMULLAN —I have heard a lot of suggestions put to the Joint Committee. I am very pleased that Senator Newman and Senator Hamer are not responsible for our industrial relations. They took the defence and Navy submissions, but they cannot tell the difference between an ambit claim and a proposal. If they were Ministers for industrial relations, I would love to be a union official, as they would accede to all the ambit claims. I would love to go on about that matter some more but, essentially, my responsibility here today is to speak to the substance of this matter concerning Minister Beazley's role as Minister for Defence. After all, the motion calls for the removal of the Minister for Defence from his portfolio. Let us consider the defence developments that have occurred in Australia since Minister Beazley became the Minister for Defence. He commissioned the Dibb report. That does not take us very far; people run around calling for inquiries all the time. The Democrats love them; they belong to the party for mirrors-they keep going around and looking into things. But they do not actually want to do anything. So, we had the Dibb report; a good report, but that is all it was. The Government then built on that, and we had the defence White Paper, based, as Senator Robert Ray said, on the important, coherent and strategic concepts of self-reliance and defence in depth. It is not just an academic treatise, like White Papers have been in the past. The recommendations are actually being implemented. On 22 March this year we were given the Minister's statement on the implementation of recommendations. As Senator Collins correctly said, we are now moving towards northern defence, with the second cavalry regiment due to be transferred to Darwin, and the two-ocean Navy concept is finally being developed. When I was State Secretary of the Labor Party in Western Australia, every three years the two-ocean concept would be raised. Mr Killen and Mr Fraser would come over, would meet with Sir Charles Court and would announce the upgrading of HMAS Stirling. Nothing would happen and three years later they would come back and announce it again. They would use exactly the same Press release. They would dust it off, cut off the faded edges of the paper and release the same Press release again. So, when this was announced by Minister Beazley I am sure that everyone could hear the guffaws, because people had heard it all before. However, if one goes to HMAS Stirling now one finds that there are destroyers based there and that submarines are based there. Half the Navy will be based in the Indian Ocean. Somebody has finally realised that a substantial part of Australia's coast is lapped by the Indian Ocean, that we are not just a Pacific Ocean country. With that we have a coordinated response with both the purchase of capital and with personnel. I was fascinated to hear Senator Hamer's proposal concerning excessive emphasis on capital. I refer to the Defence White Paper of Minister Killen in 1976 which said that the then Government would restrict expenditure on personnel and concentrate on capital equipment. That was the great White Paper proposal of the Liberal Minister for Defence. The only thing one can say is that, like the Liberals' wages policy, it failed. In 1980, in absolute chaos, the former Minister had to come into the Parliament and say that the proposal had been scrapped, that there had been a proposal in its White Paper to restrict expenditure on personnel and concentrate it on equipment but that now they had had to scuttle all the way back and abandon all the capital proposals and start to give some money to the poor old workers in the Defence Force. Thus, the previous Government scuttled all the way in one direction in 1976 and then it dropped that and scuttled all the way back in 1980. Where were the Democrats then, calling for Minister Killen to resign? They were as silent as the grave. Now, when we have the first person who is actually to coordinate a program dealing with capital and personnel, suddenly the Democrats come out and try to fill that empty file in the library. Thus, we finally have that coordinated and comprehensive list of capital developments, together with the personnel improvements that are being made for the Australian Defence Force, so that for the first time we can have a coordinated program. At least Senator Hamer had the courtesy to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Government's strategy. He said that he had been proposing it to Liberal governments for years but that they had ignored it. Minister Beazley is the first Minister to have realised the sensible and necessary strategy for Australia's defence. However, Senator McLean shamefacedly had to pretend that he thought it was a good idea for the Minister to step down. But I notice that he did not suggest that he thought it was a good idea for the honourable member for McPherson, Mr White, to be put into the shadow Cabinet-that poor excuse for a shadow Defence Minister, of whom Mr Howard thinks so little that he will not put him in the shadow Cabinet. It is the first time in living memory that a defence spokesman from any party has not been in the Cabinet or shadow Cabinet. We can understand why, when we hear what the member for McPherson says. I would not want him on any advisory committee of the local football club. However, I suppose that that is why he cannot cope with the contradiction between what he says about defence and what Senator Newman and Senator Hamer have said about defence-and about what I suppose poor old Senator Tambling will have to say about defence as well. In relation to their economic policy, I notice that Senator Stone, quite sensibly, has not come into the chamber. He and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) are saying that they would cut $11 billion out of government spending. They have this awful black hole in their economic policy. They cannot work out where the $11 billion will come from; they cannot raise it by consumption tax. Senator Newman believes that $750m is not enough to spend on defence housing. Senator Hamer says that nothing in the capital equipment program should be cut back; we should just spend more money. So perhaps we should cut $12 billion out of social welfare in order to get some more money to spend on defence housing, personnel and recruitment. The arithmetic does not add up. They have always had a black hole in their economic policy. It is now showing up as the black hole in their defence policy. The longer the term of this Government goes and the closer we get to the election, that black hole in the Opposition's expenditure policy will show up in every area as Opposition members say, `Spend more money here, but cut taxes there'. They have a typical opinion poll-driven policy. They want to spend more money, have less tax and lower the deficit. It does not add up; it can never add up. Senator Maguire —What about their communications policy? Senator McMULLAN —That does not exist, so it certainly does not add up. They cannot tell the difference between nought, 25, 43, 60 and 100. That is about the same as their expenditure policy in defence. It does not and cannot add up. That is why they cannot get a coherent strategic position, because one cannot analyse defence implementation outside an economic and social context. They have to say that Minister Beazley has delivered the best defence strategy-even Senator Hamer had to admit that. He has been the first Minister to address the serious problems for Defence Force personnel in housing, education and adjustment. We have only just started; there is a long way to go. To say that the first Minister to get the strategy right, the first Minister to start to put the capital implementation program into operation, the first Minister to address these personnel problems should step aside is a sad scandal. One would think that this was April Fool's Day if one had not looked at the calendar. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(4.42) —The urgency motion before us today is weak in only one respect, and that is that Senator McLean has called only for a change in status for the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). He should have coupled the name of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly). We have been let down very dramatically by both Ministers, Minister Beazley and Minister Kelly, neither of whom has faced up to his or her responsibilities. We have listened to a debate in this chamber today which indicates the concern of a lot of people for defence. Senator McMullan asked about the qualifications of senators on this side of the House to speak in this debate. Senator McLean, representing the Australian Democrats, was an Army major, which gives him certain qualifications to speak. Senator Newman is married to a former Minister in the Fraser Government and a former lieutenant-colonel. Senator Hamer, who spoke earlier, is a retired Navy captain. I am the only speaker on this side who has not been a member of the defence forces, but I certainly take a very keen interest in that area and I am currently a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. By comparison, the three Labor right wing stooges that were put up today were a schoolteacher, an agricultural technical officer and a party administrator-certainly all of them heavies, not just in the weight factor but also in the Labor Party's muscle machine. But they have not been able to convince the Senate that we are wrong in seeking to address the decline in morale, the problems of recruitment, the high wastage and the inability to control senior departmental officers. What are we talking about? We are talking about people, the people of the defence forces, and their relationship to their Minister or Ministers. That is where the inadequacy lies. Senator Collins made play of the fact that there is a large amount of defence expenditure in the north of Australia. I can identify with that, but also I can identify with my constituents in the Northern Territory electorate, the members of the defence forces who share all the concerns about morale, their services, their conditions, job satisfaction, families and the relations with Russell Offices, the departmental officers and their Minister. Certainly they share all those concerns, which have culminated today in the need for this urgency motion. The Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, has totally ignored the executive authority that he has to show in his portfolio. As Senator McLean said earlier, that resulted in a serious report by the Joint Committee in December last year, and all that work was public and taking place throughout 1987. Some of the recommendations of that report into the senior management of the defence forces were most important. It recommended a review of the organisational arrangements between the Minister and the Department. It stressed the insufficient political control and the need for increased political participation and involvement in defence decision making. It brought out the fact that there was need for an additional Minister or Ministers and that the terms of reference of the Defence Council should be broadened so that the Minister himself should be more involved with detailed supervision, because of the size and complexity of the Australian defence forces. A number of recommendations related to Government involvement and the fact that the Minister himself should chair the Defence Force Development Committee, which is crucial. None of that has happened. There has been no report to this Parliament. The Minister has had sufficient time and plenty of warning and notice to respond to all those issues, but he has not done so. Basically servicemen are conservative and loyal and demonstrate a very high degree of tolerance and dedication. But when one reaches the point that their frustration spills over, when issues such as this have to be raised in Parliament on their behalf, with Labor Party members sitting back and scoffing, I believe it is an insult to the service personnel of Australia. How do we underpin their involvement, their careers, their jobs and their strong belief that what they enlisted for and the jobs they took on resulted from the fact that people cared about the Services and about the constitutional arrangements that their particular jobs gave them? Service personnel are involved in a peculiar career, one that exercises all the defence and security roles and all the rest of it. It is arrant nonsense for Ministers and for the Labor Party to argue in this place that these people do not feel that they can belong to their jobs adequately at present or that they are getting sufficient support. Their morale is constantly under threat. How do they perceive themselves? How can they be sure that they are not just living the life of a public servant, with all the attendant comforts and normal life and rights that public servants enjoy? There is something that is a bit extra and a bit more special in the defence forces. There is a widespread malaise which can be corrected only through positive, unequivocal demonstration of the need for servicemen. Those needs are demonstrated in inducements, irrespective of the economic fundamentals, through an arbitration set of principles and through other criteria which will bind the Australian defence forces to the community at large. The thorny problems which have to be faced up to certainly attract publicity, but they are not attracting action, policies or responses from a Labor government at this time. This is what is now taking to the boundary points the tolerance levels of the personnel who are employed in those areas. As I mentioned earlier, I am a member of the subcommittee that is looking into personnel wastage in the Australian defence forces. Over 200 submissions have already been given to that parliamentary inquiry. The number of submissions that are coming in will probably break the records. By far the largest majority are coming in from all ranks throughout the Services and from their wives and families. Let me take the time of the Senate to give a few quotations from some of the submissions. The first is from a submission by Lieutenant-General O'Donnell, the Chief of the General Staff: The current high wastage in the Army is of major concern to my Senior Commanders and myself and- I stress this- has the potential to pose significant long-term consequences for national defence. There is a need to take immediate action to reduce wastage and to investigate and implement long-term strategies to keep wastage at manageable levels. That is in the general's particular submission to the inquiry. The Navy submission states: Navy has argued consistently [that its Authorised Average Strength] is too few, despite having made significant structural changes in order to reduce its manpower requirements . . . Navy needs 1200 more people across the FYDP [five year defence program] or will have to stop some major activity in order to accommodate the capital equipment program. This forms the background to the wastage problem. So the Army and the Navy point out in their official submissions that things are at breaking point and stress point. I refer now to individuals who have made submissions. An Army lieutenant-colonel states: I am finding it increasingly difficult to persuade myself and my subordinates that the profession of arms is a worthwhile career. Another Army colonel states: My major contention is that officers and, to an extent, soldiers in the ADF are suffering from a morale problem. Members of an Army unit state: Leadership at all levels from Minister and general level to corporal level is an area of strong dissatisfaction among soldiers. Retired Major-General K. J. Taylor states: The present [high wastage] situation is mainly due to [first] the abrogation by successive governments of their responsibility to the personnel in the Services [and secondly] the stultifying and delaying effects of the bureaucracy of the Defence Dept and the ADF in Canberra. Dr Jans, a lecturer at the Canberra College of Advanced Education and a former Army psychologist, bases his statement on Navy morale and a rigorous survey; it is not merely assertion. Dr Jans states: Navy officers now believe that their service is less effective than it was in 1984 . . . A comparison with Public Service executives shows that the organisational commitment of Navy officers is not very much higher than those of the civilian group . . . given the proud traditions of the Royal Australian Navy, and the very intense professional socialisation of early career experience in the services, compared with those of the unnamed civilian organisation, these comparative data do appear to indicate cause for concern, if not alarm. We would expect-indeed, service chiefs would require-service morale to be skewed markedly to the high end of any measure. Instead, they are normally distributed. Dozens of similar statements are being submitted to the inquiry. Senator Collins mentioned recruitment figures as if they were on a score sheet and something to be proud of. Recruitment is necessary at such high levels only because of the wastage problem at the other end. Personnel are going out all the time-- Senator Collins —How are you going to fix it? You have three minutes. Senator TAMBLING —Many of the submissions presented to the committee address this area. The Minister for Defence has the responsibility to fix it, and it is his responsibility to address specifically a number of conditions of service, particularly areas such as housing, lifestyle and family; and he must attend to those areas that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) has highlighted time and again as not having been addressed. It might be preschooling or education allowances. What about the social and family disruption? Obviously Senator Collins does not want to put up cash to correct problems in these areas. They include conditions of service, pay, allowances and postings but most of all it is a question of job satisfaction. I think probably one of the most telling quotes of all in the submissions to the current inquiry is that from the Consultative Group of Defence Spouses, which states: If the serving member feels highly satisfied with his work environment he is more likely to remain with the Defence Force in spite of the sacrifices that must be made. When he experiences little personal achievement and job satisfaction he looks for job opportunities in other areas of Defence. However, when they are faced with a husband who comes home dissatisfied with his job or over-tired or severely stressed because he is undertaking additional duties due to fewer personnel or increased service demands they ask the question: Why are we continuing to put up with this? The Minister must bear the responsibility for the seriousness of the problem. Senator McLean's motion today points out the urgency of this problem. There can be no denying that morale is low and that it needs to be addressed. There are recruitment problems in attracting the right type of people to the right sorts of places and ensuring that the wastage problem is not merely the hole in the bottom of the bucket with recruitment going in through the top. The Minister is unable to control departmental advisers to himself and to the ADF. He has been totally derelict in not being able to supervise and demand a standard of satisfaction that instils in people in the defence forces and the general community of Australia the necessary standards that are so vital. I commend Senator McLean's motion. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(4.57) —in reply-In the few minutes remaining I will respond to some of the observations made by Government senators. I was rather looking forward to the time when the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) became Minister for Defence, and hoped that perhaps it would be relatively soon. However, my opinion changed a little this afternoon. The Minister began by saying that he went to the Parliamentary Library looking for the Australian Democrats' defence policy but the file was empty, so he jumped to the conclusion that there was no policy instead of concluding that someone had borrowed it to read it. It struck me that the Minister hardly came to the obvious conclusion. I point out that there is a Democrat defence policy. It was our first policy and it has existed for 10 years. It was on file in the Library but obviously someone has borrowed it to read it. The fact that the Minister was not able to arrive at that conclusion is a little alarming. The Minister then concluded, wrongly, that because we Democrats are anti-nuclear we are anti-defence. The Minister was unable to make the distinction that it is possible to be anti-nuclear and at the same time pro-defence. In fact, we are very pro-defence. If the Minister looks at our defence policy he will gain the impression that we are vitally concerned with the defence of this nation. The fact that I have moved this motion today is indicative of the fact that we are vitally concerned with the defence of this nation. I was not impressed by the Minister's logic because within two minutes he revealed two illogical and gross flaws. He then asked about the alternative models that I have offered. Obviously the Minister has not read anything that I have said about defence. In my maiden speech I addressed the whole question of defence models and on about five occasions I have attempted to build upon a number of simple propositions which hopefully he as the representative of the Minister for Defence might hear. He may even refer them to the Caucus room and offer them as constructive suggestions to get the Minister for Defence on the right track. I think that honourable senators opposite were oversensitive about criticism of the Minister for Defence. Quite obviously this motion will be carried this afternoon but the Minister will not resign-it is just a kick in the tail. He should do his job a little better, alerted and better informed as a result of this exercise; so there is no need to become emotionally stressed about it. I stood here and quoted statistic after statistic-in fact, two pages of them-and Senator Collins sat with his pen poised but did not write anything down, but I am not surprised because he had his own biased set of figures in front of him. Senator Collins then stood up and interpreted the figures at the point of entry. Everything that we have been saying is about how people react once they get into the Services. Senator Collins —Biased figures from the Director-General of Recruiting? Senator McLEAN —Senator Collins is missing the point. I am talking about how people react once they get into the defence forces, but Senator Collins is telling us about the recruitment figures. I have heard Senator Hamer tell us that the Navy is 1,200 short; I have heard Senator Newman quote from the most senior members of the Australian Defence Force. I have heard Senator Collins's figures and I have my own here. So we are all confused. However, we are not the slightest bit confused about the state of morale in the defence forces. Senator Tambling read out one opinion after another, coming directly from serving members of the Australian Defence Force about their personal morale and their own circumstances. Senator Newman has told us what senior officers think about it. The news is bad yet the Government is trying to convince us that it is good. The news of the defence forces in this nation is appalling. We are simply delivering the message to the Minister for Defence to get his act together. This is the final message that he should get from this whole exercise. Having read the summary of the Auditor-General's report-and the last four pages are enough-I can tell honourable senators that that summary is absolutely decimating of the level of information and control that this Minister has over his Department. The report relates to only one dimension of his Department. It is absolutely castigating and it happens to be the event of the last two or three days. I am talking about his performance over the last two or three years. This is the most damning report that a Minister could be confronted with. Senator Collins —Really? Senator McLEAN —Yes. The Minister has been utterly snowed by his Department. I shudder to think what the realities might be in other dimensions of his administration. He has been snowed by the senior officers of his Department. I wonder how the United States has snowed him over the question of the bases? I wonder how he has been snowed time and again over questions of defence contracts? Frankly, I have no confidence when I look at one dimension of his Department. In the final analysis, he has had a kick in the tail in this place this afternoon. I hope he gets on with the job because he is being paid big money to get on with it. We are told by Senator McMullan that he is so competent, so presumably he will take on board the observations that have been made and proceed-- Senator Collins —You do not want him to resign now? Senator McLEAN —Yes. I think that would be the best thing that could happen. The fact is that there has been placed before the Parliament and the public a document which suggests recent inadequacy. We cite inadequacy over a period of three years. We are calling for the Minister's resignation. We do not believe that that is unjust or that it will be the final outcome of this exercise, but we believe that it is an appropriate and responsible measure for us to take as a result of seeing what has happened in the last few days and watching his performance over the last three years. I thank the Opposition for its support in this urgency motion because it is indeed a matter of grave urgency. I commend the motion to the Senate. Question put: That the motion (Senator McLean's) be agreed to The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. McLean, P. A.Baume, Michael Macklin, M. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bishop, B. K. Newman, J. M.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Panizza, J. H.Brownhill, D. G. C. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Powell, J. F.Chaney, F. M. Puplick, C. J. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Reid, M. E.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Haines, J. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Hill, R. M. Walters, M. S.Jenkins, J. A. Watson, J. O. W.Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. G. Gietzelt, A. T.Beahan, M. E. Giles, P. J.Black, J. R. McMullan, R. F.Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Burns, B. R. Morris, J. J.Childs, B. K. Ray, RobertCoates, J. Reynolds, M.Collins, R. L. Richardson, G. F.Colston, M. A. Schacht, C. C.Cook, P. F. S. Sibraa, K. W.Cooney, B. C. Tate, M. C.Devereux, J. R. Walsh, P. A.Devlin, A. R. Zakharov, A. O. MacGibbon, D. J. Foreman, D. J.Sheil, G. McKiernan, J. P.Short, J. R. Jones, G. N.Parer, W. R. Crowley, R. A.Knowles, S. C. Evans, GarethBoswell, R. L. D. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate to this Bill. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.11) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Over the last two years this Labor Government has embarked on a program of major improvements in the quality of administration and decision-making in the Social Security portfolio. This programme has dual objectives: To ensure that every Australian resident obtains adequate income support as and when it is needed; to protect the revenue by ensuring that payments are not directed to those who do not require them. This program has involved major legislative change and significant new administrative arrangements. There is no area which more fundamentally shows the difference in approach between this Labor Government and the conservative Opposition. Our approach has been, as Professor Fred Gruen recently noted to `square the circle'. We have substantially increased the real level of pensions, benefit and allowances while reducing the level of social security expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product. We have done this through close attention to the detail of the administration of each program to maximise the accuracy of social security decision-making. When in Government the conservatives proved themselves incapable of this form of development. In Opposition the conservatives have confirmed their approach. They would reduce social security expenditure-but how would they do it? They would do it by wholesale cutting of programs-by denying help to those who need it: They would terminate eligibility for sole parent pensions when the youngest child turns 10; they would make people who resign a job wait for 6 months before paying any benefit; they would not pay benefit to people who are sacked for lengthy periods, not until their redundancy payments are exhausted. These measures are exactly the sorts of steps this Labor Government will not take. We will continue to improve the standard of living of all those residents of Australia who cannot adequately support themselves. We will do this, while protecting the taxpayers of the country from excessive burdens by close, hard, detailed examination of social security program and administration. This Bill is a further step in our program of improving the quality of administration and decision making in the Social Security system. Last year this Labor Government introduced family allowance supplement as part of its attack on child poverty. Under this Bill the administration of the family allowance supplement will be improved by refinements to the treatment of lump sums under the income test. People who take leave from employment and are paid in a lump sum rather than during the period of leave will have their payments spread over the period of leave. At present family allowance supplement may be forfeited if the lump sum is treated as income within the period of receipt. This disadvantages those who receive leave payments in a lump sum compared with those whose leave payments are staggered by their employers. Lump sum education payments will also be spread over the period to which they relate. A measure will be introduced to protect student parents who, in 1988, were not aware of their family allowance supplement entitlements until they received education payments. As the education payments may be made in respect of an earlier period, family allowance supplement will be payable to cover this earlier period of entitlement. To obtain these arrears of family allowance supplement the student parents must claim family allowance supplement within 6 weeks of receipt of the education payments. Improvements will also be made to the parental income test on the job search allowance. The year of parental income that is tested will be moved forward to the year ending in the month of June in the previous financial year rather than the month of June in the previous calendar year. This will assist in ensuring that the level of payment is more closely aligned to real need. Where a parent is a social security recipient the parental income test will not apply. This Bill contains measures to improve the administration and integrity of compensation recovery provisions. Where a person receives personal injury compensation that makes up for lost income the Social Security Act provides that pension or benefit may be reduced or recovered. This is one way in which social security expenditures are directed to those most in need. Settlements of lump sum compensation particularly in the workers compensation jurisdiction are being manipulated to obscure the economic loss component and to avoid recovery of social security payments. To prevent this abuse I announced on 8 February 1988 that, for future personal injury settlements made by agreement or by consent order, 50 per cent of lump sum compensation will be deemed to be in respect of economic loss. This Bill gives effect to that proposal. Where, on the other hand, a court has made an order after a contested hearing specifying the economic loss component, the Secretary to the Department will continue to have regard to the characterisation given to the award by the court. To improve consistency in the treatment of income of social security recipients the Bill proposes to exempt German restitution payments from the definition of income under the Act. This will ensure that payments from West Germany made by way of compensation for nazi persecution are not treated as income. Only those payments expressly paid for lost income will continue to count as income. The rules preventing payment of arrears of sickness benefit to those who have failed to lodge their claim within the necessary time limits will be modified to accommodate those whose incapacity has prevented them from lodging their claim in time. Up to four weeks arrears from the date of claim will be payable in such cases. This will ensure that the very ill have access to four weeks arrears just as those who are able to claim shortly after the date of their incapacity. In recognition of the care required by a disabled child who attracts child disability allowance, a sole parent will not lose his or her entitlement to sole parent's pension when that child turns 16 years of age. Other measures contained in this Bill clarify provisions in the Social Security Act or close gaps remaining from amendments enacted last year. Assets limits for married beneficiaries under the benefits assets test have been clarified. Previously the benefits assets test for a married beneficiary was linked to the pensions assets test. Where only one spouse was in receipt of benefit but claimed additional benefit for a dependent spouse this resulted in a limit that was half the combined married limit. The assets limits in these cases will now be twice the sum available to each individual spouse under the pensions assets test. The residence requirements for children who attract additional pension and benefit for their parents have been adjusted to reflect the particular residential status of special beneficiaries and non-Australian residents with portable pensions. Sickness beneficiaries or their spouses who temporarily leave Australia, for example to seek medical treatment abroad, will be permitted to continue to receive sickness benefit or to attract additional benefit for up to three months of their absence. Finally, to complement the introduction of supported employment services under the Disability Service Act 1986, Sheltered Employment Allowance will be available to disabled people who are employed in these services. The Social Security Act is amended regularly in the interests of good administrative practice and to improve the efficiency of the services provided to clients. The Bill will ensure that these aims continue to be served. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Tambling) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The main purpose of this Bill is to establish the Civil Aviation Authority. The Government's decision to proceed with establishment of a Civil Aviation Authority was announced in my statement to the Parliament on 7 October 1987. I indicated at that time that it was hoped to see the Authority operational within 12 months or so, after appropriate consultation on implementation details and parliamentary approval of the enabling legislation. A commencement date for the Authority of 1 July 1988 has been adopted for planning purposes. The proposed Authority will have operational responsibilities for air traffic control, flight advisory services, communications, navigation and surveillance systems, and rescue and fire fighting services at airports. The Authority will provide an aeronautical information service and will offer consultancy and management services in its fields of expertise. It will also be responsible for organising aviation search and rescue services. It is the Government's view in the light of experience, that these functions would now be better performed through a statutory authority than by a department of state as in the past. It has been the policy of successive governments that the costs of services provided in support of the conduct of civil aviation operations should be recovered from the aviation industry. Given this policy, the body providing these services should be so structured as to make it adequately responsive to the industry's requirements and to industry's capacity and willingness to meet associated costs. Growth in both the volume and complexity of air traffic in recent years places increased demand on the air traffic services system in Australia. At the same time there is a need to reduce national transport infrastructure costs through increased productivity. Advances in technology, particularly in the communications field, offer the potential to develop a more cost efficient air traffic services system, but this will entail a major program of investment in modernisation and upgrading of the present system. Planning and implementation of such a program can be better undertaken through a self-funding body which directly recovers the costs of services it provides, than through a budget dependent department. In the light of these considerations, it is proposed that the Civil Aviation Authority be established as a statutory body, under the control of a nine member board appointed by the Minister. A group of this size will allow for an appropriate range and balance of expertise in the composition of the board's membership. There is provision for the board to establish advisory committees to assist it, which widens the scope to draw upon persons with experience in business, aviation operations, air safety regulation, trade unions, academia and other appropriate fields, for planning and conduct of the Authority's functions. Close consideration has been given to whether safety standard-setting and day-to-day regulatory control should become the responsibility of the Authority, or whether these functions should remain with a department. A wide range of interested parties has been consulted and views differ on this important question. As I indicated in my statement of 7 October 1987, there is considered to be strong logic in the view that the task of regulating aviation safety must be regarded as an integrated system in which all elements are coordinated to achieve maximum reliability and effectiveness. The operation of air traffic control and the flight advisory service is as much a part of safety regulation as the regulation of an aircraft and its crew. The two areas complement each other. Safety regulation has been successfully combined with the operation of the airways system for many years in Australia and in a number of other countries. In the United Kingdom, that country's Civil Aviation Authority has very successfully combined the two functions, although they were initially separated in two different agencies. The United Kingdom decision to bring the functions into a Civil Aviation Authority was taken after a formal review, and on the basis that the setting of standards, regulatory control and the day-to-day operation of the airways system should be under single control in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness, because of the close inter-relationship involved. A concern expressed from a number of quarters is that safety standards may become degraded if the body responsible for safety regulation is required to operate on a commercial basis and is therefore subject to cost pressures. The commercial nature of the Authority needs to be clearly understood. It will be the Government's requirement that the Authority adopt a business-like approach to its affairs, including the ongoing pursuit of cost efficiency and productivity improvement. The Authority will operate commercially in this sense. However, it will not, because of the nature of its activities, be subject to the full range of pressures that apply to business enterprises operating in a free market situation. Whilst the legitimacy of the concern that safety considerations should not take second place to commercial aspects of the Authority's operations is accepted, the latter aspects should be kept in a proper perspective. It also needs to be recognised that aviation safety is not solely dependent on regulation by Government authority. Australia's outstanding aviation safety record was not achieved, nor could it be maintained, by official fiat alone. Departmental officers have made a splendid contribution to our aviation safety in the context of integrated safety and operational functions, and the Government is confident they will continue to do so in the new Authority. Their past contribution has been essential, but was not sufficient in itself. Australia's airlines and other operators have made their own essential contribution to the safety record by their professionalism and concern for safety in air operations. This concern is deeply ingrained in our aviation industry and that situation would not be expected to change readily. Nonetheless, the Government recognises the concern that various parties have voiced and has decided to adopt a number of measures in recognition of this. It is the Government's intention that the Australian Civil Aviation Authority will be required to give primacy to safety considerations over commercial ones. The Bill reflects this intention and makes provision for the Minister to give broad directions in relation to the Authority's safety regulatory role to ensure that occurs. As previously announced, the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation will remain in the Department of Transport and Communications, separate from the Civil Aviation Authority, and directly responsible to the Minister. This will ensure that the authority responsible for improving and enforcing safety standards will not be left to be the judge of its own performance. The Bureau's resources will be augmented to equip it to advise the Minister on safety trends and on any emerging issues on which the giving of directions to the Authority may be desirable. The Bureau will not duplicate the safety regulatory functions of the Authority, but will have the role of independently assessing and advising the Minister on trends and significant broad issues relating to maintenance of appropriate safety standards. As a direct measure to meet concern about commercial influences adversely impacting on safety regulation, it is the Government's intention that costs of standard setting and ensuring compliance with standards be funded from the budget and that the Authority perform these functions under contract. Finally, the legislative framework for safety regulation will remain under the control of the Minister. It is considered that these various measures will provide adequate safeguards in relation to the concerns expressed about the possible adverse influence of commercial factors on the maintenance of our outstanding safety record. The function of aviation security also will remain with the Department of Transport and Communications. However, this Bill does provide for the Authority to participate in arrangements to prevent or deal with hijacking or other acts of unlawful interference with civil aviation. Where appropriate, the Bill reflects the Government's announced guidelines in regard to legislation for statutory authorities. In broad terms these guidelines seek to provide a proper balance between the need to remove detailed controls over the operations of statutory authorities on the one hand, and accountability to the Government on the other. With this in mind the general thrust of this legislation is directed towards involving the Government in long term planning and strategic decisions of the Authority. As previously mentioned, the operation of the Authority will be the responsibility of a nine member board which includes a Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson and the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority. Staffing of the new Authority will involve transferring officers of the Department of Transport and Communications, who currently carry out tasks associated with the functions being transferred. These officers, about 7000 in number, will continue to be employed under the Public Service Act. Their terms and conditions of employment will therefore remain unchanged upon transfer. The headquarters of the Authority will be located in Canberra. As a significant number of officers who will be transferring to the Authority are already employed at this location there would be major costs entailed in locating the headquarters elsewhere in Australia. This is not considered to be justified. Turning to the broad question of financial arrangements which will apply to the Authority, the Bill provides that the Authority will be required to draw up a corporate plan for a three-year period, defining its objectives and identifying its strategies and policies to achieve these objectives. The Authority will be required also to prepare a financial plan covering the same period. Both plans are to be submitted to the Minister. Provision is made in the Bill for the Minister to give directions to the Authority to vary certain parameters in the financial plan. In this event, the direction must be made public, in common with other directions given to the Authority under provisions of the Bill. As already mentioned, costs of setting safety standards and ensuring compliance with those standards will be met from the budget. Costs of implementing the standards are to be met by the aviation industry through charges levied by the Authority. However, full recovery of implementation costs is to be phased in over a period of seven years, and during that period the shortfall in revenue will also be met from the budget. The Government will continue to meet the costs of search and rescue. So far as the airways system and the rescue and fire fighting service are concerned the Authority will be expected to fully recover associated costs from industry. Provision is made in the Bill for the Authority to determine charges for its services, but proposals for such determinations will be subject to disapproval by the Minister within 60 days of receipt. Provision has been made in the Bill for the transfer of assets to enable the Authority to perform its functions. A valuation for these will be determined, together with the loan and capital components, by the Government. The Authority will be required to earn a reasonable return on its assets and to pay to the Commonwealth a reasonable dividend. It will be able to borrow to meet its capital requirements, if necessary with a Commonwealth guarantee. Subject to certain safeguards, the Authority will be able to participate in partnerships and companies and will be given freedom to provide consultancy and management services, particularly to overseas aeronautical bodies seeking to use the expertise or services of the Authority. The legislation provides for regulations to be made, consistent with this Bill. The existing Air Navigation Regulations will need to be divided into regulations under the Air Navigation Act, which has been amended to allow the transfer of functions to the new Authority, and into regulations under the Civil Aviation Bill. This is an interim step. As previously announced, the Government has established a task force to review the legislative framework for safety regulations. The outcome of this review may well have implications for the regulations under the Air Navigation Act, and, more importantly, for the regulations under this Bill. Steps can then be taken to revise the regulations to the extent necessary. However, this important revision should not be allowed to delay the establishment of the Civil Aviation Authority. Financial Impact Statement There are no implications in the Bill for additional costs in the public sector. To the extent that greater efficiency is achieved, costs can be expected to reduce in real terms over time. To the extent that the Authority funds its capital investment program from commercial borrowings rather than budget appropriations, the financial impact of the Bill will be to reduce Commonwealth budgetary outlays. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill and commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice) —I seek leave to make a statement, on behalf of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand), relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, to move a motion that the Senate take note of the statement, and to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- On 10 December 1987 in a statement to the House entitled `Foundations for the Future', I outlined the Government's proposals to establish the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). These proposals derived from the commitment by the Prime Minister to bring the various elements of the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio into one statutory commission `so that there will be an absolutely firm legislative basis for expressing the total commitment of the Commonwealth and the people of Australia to the Aboriginal people'. In my statement of 10 December, I stressed that the ATSIC proposal would not go ahead if it did not receive a positive endorsement from the Aboriginal and Islander community. In making this commitment it must be remembered the Government could have made the necessary changes to the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio without getting involved in this comprehensive process of consultation. As Minister I could have done this while sitting at my desk in Canberra. Instead I undertook to consult personally with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people prior to proceeding with the proposals. Between 23 January and 10 March this year, the Secretary to my Department, Charles Perkins, and I attended 46 meetings throughout Australia involving an estimated 6,000 representatives of some 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and groups. These meetings were preceded by 450 community meetings in 415 locations, to ensure that preliminary matters were worked through prior to my visits. Far from being a `whistle-stop tour', as some have suggested, the ATSIC consultations are the most wide reaching ever undertaken by a Minister in this portfolio. Throughout these consultations I stressed at every meeting the proposed Commission would not go ahead if Aboriginal and Islander people did not want it. I also made it clear the proposal could be changed if need be. There were a few who doubted my word on this. Some said the Government had made up its mind and the community meetings amounted to `token consultations' only. Well, allow me to explain what has happened as a result of those community meetings. Following the first round of consultations it became evident that there were a number of widely shared concerns regarding aspects of the Government's proposals, but that there was overwhelming support for the basic principles outlined in the foundation's booklet. Accordingly, a further document was prepared setting out a range of alternative options to those aspects which were of concern. This document was also widely circulated, and was the basis of the second stage of the consultation process. This second stage amounted to a series of follow-up meetings convened by departmental officers and Aboriginal liaison officers in all States, the ACT and the Northern Territory. As a result, and in keeping with the commitment this Government has given to consultation, it is now proposed to vary the foundation's proposals in a number of significant areas. Firstly let me deal with the key area of regional councils. Virtually all consultation meetings called for an increase in the 28 regions originally proposed, mainly on the basis that those regions were too large. It is now proposed that there be around 56 regional council areas, subject to the finalisation of boundaries. These amended boundaries reflect Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander requests and recognise historical, cultural, linguistic and other important factors. Instead of regional councils comprising one representative from every Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community and organisation within their regional area, it is now proposed that regional councils consist of 20 members, elected under a `one person, one vote' system. This overcomes concerns about inequities in representation. Regional councils will meet up to four times a year. I now turn to the proposal to establish zone councils Many consultation meetings expressed a view that a separate council at the zone level was unnecessary and could interfere in the relationship between regional councils and the Commission. It is therefore proposed that the planned zone councils be abandoned. In the absence of zone councils, a postal ballot of regional councillors in a particular zone will be held to elect commissioners. A section of the foundations for the future proposal which created much discussion was the question of commissioners. It was originally proposed that the Commission consist of 12 members, those members being an appointed full-time chairperson and 11 part-time commissioners (7 elected and 4 appointed by the Minister). There has since been a call for additional commissioners, especially in the larger States and those with large Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations, and for a greater proportion of elected commissioners. It is also accepted by the Government that the unique circumstances of central Australia require there to be a special zone (and therefore an elected commissioner) for that area. The Government now proposes a 15-member Commission, with an appointed full time chairperson and 14 part time commissioners. The chairperson and two commissioners will be appointed by the Minister. Twelve commissioners will be elected: Western Australia, New South Wales and Queensland would each have 2 commissioners; there would be a commissioner for a new central Australian zone covering parts of Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory; the remainder of South Australia and the Northern Territory, and Victoria and Tasmania would each have 1 commissioner; and a Torres Strait Islander commissioner would be elected by the Torres Strait regional council. Under these changes the fears people had that the Government-nominated commissioners would dominate the elected commissioners have now been eliminated. Members of the House will recall that I visited the Torres Strait islands twice during January and February. I now inform the House of details of the proposal agreed to at the second meeting held on Thursday Island. The interests of resident Torres Strait Islanders will be represented by the Torres Strait Islander commissioner, who will be elected by the Torres Strait regional council. There will also be an Office of Torres Strait Islander Affairs created within ATSIC, to ensure that Commission and other Government programs adequately address the needs of Torres Strait Islanders, including those living on the mainland. The Office will provide a secretariat to a Torres Strait Islander Advisory Board, consisting of 6 part time appointed members plus the elected part time Torres Strait Island commissioner, who will chair the board. According to 1986 census figures, more than three-quarters of the Torres Strait Islander population live on mainland Australia, rather than in Torres Strait. There is a clear need to ensure that the interests of both groups are not overwhelmed by the interests of the much larger Aboriginal population, and that both Island residents and mainland Torres Strait Islanders do not feel that their interests are ignored. I believe the above proposal, plus the inclusion in the legislation of a provision ensuring that the Torres Strait regional council has direct access within the Budget process to the Minister, will satisfy Torres Strait Islander concerns and ensure that many of the complaints about their past treatment will be overcome. The issues that were raised during my first visit will be dealt with at another time. An area that was initially the subject of some confusion and misunderstanding was the powers of the Minister. There will be two categories of Commission functions. Firstly, those functions on which the Minister can make specific directions, and secondly, those functions on which the Commission will make final decisions, and about which the Minister may only make a general direction. This latter category is consistent with the degree of ministerial powers which currently apply to the Aboriginal Development Commission. It is now proposed to add land acquisition to this second category of functions, which will mean that ATSIC will have autonomous responsibility for all the powers and functions currently held by the ADC, plus those additional functions set out in the foundations statement. Another issue which received some attention by Aboriginal groups during the course of my consultations was that of the preamble. I am bound to say that the Government remains committed to a preamble which does no more than recite the facts which have led to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of this nation being the most disadvantaged socio-economic group within the Australian community. More importantly, the Government in no way resiles from its decision to recognise the fact of prior occupation and original ownership of the descendants of the people now known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. There have, however, been some reservations voiced by Aboriginal people in relation to certain parts of the preamble. These reservations centre more on the way in which those facts have been expressed rather than with the facts themselves. As a consequence the Government is prepared to give further consideration to the wording of the preamble in its drafting of the legislation. I would now like to make some clarifying points regarding the establishment of the Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation. Members would be aware that the AEDC is a commercial corporation charged with building a significant capital base for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. There has been some confusion relating to the dividend arrangements which will apply in respect of the AEDC. The legislation will provide for the Corporation to recommend an annual dividend to the Minister, who will accept or vary that recommendation after consultation with the Treasurer. The maximum dividend payable will be 50% of net profits, and there will be a dividend moratorium for the first three financial years' operation of the Corporation. The dividend provisions apply because the Corporation is essentially a commercial entity; they are consistent with the Government's policy guidelines on government business enterprises. The AEDC will be subject to normal corporate taxation requirements. In relation to the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies I am continuing to consider a number of relatively minor adjustments to their operation. Final decisions have not been taken. In the light of these changes to the foundations proposals, the essential features of the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission can now be summarised in the following terms: The amalgamation at regional, State and central office levels of the two major Aboriginal Affairs portfolio bodies: the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Aboriginal Development Commission. Subsidiary bodies of the Commission will include Aboriginal Hostels Limited and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies; The establishment of an all-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, the overwhelming majority of whom are elected, with executive responsibilities across the whole spectrum of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs; The establishment of around 56 incorporated regional councils throughout Australia, with statutory responsibility for setting priorities for ATSIC expenditure within their regions; The establishment of a new Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation in addition to programs funded by existing enterprise loans and grants; Specific attention to the interests of Torres Strait Islanders (both in the Torres Strait and on the mainland) through the provision of their own elected Commissioner, the creation of a Torres Strait Islander Advisory Board, and the establishment of an Office of Torres Strait Islander Affairs within ATSIC. In a very real sense, these changes represent a complete overhaul of the existing relationship between the Federal Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. No longer will they be held at arm's length from Government under the guise of `advisory' bodies and the like. No longer will the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people be excluded from the executive decision-making processes of government. No longer will the priorities for expenditure be determined by appointed commissioners or bureaucrats in Canberra without reference to the views of Aboriginal and Islander communities, be they in the bush, or more isolated regions of Australia, our rural towns, or our State capitals. It is precisely because these changes to the structure of the Aboriginal portfolio are far-reaching, that I have been at pains to involve all Aboriginal communities and organisations in developing them. Their participation was crucial in making these changes. Many of the key concepts in the original foundations statement can be traced to the Coombs and O'Donoghue reports, both of which were based on direct consultations with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I repeat, my own consultations involved the most sustained and extensive round of meetings with the Aboriginal and Islander community ever undertaken personally by a Government Minister. The process as a whole far exceeds all the consultations ever undertaken in respect of any previous Federal or State legislation dealing with matters affecting Aboriginal people. This is how things should be. And this is how I will continue to approach matters with such far-reaching and sensitive implications. One matter consistently raised by Aboriginal and Islander people has been the announced commencement date of July 1 1988. I inform the House that the establishment of the Commission will be 1 January 1989. This will allow legislation to be drafted, enable me further consultation on specific details which may arise during the drafting process and ensure that the necessary time required to conduct the elections will be available. The Bill will be introduced early in the Budget sittings. To enable the Commission to commence operations on 1 January, it will be necessary to hold elections for regional councillors, and subsequently, for commissioners, before the end of this year. It is proposed these elections, which will be supervised by the Australian Electoral Commission, be held in October, November, and December. In conclusion, I wish to thank the Aboriginal and Islander communities for their willingness to consider and debate these issues, and for the welcome and hospitality afforded me everywhere I travelled. I would also make the point that the consultations gave me an opportunity to hear first hand the communities' views on a range of other issues. This was an additional advantage of the meetings. Other people I would like to thank include the Secretary to my Department, Charles Perkins, for his loyal and sustained support during this arduous process, Lois O'Donoghue, chairperson of Aboriginal Hostels Limited for her general support and assistance at meetings, Department of Aboriginal Affairs officers at central, State and regional level for their excellent work throughout the consultations, the members of the ATSIC task force for their important contribution to the process and my own staff for their dedicated and unflagging support. I would also like to thank the parliamentary members of my own Party who assisted in the consultation process. As I pointed out in my previous statement to this House, these proposals lay the foundation upon which real progress and achievement for Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can be built. Aboriginal people, by their responses to the Government's proposals, have demonstrated their willingness to build on these foundations. It is now the Parliament's turn, as the representative of the Australian people, to face the challenge and indicate its willingness to meet Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people halfway. Senator TATE —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.14) —This statement reports to the Parliament on the progress that the Government has made or has not made in establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. This is one of those rare occasions on which the Opposition, as I am doing at this moment, welcomes the fact that the Government has made less progress in this matter than it had indicated it would. The Government, when it made the announcement on 10 December last year that it intended to establish this Commission, indicated that it hoped to have it established by 1 July of the current calendar year. The statement of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) confirms what a number of us have long suspected; namely, that the Government is not now proposing to meet that timetable and that it now thinks that the Commission might be put in place by 1 January next year. I regard that period of delay as good news, as being in the interests of not only Aboriginal Australians but all Australians, because it provides for an opportunity for some further consideration to be given to what the Government is doing and, hopefully, will ensure that a better outcome is achieved than would otherwise be the case. Just for the record, I would like to recall for the Senate that on 15 April, during the first week of my return to Canberra for the current period of sitting, having spent some days in the Kimberley region of Western Australia-a good deal of that time was taken up in talking with Aboriginal communities in that area-I gave notice of the following motion: That the Senate calls upon the Federal Government to delay the introduction of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission because of: (a) the short period which has been allowed for consultation with the Aboriginal and Islander communities, and the resultant failure of the Government to ensure that there is real understanding of the major changes proposed; and (b) the doubts which exist that the revised arrangements will ensure more effective delivery of programs for Aboriginal and Islander advancement. There is, I think, impliedly in the Minister's statement an acceptance of the first point in my notice of motion. But there is nothing in the Minister's statement which indicates an attitude on his part or on the part of the Government to the concerns which I have expressed in that notice of motion and elsewhere that the revised arrangements, like the current arrangements, will not assure effective delivery of programs for Aboriginal and Islander advancement. I note the Minister's comments in the statement about the fact that he has attended 46 meetings, involving an estimated 6,000 representatives of some 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and groups. The Minister makes claims to this being the most extensive consultation which has been undertaken by a Government Minister. I do not have the statistics to challenge that, but I would say that I do not believe that the Minister set himself an achievable task in trying to do the sort of consultation which he described back in December 1987 in the time which he allowed. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that there has been a real change of direction by this Government in terms of its approach to Aboriginal affairs over the last year or so-over the period that Mr Hand has been the Minister. I do not believe it is realistic to expect the Aboriginal community or, indeed, the wider community to absorb those changes in the time permitted. Perhaps I should quickly explain that. I think it would be fresh in the memory of most honourable senators-certainly those who have taken an interest in Aboriginal affairs-that the previous Minister, Mr Holding, for most of his ministry placed enormous emphasis on the idea of national land rights. That was really a focus for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) for the bulk of the period of the Labor Government. It was always my view that that was a particularly stupid thing to do because it was never likely that the Government would deliver on that promise. But, in fact, that promise effectively distracted the Government from the more practical problems which it faced in Aboriginal affairs and was a contributing factor to the generally negative attitude which now obtains in the Australian community towards programs of Aboriginal advancement. I very much regret that negative attitude. Some speakers in this debate may dispute the fact that it is there, but it is my own experience that in the metropolitan, country and remoter parts of Australia there is a quite considerable disillusionment with what the Government is doing and there is a rather bad reaction, often against the Aboriginal people themselves, because of the disappointment which is felt by so many people, principally because of the failures of the Government and Government programs. My own experience of consultation over recent times is, of necessity, much more limited than that of the Minister and more limited than that of some other members of this place. Senator Tambling from the Northern Territory will be speaking and Senator Collins from the Northern Territory is in the chamber. I would defer to both of them in terms of the opportunities that they have for communication with the Aboriginal community. But I would say that the overwhelming impression that I got from visiting a number of Aboriginal communities in the northern part of Western Australia was that whilst in many of those communities there was considerable support for change, and that support flowed from the considerable dissatisfaction in Aboriginal communities with the way things are working at present, there was at the same time a real confusion about just how the Government's proposals might work and what the direct implications for the communities were. There was a welcoming in the limited number of communities that I visited of the broad idea that they might have greater control over the programs which so closely affect their lives, but a complete lack of any detailed knowledge of how that would in fact work in practice. I can only say that, given the relatively short time that this idea has been abroad, I do not believe that one could, with the best will in the world on the part of the Minister or the Department, have expected anything more. The other thing which is very important and which I would ask the Government to consider is the extent to which this process of consultation should be extended beyond the Aboriginal community. It is my view and the view of a very wide cross-section of people from all parts of the political spectrum with a close interest in Aboriginal affairs that there is a very great lack of success in Aboriginal affairs. An important element in that lack of success is the loss of sympathy within the general community for what governments and Aboriginal individuals and communities are trying to achieve. I believe that the consultation process ought to be extended to a much greater degree of consultation with the general community. The most disturbing thing I found on my recent visit to the Kimberley was not that there was any lack of interest in Aboriginal affairs-quite the reverse: there was an intensity of interest, which was almost disturbing, both from people who were very hostile and critical of government, and in some cases, Aboriginals themselves, and among people who are deeply sympathetic to the plight of Aboriginals and seek to help. There seemed to be an almost obsessive interest and concern. It was impossible to escape the subject. Quite frankly, I think it is a matter which should concern the Government that in some parts of Australia we have achieved a degree of tension about this issue which is very destructive. I make that point because I believe it ought to influence the Government in the way that it approaches this quite radical change to the way Aboriginal affairs are dealt with. It is dealing with change when there is very widespread hostility in the general community to what is perceived to be the failure of what is being done at present and the extraordinary degree of waste which is involved-the ineffectiveness of many programs and the failure to develop any sensible way of administering programs so that they will be more successful and so that those who are involved in their administration are more accountable. I do not put those matters forward on the basis that there is some wonderful, simple answer to them and I do not suggest that the problems have occurred only because of the administration of Minister Hand. I suggest that these things have a much longer history than that. But Mr Hand cannot escape the fact that he is the current Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and he is the one responsible for coming to grips with the situation as it is today. I do not believe that in this debate, on what is essentially a statement about the mechanics of what the Government is trying to do, it is appropriate for me to go back, as I have in other debates, on some of the reasons why I think we have got ourselves into this very difficult situation. Honourable senators will recall that I am very prepared to be highly critical of the Australian Labor Party and its history of dealing with Aboriginal matters over the last 15 years-the excessive raising of expectations, the subsequent disappointment of those expectations, the encouragement of a white backlash because of that raising of expectations, the raising of the levels of Aboriginal demand, and so on. I mention that in passing because, again, that is part of the context in which this enormous change in Aboriginal affairs is being proposed. I believe that the Government, unless it is completely lunatic and is closing its eyes to reality, has to examine both the successes and the failures of the past and try to do what it is doing now in a much more gradual and careful way. Quite frankly, it has to stop following a political agenda in this. One cannot escape the feeling that from the time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made his unfortunate visit to the Northern Territory last year when, seemingly out of the blue, he reawakened talk of a treaty after the thing had been left lying quietly doggo for years without any real government attention, with the pending bicentennial celebrations and the threat of Aboriginal disturbance of some of those celebrations, the Government is following, essentially, a timetable which is dictated by political considerations rather than by programmed considerations and by considerations of what can be done in a practical sense to improve the delivery of programs for and by Aboriginal Australians. I hope that the statement which we are debating today, this statement which pushes things back to next year and which contains the promise of further consultation, indicates a shift in the Government's approach away from the political agenda towards a more practical policy oriented agenda. I simply want to stress, as my contribution to this debate, that I believe there is a need for real caution on the part of the Government and a need for it to get it right on this occasion. If the Government fails to get it right, if it simply achieves a temporary level of satisfaction among both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians, because it is effecting change to a situation with which people are genuinely dissatisfied but without making sure that it puts things in place which work on the ground in a practical sense, we are simply commencing the next chapter of discontent. Quite frankly, in my assessment that is what we are in the process of doing. I stress again what seems to me to be very obvious-namely, the widespread community concern at the failure of too many programs and the need, therefore, to address those failures in a practical way. It is worth making the point that the failures of programs and the discontent which is being expressed cannot be sheeted home to a shortage of money. I am sure that both Senator Tambling and Senator Collins could produce some quite drastic stories about areas of physical or material need. They could point to communities which do not have good water supplies and proper facilities of various sorts. But the truth is that the level of discontent has been growing during a period in which the Government has been vastly expanding expenditure. Whatever the Government might have done in terms of breaking its promises on national land rights and whatever, the Labor Government has expanded very considerably the amount of expenditure in Aboriginal affairs. Quite clearly, expenditure which is perceived to be unwise, wasteful or ineffective does nothing but increase the level of problems that we have. I believe that the central problem that has to be tackled in looking at this question of the proposed Commission is whether it will contribute to having a coherent and accountable administrative structure on the ground. That is an easy point to make. The question is: how do we deal with it and assess it? I suppose the Minister and the Government can claim that, in establishing this Commission, they are at least trying to reduce the multiplicity of bodies which interact with Aboriginal communities. That in itself may add to the possibility of coherent and more accountable administration, but I do not think that that will make a very substantial contribution. For example, the absorption of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies is totally irrelevant and is of doubtful value. Again, I have some question marks about the absorption of the housing and hostels function with other broader administrative functions and policy functions, for the simple reason that, in the case of Aboriginal Hostels Ltd, there was some value gained in having a manageable assignment which could be undertaken, defined and delivered quite satisfactorily in many cases. The absorption of that into a larger structure may not contribute in any serious way. What the proposed Commission does not seem to come to grips with is the fundamental problem of what is happening on the ground in communities around Australia. Circumstances differ from State to State, State to Territory and so on, but it seems to me that there are certain common patterns. The first is that in most of Australia it seems that a serious mistake has been made. I am now talking about relatively isolated or self-contained Aboriginal communities. The Government has erred in imposing excessive responsibility for basic services on the community. By that I mean that the orderly delivery of basic services-power, water and so on-is seen too often as a function of self-management, of encouraging Aboriginal people to be responsible for their own lives, often to the detriment of giving Aboriginal people ade- quate facilities in those areas and a greater capacity to assume responsibility for their own lives in the same way as other Australians are required to do. The people who live in my middle class suburb in Perth are not required to be directly responsible for the provision of basic services for themselves. There are paid employees of the local authority who do that to the general satisfaction of the populace who are then left to go on with their own lives. I believe that in many cases there is insufficient regard for the need to have an orderly administration of basic services to provide a framework within which personal responsibility and individual lives can be conducted. As a result, one gets communities in which there are breakdowns of things which are simply taken for granted by other Australians. I hope that honourable senators from the Northern Territory, in contributing to this debate, might have something to say about the extent to which the local government model which is used in that territory has in fact been a success in providing some more accountable structure. I must say that I found it depressing, in visiting communities in Western Australia over that pre-Easter week, to see to what extent there are simply not the sort of administrative structures in place which guarantee the orderly provision of services. For those communities which are fringe dwellers-and I cite, for example, the community at the settlement known as Red Hill outside Halls Creek-one finds an appalling lack of basic services because fundamentally there is no-one who is responsible. Quite frankly, I do not see the putting in place of this Commission as in any significant way contributing to the alleviation of difficulties that are being experienced in communities such as Red Hill. It seems to me far more likely that one would get some sense into the administration of a place such as that if there were a far greater attempt made to involve the local authority of that area. I stress that that area is one in which there is a very substantial Aboriginal majority in the population. If the local authority were more closely involved in the administration of that settlement in terms of the basic services which are provided-and I am not suggesting that the local authority should do that without reward or without some rating capacity or things of that sort-I believe there would be much more prospect of seeing the people who live there having a reasonable chance to make social progress through the education of children and so on than we have with what I would describe as the present shambles which I saw when I visited there just a few weeks ago. It seems to me that DAA has always had a fundamental problem in coming to grips with circumstances in which there is really very little or no direct DAA authority to use. The only authority that DAA has, and the only authority which this new Commission will really have, is the extent to which it is paying the piper. Since it is quite clear that the funding for Aboriginal people will not, in a majority sense, be coming through this Commission, I would express very great reservations about the capacity of the Commission to achieve more orderly progress for Aboriginal people than is currently being achieved by DAA and the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC). I think that there has to be a far more fundamental rethink about the whole relationship between Aboriginal programs and, for example, local government in Australia and, indeed, the State government departments which deliver basic services to other Australians than there is any sign of flowing through this reorganisation of DAA and the ADC which is the subject of the Minister's statement today and which was the subject of his statement in December. I would offer support to the Government to the extent that it is encouraging Aboriginal people to assume responsibility for their own lives and providing programs which genuinely enable them to do it. However, I would be highly critical of the Government to the extent that it simply engages in reorganisation for the sake of being seen to do something and where the Government simply does not face up to some of the obvious defects which exist at present, particularly defects in terms of the accountability of those who serve many Aboriginal communities. I mention in passing the obvious problems in the Northern Territory in terms of the potential for conflict between the jurisdiction of land councils and the jurisdiction of community councils, a matter which probably needs legislative attention in terms of looking at what powers the land councils possess, as an example of some of the sorts of fundamental areas which need to be addressed. I think it is a pity that in our bicentennial year we are likely to have only one debate in this autumn sitting of Parliament on the subject of Aboriginal affairs, and that that debate essentially is on the mechanics of the reorganisation of the Government's administration in this way. I suspect that all of this is a long way short of really coming to grips with the on the ground problems of Aboriginal Australians which are very obvious to anyone who visits Aboriginal communities at any frequency at all. I would therefore say to the Government, in making some comment on this statement, that I believe that it ought to put before us not a statement in the sorts of terms put down by the Minister today, but a statement which tries to come to grips in a far more practical way with the real situation of Aboriginal people and tries to build from the ground up in terms of giving Aboriginal people, yes, control over their own lives-accountable structures which they can control in a political sense but which are made accountable to taxpayers as well as to the community who control them in a political sense. I believe that if we start to come to grips with some of those basic problems we will go a lot further than if we build grand new commissions which I think will simply reproduce the mistakes of the past. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(5.36) —I welcome the statement by the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate). The reason I do so is that it is precisely what my constituents want. I can in fact speak with any kind of authority only about the situation in the Northern Territory. I was involved in the consultation process which took place with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) in relation to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). There is no question at all that the predominant message that was delivered in various forms and shades of strength from Alice Springs to the Top End was that most Aboriginal people did not want ATSIC to start on 1 July. It is also true to say that there was certainly an apprehension, reflected in the correspondence received by me and, I know, by others, that that predominant wish would be ignored. I must say in relation to that matter that I am very pleased indeed that the Minister made a statement today saying that the commencement date of 1 July had been put back to 1 January next year. I know that my constituents will be extremely pleased about that. Not surprisingly, there was an enormous degree of interest within Aboriginal communities in the proposals in the document Foundations for the Future. It is true to say in respect of the statement delivered by the Minister today that there have been a number of quite substantial changes made to what was proposed in that original document. That has come about directly through the willingness of the Minister to listen to and respond positively to representations that he received from Aboriginal communities. I will list the major concerns of Aboriginal communities in order of what I think was their priority. The No. 1 concern was the starting date for ATSIC. The No. 2 concern was their dissatisfaction with the boundaries as they were originally drawn and, therefore, the number of regional councils, predominantly of course through people in one particular cultural and language group being lumped in with people who did not share that language or particular culture. There was concern about the proposals for the way in which those regional councils would be constituted and with the concept of zone councils. That is something I want to say a few things about because of the feelings in the Aboriginal communities that prompted concern about zone councils, which the Minister has announced will be removed. I found out from the Minister that the concerns expressed in the Northern Territory in respect of zone councils were, in fact, simply reflecting a feeling that was Australia-wide. The boundaries problem has been largely addressed in that the original 28 regions have now been expanded to around 56 regions. I understand that that figure is still flexible, although I think that the final result will be somewhere around that figure. The councils will now be constituted by election, which should also remove the majority of concerns about the non-representative nature of the original proposals. The formation of zone councils was strongly resisted. It is interesting to reflect on why the proposal for the formation of zone councils prompted the response in Aboriginal communities that it did. That response interested me. Senator Chaney —Experience with land councils perhaps? Senator COLLINS —I think it is true to say that it was experience with bureaucracy generally. Whether land council bureaucracy or Public Service bureaucracy, I think it is fair to say-and I must say I was stimulated personally by the community response to the zone councils-that Aboriginal people have had a gutful of bureaucracy. They saw the zone councils simply as being a further unnecessary structure that was going to stand between their communities and the funding body, the Federal Government. The Minister has responded positively to those concerns, and the zone councils have been removed. Another concern that at least some of my constituents had, and I shared that concern, was that we have in the Northern Territory a unique system of Aboriginal local government. It is the most flexible system of local government for Aboriginal communities that exists in Australia and it was introduced by the Northern Territory Government, to its credit. I was a member of the Northern Territory Parliament when it was introduced. It provides-and this is the fundamental manner in which it is flexible-for the individual scheme of each Aboriginal community to be tabled in Parliament, not as part of the principal Act, but as a schedule to the Act, as each scheme is uniquely tailored to the unique needs of each community. In the case of some communities the negotiations over the kind of scheme that they wanted for their own local government have gone on for years. The scheme provides for an almost open-ended manner of accommodating the Aboriginal relationship system, the moiety system and the skin group system, and local conditions in the community. Many of them have uniquely different systems of electing their councils in terms of how they are constituted with representatives from each skin group in the community. I think it is fair to say that despite the concerns that a great many people have had about the introduction of this scheme-concerns, I might add, within the ranks of the Country Liberal Party in the Parliament itself and outside it-the scheme has worked very well. Again to its credit, the Northern Territory Government has set up a local government association particularly to represent these small communities. The opposition to that from within the ranks of the Government became public. A number of Ministers were unhappy about setting up a separate Aboriginal local government association when a local government association representing the major urban communities of the Northern Territory already existed. The fear that Aboriginal communities had-and it was shared by the Government-was quite simply that because this form of local government was new to communities they would be dominated and overwhelmed, as I think they would have been, by the Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs councils. To the credit of the then Minister for Community Development in the Northern Territory, he stuck to his guns and introduced a separate fully Aboriginal association to represent those small councils. The scheme now operates in something like 25 or 26 communities and is expanding at a slow and steady rate, again to the credit of the Northern Territory Government. I stress `slow and steady'. The reason I am dwelling on the Northern Territory scheme is that I have looked very carefully at all of the local government schemes that operate around Australia, and there is no question that the Territory scheme is unique in the degree of flexibility it offers Aboriginal communities. I am not suggesting that is a criticism of other States in Australia. I think it is simply a reflection of the unique demographic nature of the Territory's population. Twenty-five per cent of our total community is Aboriginal, and 80 per cent or more of our rural community is Aboriginal, so we are in a position where we can put such a unique scheme into operation. There was a great deal of concern by Aboriginal communities that operate under this scheme that ATSIC would in some way intrude on the relationship which they had with their funding body, the Northern Territory Department of Community Development. I am pleased to say that the Northern Territory Minister for Local Government has given a categorical assurance that that is not so, and that the arrangements that are currently in place for funding from the Federal Government to the Northern Territory Government will continue unimpeded. Indeed, in the Northern Territory now around 80 per cent of the global funding to Aboriginal communities comes through agencies of the Northern Territory Government. Two very positive things about ATSIC as far as communities are concerned-Senator Chaney has, I think, canvassed both of them-is that, firstly, Aboriginal people were very supportive and positive about an arrangement that would give them a decision making role in setting priorities for spending; and secondly, they were very enthusiastic about combining principally the roles of the current Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) and the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC). I think it is true to say that, so far as people in the bush were concerned, the question of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies and Aboriginal Hostels did not rate very highly in their concerns. But they were very supportive of the proposal to incorporate the ADC and the DAA, for obvious reasons. But-I put this caveat on it-the principal reason for that, in my view, is that there is an expectation in Aboriginal communities, which I profoundly hope will be realised, that this combination of the ADC and the DAA will result in a better delivery of services to the community. That combination of these two organisations is the source of the support. The true test of ATSIC will come in the delivery of services to Aboriginal communities. That is not my expectation; that is the overwhelming expectation of the Aboriginal people who have been involved in this consultative process. If ATSIC succeeds in getting more Aboriginal people into houses and reducing the number of Aboriginal people going to their graves and into hospitals, it will have been a success. If it does not achieve that, it will be seen by the Aboriginal community of the Northern Territory as having been a failure. I hope, along with the Government and the Minister, that the initiatives that have been taken by this Government in establishing this body, in the hiatus that existed after the disbandment of the National Aboriginal Conference, are realised. The consultative process has been a highly productive one and has not been a waste of time. I can honestly say, having been part of the process, that most of the suggestions that have resulted in the changes reflected in the Minister's statement today have come directly as a result of the community discussions that have occurred, not, I might add, at the time we visited the communities but subsequent to those visits. Again, that is reflected in the number of requests I got for follow-up visits and the amount of correspondence I received making suggestions. The second round of the consultative process is almost finished. It is the Government's intention now to examine all of the results of that second round of negotiations and to draft them into an acceptable form for further consultation. The Minister has given undertakings that he personally will go back to a number of communities at least. I know that officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs are keeping up a constant round of negotiations and consultations at grassroots level to make sure that the final form of the ATSIC legislation which appears in this Parliament is the best possible result to give a start to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. I said, I think in the first speech that I delivered in the Senate, when the subject of Aboriginal deaths in custody was being discussed, that my major concern for many years has been, and remains, the number of premature Aboriginal deaths out of custody. I repeat, in conclusion, the point that I made just a few moments earlier, because I believe it is the fundamental point in the establishment of this organisation. There is an expectation in the Aboriginal community of the Northern Territory-and it is not an unreasonable expectation-that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission will result in a fundamentally better and more efficient delivery of services to Aboriginal people on the ground. Probably that will not be able to be tested for at least a year after 1 January 1989-and perhaps not even then. But I have no doubt at all, considering the positive responses that have been made so far by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to the representations he has received from communities-and I must say that he has positively responded to almost every suggestion that has been brought to my attention-that that consultative process will now continue for the balance of this year and we will end up with a piece of legislation, toward the end of 1988, that will be worthy of support from every member of this Parliament. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(5.51) —It is rather unique that when we have been debating issues relating to the Aboriginal portfolio in recent months there has been a degree of bipartisanship between the parties and the personalities in this place. We are all seeking an objective that will ensure that in future the foundations certainly will be well laid, if I may plagiarise the title of the statement Foundations for the Future, put out by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) in December. The Minister, in effect, has presented us today with a progress report on the stages he is proposing on behalf of the Labor Government to implement an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission basically to administer all of the Aboriginal affairs portfolio. I certainly agree with Senator Chaney and Senator Collins that in the past few months the Minister has been hard at work in a very elaborate, detailed and genuine consultative process around the community. I do not believe that that consultative process is yet complete. I will take a bit of time this evening to outline a number of areas where additional consultation is necessary. In particular, there are a number of issues that I do not believe even the Minister's statement today adequately or properly addresses-the very fundamental principles that must be outlined fully when the legislation comes before this House at some future date. But I do accept that the Government has embarked on a very meaningful consultation process. From my experience, and that of Senator Collins, in the Northern Territory we can certainly appreciate the efforts of the Minister and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. As the statement is a progress report, a number of issues still need to be properly addressed. The Minister distributed the booklet Foundations for the Future very widely. Also, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs distributed a video to many Aboriginal communities that enabled them to have a better understanding. At the same time, the Aboriginal Development Commission presented a different and alternative view to those very same communities and Aboriginal organisations throughout Australia. So there was not a unanimous view among the agencies of the Government. I commend a lot of the activity and criticism that was contained in the proposals put forward by the Aboriginal Development Commission. They were developed by senior officers of that Commission, they were fully approved by the Board and they very much involved Aboriginal organisations throughout Australia that have a present relationship with the Aboriginal Development Commission. It is a very sad point that in the Minister's statement today he does not make one acknowledgment of the Aboriginal Development Commission. He does not even mention it, yet its contribution to this consultative process is unique. It has been very special and contributory and, in a lot of instances, it has been very critical. It is possibly one of the main factors why we are now seeing a stalling on the date for the commencement of the proposed new Commission. The consultation process has in many areas so far, because of the way in which Aboriginal communities respond, still been of too short a time span and too narrow in really gauging the proper new systems that many of the traditional Aboriginal communities would want to see in place. We have to be reminded that over the last year or so Mr Hawke and the Labor Government have really put forward three specific announcements, all of which have been delayed. There was the proposal for a treaty, the proposal for the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and this proposal for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. All were delayed in their implementation from the time of the original announcements. I question whether the 1 January date that is now proposed is a feasible date, given the nature of the aspects that now have to be addressed in this issue. The principles that are important to the entire Australian community, and in particular to the Aboriginal and traditional Aboriginal communities, will require, as the Minister says on page 2 of his statement, `a series of follow-up meetings'. If there is any indication from the thousands of meetings that have been conducted, we really have to ensure that that is going on. The original document, Foundations for the Future, was quite comprehensive. It certainly covered many points relating to the preamble and the proposals put forward by the Government. In recent months, the Minister has distributed, around the other areas, a further document. In it many more alternative options are floated. I am not in any way denigrating Aboriginal communities when I say that this complex area of study, in many instances, tends to confuse and compound the problems that they must come to in dealing with the paperwork, the options and the alternatives being presented to them. Many of us in this place are very familiar with reports that have complex recommendations, minority views and counterviews. The process of political decision-making is one we are part of. But in Aboriginal communities there is a very difficult style and process for that decision making to take place. When the Minister proposed a date of 1 July 1988 he gave himself an unachievable timetable to have an acceptance of views and opinions-and not necessarily an acceptance but the ability to arrive at decisions which would necessarily result in the best option to ensure that future Aboriginal administrative programs were properly carried out. But there are still a number of issues which have not yet been properly addressed. The Minister's statement today does not cover such areas as the costs of amalgamating the present Aboriginal Development Commission, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Institute of Aboriginal Studies and the education functions of the Department of Education. It will require a very complex marriage and in going into that marriage considerable costs must be passed on. They must be known, be made public and be properly scrutinised and available. The Minister is now proposing, as part of his changed options, to look at the regional system and to go from 28 regions to 56. Whilst he is abandoning the proposals for superimposed zones across the top of those, that administrative requirement to run 56 regions will entail a very complex management and financial arrangement. We have not yet been given any details of or indications as to how that will happen. I believe that that is equally important to the Aboriginal community and to the broad general community. I certainly accept that Minister's view of the change in the way in which representation will arise on the regional councils, at least to moving to a fairer and much more equitable voting system for representation. The previous system, of course, was ghastly. I am concerned that the proposals to change the regional councils still run contrary to traditional State boundaries in Australia. I would not like to see the Hand proposals amount to a new Whitlam regionalisation system of government, albeit relating to Aboriginal matters. There is no way that the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and the States will be changed, and local government is still a matter for State administrations. If these regional councils, as they properly should in many places, are to take on the local government type functions, they must properly recognise that traditional constitutional arrangements must be set in place. The costs of the new expanded Commission and, as I have said, those relating to the many more regional areas need to be identified, quantified and discussed with the consumers, that is, the Aboriginal communities, and with the parliamentary interests. I also do not believe that the Minister has adequately addressed the differences around Australia between traditional Aboriginal communities-those, as I have previously described here, that are still ceremoniously and ritually connected to their communities-and the many other Aboriginal communities in Australia that have a much more urbanised lifestyle, where the traditional cultures no longer prevail but where, of course, there is still Aboriginal identification. I think the Minister should give us some inkling of how these principles are to be incorporated. I do not believe that the management structures that he has proposed adequately address this area. Similarly, matters relating to land, land acquisition and compensation need to be elaborated in much more detail. Whilst, arguably, these will be presented to us when the legislation is introduced, I am a little concerned whether the program put when we consider the Bills presented for debate and discussion will properly address issues of land, land reform, land acquisition, dispossession and compensation, matters that have all been covered previously in various statements. These matters certainly need to be put out on the table now in much more detail with access guaranteed for all sectors of the community, without creating backlash, racial confusion or dissension, which can so easily arise in this area. I am very concerned-and I know that submissions have been put to the Minister about this-about problems that could be created in relation to the proposed preamble outlined in Foundations for the Future, concerning the very complex legal arrangements relating to antecedent native title. By including this in legislation we could be creating precedents that may haunt us for centuries in Australia. We know that there are legal opinions floating around in the Government but they have not yet been outlined. During the Estimates Committee hearings dealing with the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Administrative Services and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Opposition asked questions about these legal opinions that had been given to the Attorney-General and made available to other Government Ministers with regard to the principles and the precedents that could be created with regard to antecedent native title. We certainly have to check out what the implications in this area will be. I would like answers to the following questions: What does the preamble purport to do? That must be spelt out in clear, precise terms. Further, what will be the effects on mining and industry? Are the proprietary rights of individuals or the Crown in relation to the rights of the States or a Territory affected and, if so, how? What are the constitutional ramifications? Will this improve the position of Aborigines or is the whole exercise merely a political exercise on the part of the Federal Government? The preamble that is proposed is innovative. It is something that has not been put into legislation before. Therefore, consequences pertaining to land administration will flow through to the High Court, and that will create very dangerous precedents. The Minister has not yet been forthcoming. I hope that during the coming months and before the legislation is prepared he will make further statements relating specifically to these areas. If he does not do that, the underpinning areas of Australian industry, agriculture, and mining-and in fact the very lifestyle of millions of Australians-will be affected. We will be formulating legislation that does not properly take into account these implications for the future. Senator Chaney and Senator Collins both referred specifically to local government and the forms that must flow from that. Certainly, the model which is currently being used and which is part of the law of the Northern Territory can stand up and it is widely accepted by the Aboriginal community as being a very desirable form of local government. I hope that these proposals for Torres Strait and others relating to the States of Australia will be looked at very carefully by the advisers, the councils and the organisations in Aboriginal communities that are considering these matters. The proposed legislative timetable worries me considerably. The Minister has said on page 11 of his statement that he hoped that the Commission would commence operations on 1 January and that a series of elections, supervised by the Australian Electoral Commission, would be held in October, November and December. For those elections to take place in October the legislation would have to be passed in September. As it cannot be introduced in this place before 22 August, that puts it within a very tight timeframe for both this Parliament and also the Aboriginal communities. Whilst there has been criticism about the timetable for the present consultative process, once the legislation has been introduced it is our responsibility particularly to take it back to the Aboriginal communities. Last week at the Estimates Committee hearing Mrs McPherson, the Chairman of the Aboriginal Development Commission, made a couple of very specific remarks which I shall read to the Senate. In response to a question that I asked about the representations that she was receiving, she said: The majority of the responses that we have received have indicated that people would like more time to be made fully aware of the Government's option and for more time to put up any other options that they would like included in the proposal. In reply to a further question that I asked, she said: They are indicating that they would like to have time to review the draft legislation. At this stage they are being given no indication that they will be able to view that before it is presented. I think that is a vital and very perceptive comment by Mrs McPherson. If the Labor Government thinks it can bring in legislation here on 22 August, on our first day up the hill, ram it through in a couple of weeks and hope to have it in place by the end of September, in order to proceed with the first elections in October, it is fooling itself, and it would be doing a disservice to the whole of the Australian community. This relates particularly to the Aborigines of Australia who must live under the consequences of this legislation-which they are so keen to carefully look at. One should also bear in mind that other alternative proposals are being floated. The Aboriginal Development Commission distributed last week a discussion paper entitled An Alternative strategy for Aboriginal self management. It is a complex document and is probably just as comprehensive as Mr Hand's Foundations for the Future. It looks at a practical alternative. It must be remembered that the Aboriginal Development Commission has handled the commerce and enterprise functions. We need to be careful not to gobble up the education, health and welfare functions that are so vital to Aboriginal communities and couple them for convenience with the enterprise, commerce and economic types of functions. We should be careful not to stick them all under one umbrella, where it would be so easy for the Government to say, `Here is your $700m a year budget; you now determine all the priorities and expenditure and divide it up'. If that proves to be the case, the Government will be merely taking away the odium from decent, strong political decisions that often have to be taken. I have no objection to full Aboriginal participation and consultation in the process that vitally affects Aborigines, but I do not want to see this Parliament impose structures, commissions or a system which are inadequate and which do not lead to overall acceptance by Aboriginal people throughout Australia. The postponement of the commencement date is all that one can read from Minister Hand's statement today. If one looks at the detail of the statement, one sees that the only other proposal that contains any meat is the tentative arrangement for elections. The details need to be spelt out. Let us be honest: because the Aboriginals of Australia were certainly the original occupants of this country, and because of the emotionalism that surrounds this issue in the community, this is probably one of the most crucial and important pieces of constitutional legislation. Let us not walk away from that because the manner, style and language used in all the proposals by the Minister fit all those debates. It is not a piece of legislation that can be shoved through Parliament in a couple of weeks with late night sittings and limited debate. If honourable senators think that the debate on the recent conservation and environment issues in this place was important-and we took 16 hours to discuss them-I put the Government on notice to allow now for 30 or 40 hours debate for this piece of legislation. If it is not dealt with in that manner, we will not honour our obligations to all Australians. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(6.13) —I welcome the statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) and I am pleased with a number of aspects of it. I commend the Minister and the Government for a number of the matters that it contains, especially for the flexibility and sensitivity displayed by the Government in its consultations with the Aboriginal people. One of the disturbing things, however, is that the Minister says that the consultations are `the most wide reaching ever undertaken by a Minister' in the portfolio. He repeats this statement later in the document: . . . my own consultations involved the most sustained and extensive round of meetings with the Aboriginal and Islander community ever undertaken personally by a Government Minister. I commend the consultation, but would remind the Senate that this most extensive consultation ever undertaken with the Aboriginal people went from precisely 23 January to 10 March. Commendable as that is, it is a tragic reflection on the history of our relationship with Aboriginal peoples around the country that such consultation is the most extensive that there has ever been. I am pleased that the Minister has seen fit to amend the boundaries originally proposed to reflect the requests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and to recognise historical, cultural, linguistic and other important factors. As Senator Collins has already said, this was a concern reflected in the original statement and it is pleasing to see that this is being taken into account. It is also good to see that the zone councils have been abolished, again at the insistence of Aboriginal people. It is also good to see that the interest of the resident Torres Strait Islanders has been taken much more thoroughly into account. On this whole range of matters I think that the statement and the Minister's efforts deserve praise. There are a number of matters, however, which have not been addressed and need to be dealt with. The economic development corporation that has been proposed leads one to think about Western capitalist-style economics being transferred on to Aboriginal traditional cultural and trade patterns. I wonder whether a dependence upon the sort of economic model which has already wreaked such havoc on the environment in this country socially, and in terms of the poverty, homelessness and all the other problems that we in the non-Aboriginal community suffer as a result of our economic system, and the introduction of an economic development corporation, will promote that same sort of model within Aboriginal communities. Will it lead to the same sorts of homelessness, unemployment and despair which already exist in many communities, and indeed which still exist in our communities? I would like to see a greater effort made to discuss the implications for traditional lifestyles of the sort of economic development that is being proposed. My other worry about the economic development corporation is whether the development of the Aboriginal people will depend on the sorts of economies that may be generated in local areas. I hope that Aboriginal people will not be expected to resource their communities 100 per cent when taxpayers around the country subsidise residents in small States. On a per capita basis Tasmanians get a bigger share of tax revenue than do people from New South Wales. Anomalies of that sort exist quite rightly and deliberately around the country to take account of the different population densities and all the rest. I hope and suggest that the Aboriginal people should at least be guaranteed a certain percentage of the take, and perhaps should be represented at Premiers Conferences every year to negotiate formulae for disbursement of taxes. That was something of a digression on my part because the model I would prefer to see is one of Aboriginal sovereignty. Senator Tambling made some point about dispossession and compensation. He of course was talking about the dispossession of and compensation for more recent owners of their land-farmers, companies, whoever owns it at the moment-and Senator Tambling is concerned about dispossession of their land and compensation for their land. It would be an interesting exercise to do the mathematics to see what sort of compensation is proposed for people who have been dispossessed of their land in order that it may be returned to its original owners. If the mathematical formula was carried through to its logical conclusion and the same level of compensation was granted to Aboriginal people for the whole of the Australian continent, I think that would be a substantial claim for compensation for dispossession. Senator Tambling also talked about the costs involved in the reorganisation of the consultation process with Aboriginal people. I think no cost is too great to achieve justice for the Aboriginal people and for us to gain self-respect as a non-Aboriginal community. I do not believe that there is any room for negotiation. I think we have a duty and a moral obligation to pay whatever price is necessary for just an adequate compensation to the Aboriginal people for the dispossession of their land. That leads us to the preamble. Senator Tambling cautioned us about creating a precedent in recognising an antecedent legal title. I suggest that this is the precise heart of the matter: as a first step and as the basis of any following discussion we should recognise the antecedent legal title of the Aboriginal people. We should dispense with the legal fiction of terra nullius and accept as a non-Aboriginal community that the Aboriginal people were living here in a number of communities, entire and whole, and that they were forcibly, violently and horribly dispossessed of land which was theirs by right-dispossessed by invasion, by the use of firearms, by the use of disease and by the use of economic weapons. Senator Stone —Did you say `by the use of disease'? Senator WOOD —Yes, I did. Senator Stone —And do you imply by that the deliberate use of disease as a form of genocide against the Aboriginal population by our European ancestors? Senator WOOD —I am implying that. Senator Stone —That seems to be an extremely serious charge. Senator WOOD —It is an extremely serious charge. Senator Stone —Have you any evidence? Senator WOOD —I do not want to get into a debate. I have already cited some of the evidence and Noel Butlin's book Our Original Aggression: Aboriginal Populations of South-Eastern Australia. There has been a fair bit of academic debate over Noel Butlin's work and I am quite happy to provide Senator Stone with a quite extensive range of material and articles which discuss Noel Butlin's propositions. However, I do not think that Senator Stone should become too upset about the allegation of deliberate use of disease in the colonisation process because there is ample, adequate and in fact irrefutable evidence that the British and other colonists of North America and elsewhere deliberately used disease-namely, smallpox-to achieve their ends. There is incontrovertible and ample evidence that smallpox infected blankets were deliberately given to American indians. Senator Stone —What a load of garbage! Senator WOOD —I think Senator Stone is demonstrating the limits of his understanding of the world outside his narrow financial world. Senator Stone says, `What a load of garbage'. Senator Stone —I do indeed-and I am glad that you repeated it. Senator WOOD —Sadly, that demonstrates Senator Stone's unwillingness to accept the record of history and accept truths, however painful they may be. Senator Stone —I am totally prepared to accept the record of history; I am not prepared to accept a lot of smears on our ancestors put forward by smart alec academics. Senator WOOD —If Senator Stone is offended by the proposition that colonisers deliberately used disease in their colonisation of places around the world, he is rightly offended by his heritage and my heritage. However, as an aside, my heritage is a bit more complex, with Irish grandparents from Enniskillen, mother from Italy and a father from the north of England. Senator Colston —A very much publicised mix. Senator WOOD —Yes, a very much publicised mix. I once sat next to Al Grassby on a plane- Senator Stone —Don't mention Mr Grassby in this place. Senator WOOD —Senator Stone says that I should not mention Al Grassby; I probably should be careful about what I say about him. Al Grassby was quite taken by the fact that my ancestry was Italian, Irish and English because he said they were the three largest migrant population groups in this country. I am quite proud of them. Senator Colston —You have got all three in one. Senator WOOD —Yes, all three in one. Senator Richardson —It's your citizenship that we are worried about, not your ancestry. Senator WOOD —I am definitely an Australian citizen. On two occasions I affirmed allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, so I must be a good Australian. Senator Stone —It's a bit late in the day. Senator WOOD —That may be-perhaps I should have renounced my allegiance to Queen Elizabeth much earlier and then reaffirmed it much earlier, too. It would be interesting to take up this matter with Her Majesty when she is here, but I doubt whether that will occur. Senator Richardson —I shall be seeing her a couple of times. I might do it for you. Senator WOOD —Yes, please talk to Her Majesty about it. I return to the notion of the antecedent legal title and the fiction of terra nullius. I am sorry to cast some darkness over Senator Stone's bright vision of history, but unfortunately there are some dark shadows which he may not wish to accept but which the rest of us must. The Aboriginal people were violently and horribly dispossessed of land which was theirs by right. As a community, we must acknowledge that. Much has also been made about the traditional versus the non-traditional lifestyles of the Aboriginal people. There is a bit of a myth around that somehow Aboriginal people who live in a predominantly urban environment are somehow less Aboriginal than those who live in a more traditional environment and continue the ceremonial and ritual traditions of over 40,000 years. Many Aboriginal people have been cut off from many of their traditional ceremonies and rituals. I worked for a number of years in an urban environment with Aboriginal communities and it taught me a great deal about culture and its survival in fairly adverse circumstances. Traditional Aboriginal values have survived, and they continue to survive and operate in places where the ceremony and ritual no longer do. It is a harder notion to grasp, but when we look at so-called traditional communities where the traditional ceremony and ritual continue we see a substrata of values underlying the ceremony and the ritual. The ceremony and the ritual support the values and the values support the ceremony and the ritual. This is the way in which culture works. In urbanised Aboriginal communities the values are still strong and are still transmitted from generation to generation. The cultural identity is strong and I am concerned-it may be that I have not looked at the material from Mr Hand's office closely enough-that in the rush to develop this legislation traditional value systems may get lost in the sorts of structures that may be generated to deal with these sorts of reforms. I would like to see a continuation of what Senator Collins called a slow and steady approach. I believe that the consultation has to go on for a much longer time than until September of this year. I can understand the symbolic imperative to try to have something achieved in 1988-the 200th anniversary of the invasion. That would be a great symbolic gesture. I have advocated that we set ourselves on a new course and in a new direction this year and that this be the year in which we decide that things will change. But I do not think that we have to have all the i's dotted and the t's crossed and the whole structure in place to be able to make an in-principle commitment and to start the process rolling. I think the process has begun. I commend this Minister and the Government for what they have achieved. I commend the Minister for ignoring some of the rhetoric that has been thrown around by others in his Party and others perhaps higher in his Government and for proceeding with sensitivity and commitment on the course that he has taken. I look forward to further progress reports from the Minister in his consultations. I urge that in the common quest for justice for the Aboriginal people we do not go too far too fast. This would promote the sort of conservative backlash which would prevent significant achievement. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(6.33) —I begin by picking up some of Senator Tambling's words. He pointed out that this was an interim report which stood between, on the one hand, the statement made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) last year in announcing the development of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) and, on the other hand, the actual establishment of that Commission. This is a report on the progress of that process. In speaking after Senator Collins, Senator Tambling said that there appeared to be a degree of bipartisanship. The only disagreement I have with Senator Tambling's remark is that I would have said `tripartisanship' because the Australian Democrats are also giving this statement cautious and qualified support. It certainly moves in the right direction. Having heard Senator Wood speak and represent his Party, and presuming that the National Party of Australia is also supporting the proposal, we might talk about a `pentapartisanship' because there seems to be a wide degree of support for this statement. What needs to be recognised-and I think it is coming through many of the speeches-is that we are a group of Europeans in this Parliament who are addressing this issue. We must ask to what extent the debate has been taken back to those affected-the Aboriginal groups-whether it is adequate and, particularly, whether the time and the processes of consultation have been sufficient. Several speakers have pointed to the fact that we are in our Bicentenary year and that we are now 200 years on in the period of white settlement in Australia. This year, 1988, represents a crossroads. For a moment, I would like to point to some of my limited experience in talking to Aboriginal people about this year and the directions which Australia needs to take as an integrated society. A view which I have put forward, both in this place and outside, in relation to the differences between Aboriginal and European cultures the integration of those cultures and the Bicentenary is that there is abundant evidence that the dominant, largely European exploitative culture which has come into this country in the last 200 years has within it the seeds of its own destruction. This is contrary to what we find in traditional cultures, not only in the Aboriginal culture but in traditional cultures generally which have survived for a long period-in the case of the Aborigines probably at least 40,000 years. Such cultures have developed attitudes and relationships with each other, with other tribes and with the natural environment which have guaranteed their survival in the long term without seriously, and I stress seriously, depleting the ability of their environment to support their continuation. I am aware that some environmental damage was wrought in Australia by Aborigines, and has been wrought in other countries. I instance the damage which occurred in North America as a consequence of the invasion of the Red Indians from Asia about 11,000 years ago. But by and large there was a balance with the environment and an ability to survive. There was a caring for the environment which became built into the culture. By contrast, in the last few hundred years, Europeans have developed an attitude of exploitation to anything that can be exploited whether it be a racially disadvantaged group, such as the Aborigines, a sexually disadvantaged group, such as women, or an economically disadvantaged group, such as migrants or people who have recently entered the country and people who are less skilled. Also it could be some aspect of the environment, such as trees in Tasmania or north Queensland or the living animal environment. We tend to look at these as items to be turned into immediate short term gain. As I have indicated, there is abundant evidence that that attitude contains within it the seeds of its own destruction. It seems to me that 1988, the Bicentenary year, is an excellent year in which to address the proposition that, if we are to develop a society in Australia which has within it the seeds of its long term survival, it is vitally necessary that the dominant European culture pick up those elements which are caring and which look after the environment. It would be extremely useful to the dominant culture if it were to pick up those elements from the Aboriginal culture. At the same time-and I am speaking now as a European-we would be holding out the hand of understanding to Aborigines. We would not be saying, as we have in the past, `You have nothing at all to offer us. If you want to integrate into the culture, you must come 100 per cent across to our way of doing things'. Rather, we should be saying to Aborigines, `Within your culture there are elements which not only are vital to you but are now, we recognise, vital to us, and we will work together towards a new and integrated culture which contains the best elements of both'. I am not in any way denying that there are extremely valuable elements in our culture. We do not want to play down the creativity which we find in European culture. But there is no rational or logical reason why it should not be possible to put these two elements together and build not only a creative and vibrant culture but one which contains within it this element of caring for the environment, caring for each other and guaranteeing our long term survival. When I have taken that view to Aboriginal people I have been met with two sorts of responses. On the one hand, many of them have said, `Yes, that is indeed the way we would like to go, too. We would like to see a culture which incorporates some elements of our culture and we accept that these are elements which you need in your culture. We are prepared to work with you for the achievement of that end'. But the other response that I have received is one of considerable anger and frustration. Aboriginal people well educated in the white culture-urban Aborigines, particularly-have fairly bluntly said, `Okay, that would have been all right 20 years ago, but now it is too late'. Essentially, the expression is one of war between the European dominant culture and the Aboriginal culture. It is not at all surprising that we have come to this very sad situation. Senator Collins mentioned that on many occasions he had expressed concern not only about Aboriginal deaths in custody but also about Aboriginal deaths out of custody and the conditions of life which have brought that situation about. I would just like to deal briefly with a situation concerning a group of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders which came to my attention in recent weeks and which illustrates the urgency of the plight of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders with the dominant culture and the way in which many of those problems are simply not being addressed. This case concerns a group of 18 young students-nine from Darwin, six from Queensland and three from the Torres Strait-who had come down to study at the Port Adelaide Aboriginal College. All of them were a long way from home, from their family and from their cultural roots and at the beginning of a new academic year were thrown into a strange and alien situation. No preparations for accommodation were made up to four days before the students arrived in Port Adelaide. Within four days of their arrival it was suddenly discovered that there was no accommodation for them. A home which had been housing mentally retarded people was quickly emptied out and the students were put into it in about the middle of February. There were no facilities for studying at the home and students of different sexes were put into one room. I am told that the provision of food and other facilities was totally inadequate. Having been a student many years ago and coming from Perth to Adelaide to study medicine, I know the feeling of being a young student in a place away from home and having to cope with those pressures. But imagine the plight of these students who had the extra burden of operating in an alien culture where, by and large, the dominant culture does not look particularly kindly on them. An Aboriginal gentleman who had come down from Queensland and was living in the vicinity was kind enough to extend hospitality to those students. He took them out of the situation they were in and put them into his own home. He looked after them and provided them with meals and accommodation. That situation persisted for several weeks before eventually some of the students were accommodated by Aboriginal Hostels Ltd in a facility in north Adelaide, which is some distance away from where they had to study. Some others were accommodated in private homes. Mr Glen Williams, the Aboriginal man from Queensland, did this-and it is interesting that, again, this reflects a difference in cultural attitude between Aborigines and whites-because, by and large, Aborigines are much better at looking after fellow Aborigines than whites are. He tells me that, as a consequence of his kindness and action, he is now some $2,500 to $3,000 in debt. That sort of situation-the desperation in which those students found themselves and the desperation in which Mr Glen Williams now finds himself, having suffered a substantial financial penalty for looking after some of his fellow Aborigines-is a very sad reflection on our society and the way in which we have dealt with these problems. One can only express a hope that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission will deal better with these sorts of problems in the future. Senator Tambling has reflected on the time scale. Certainly, the Democrats had become very alarmed at the Minister's earlier proposal that the introduction of this legislation be arranged so that the Commission could begin on 1 July. It seemed quite evident to us that the consultative process could not be adequately carried out by then. We made representations to the Minister that the date be put back to 1 January. It is pleasing to see that that has been done. However, I think we would express similar concerns to those expressed by Senator Tambling, namely, that the timetable for elections for the Commission in October, November and December and, therefore, for the necessary passage of legislation in September does not allow a great deal of time for these now modified plans to be taken back to Aboriginal groups and for adequate consultation to take place so that the legislation, when introduced, properly reflects their wishes. Clearly, that is the point: it does not matter so much what we white Europeans in this Parliament think about this. What is really important is whether it fits the needs of the Aboriginal communities. It is pleasing to see that the Minister has modified the arrangement for the election for commissioners and expanded the size of the Commission so that now we have a proposed Commission which will be predominantly elected by Aboriginal communities. It is also pleasing to see, as Senator Collins pointed out, that more natural boundaries which are more in keeping with the wishes of Aboriginal people have been drawn and that the number of groups has been expanded from 28 to 56. The powers which reside with the Commission are somewhat ill-defined in this paper and the door is certainly left open for the Minister to exercise considerable powers over the Commission. The Minister says that there are two categories of Commission functions. The first category is those functions on which the Minister can make specific directions-in other words, direct the Commission. Clearly, in those cases the Minister could so direct the Commission that it would have very little room in which to manoeuvre. One hopes that Mr Hand is not such a Minister and would not do that, but clearly this must serve the needs of Aborigines long after this Minister has left the office. Secondly, there are those functions on which the Commission will make final decisions and about which the Minister may make only a general direction. If most of the Commission's deliberations are of the second kind, the Commission will have a great deal of latitude. If most of the decisions are of the first kind, the Minister may exercise a considerable power. The question of Torres Strait Islander independence, or a move towards independence, is addressed partially in the statement. The Australian Democrats have been persuaded that there is a substantial move among Torres Strait Islanders for a greater degree of independence. We have at least floated the idea of a separate commission to meet that need and of allowing that separate commission to evolve along somewhat more independent lines. The Minister has met that by offering an advisory body within the Commission-the Torres Strait Islander Advisory Board, which will be directly responsible to and will advise the Minister. To what extent that will meet the wishes of Torres Strait Islanders is yet to be discovered. Again, further consultation is required for that to be ascertained. The matter of the preamble is addressed by the Minister in fairly severe terms when he says: I am bound to say that the Government remains committed to a preamble which does no more than recite the facts which have led to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of this nation being the most disadvantaged socio-economic group within the Australian community. The opening words-`I am bound to say that the Government remains committed to a preamble'-seem to leave very little room for negotiation in relation to the preamble. Senator Tambling has raised the question of what force the preamble would have in law. My understanding is that a preamble which is not actually written into the Act itself, while it would be unusual, would have no force in law. It may act as some sort of guidance to a court interpreting the Act which followed it, but it would have very little force in law. I am aware that many in the Aboriginal community are disappointed that at this time the Government is not prepared to write something into the legislation which recognises prior Aboriginal occupation and the claims which flow from it. I pick up Senator Wood's point that it seems strange that we should be so concerned about the proprietary rights of those who have come to this country so recently and yet we seem blinkered and unable to see the proprietary rights which would flow quite naturally from the recognition of 40,000 years of occupation which, as I have pointed out earlier, has been much more benign on this country than 200 years of white occupation. In summary, the Democrats support the statement. We hope that this is a move in the right direction and that it does open up the opportunities which the Aboriginal people are looking for. We believe that it may be necessary to extend the time still further. There may not be sufficient time for adequate consultation over the actual legislation before this comes into place, and certainly that should be done if it is demanded. There should be no pressure to cut short the time if Aboriginal people want more time. With those provisos, it seems to us that the Minister has gone a long way to meeting at least the first round of criticisms, objections and changes which the Aboriginal people themselves have asked for. Senator BURNS(Queensland)(6.55) —I commend the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) on the statement that he has made and support the attitude that he exhibits in relation to this question. It is an attitude that must give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders a great deal of hope for the future. I can never involve myself in a debate on the rights of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders without thinking of my involvement with the former Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, particularly in the 1960s when there was very little support for the cause. Governments gave no support and there was no recognition, even though a number of Labor politicians gave their support personally and were very much appreciated for it. One thinks of the history of Aboriginal people and their treatment and compares that with what the foreshadowed legislation will provide. There is no doubt that Aboriginal people suffered terrible cruelty, exploitation and, to a lesser extent, lack of concern from the white community in this country. They were on settlements run by governments and, in some cases, churches. Even though they may have thought they were doing good, sometimes they were very cruel, unthinking and unconcerned for those they claimed publicly to be helping. They were bureaucratic in their attitude to the way those people were handled. It is unfortunate that Senator Stone has left the chamber. I was rather concerned at his lack of knowledge of the treatment of Aborigines. He took Senator Wood to task, by way of interjection, when he spoke about disease. I suggest that white people in the community used methods that were quicker and more final. Some people and groups of people-not all, of course-saw Aboriginals in the 1800s as nuisances and obstacles in the way of accumulating wealth. They gave them poisoned flour and poisoned waterholes because they said that Aboriginals, in their hunting procedure, frightened the beasts that they were raising for profit away from the waterholes. That has been written into our history and is accepted by the community, if not by Senator Stone. One also looks at some of the organisations which have been put in place by governments over the years which, they have claimed, were put there for the service of Aboriginal interests. Again, there was no consultation, no consideration of the rights of individuals and no democracy for Aboriginals who were governed by those organisational tools that were put in place. As I have said, when I was involved with the former Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, which met in Canberra each Easter in the 1960s, the one thing about which they were concerned was land rights. They were deeply concerned about the right of Aboriginals to make decisions about their life and that they should be recognised in the community as Caucasians, white people, were. At that time a struggle was going on by the Gurindji people of Wattie Creek on the Wave Hill Station. They were seeking land which they felt was theirs historically and which had sacred implications for them. They did not get much help other than from certain progressive organisations in the community, including the trade union movement. They struggled for some months, which ran into more than a year, and finally they were given some land on Wave Hill Station at Wattie Creek. They are still there using that land in their traditional ways of sharing and caring for people. At the same time there was a struggle for equal pay for stockmen going on and the North Australian Workers Union played quite a good role in this, as did the Australian Workers Union. There was a struggle to get equal pay for Aboriginal stockmen because in some cases their wages were only 25 per cent of those of white stockmen. This was despite the fact that Aboriginal stockmen had to teach white stockmen how to do their work and had to find the white stockmen when they got lost. Yet all they were paid was a pittance of 25 per cent of the white stockmen's rate of pay. Those were the times when the Aboriginals struggled. All through their struggles they were looking for the right to express their point of view, the right to make decisions for themselves and the right to be heard. The foreshadowed legislation goes to that question. It goes to the question of an involvement in decision-making in a way that is meaningful. There is a lot said in this place, when we talk about legislation, about its effectiveness-whether it is properly drafted and whether there is enough detail. I would assert that any legislation passed in this chamber, regardless of how good the written word may be and all the care that is taken with it, will not achieve what it was intended it should achieve unless it is enacted in the way it is intended, unless the people that have to use that legislation in their day to day lives understand it, believe in it and work for it. Of course, the Minister has done that. He said clearly in the first part of his statement that the ATSIC proposal would not go ahead if it did not receive a positive endorsement from the Aboriginal and Islander community. He showed a concern in that regard for what they wanted. That was the nature of the legislation they wanted. That is what the legislation would provide. Obviously, if one looks at the culture of the Aboriginal people, one realises that they have never really asked a lot for themselves. They have certainly wanted things for their collective because they have always had a culture of sharing and caring and not one of accumulating wealth or possessions. The Minister, of course, has made this statement following the consultations that he described at a time when there was quite a vigorous outcry from the Torres Strait Islander community and they were able to outline how they had been disadvantaged and not been given a fair go by successive governments over many years. They were asking for independence. The Minister was able to talk to them and get their views. It has been agreed as a result of that consultation that there will be a special Torres Strait Island regional council and that they will have a commissioner elected by their own people. I will quote from the Minister's statement: Members of the House will recall that I visited the Torres Strait islands twice during January and February. I now inform the House of details of the proposal agreed to at the second meeting held on Thursday Island. The interests of resident Torres Strait Islanders will be represented by the Torres Strait Islander commissioner, who will be elected by the Torres Strait regional council. There will also be an Office of Torres Strait Islander Affairs created within ATSIC, to ensure that the Commission and other Government programs adequately address the needs of Torres Strait islanders . . . That is the bottom line-it has to address their needs and has to give satisfaction. When I read that statement I cast my mind back to a visit I made to the Torres Strait Islands some two years ago when the people said that they were very pleased with the Labor Government because Bob Hawke had given deferred pay to some amongst their community. I had not heard the term `deferred pay' used since just after the last war when a lot of the soldiers who fought in the war to protect this country were given a payment, as a deferred payment. But those people from the Torres Strait Islands, who, of course, in those days were not even counted in the census, were not given anything. They were given the right to fight and risk their lives but no recognition in the same terms as people in the Australian community who had white skins. The Hawke Government provided that payment. For that they were grateful. They were grateful from the point of view that at last they had been recognised on equal terms with white Australians. In the Minister's statement he makes it clear that the regional councils will be set up. They are organisations which will be close to the rank and file of the Aboriginal people, in which decisions can be made and in which everybody will have an input and be proud of whatever results. If the result is not good, the people will have to live with that; they will have to fix that; they will not be able to blame other people. Therefore, that proposal for democracy at the lowest possible level in the community is excellent. The Minister in his statement went on to point out that, of the 15-member Commission, 12 would be elected. So it is very clear that appointments by the Minister will certainly not create a situation where he will have any control over, or undue influence on, what those bodies decide. The Minister went on in his usual open and honest way-an attitude which I believe goes down well with honest and reasonable people-to say: The issues that were raised during my first visit- to the Torres Strait Islands- will be dealt with at another time. He does not try to say, `We have fixed everything up; this Commission will fix everything up'. He recognises that there are still problems but that, with an honest and open approach and with cooperation, those problems will be solved. He then went on to say: In a very real sense, these changes represent a complete overhaul of the existing relationship between the Federal Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. No longer will they be held at arm's length from Government- that has always been their concern and their criticism- under the guise of `advisory' bodies and the like. Even within the Islander community bureaucrats can grow up and subvert the sort of activity intended to benefit all Islanders, not just a few. Of course, the same applies to the Aboriginal community. The Minister continued: No longer will the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people be excluded from the executive decision-making processes of government. What the Minister is saying is that they will have access to the Government. That is correct. That is how it should be. The Minister continued: The process as a whole far exceeds all the consultations ever undertaken in respect of any previous Federal or State legislation dealing with matters affecting Aboriginal people. Again he has made the point that that has been the situation up to now. The critical aspect of it is that it continues so that nobody can ever say-in any community, let alone the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities which have all these difficulties that they have tried to address over the years-that it is possible to come up with a plan or proposition that fixes everything up. However, if we have the right attitude, a sharing and caring attitude, an open attitude and one which shows concern for the people whom one serves, all things are possible. Solutions can be found and, I believe, will be found under the administration of the Minister. I am sure that the Aboriginal people will be hoping that he remains in that post for some time. It will certainly be a fruitful relationship between the Aboriginal people and our Minister, Gerry Hand. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator BURNS(Queensland) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present the report relating to the construction of radio and orchestra facilities for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service at Ultimo, New South Wales. I seek leave to have a short statement incorporated in Hansard and I table the report. Leave granted. The statement read as follows:- The report which I have just tabled relates to the approval by the Committee of the construction of radio and orchestra facilities for the ABC and SBS at Ultimo, New South Wales. The Committee has concluded that the project will lead to a more efficient use of resources resulting in economies which it is expected will substantially pay for the new complex. The project will be funded on an instalment purchase basis and not from the budget. The ABC advised the Committee that savings of $10.2m per annum are expected as a result of the co-location of ABC radio and SBS radio and these will be offset against the cost of the project. The Committee has noted the concern of the ABC staff union regarding the achievement of the project cost savings and the Committee recognises that the realisation of the potential savings will depend greatly on cooperation between management, staff and their unions. The Committee has also drawn attention to the failure of the consultation process between ABC and the ABC staff union and believes that meaningful consultation must take place if this project is to succeed. It was suggested to the Committee that the project should not proceed during the current review of national broadcasting policy. This matter was given serious consideration by the Committee but it has accepted advice from the ABC that the design of the complex is sufficiently flexible to accommodate modifications should these be necessary. In conclusion, on behalf of the Committee I would like to congratulate the ABC Board for responding to the needs of staff by agreeing to provide child care facilities in the Ultimo project. These facilities will replace existing child care facilities sponsored by the ABC staff union. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice) —I seek leave to make a statement on behalf of the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) relating to the implementation of the Hamilton report and to move a motion that the Senate take note of the statement. Leave granted. Senator TATE —I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- In November 1985 the Minister for Defence commissioned a study into the problems facing spouses of service personnel. The Minister realised that circumstances have changed. In the past, service families were expected without question to up stumps and follow the colours, wherever they led and whatever the family circumstances. That is no longer the case, and nor should it be. Community expectations have changed, and so have the expectations of service families. The study the Minister commissioned was undertaken by Mrs Sue Hamilton of the Office of the Status of Women over a period of 5 months. The Hamilton study broke new ground. It identified, for the first time, all of the issues that service in the Australian Defence Force creates for the spouses and families of its members. It recognised that ADF policy should pay real attention to the needs of the spouse and family, to their quality of life and to the effect on them of a member's service in the ADF. The Hamilton report had no predecessor, and no substantial research base to work from. No broad examination, investigation or study had looked at the needs and wants of the people who, though they are not bound to the Australian Defence Force by service, are deeply affected by its policy and day to day decisions. During the course of the study Mrs Hamilton travelled to all States and visited all areas with major concentrations of service personnel, as well as a number of smaller bases in remote locations. Open meetings for spouses were held in every area visited. Attendance at these meetings totalled about 4,300. Over 700 written submissions were made to the study. Many people took the opportunity to air their views through radio phone-ins around Australia, by private telephone contact, or by office visit. Contact was not limited to individuals. Mrs Hamilton also had discussions with commanding officers, administrative staff and other serving personnel in the areas she visited; with chaplains and welfare staff attached to bases; and with civilian agencies in areas around bases. The Hamilton report is thorough. I am pleased to report that the Government's actions in response to the recommendations of the report have been flexible and comprehensive. The first recommendation Mrs Hamilton made was for a clear directive to be given at ministerial level that the issue of family morale in the Australian Defence Force is one of high priority. My colleague the Minister for Defence gave his personal commitment. The Government expressed its commitment by appointing me Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. My actions since assuming this ministry confirm that commitment. Since my appointment I have made extensive visits to defence bases throughout Australia to talk to service members and their families and to gauge for myself the issues that concern them and the problems they face. These visits have given me a vital insight into the sheer size of the Defence community, and the variety of places in which service families live and work. These visits have taught me that, above all, our efforts to improve the quality of life for Defence families must be adaptable. They must allow for the local and regional differences between the many places-from capital cities to remote and isolated communities-that service life takes people to. Different places require different assistance, and people moving from one place to another have different needs in different places. Service life can mean you move from Canberra to Puckapunyal, and then to Townsville or Melbourne. The operational and training needs of a service career demand postings. Many, if not most, of the unique difficulties that affect service families derive from this inevitable need for postings. The Hamilton report recognised the problem, and its importance. The Chief of the Defence Force recognises it, and so does this Government. Following the Hamilton report we employed an independent firm of management consultants to examine the policies on promotions and postings in the three Services. They concluded that the incidence of postings is at a level consistent with the operational and training needs of the ADF. At the same time, they made recommendations to assist in achieving a balance between the requirements of service and domestic life. The Chief of the Defence Force has determined that postings will be for three years, subject to operational exigencies. Further, a policy of back to back postings in the same locality will be pursued wherever possible, giving those who want it stability for up to six years. I do not want to give the impression that moving from place to place is necessarily an unwelcome thing. Many Defence families, many of their children, enjoy the variety of a service life, and the range of experiences they gain from it. What the Government must try to do is to find the best way we can to ease unnecessary burdens and pressures on families when they are posted. One very important means of helping a family to adjust to a new location is to provide as much information as possible to the family about the place it is going to. Families need to know about schooling, about the availability of employment for spouses, about child care and community services. The Hamilton report identified this need and made recommendations about it. They have been implemented. The Government has set up the Australian Defence Force Family Information and Liaison Staff (ADFILS), to provide community development and education support for service families throughout Australia. ADFILS headquarters in Canberra coordinates an extensive network of full and part time professional staff. The recruitment program to fill all the positions that have been created is well advanced. In all there will be: one senior community development coordinator and six community development coordinators eight regional education liaison officers thirty community development officers In addition, 51 family liaison officers (FLOS) have been established in the Services to act as the first point of contact for families. They will operate as a supplement to the support systems that have been run by the individual Services for many years. The regional education liaison officers (REDLOS) will provide professional advice and assistance to service families and to FLOS, establish and monitor the education needs of families, and represent those needs to State governments and authorities. The community development coordinators (CDCS) will provide the essential link between civilian and service communities, and ensure the smooth delivery of support services for defence families. They will also select, train and monitor the thirty community development officers (CDOS) who will be based in areas of major service concentration. This extensive professional network will be a boon for mobile families. It will make reliable information easy to obtain, and assistance readily available to any family that needs it. ADFILS is a very important source of direct support to service personnel and their families, and I confidently predict that, once it is fully operational (and that will be soon), the network will prove to be the most valuable resource government has ever provided to service families. It is essential that all members of the ADF know about ADFILS and the service it has to offer. Communication is effected through ADFILS outposted staff, by the regular publication of a newsletter and by frequent contributions by ADFILS to the three service newspapers. I make it my business whenever I visit a base to talk to servicemen and servicewomen and to spouses groups to raise with them family issues, so that everyone I can reach is up-to-date with their entitlements. Close attention has been given to the prompt settlement of claims for compensation submitted as a result of loss or damage to goods during removal. The Spouses Working Party on Removals on which services spouses are represented keeps a close eye on the efficiency of removals. There is evidence that all aspects of removals have improved considerably. Disruptions to children's education can be a major problem for service parents. The frequent requirement for interstate postings means children, particularly those at important points in their schooling, may suffer disadvantages. We are taking action to minimise any bad effects. My consultant, Mrs Helen Mayer, is currently working on obtaining agreement with State education authorities on reporting processes. We have developed a pilot scheme to introduce a student portfolio into schools with a high service population. The portfolio will contain examples of students' work and interests that will be portable from school to school. This will assist teachers to place students at the right level and give them vital information about what a student has learnt at the previous school and what has been missed out. The student information portfolio has been introduced in every State and Territory and has been enthusiastically received by service parents. I would like to see a common-core curriculum introduced in high schools that have a high defence population. This will involve complex negotiations with the directors-general of education in each of the States but it is the direction I want to pursue. The student portfolio is only one of a number of initiatives we have taken in an area that is clearly of great concern to defence parents. I have introduced an extra tuition allowance payable for children in the last two years of primary or in any stage of secondary school who move as a result of a posting. Where needed extra tuition for up to six weeks will be available, with tuition fees being reimbursed up to a maximum of $40 a week. The eligibility criteria for education allowance have been broadened. In the past, education allowance was restricted to children who would suffer serious interference to their education if required to change schools as a result of a posting. The new provisions give the approving authority greater discretion also to consider the impact of the member's next posting where that is likely to cause serious interference. This will particularly help members on short duration postings to remote areas, such as Tindal. In writing her report, Mrs Hamilton talked to many service spouses to find out what they thought. This process of consultation proved so useful that Mrs Hamilton recommended the establishment of a National Consultative Group of Service Spouses (NCGSS). This group was established in 1986 and its expenses are funded by the Department of Defence. Members come from all over the country. The aim of the group is to improve the quality of life for service spouses and their families. The group provides a forum for their views and a mechanism to make recommendations to me and to CDF. Service spouses thus are in a position to influence the policies that directly affect service families. As you can tell from what I have listed so far, the Government's implementation of Mrs Hamilton's report has been both flexible and comprehensive. We have set up support networks and employed professional help, as well as introducing new conditions of service where that is a more effective and appropriate response. Child care is an issue that shows how this combination of responses works. Approval has been obtained for reimbursement of child care expenses for up to two days during removals where only one spouse is available to do the moving. Discussions on the child care needs of service families were held with the then Department of Community Services in the wake of the Hamilton report. A number of centres was identified where there was a mutual service and civilian interest in community child care. Centres which have been or are soon to be established as a result of these discussions include Townsville, Katherine, Wagga, Nowra, Rockingham and Hastings. I recognise that service families have to compete for places at these centres and that they are disadvantaged by their frequent removals. Nevertheless, these facilities do contribute to meeting the needs of service families living in these areas. I am currently working on a comprehensive defence policy on provision of child care support for defence families. I am committed to improving the level of support available to defence families in recognition of the special pressures which defence force employment imposes in a society which is changing. Self-help will continue to be an important element though, in my view, some employer support by defence is also warranted. I hope to have policy guidelines formulated in time for consideration in the lead up to the August Budget. Meanwhile approval has been given for licensed family day care schemes to operate from service married quarters and for surplus defence facilities to be used to house child care centres. Limited child care facilities have already been established at some bases. I opened the new centre at Swanbourne in Western Australia earlier this year. Next month I go to Enoggera to open the occasional care centre and kindergarten there. Because of their mobility services spouses often find that they are discriminated against in obtaining employment. This is not only unfair but a terrible waste of talent. Recently I met a service spouse at HMAS Stirling. She told me that she had applied for a job and when asked what her husband did, replied that he was in the Navy. No job was forthcoming. She called again the next day using her maiden name. This time when asked what her husband did she said that he was engaged in underwater research. She got the job. I am presently undertaking a series of visits to speak with employers about this problem. I am being helped in this regard by the Committee for Employer Support of Reserve Forces. My aim is not preferential treatment but simply to make sure that service spouses get a fair go in employment. There are several other initiatives which the Government has pursued to improve the lot of service families. Legislation will be introduced shortly to amend the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act. the purpose of the amendment will be to allow retiring members to make an election, up to three months before retirement, to commute a proportion of their pensions to a lump sum for payment on their retirement. This will minimise if not entirely remove any delay between severance and receipt of the commutation lump sum. Members of the ADF are now entitled to four reunion visits each year if they are separated from their spouses on long term postings. If the serving member is posted to a remote locality at the time that his or her children are finishing their last years at high school, or if his or her spouse has compelling career obligations, the family might decide that their collective interests are best served by the temporary absence of the serving member. In a case like that reunion visits are a crucial element in maintaining family stability. To alleviate the disruptions to families who are presently required to move to a new locality when a member is posted, consideration is being given to a proposal that the member be able to decide, having regard to family needs, to defer movement of the family and continue to receive housing assistance at the old locality. This proposal is one of three that are under consideration by my colleague the Minister for Industrial Relations. Another important recommendation of the Hamilton report also under consideration by the Minister for Industrial Relations is disturbance allowance. With regard to disturbance allowance, the rates for the third, fourth, fifth and sixth moves are being reviewed. Possible inequities relating to members without families are also being considered. The overall aim is to fairly reimburse service personnel for movement necessarily incurred by the need of their employment. An improved means of recognising and compensating members for the costs involved in the movement of their household pets is also under consideration. One of the additional costs associated with the removals is that involved in complying with State regulations. Drivers licences are an example. My consultant has been meeting with State authorities to try and obtain a more tolerant approach. If I had my way there would be a national drivers licence for Defence Force personnel. Unfortunately, I have been advised that constitutional difficulties might be encountered in unilaterally pursuing such an objective. No statement about service families would be complete without talking about housing. The Hamilton report made no specific recommendations about service housing, apart from indicating that there was a problem and that measures to address it were under way. They certainly are. On 1 January the Defence Housing Authority was set up. The legislation establishing the DHA ensured it the flexibility to manage defence housing commercially, to reduce management costs and delays in deliveries and to improve maintenance. The Government has pledged that $750m will be made available to the Authority over 10 years for acquisition and building of new houses and for improving our current stock. That is a very significant financial commitment and one that means a lot to defence families. The reality has far exceeded the promise. $73m was earlier provided for capital expenditure on housing this financial year. An additional $46m for the Authority has just been announced, $10m of which is for essential improvements such as security locks, the extra $36m is for spot purchasing of houses and land for defence families where the need is greatest. This brings to $119m the funds committed to improved defence housing this financial year. Including the measures implemented in response to the Hamilton report, annual defence expenditure which contributes to supporting service families totals some $193m. That is over $5,000 per year for each married member of the ADF. But the benefits of what we have done are more than merely economic. The real benefits lie in the process of communication that we have made possible, and in the understanding and flexibility of administration which follows. The flow of information between families and headquarters is guaranteed, and guaranteed to flow both ways. Spouses are represented at the centre, where policy is decided, and they are supported locally when they need information and help. Commanding officers on bases are involved, and their support is crucial. The result is a vastly improved system of reciprocal communication. That is the improvement we have made that forms the basis for all other improvements, both now and in the future. In three years we have addressed problems that have been building up and festering for decades. It is a record of initiative and achievement that we can be very proud of. It is unshakeable evidence that this Government cares about the people whose work it is to defend this country, and their families. Senator TATE —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(7.10) —In speaking tonight on the statement from the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) on the implementation of the report of the Hamilton Review of Effect of Service Life on Spouses I would like first of all to draw attention to the fact that although it is 12 pages long, the first three pages cover the history of the report and its provisions to the Government. Three pages, 25 per cent of this statement, relate to what has gone on in the past, before the Minister gets to the substance of the report. One page is virtually a re-run of a Press release about the setting up by the Government of the Australian Defence Forces Families Information and Liaison Staff (ADFILS). The Minister put out that very detailed release long before today but has used it again today to pad up this statement. Before I get too unkind about the statement I would like to set it in context and to draw the Senate's attention to what the Chief of Naval Staff says about the Hamilton report and its implementation. The Royal Australian Navy made a submission to the joint parliamentary inquiry into wastage rates in the defence forces, and the Navy's submission contained this paragraph: Another, more recent example of the inadequacy of the internal committee system is the Hamilton Report. First published in April 1986- I repeat, 1986- not one of the financial conditions recommended was implemented until 15 January, 1988. That is, nearly two years later. The Navy went on to say: This was not for want of trying by the Services, but it was not until the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, acting in her new portfolio, brought pressure to bear that any progress was made. That really points to how much effort the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) made on behalf of the defence forces in the matter of their conditions of service and the well-being of their families. The Chief of Naval Staff has made it quite clear that it took a new Minister and a bit of push before anything started really to roll with the Hamilton report and its implementation. So full marks to Mrs Kelly for coming in like a new broom and trying something. The sad thing is that those of us who have been closely associated with this matter know that poor Mrs Kelly was not too successful in what she was able to achieve. When she did get the ball to start rolling, it was only in a very small way, and the things that she got through at the early stages at least were only the things that cost either no money or very little money at all. So she has not been as successful with the implementation of the Hamilton report as perhaps she might have liked and as I certainly would have liked to have seen her. She has had some very real difficulties in that area which I will refer to later. On page 3 of the statement the Minister said that `the incidence of postings is at a level consistent with the operational and training needs of the ADF'. That was a conclusion from the management consultants who examined the policies on promotions and postings in the three Services. That may be all very well, but that really does not tell us the whole picture. The incidence of postings may have been at a level consistent with the operational and training needs of the Australian Defence Force (ADF), but the statement does not give much attention to the needs of the families and whether the incidence of postings is consistent with their needs. Of course, we know that it is not. We know very well that trying to plug holes, which is one way of describing it, the Services have been trying to fill up the gaps of those who have been departing in such numbers, and this has led to very unacceptable rates of turbulence for postings for service families. On page 4 of the statement the Minister says that `the Chief of the Defence Force has determined that postings will be for three years, subject to operational exigencies', and that `a policy of back to back postings in the same locality will be pursued wherever possible'. I am very glad about that. I welcome that decision. I recognise that those instructions have gone out to unit commanders in the Services, and if it can be achieved it will be very useful and helpful to service families. However, I have grave doubts about how successful they will be in this area, because the proviso-which was `subject to operational exigencies'-is very real and, in the current state of undermanning in the defence forces, is likely to cause so many problems with allowing postings for three years and back to back postings. I have very grave doubts about how successful they will be in achieving their very worthy aims. That has not long been decided. It is something that in my opinion could have been done long ago, and in many ways it would have saved money, with fewer people moving from posting to posting than has been the case recently. Page 5 is pretty much the Press release that the Minister put out in the past. I draw your attention, Madam Acting Deputy President, to page 6, where the Minister says that she makes it her business, whenever she visits a base, to talk to servicemen and servicewomen and to spouses groups to raise with them family issues, so that everyone she can reach is up to date with their entitlements. I am very glad, as that is exactly what I urged her to do when she took over the portfolio. It is certainly something I have been doing since I have been in the Senate. My only critical comment is: How does she expect to get the sort of frank exchange of views that she gives the impression she would like to get when the spouses are acutely aware of the guidelines for behaviour in dealing with her when she visits as a Minister. I do not know whether she realises what terrible resentment the issuing of those guidelines caused to defence families. Inevitably, when the Minister these days visits units, those guidelines of how to behave to the visiting Minister and on the putting of questions on notice in advance-very kid glove treatment of the Minister, I might add-will always be in the minds of the service men and women and their families. I am not too sure just how frank a treatment the Minister now receives. I am glad to see that the Minister claims that attention has been given to the prompt settlement of claims for compensation submitted as a result of loss or damage to goods during removal. Quite a lot of work was done in this area by the previous Government and by this Government in trying to improve the standard of removals. The spouses working party has been doing a lot of very useful work in that area. I am glad that the Minister, after some pushing, I might add, from the spouses working party and also from the Opposition, finally agreed to give a small amount of financial assistance to enable these spouses to inspect furniture repositories around Australia and not to be stranded for lack of a Royal Australian Air Force flight to bring them back to their homes. I recognise that that is an improvement. However, I discovered recently during the Estimates Committee hearings that the Department of Administrative Services, which has the responsibility for these removals for the client department, was not even aware of the existence of the organisation ADFILS which was set up to assist service families. It was only after I explained what the organisation was all about and suggested that it might try to do a little information exercise in the ADFILS newsletter that I understand that that is now to happen. It seems to me that if the Minister was really on top of her job she would not need the Opposition to tell the Department how to make better arrangements for information to get to her servicemen and their families. I recognise that in recent weeks the Minister has made some announcements about education matters. I think this is one of the most critical areas in which service families need help. The announcement a while back about extra tuition for children was a step in the right direction, but the freeing up of the criteria for education allowances for boarding is a much more worthwhile and valuable step. At this stage I am not sure just how well it will operate because it has been very hard to find out just what the fine print will be. There has been quite a reasonable education allowance on the books for some years, but when only 87 children in the whole of the defence force families are receiving an education allowance, it is clear-and all the evidence I have shows that it is clear-that the criteria have been implemented far too severely, and a freeing up of that is important. I reserve judgment because I want to see just how it operates. At the same time, I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that the allowance needs increasing. It has not been increased for some time. In some way, it has to be allowed to rise with the cost of keeping children in some kind of boarding facility when their families are faced with moves. Mrs Kelly talks about some of the allowances, such as the disturbance allowance, which will need to be looked at. The disturbance allowance most certainly will have to be looked at. The greatest amount of disturbance allowance available to a family now is $700. That was increased not terribly long ago. A service family kept very precise records for me on a recent move over Christmas. There were two parents and two teenage children. It cost $1,500 to move that family just halfway across Australia. They were eligible for $700. The important point is that these families are moving so often. It is not as if they move once every 10 years or so and perhaps we could expect them to absorb the difference. When they are moving, sometimes once a year, it is a terrible burden to place on families who are not really in receipt of high incomes by anybody's standards. We all like to think that the family can move the pet with it. There is a pet allowance of something like $70. It cost a family $700 to take a german shepherd from Melbourne to Cairns and it costs $10 a day to keep that dog in kennels while the family is in the process of moving. That may sound a bit trivial but the fact is that those dogs are needed these days for families posted to areas where the married quarters are in very low socioeconomic areas with high crime rates. That is happening in a number of areas. The men are away for such long periods that the families need protection. So big dogs are really quite an integral part of many service families' lives. They give the families a feeling of protection when they have no security locks on their windows and doors and no men to repel intruders. The Minister on page 8 talks about the expenses of the National Consultative Group of Service Spouses (NCGSS). Obviously she is not aware-and she should be-that although the expenses are funded by the Department of Defence, they are just not good enough. The group's role very much is an information role in the exchange of information with its constituents right around the country. It is very difficult to get messages through to families. So often husbands will not take service newspapers home. Unless families in their homes can be communicated with directly by post there is not much hope of letting them know what their entitlements are and how they can get help if they need it. So just a little thing like a decent postage rate is very important to them. The Minister should be aware of that and do something about it. There is so much to say about this statement. On page 9 the Minister said that `some employer support by Defence is also warranted'. This concerns spouses who cannot get child-care support. I hope she can convince her Government that there is virtue in providing employer support in the area of child-care. I have grave doubts that she will be able to achieve anything in this area, although I hope she can. I have grave doubts that Senator Walsh and Mr Willis will be very cooperative. It seems to me that when it comes to anything to do with service families, they are the ones who call the tune, not the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and not the Minister for Defence, because he is not interested-and we all know that. The sad thing about the child-care that is available for Defence Force families is that it has been provided by way of self-help, which is very worthy, but in the two or three centres where it is currently provided, it has been provided mainly so that one-income service families will be able to afford occasional child-care. Because of the requirements of State and Federal governments in the area of child-care, the cost overheads of these child-care centres are so great that the one-income families are unable to afford occasional care. When servicemen are away for weeks on end, or months on end if they are at sea, and a young mother with one or two babies has to go to the doctor, for example if she is pregnant, she needs someone to look after her children-and she cannot afford it. She has no mother or sisters anywhere near-she may be thousands of miles from her home. That is the sort of back up support people in the defence forces particularly need. The Minister says on page 10: Legislation will be introduced shortly to amend the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act. I call on the Government to do something about amending it so there can be a restitution of the 2 per cent indexation increase which was whipped off people a year or so ago and which the Government has steadfastly refused to do anything about handing back. That has caused great unhappiness in the defence forces. If the Minister were really able to achieve anything for Defence Force families, that would be one very important thing. I draw attention to the fact that the Minister talks about four reunion visits a year for families who are separated on long term postings. Mrs Hamilton recommended six. There is no compassionate travel for spouses, although there is for service personnel. If the wife of a corporal or private soldier in Perth wants to get back to the funeral of her mother or father, there is no help whatsoever from the defence forces which have sent her so far from home. There are problems with drivers licences and certainly a number of other areas which I will not have a lot of time to cover tonight. But the Minister talks about what the Government has achieved in the way of defence housing. At this stage, although it has put its foot on the ladder, it really has not taken this very far. There are a lot of things I could talk about if we got into the defence housing area. But I want to set one matter straight: the Minister has been trumpeting recently about an extra $46m for the Defence Housing Authority. In fact, on page 12 of the statement she says that that has just been announced. I would like the Senate to understand that that is an advance out of the $750m. It is not an extra amount being given to the Defence Housing Authority and there are still no service spouses on the Board of the Defence Housing Authority. The Board still does not have the basis for its finances finalised because it still has not even been worked out whether its funds will be provided as a loan or by way of grant. That is pretty critical for any calculation of its overheads and expenditure and what it can offer in the way of services. There is so much more that I could say but I just want to remind the Senate that this is the very same Minister who sent a representative, the Deputy Secretary A of her Department, to Holsworthy last year to represent her when service people were so concerned about what was happening to the defence service home loans scheme. That representative told those people, `The Government gives you your conditions of service and the Government can take them away'. It is not much good the Minister putting out a statement that is of such flimsy value when she sends people like that out with such an attitude to talk to the people she is supposedly serving. There are things that can be done. There are innovative ways of rewarding people for their service but the $70,000 bonus for pilots that has been announced today is likely to exacerbate the problems. What about all the other categories of personnel who are also critical to the effectiveness of the Defence Force, who see that there is going to be no re-engagement bonus for them? The Government waters down claims which go before the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. The defence forces see that they have a bureaucracy which does not fight for the welfare of their people. That erodes morale and increases resignations. We have to remember that these people have no overtime, penalty rates or union protection. The Hamilton report raised expectations, only to have them dashed. There are a lot of things that still need to be done. I have covered some of them tonight but this statement is really an exercise in public relations. There have been some small improvements but when the Minister gets the support of her senior Minister and her Government, gets some money out of Finance and clears all the hurdles that she faces in industrial relations, she might have something to make a statement about. I seek leave to continue my remark later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I present the sixth report of 1988 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, concerning the Honey Marketing Bill 1988; the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill 1988; the Social Security Amendment Bill 1988; and the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1988. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COONEY —I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 6, dated 27 April 1988. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. The PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee E will meet in committee room 6. The bells will be rung for three minutes prior to the commencement of the sitting of the Estimates Committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.30 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under subsection 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Public Service Act-Determinations 1988 Nos 42, 49, 50, 52, 55, 56, 59 and 60. The following answer to a question was circulated: (Question No. 267) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 17 March 1988: (1) During the financial year 1986-87 what was the cost of funding Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority to the Commonwealth. (2) Who is paying under the joint management arrangement between the Commonwealth and Queensland in relation to the Torres Strait Protected Zone, for the fisheries surveillance and enforcement, and in what proportion. (3) During the financial year 1986-87 (a) how many illegal fishing activities were detected; (b) how many people and boats were apprehended; and (c) how many convictions were achieved and what was the total amount of the fines imposed. Senator Cook —The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The cost to the Commonwealth of funding the Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority's program during 1986-87 was $1,095,324. This comprised $92,463 on capital items, $442,116 on recurrent costs, $91,745 on charter of an interim patrol boat, and $469,000 on scientific research and fishery monitoring programs. (2) Torres Strait Fisheries Management Cost Sharing Agreement between the Commonwealth and Queensland apportions cost as follows: (a) the Commonwealth fully funds the cost of agreed initial capital items, including the construction of a patrol boat; (b) Queensland and the Commonwealth share equally the cost of replacement of initial capital items and subsequent capital items; and (c) Queensland and the Commonwealth share recurrent costs equally. In addition, the Commonwealth fully funds the cost of the charter of an interim patrol boat. (3) During the financial year 1986-87 in the Torres Strait Protected Zone: (a) 15 illegal fishing activities were detected; (b) 9 persons and 8 vessels were apprehended; and (c) no convictions were achieved, however, 7 prosecutions were proceeding at the end of the financial year 1986-87.