Tuesday, 10 May 1988 The Senate met at 2 p.m. The Clerk-Honourable senators, pursuant to standing order 29, I inform the Senate of the absence of the President. The Deputy President will take the chair. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hamer) thereupon took the chair, and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: 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 Senator Maguire (from 91 citizens). To the Honourable President and senators, in the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia wish to express their opposition to the privatization and de-regulation of the Australian telecommunications system and to the proposed implementation of timed local calls and directory assistance charging. Your petitioners pray that the Australian Government will take the necessary action to prevent any such privatization, de-regulation, timed local calls, and directory assistance charging. And we, your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 59 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: that while having some reservations on individual aspects of the Constitutional Initiative (Electors Initiative) 1987 your petitioners wish to express our strong support for the concept of people's democracy implied in that Bill. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will Refer the above mentioned Bill to an appropriate Parliamentary Committee and will examine the operation of direct democracy procedures overseas with the intention of passing legislation granting such facilities to your petitioners during the Bicentennial year. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bolkus (from 181 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate and 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 Senators Childs (from 1,530 citizens), Bolkus (from 30 citizens) and Maguire (from 16 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —Pursuant to notice, and at the request of Senator Collins, I withdraw Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in his name. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Watson for the period from 10 May 1988 to 26 May 1988, inclusive, on account of absence overseas on Parliamentary business. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting that 1996 is the 100th anniversary of the Modern Olympiad in Athens and that the contribution of Greece to international understanding through sport has been immense, urges the Federal Government to officially support the bid by Greece to host the 100th Anniversary Olympic Games and in doing so indicate clearly to both Melbourne and Brisbane that the Federal Government will not provide financial support or resources to bids from those cities for the 1996 Games. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) Notes that a nuclear accident on board the Royal Navy Polaris submarine, H.M.S. Resolution, when in dock in Scotland in January 1988, was averted with only minutes to spare; (b) further notes that nuclear experts described the emergency as potentially catastrophic; (c) notes also the explosions on board the diesel electric submarine USS Bonefish in the Atlantic on 23 April 1988 which injured 22 sailors and left 3 missing; (d) expresses its concern that even now there are still not adequate port safety plans for all Australian ports where United States warships call in for rest and recreation; (e) calls on the Government particularly to ensure that no nuclear warships come into Australian ports in October 1988 during the bicentennial fleet review celebrations; and (f) requests the Government to follow the example of the Labour Government in New Zealand by banning all nuclear warships from Australian ports. Senator Teague-Mr President, I take a point of order. A standing committee of this Senate is inquiring into port safety plans with regard to nuclear ships. I put it to you that it is out of order for a senator to give notice of a motion that calls into question or prejudices the findings of an inquiry of the Senate. The PRESIDENT —I am afraid that there is no point of order. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice on behalf of the Opposition that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate congratulates Edward Statton, Executive Chef of the Parliamentary Catering Service, and all catering staff for their magnificent efforts in the preparation and presentation of the function held on the evening of 9 May 1988 and further congratulates all those associated with the entirely successful opening of the new Parliament House. Senator LEWIS —On behalf of Senator Chaney, I ask: Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General aware of the requests for information made by the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) of the State Government Insurance Commission of Western Australia concerning its deals with Mr Robert Holmes a Court? Does the Minister agree that such cooperation by the State Government Insurance Commission is essential if the National Companies and Securities Commission is to carry out its role as a corporate watchdog in a situation where, so far, the market is very inadequately informed of these events? Has the Minister ascertained that the Western Australian Government will ensure that its instrumentalities cooperate fully with the investigation into the facts of this matter? Senator TATE —The very short answer is that I have no information about any approach by the National Companies and Securities Commission to the Western Australian instrumentality referred to. I will seek further advice from the Attorney-General. Senator LEWIS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister agree that the matters I have raised are the responsibility of the NCSC? Will the Minister take up with the NCSC the matter of cooperation between the Western Australian Government Insurance Commission and the NCSC on this issue? Senator TATE —I will endeavour to ensure that the independent National Companies and Securities Commission provides what is required for the market to operate effectively within certain legal constraints. I believe that there is also some difficulty about that Western Australian instrumentality claiming status as a crown instrumentality. But certainly it is the endeavour of this Government to ensure that the market operates as effectively as possible with the assistance of the NCSC. Senator AULICH —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to comments made by the New South Wales Premier, Mr Greiner, reported in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald, that: We- the States- are not prepared to take an unfair share of the financial burden. Can the Minister tell the Senate whether the States or the Commonwealth have borne an unfair burden of restraint in government spending? What action can the Commonwealth take to correct any discrepancy? Senator WALSH —I did read some of the statements made by Mr Greiner on Sunday on behalf of a couple of other non-Labor Premiers and one or two non-Labor Opposition Leaders. He said that the States were not prepared to take an unfair share of the financial burden. Of course, Mr Greiner's proposition is that the States should take no share at all of the financial burden and that spending for the States should be frozen in real terms. It is not surprising that Mr Greiner should choose this moment to put up such a proposition because in 1986-87 the Commonwealth's `own purpose' outlays grew by 0.3 per cent. In the same year, the State and local government sector's own purpose outlays grew by 3.4 per cent. The rate of growth in the State-local government sector was 11 times that of the Commonwealth. In the next year, 1987-88-and since the year has not finished these figures are estimates, but they are pretty precise estimates-the Commonwealth's own purpose outlays are actually falling by 2.2 per cent, that is, minus 2.2 per cent. The State and local sector's own purpose outlays are still growing by 1.6 per cent. It is no wonder Mr Greiner says that this would be a good time to guarantee funding to the States from the Commonwealth Budget in the same real terms. It is no wonder that he picks this time. At the end of a great spending splurge Mr Greiner says, `We'll do our bit. We won't blow out the spending splurge any more than we already have'. In 1984-85, the Commonwealth's own borrowings, net, were of the order of 3 per cent of gross domestic product. Many people thought that was too high at the time. I am sure that Senator Stone would have been one of them. However, that was three years ago. It has now reached the point where the Commonwealth's own purpose borrowings are negative. In the same period-that is, from 1984-85 to 1987-88-the State government's net public sector borrowing requirement has trebled. So on both the expenditure side and the borrowing side the major part of the adjustments which have taken place has been on the Commonwealth's own purpose Budget. It is certainly not fair that that should continue. I was asked what action the Commonwealth would take to correct any discrepancy. There is certainly a massive discrepancy. Action will be taken, but Senator Aulich will have to be patient and wait until later in the week to find out what that action will be. Mr Greiner, of course, has a particular problem. He has $1 1/2 billion-worth of irresponsible election spending promises hanging over his head. That is his big problem-$1 1/2 billion-worth of irresponsible election spending promises. What he is trying to do now is set up an arrangement under which the blame for his fiscal irresponsibility is transferred to the Commonwealth Government. It should also be noted that Mr Peacock thinks that the proposal of the Business Council of Australia to cut $3 1/2 billion off the Commonwealth Budget was a pretty wimpish thing to put up. How Mr Peacock would cut $3 1/2 billion-plus off the Commonwealth Budget while still maintaining this extravagant demand from his State Liberal Party colleagues is a great mystery. Likewise, I notice today that Mr Howard has promised a massive reduction in taxes from a Liberal government but supports Nick Greiner's ambit claim that there should be no reductions in Commonwealth payments to the States. There is only one way in which that contradiction can be reconciled-one does not have to have a very long memory to realise what the reconciliation will be-and that is to go back to a $10 billion deficit, like Mr Howard left behind him the last time he was in government. In other words, when one looks at the discordant statements coming from various members of the Liberal Party in State and Federal parliaments, it becomes quite apparent that they are just as big a bunch of fiscal ratbags in 1988 as they were in 1982. Senator STONE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer to the underwriting deal between the State Government Insurance Commission of Western Australia and Mr Robert Holmes a Court whereby the SGIC is reported to have guaranteed payment of $150m to Mr Holmes a Court, for convertible bonds held by his family interest in the Bell Group. Is it a fact that the current market value of these bonds is in the order of $90m? If so, would it appear that a Western Australian State Government instrumentality has assumed a liability for $60m more than the current value of the asset involved? Would the Minister agree that the arrangement appears to amount to an additional price for the Bell Group shares purchased by the SGIC? If so, what implications does this have for the securities industry and in particular for the surveillance processes of that industry by the National Companies and Securities Commission? Senator TATE —As I have already indicated in my answer to the first question asked by the Opposition, I have no brief on what is obviously an extremely technical matter to do with the purchase by a Western Australian State instrumentality of certain shares relating to Mr Holmes a Court's various possessions and companies. The fact is that without such information I am certainly not going to speculate and try to give an answer off the cuff. As I indicated previously, I am seeking the fullest possible answer and will provide it when I can. Senator STONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. If I am to understand correctly the response just given by the Minister, he has informed the Senate that he has no brief at all on the events that have taken place in this matter which has been in the public Press now for over a week, if I recall correctly. Will the Minister therefore inform the Senate as to which of two conclusions we should draw. Does he inform us that he has not sought any information from the NCSC, through the Attorney-General's Department or, alternatively, does he intend to assure us that he is not interested in the matter? Senator TATE —I am simply reporting to the Senate that if I am to aid the Senate in providing it with information which it is obviously seeking, I intend to do so with the fullest possible brief at my disposal. I will do so when that is provided. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Has the Minister seen the special report in the latest issue of the Amnesty International Australia newsletter on human rights abuses in Colombia in South America? What additional information, if any, does the Government have on the matter? Has the Government taken any actions through Foreign Affairs channels on this disturbing list of human rights abuses? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is aware of the tragically high level of human rights abuse and political violence in Colombia which has been highlighted in a report recently published by Amnesty International to which Senator Maguire refers. The report reveals a quite dramatic increase in the level of so-called disappearances and political killings in Colombia since the early 1980s. There were in fact more than 1,000 political killings during 1987. The report cites convincing evidence that many of these violations are carried out directly by the Colombian police and armed forces or by anonymous death squads controlled by the armed forces acting on their behalf. The Government is aware that as a result of the Amnesty International report a committee for human rights has been created by the Catholic Church in Colombia. So far as the response of the Australian Government is concerned, we have regularly expressed our concerns over the situation. When Australia's non-resident ambassador presented his credentials on 6 April this year he raised the Australian Government's human rights concerns at the highest level. Again, Australia has made frequent representations to the Colombian authorities over specific cases of human rights abuse. In fact, 26 such representations on behalf of individuals and groups were made during 1987. Senator MACKLIN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to the reaction of the United States Government and its embassy to the public exposure in Australia of the predatory United States trade policy with regard to Australian malt sales to Peru. I ask: Why has the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade suddenly ceased protesting about this matter? How many media outlets have been contacted by the Department asking them to cool it on this story? What requests have been made by the United States Ambassador to the Department on this matter? Finally, what actions are being taken by the United States to mitigate the damage done to Australian malt sales to Peru? Senator GARETH EVANS —While not accepting any of the premises peppered throughout that particular question, I will have to take it on notice and seek a detailed reply which I will give to Senator Macklin at the earliest possible opportunity. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of all honourable senators to the presence in my gallery of the Hon. Rod Mackenzie, MLC, President of the Legislative Council of Victoria, and Mrs Mackenzie. On behalf of all senators I extend to them a warm welcome to Canberra. I would also like to draw the attention of all honourable senators to the presence in the gallery today of many distinguished guests, including the Hon. Sir Harold Young, Mr Bernie Kilgariff, the Hon. Sir Frederick Chaney and Lady Chaney, Lady Paltridge and former Senator Geoff McLaren. On behalf of all senators I extend to them a warm welcome to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator DEVEREUX —My question is to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. What is the Minister's response to the claim of the Australian Mining Industry Council (AMIC) that the mining industry may be locked out of almost half of Australia? Further, is there any substance to recent claims that buffer zones are being created around World Heritage areas, especially in north Queensland? Senator RICHARDSON —I am aware of an AMIC study entitled Shrinking Australia-The Problem of Access to Land and I am aware of a Press conference conducted by Mr Mark Rayner, the President of the Mining Industry Council. He has claimed that the mining industry is worried that it will be locked out of almost half of Australia. The present Government is committed to developing land use decision-making processes which will enable a balance to be sustained between mining and other extractive industries, exploitative industries, and conservation. Given the contribution that the AMIC study makes, the Government welcomes it. I have to say that neither I nor the Government welcomes some of the statements that Mr Rayner has made. He has not made a positive contribution to the debate. I shall give honourable senators some examples. Alcoa of Australia Ltd, which in the late 1970s was, I think, the largest producer of alumina in the world, gets its bauxite from jarrah forests in Western Australia. Those forests were certainly locked up in accordance with what AMIC considers the term to mean. That is how it got to its figures. Nonetheless, that extractive industry proceeded, and obviously proceeded successfully from Alcoa's point of view. So the idea that the access of mining companies to these areas is restricted is simply not right. AMIC claims that 23.5 per cent of Australia is either restricted or closed. To arrive at a figure of that size, AMIC had to include all Australian urban areas and all Aboriginal lands, including those lands under claim and not necessarily granted. I think we will find within those Aboriginal areas Ranger, Weipa, Gove and a whole number of other sites where very large mining operations, even by world standards, are conducted-again giving the lie to any suggestion of a lock-up. It is alleged that another 20 per cent of Australia is to be locked up by other single interest groups. One assumes that that means conservationists and, I suppose, some Aboriginal groups. While these groups may all have their own agendas for what they want to see happen with land use decision-making, those agendas are not necessarily the agendas of the Government. I can assure the Senate that in some cases they are not. I make the point again, in case it is necessary, that the Government is not working on any secret hit list of heritage areas. I must confess that I have made that point a number of times, but after listening to Mr Rayner it is apparently necessary to repeat it. If the single interest group in this case is the mining lobby, it certainly has plans for a whole lot of Australia. Senator Boswell —They want to create a few jobs. Senator RICHARDSON —And will have our assistance in doing so. As Senator Boswell well knows, I recently spent some time in north Queensland creating jobs. Senator Boswell —I was there with you. Senator RICHARDSON —The honourable senator was, and his presence was welcome. We were creating jobs. That is what the $75m package was all about. I am glad I have had the opportunity to repeat just how good a package it was. However, the need to maintain ecological processes and life support systems is as important to human welfare as is access to each and every mineral find. Mr Rayner's inflammatory claims about World Heritage listing processes were as unproductive as some of those earlier claims to which I referred. Obviously he was not aware that the wet tropics region of north Queensland was of only moderate prospectivity. Furthermore, the only two people who so far have come forward with suggestions for mines have received indications that, even though those mines are within the World Heritage area, they can proceed. The claims that the World Heritage area is therefore absolutely locked up are also untrue; they have no basis in fact. Equally ridiculous in past weeks, as Senator Devereux has said, is the question of buffer zones. One of Senator Boswell's colleagues-I forget his name; he is very forgettable, but he is a State member from north Queensland-came out with another statement on buffer zones. He suggested that because some areas of north Queensland were being listing on the National Estate this meant that we were building buffer zones around the World Heritage areas. That is absolute nonsense. A property being registered by the Australian Heritage Commission does not and cannot bind local government, State governments or private landholders. It places a restriction only on the Commonwealth and that restriction is to consider the heritage values before proceeding with development. It does not even bar them. Those claims by Mr Rayner, repeated by that member from north Queensland, are further examples of a process of misinformation which has gone on and on about World Heritage areas. I hope that people will get sick of saying it, just as I get sick of answering it. I hope that when we look at the next 200 years we will try to do a little better in managing our environment than we have done in the last 200 years, during which the mining industry and a whole lot of other industries have done irreparable damage in many cases. All this Government is about is ensuring that we get land use decisions that will prevent that damage occurring in the future. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. I refer to the sale by Mr Holmes a Court of his controlling stake in Bell Group, 19.9 per cent to the Western Australian State Government Insurance Commission and 19.9 per cent to Bond Corporation. Does the Minister agree that provisions of the take- over laws which come into effect upon the sale of 20 per cent are designed principally to protect the interests of small shareholders? Does the Minister further agree that the sale of the two parcels of shares each fractionally under the limit is on its face designed to avoid such provisions and that small shareholders have therefore suffered by not being offered the same price? What is the Minister's attitude to a government instrumentality being a party to such an avoidance of the law to the disadvantage of small shareholders? Senator TATE —I have already indicated that the Government is concerned that the provisions, and indeed the spirit, of the legislation controlling the acquisition of shareholdings be adhered to. In that respect it is true that the provisions are drawn up in a way which is designed to protect the interests of smaller shareholders, and in particular there are some artificialities which can be devised along the lines pointed to by Senator Hill which may give shareholders not participating in a particular acquisition of whatever it may be-19.9 per cent-the opportunity to share in a particular attractive proposition. But in that respect the National Companies and Securities Commission, as I understand it-I have repeated this several times and do not see the point of being peppered with questions on it-- Opposition senators-Oh! Senator TATE —Well, if honourable senators want real information, it would be better done on the basis of a complete brief but, as we all know, the National Companies and Securities Commission has a role. As I recall from Press reports, it has asked for a cooling down period, in which case, as I recall, it has been asked that there be no change in the directors on the board and so on, in order to try to come to an arrangement which may be more commercially acceptable to other shareholders. In that situation we should allow the National Companies and Securities Commission to undertake the sorts of inquiries it is undertaking. In regard to the particular question relating to 20 per cent-that is, under section 11 of the Act, as I recall-the National Companies and Securities Commission obviously would need to look at that. But there are other provisions in the legislation-I think in section 60-which also give a role to the Commission. As I say, it may be that, as the cooling off period that the Commission asks for takes place, some arrangement will emerge which clearly protects the interests of other shareholders. I am awaiting a full brief, which I will make available as soon as I can. Senator HILL —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. What I am asking, which does not require a specific brief, is what the Minister's attitude is to government instrumentalities using what he refers to as artificialities in these circumstances to the disadvantage of small shareholders. Senator TATE —I did not say that in this instance the purchase by the Bond Corporation or by the State government instrumentality could be characterised that way. I said simply that, where artificialities can be employed, obviously we have proper cause for concern. I am confident that the National Companies and Securities Commission will endeavour to carry into effect the will of the Parliament in relation to those matters. I have already indicated the sections, sections 11 and 60, which the Parliament has incorporated in the legislation to enable the National Companies and Securities Commission to undertake that task. I am sure that over the next several weeks that is what it will be doing. Senator HARRADINE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. What action has the Government taken to protest to the Polish Government about the brutal eviction by police of striking mill workers at Nowa Huta steel mill? What action has the Government taken in protesting to the Polish Government about the arrest of Solidarity leaders in Poland over recent weeks? Is it not a fact that the action of the Polish Government in making the acceptance of a wage rise conditional upon the workers abandoning Solidarity is a contravention of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) convention of freedom of association and deserves the condemnation of this Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not have a brief as to the actual representations that we have made, if any, in the last few days in response to the very recent events to which Senator Harradine refers. We will respond to developments as they occur. I will certainly let him know, and let the Senate know, in a supplementary answer at an appropriate stage what action we have taken. I can say a number of things about the situation: in the first place, we urge the Polish authorities to accord to workers rights to which they are manifestly entitled under ILO conventions and other international treaties to which Poland is a party. We have no indication that troops are likely to be used in the present circumstances, but we very much deplore the reports of excessive force by riot police. We are deeply concerned by reports that workers have been seriously injured in recent police action against striking workers, who in some cases have been beaten unconscious. I can say also on behalf of the Foreign Minister that we call more generally on the Polish authorities not to step back from the process of liberalisation of Polish society on which the Polish Government, up to this point anyway, apparently had been embarked. It is clear that the process of economic reform cannot proceed independently of the political and institutional reforms that are required in Poland. That perception, and our expression of that perception, will govern any more specific response we make to what is manifestly the very unhappy situation that is developing in that country. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer to the 5,000-strong rally of textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry workers outside Parliament House today claiming that the Minister and his Government have welshed on a deal with the TCF industries and their employees. The Minister will recall an answer to me in this chamber on 18 April when he claimed that there was a worthwhile process of consultation occurring between government, industry and unions on tariff cuts. I ask the Minister: Is not the presence of such a large TCF rally evidence that the Minister's consultative process has broken down, particularly considering that the rally follows an admission by the Minister that there was also a communications gap between the Government and the Australian Manufacturing Council on the issue of consultation? How many more demonstrations by unionists are needed and how much more evidence that business is delaying investment plans is needed before he will end the damaging uncertainty created by Government-inspired speculation about tariff cuts? Senator BUTTON —I attended the rally outside. I did not count for myself, so I do not know whether there were 5,000 there or not. Senator Lewis —A large crowd. Senator BUTTON —It was a significant crowd, yes. To return to the honourable senator's question, this matter is like an answer I gave Senator Haines a week or two ago: one can summon spirits from the vasty deep on these issues, and that has been done in a sense. That does not prevent the process of dialogue to which Senator Lewis referred in his question. Senator Lewis's question contained a number of emotive phrases, if I can so describe them. He referred to the Government `welshing on a deal'. First of all, let me say to the honourable senator that in matters of policy concerning these issues the Government does not make deals; it gives undertakings sometimes, and we gave undertakings-- Senator Michael Baume —And then welshes on them. Senator BUTTON —If Senator Baume will just listen to the rest of the answer he may be further enlightened than he is at the moment. The Government certainly gave undertakings about continuity and predictability for the development, hopefully, of the textile, clothing and footwear industry. We gave undertakings about a safety net provision. None of those undertakings will be broken by this Government. But the textile, clothing and footwear plan, as it was discussed in 1986, will be subject to a wide range of considerations in 1988 and beyond which will affect the environment in which the plan was projected from 1986. I think it is important that an industry which has a particular relationship with protection for manufacturing generally should maintain that relationship and should not be a beneficiary of changes to other industries while it is excluded from any possible change. Senator Lewis said in his question that on 18 April I referred to a worthwhile process of consultation. That consultation has not been concluded, and it is obvious from the demonstration here today that there is not agreement about all aspects of that consultation. Let me say that it will continue. It is not concluded and no decision has been made by the Government on this issue of tariff changes to the textile, clothing and footwear plan; nor has a decision been made by the Government on the question of tariff changes generally. A very widespread process of consultation has been embarked on by the Government through the Manufacturing Council, and let me say that the environment for change is vastly different from what it was two, three, four or five years ago. The Government will not be deterred from making the changes which it feels to be appropriate in respect of these matters, but the changes will be made in a process of consultation. The honourable senator's reference to the communications gap, to which I referred when the Manufacturing Council representatives met with the Government, is a matter on which I have already answered a question from the honourable senator. It is, if I might say so without detriment to the profession we both once followed, lawyers' `sleigh' of hand to intrude that particular reference into this question. Senator Chaney —It is pronounced sleight of hand. Senator BUTTON —I am sorry. I am corrected by the Leader of the Opposition, who has found his voice again. It is lawyers' sleight of hand to put that matter into this question, because I said there was a communications gap about that meeting and the arrangements for that meeting. That has nothing to do with the question of whether there is a communications gap between the Government and a wide range of interests which are concerned about tariff changes. Since the honourable senator has raised that matter, I might say that, following that meeting with the Manufacturing Council, a very good piece of work was done by that Council which has been immensely helpful in facilitating possible change. The final part of the honourable senator's question was about businesses delaying investments because of speculation about tariff cuts. Looking at the import figures, as I do on a fairly regular basis, I do not think that is happening at all. The honourable senator has referred to an article in the Daily Commercial News-a journal which we both read avidly-which dealt with the question of delays in investment caused by discussion about tariff cuts. I appreciate that one can never make changes to anything without there being some speculation, concern and anxiety. If one looks at the figures of what is actually happening in terms of investment, I do not think one can really draw that conclusion. I think I have covered all of the points that the honourable senator has raised. Senator LEWIS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does not the Minister understand that the answer he has just given will create further speculation about this area? We have now had the Prime Minister, Mr Keating, Mr Dawkins and the Minister continuing the speculation that is going on in the industry. The question that I am putting to the Minister is: When is this Government going to bring an end to this speculation? Must we wait right throughout the whole consultative process or must we wait until after the May statement before we ultimately find out what is going to happen with regard to tariff protection for Australian industry? Senator BUTTON —I suppose the honourable senator and I start from a totally different point on this issue. The honourable senator and I are like two Edinburgh housewives arguing from different premises. The honourable senator starts from the point of view that speculation or discussion about issues is bad. I start from the point of view that it is probably good because people ought to have their minds concentrated on issues. I think it is a very good thing if that happens. The honourable senator asked me how long these speculators, these anxious people, will have to wait. Try 24 May. Senator SCHACHT —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I refer the Minister to radio news reports that a number of Kanaks charged with offences following the recent violent events in New Caledonia have been flown to Paris by French military aircraft to stand trial. What is the Government's response to this reported development in the light of the very sensitive and distressing situation currently prevailing in New Caledonia? Does the Government expect any improvement in the situation in the light of President Mitterrand's victory in the presidential election? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has obviously heard the reports to which Senator Schacht refers about the flying back for trial of the FLNKS members in question. We are not in a position at this stage, however, to confirm the details of that. In any case, I have to say that internal judicial processes are a matter for the French Government to determine within the boundaries of its domestic jurisdiction. I do not think it would be appropriate for an Australian Minister to comment further on that point. On the more general issue, let me begin by congratulating, on behalf of the Australian Government, President Mitterrand on his re-election as President of France. He now has the distinction of being the first President of the Fifth French Republic to be elected by universal suffrage for a second term. The strength of the Mitterrand victory signals French support, of course, for policies of a fraternal democratic socialist party, which we very much welcome in this country. In this respect, the Australian Government anticipates and would very much welcome efforts by the new Mitterrand Government to revive the process of conciliation and dialogue in New Caledonia in the way that was foreshadowed by President Mitterrand during the campaign and, indeed, in statements made immediately afterwards. Certainly, the very complex, tense and polarised situation in New Caledonia is one of the most important issues that the recently re-elected President Mitterrand and his new Government will need to address. I note the encouraging sign in this respect that the re-election has been cautiously welcomed by the FLNKS, which has indicated it will accordingly scale down its campaign of disruption. So far as the Australian Government is concerned, we look forward very much to working constructively with President Mitterrand and the new French Government to enhance the security and well-being of the South Pacific region, particularly in relation to New Caledonia where Australia and the other South Pacific Forum countries share President Mitterrand's very obvious and very well articulated desire to see an end to the division and turbulence that have characterised the territory. One of the things that President Mitterrand has constantly done is draw attention to the evident social and economic inequalities in New Caledonia which have manifestly contributed a great deal to the present divisive situation. We certainly wish him well in endeavouring to address these inequalities and we look forward to a return to meaningful dialogue between all parties, which we hope, in turn, will lead to progress toward a viable long term political situation which is acceptable to all political parties and all interests in New Caledonia. Senator HAMER —Does the Minister for Justice recall my asking him a question on 28 April about the liability of Australian World War II bomber crews for prosecution under the War Crimes Amendment Bill and in particular my focusing his thoughts by referring specifically to the devastating bombing raid in February 1945 on the defenceless city of Dresden? Does the Minister recall saying that Australian airmen would not be liable for prosecution, and buttressing this statement by pointing out that they had been liable for prosecution for 33 years under the War Crimes Act 1945, and the fact that none had been prosecuted in those 33 years was clear evidence that they had nothing to fear from the War Crimes Amendment Bill? Did the Minister make a statement later that day confessing that he had misled the Senate, that Australians had never been liable under the War Crimes Act 1945, and therefore his argument had no foundation? Will the Minister now make the situation completely clear by confirming that Australian airmen-to use the specific example that I have quoted-who, under orders, bombed Dresden in February 1945 might be liable for prosecution under the War Crimes Amendment Bill as it stands? Senator TATE —I did make a statement to the senator, on the eve of our getting up at the end of the last week of sittings, indicating that the War Crimes Amendment Bill, as it is presently drafted, would create a new situation for Australian ex-servicemen who had served in the various theatres of the Second World War. In relation to the question of the fire bombing of Dresden to which Senator Hamer refers, the basis for my remarks that Australian pilots and aircrew involved in those particular bombing raids would not be subject to prosecution under the War Crimes Amendment Bill if it were enacted rested on the fact that during the trials of war criminals that took place after the Second World War that particular matter was specifically considered by the tribunals concerned and a decision was made that those particular types of bombings did not fall within the categories of war crimes which were of concern to those tribunals. Obviously, I do not have those cases before me, but I can certainly provide Senator Hamer with one particular decision that I recall-I think it was of the United States Military Tribunal-to that effect. Senator HAMER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I think the Minister is referring to the Nuremberg Charter. Does the Minister not agree that this refers to war crimes as acts which are reckless or wanton or which are not justified by military necessity? Are not these conditions disjunctive? In view of the importance of this issue to many gallant Australian ex-serviceman, I am sure that the Minister would have asked his advisers the obvious questions to check that the answer was credible before he gave his earlier answer to this question. I now ask him: What answer did he receive from his advisers to his question on the military necessity for the bombing of Dresden in February 1945? Senator TATE —As I recall it, the answer I was given by my advisers was to point to the case to which I have referred Senator Hamer. I will make that case available to him. Senator VALLENTINE —I seek leave to ask a question of the chairperson of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade which relates not to the substance of the Committee's inquiry but only to procedural matters. Leave granted. Senator VALLENTINE —My question is addressed to the chairperson of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and relates to the current inquiry on the adequacy of current contingency planning by Federal and State authorities to deal with the accidental release of ionising radiation from visiting nuclear powered or nuclear armed vessels in Australian waters and ports. I refer to the fact that community groups and individuals invited to testify before the Committee have been given only two working days notice to appear at the inquiry tomorrow. Given that for the last 18 months these community groups have had no indication that they would be called to speak at the hearings, and indeed, if anything, have received quite the opposite impression, I ask the chairperson whether it is reasonable to allow them such short notice, given that they need time to update their 18-month-old submissions and to study transcripts of hearings to date. Can Senator Maguire clarify the impression I have been given that if such groups or individuals cannot appear tomorrow, they will not be given another opportunity to do so? Can the Committee undertake that, in the true spirit of inquiry, groups and individuals who have made submissions will be provided with a list of alternative dates with more notice being given to them? The PRESIDENT —I call Senator Maguire if he is prepared to answer that statement. Senator MAGUIRE —On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I can advise that we did receive a letter from Senator Vallentine last week in con- nection with our inquiry into the safety of nuclear armed and nuclear powered ships coming into Australian ports. On 29 April, the Committee decided to hear Senator Vallentine and other witnesses tomorrow-that is, 11 May. I have been advised that four different witnesses and groups have made arrangements and will be attending the hearing tomorrow. I have looked at standing order 98a (c) and I note that I am able to answer this question only on behalf of the Committee as a whole. I can only say that there has been no formal business meeting of the Committee since the receipt of Senator Vallentine's letter and, therefore, no decision has been made regarding her letter or the request to appear at a different time. I expect the Committee to consider Senator Vallentine's letter at its next business meeting. Obviously, the decision is one for the Committee to take rather than me as Chairman. Senator BOSWELL —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the many Press releases on the proposal that Russian fishing vessels be allowed to exploit Australian fishing resources within the 200-mile fishing zone. Does the Minister realise the significant contribution of the Australian fishing industry to our export earnings and employment? Is he aware of the potential of Australia's fishing resources to acquire more export income and employment for many more thousands of Australians? As the third ranking member of the Government, is the Minister prepared to meet a deputation from the fishing industry to discuss ways in which the industry can develop its technology to capitalise on the abundant deep water fishing resources, or is the Minister content to leave the development of this Australian resource to foreign communist powers? Senator BUTTON —This question is appropriately a matter for the Minister responsible for primary industry. Senator Boswell —No, it is not. I am asking about industry. It is about how to catch fish. Senator BUTTON —I see. The question is primarily a matter for the Minister responsible for primary industry. But having said that, let me say that I am aware that the Commonwealth Department, in conjunction with State departments, has plans for various sectors of the fishing industry, whether it be the northern prawn fishing industry or the southern Tasmanian tuna fishing industry. There are plans in place which are subject to negotiation between State and Federal governments. Those negotiations and plans have been there for a considerable time. The Commonwealth Government does take a very real interest in the development of the fishing industry in this country. Senator Boswell asked me whether I was content to leave these matters to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Of course I am content to leave-- Senator Boswell —No, I did not ask you that. I asked whether you would meet a deputation and discuss it. Senator BUTTON —That is what I understood Senator Boswell to be saying. The answer is that I am very content to leave these matters to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy because I think that he is one of the best Ministers for primary industries that this country has ever had. That is widely recognised in almost all circles in Australia, except perhaps the more troglodytic section of the National Party to which Senator Boswell belongs. I have taken some interest in the fishing industry in terms of the importation and building of fishing vessels and particularly the replacement of imports by the Australian fishing industry and the development of export markets. I have taken quite a keen interest in many of those matters. I will continue to do so. Whether there is point in my meeting a deputation is not a matter appropriately to be discussed in the Senate. If a deputation wishes to meet with me about these matters, I think the most courteous course would be for those concerned to write to me seeking an appointment and telling me what it is they want to discuss. If they do that, I will respond. I do not either receive or answer invitations at Question Time in the Senate. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the Press release of the Leader of the Opposition, issued this afternoon, on coalition tax policy. I ask: What arguments has Mr Howard ignored in reaching this latest position on tax policy? What would be the implications for the Australian economy if the changes to base-broadening measures proposed in the Press release were to be implemented? Finally, will the Government consider implementing any of the proposals contained in the aforementioned statement? Senator Puplick —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Senator McKiernan has asked three questions. Mr President, I put it to you that certainly the first and the last of those questions are entirely out of order. In particular, the first question, which relates to what arguments Mr Howard may have used or may have ignored, is not within the competence of the Minister. It is within neither his knowledge nor his competence. It calls for a series of tendentious conclusions to be reached by the Minister. Clearly, they are not part of his portfolio responsibility. The PRESIDENT —I agree that the first part of the question was out of order. I ask Senator Walsh to answer the second and third parts of the question as they relate to areas within his portfolio. Senator WALSH —I have seen the Press release of the Opposition Leader on coalition tax policy, and a remarkable document it is-although those who have studied the twists and turns up blind alleys of the coalition over the last few months might not think that it is all that remarkable. Essentially what it promises to do is reduce taxation. It proposes to do that by abolishing the capital gains tax, except for some Clayton's capital gains tax that ceases to apply after five years-so Mr Elliott has had his way on that. The coalition Opposition here is a proxy for Mr Elliott, who is the real determiner of tax policy. Although it does not use the word, the Press release goes on to speak in glowing terms of the concept of incentivation-a term coined about 15 months ago by the Opposition, which has decided not to resurrect that unfortunate and misbegotten word. The Press release also says that the coalition will abolish the existing fringe benefits tax. It goes on to say that there will be no need to keep records and that log books or unnecessary records will need to be maintained for such items. Of course, what that effectively means is that there will be no substantiation; fringe benefits taxes will notionally be taxed in the hands of employees, but there will be no substantiation. The cost to revenue of that would almost certainly be in excess of $1 billion. The direct cost to revenue of the abolition of the capital gains tax may, at this stage, not be more than $100m or so, although we have yet to get a full year's capital gains tax collection figures. However, the significance of the existing capital gains tax is not the amount of money it explicitly raises; it is the fact that it puts a floor under the whole income tax system. It closes off the loopholes that were outrageously and disgracefully rorted by a wide variety of people, but principally by senior members of the Liberal Party, when John Howard was Treasurer. Of course, that is why they want to get rid of the present Government's capital gains tax policy. Senator Puplick —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. While the Minister may technically be in order in making reflections on persons outside this Parliament, it is clearly not within the purview of the Standing Orders for him to reflect in the way he has on the motives of Mr Howard in making the particular announcement in relation to that matter. One is used to this sort of abuse from this honourable senator, but there are standing order provisions about the way in which he is allowed to abuse persons. He has defied a ruling which you have previously given about this particular matter, and I would ask you to make some attempt to bring him to order, to ask him to confine himself to those things which are within the Standing Orders and to try, if it is actually physically possible for him, not to be some sort of abusive grub. The PRESIDENT —Order! I remind Senator Walsh to observe the Standing Orders. Senator WALSH —Even Elliott's latest proxy did not suggest that I had not been observing the Standing Orders, Mr President. He just does not like the things I am saying. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Lewis —Mr President, let me take the point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 418, which says that all imputations of improper motives shall be considered highly disorderly. It is quite clear that Senator Walsh was in the process of making an imputation about the reasons why the Leader of the Opposition had said certain things in his Press release. Senator Walsh was drawing a conclusion, and the conclusion contained a most improper imputation. That was the point of the objection. It is not a question of asking Senator Walsh to come to order; with all due respect, it is a question of ruling him out of order and requiring him to stay within the Standing Orders. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walsh made a clear imputation of improper motives and I would ask him to withdraw it. Senator WALSH —Very well, Mr President, I withdraw it. I freely recognise, of course, that it is in conflict with the Standing Orders to impute improper motives. To impute improper conduct is presumably okay, but to impute improper motives is not. The general thrust of the Press statement released by the Opposition Leader today is to narrow the income tax base without-and the release is quite explicit on this-offering any mechanism to offset the very large loss of revenue that that would entail. Indeed it explicitly rejects any form of broad-based consumption tax, value added tax or anything like that-I could quote from it but it is explicit on that point-and in doing that it of course disregards all the arguments in favour of, in particular, the broad-based consumption tax suggested by the then Mr Stone on 2 July 1985, in an interview the transcript of which I now table, as a replacement for the present wholesale sales tax. Senator PARER —I refer the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories to an answer he gave earlier in Question Time to Senator Devereux in respect of a statement made by the President of the Australian Mining Industry Council, Mark Rayner. In that answer the Minister stated that he would ensure-I think this is a fair precis-that the devastation caused by mining, and I think he added `other industries', over the past 200 years would not be repeated. As our major mining and export industries have been the gold, silver, lead, copper, coal and iron ore industries, will the Minister specifically advise of Australian mainland areas devastated by the mining industry over the past 200 years, and which of these industries he would not have allowed, in retrospect, had he been the Minister responsible? Senator RICHARDSON —That is not a bad question, and I take some pleasure in answering it. First off, I did say originally that I was concerned about the damage to the environment that had been done over the past 200 years. Senator Parer —Devastation. Senator RICHARDSON —Whatever it was, I said we ought to make sure that it does not occur in the next 200 years. I stand by that statement. As to the mining operations I was referring to, I was referring not only to mining-- Senator Parer —You said mining. Senator RICHARDSON —I do not know how much Senator Parer has travelled but if he were to go to Kakadu, one of our great natural environments, and have a look at what occurred with the uranium mining that took place there in the 1950s and the damage that was done along the headwaters of the South Alligator River, some of which has been repaired only in the last few years and some of which still remains to be repaired, he would see some classic examples of what happens when mining goes ahead in a totally unregulated way. Senator Walters —Are you going to get rid of all the buffaloes that are doing the damage too? Senator RICHARDSON —I was appalled by what I saw there. I am often more than appalled by Senator Walters, as well, but I will try to stick to the question. If one looks at Rum Jungle, even with the massive amounts of money spent on repairing that, one still sees in the river area terrible damage that no amount of money can repair. Examples of that sort occur all around Australia. I am surprised that Senator Parer is not aware of them. Senator CROWLEY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Further to the Minister's recent reply to Senator Cooney concerning arrests in Singapore, I have received a number of questions from constituents regarding recent developments in Singapore particularly relevant to these people. Does the Minister have any further information about developments in the case and the Australian Government's response to it? Senator GARETH EVANS —In reply to a question by Senator Cooney on 29 April on recent arrests in Singapore, I did foreshadow that representations would be made to the Singapore Government expressing the Australian Government's concern at the arbitrary character of these Internal Security Act detentions. I am certainly aware of the widespread concern in the community and parliament that these arrests have caused. The representations to which I have referred will be made this afternoon when the Singapore High Commissioner is called to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to hear the Government's views. However, the pace of recent developments in Singapore requires that some further comment be made publicly at this stage. On 28 April the Singapore Government stated that the eight detainees who had previously been arrested in 1987 for their role in an alleged conspiracy had now retracted their accusations of mistreatment. The Singapore authorities then claimed that these retractions removed the need for a commission of inquiry to review the 1987 arrests and the Singapore Government charges of a Marxist conspiracy. On 6 May a former Solicitor-General, who was representing two of the detainees, was also arrested under the Internal Security Act and another of the 1987 detainees was detained on 8 May. The Australian Government's views on human rights issues are well known. They have been clearly stated whenever the occasion has warranted. We continue to regard the use of the Internal Security Act in Singapore as a matter of considerable concern. The Government is particularly disappointed that the foreshadowed commission of inquiry will not now take place. Our own Australian experience has shown the value of independent judicial reviews of controversial and complex issues. In addition to expressing the Government's concerns and regret over the detentions, our representations will accordingly register our disappointment that the commission of inquiry will not now take place. Senator BUTTON —On 29 April 1988, Senator Chaney asked me a question about the submarine construction project in South Australia. In my reply on that day I mentioned that there was some hope of resolution of the matter and that I would not wish to prejudice that resolution by fixing a two-week deadline. I also undertook to provide Senator Chaney with additional information as it came to hand. The Minister for Industrial Relations has provided the following additional information: The position which the Minister put to the South Australian unions has not changed-that is, that unless there is an early and satisfactory resolution to the outstanding matters the Government will give serious consideration to the continuance of the project in South Australia. These are the Minister's words: I did not put to the South Australian unions that consideration to relocate the project would be predicted on resolution of disputes within four weeks. Since my discussions with relevant parties in Adelaide on 13 April the following has occurred: (a) Resolution of the building and construction phase dispute. A building and construction site agreement has been signed by employers and all unions. All bans have been lifted. Work is proceeding without disruption. (b) The consultative framework established at the meeting with unions on the assembly phase of the project has been completed. Many unions have now concluded that their claim for a presence on site during the phase was unwarranted. (c) In accordance with the agreement reached the matter of union representation during the assembly phase has now been referred to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the form of a dispute notification by the AMWU. An early hearing of the matter by Deputy President Keogh is expected. The attitude of the parties now appears to be more positive and the Government is hopeful that the matter of union representation during the assembly phase will be amicably resolved, as was the building and construction site agreement. Senator BUTTON —On 29 April Senator Bishop asked me a question in my capacity as Leader of the Government in the Senate, namely, whether I would confirm or deny that the Government was considering the introduction of a common identifying number, a CIN number, by whatever name, which involved external uses beyond the Australian Taxation Office and whether it contemplated the use of an external power requiring legislation. I undertook to provide an answer to that question. Officials of the Australian Taxation Office are currently examining ways to improve the effectiveness of the tax file numbering system so that it can play a greater role in the fight against tax evasion. I cannot pre-empt the outcome of this review but I can assure the honourable senator that the Government is committed to the protection of civil liberties and acknowledges the need for effective protection of personal privacy in relation to data held by government agencies. Senator TATE —Senator Newman asked me a question some weeks ago about certain investigations relating particularly to allegations by Dr Menon as to health insurance fraud. On 7 December 1987 Dr Blewett wrote to the Minister for Justice requesting that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) interview Dr Menon and obtain details of cases from him which allegedly indicated widespread internal fraud within the Health Insurance Commission (HIC). On the same day I requested the AFP to investigate the allegations. I am informed that on 10 December 1987 Dr Menon was interviewed by AFP officers. He produced copies of documents which related to his allegations. He also undertook to supply a comprehensive list of doctors who had reported the receipt of suspected bogus cheques to him. There was insufficient evidence available at that time to support his allegations. Dr Menon referred the AFP to a doctor in Sydney who claimed knowledge of a cheque fraud. The documents involved were given to the AFP. Subsequent inquiries with the HIC revealed that this case was the result of a computer error. The HIC advised that the error had been rectified. Dr Menon provided copies of five cheques, three dated October 1987, one dated November 1987 and one dated February 1988, to the AFP which he alleged were fraudulently issued. On 15 April the AFP wrote to the manager of the HIC in Sydney requesting assistance in establishing the reasons for issuing those cheques. The HIC advised on 29 April that four of the cheques in question were issued due to a computer error and one due to a clerical error by the claiming doctor. Since Dr Menon has not yet provided the AFP with a comprehensive list of doctors who have allegedly received bogus cheques, the AFP will not at this stage be making inquiries. Senator TATE —During Question Time today Senator Hamer revived his questions of previous weeks which implied that Australian bomber crews involved in the fire bombing of Dresden, as he put it, were engaged in activity which might be characterised as a war crime. I said that I had received advice that that was not a correct characterisation of that tragic part of the operations involved in the Second World War. When he further asked me about any advice I had received to that effect I pointed to my memory of a particular case which my advisers had drawn to my attention. That case, I am now able to say, was In re Ohlendorf and Others, known colloquially as the Einstazgruppen trial, before the United States Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, dated 10 April 1948. The accused were officers in one or more branches of the German Security Service, the SS, the SD or the Gestapo. I will not go into the allegations against them, but by way of defence the question was raised as to the legality of aerial bombardment of towns and cities. I will quote from the judgment. It will take some time, Mr President, but I hope that, given the seriousness of the charge against Australian ex-servicemen that has been made by Senator Hamer, you will indulge me. Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Tate to withdraw that clear imputation. Senator TATE —I am sorry if I chose my words incorrectly. I understood Senator Hamer to be making the allegation that the fire bombing of Dresden could be properly characterised as a war crime. Senator Hamer —I would like to make it quite clear that I made no such accusation. I asked whether it would be considered a war crime under the Government's proposed legislation. That is quite different. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Tate to withdraw. Senator TATE —I withdraw any imputation against Senator Hamer in that respect. I will quote from the judgment of the United States Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, dated 10 April 1948: It was submitted that the defendants must be exonerated from the charge of killing civilian populations since every Allied nation brought about the death of non-combatants through the instrumentality of bombing. Any person who, without cause, strikes another may not later complain that the other in repelling the attack uses sufficient force to overcome the original adversary. That is fundamental law between nations as well. It has already been adjudicated by a competent tribunal that Germany under its Nazi rulers started an aggressive war. The bombing of Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne and other Germany cities followed the bombing of London, Coventry, Rotterdam, Warsaw and other Allied cities; the bombing of German cities succeeded, in point of time, the acts discussed here. But even if German cities had been bombed without Germans having bombed Allied cities, there still is no parallelism between an act of legitimate warfare, namely the bombing of a city with a concomitant loss of civilian life, and the premeditated killing of all members of certain categories of the civilian population in occupied territory. A city is bombed for tactical purposes: communications are to be destroyed, railways wrecked, ammunition plants demolished, factories razed, all for the purpose of impeding the military. In these operations it inevitably happens that non-military persons are killed. This is an incident, a grave incident to be sure, but an unavoidable corollary of battle action. The civilians are not individualized. The bomb falls. It is aimed at the railway yards, houses along the tracks are hit and many of their occupants killed. But that is entirely different, both in fact and in law, from an armed force marching up to those same railroad tracks, entering those houses abutting thereon, dragging out the men, women and children and shooting them. It was argued on behalf of the defendants that there was no moral distinction between shooting civilians with rifles and killing them by means of atomic bombs. There is no doubt that the invention of the atomic bomb, when used, was not aimed at non-combatants. Like any other aerial bomb employed during the war, it was dropped to overcome military resistance. Thus, as grave a military action as is an air bombardment, whether with the usual bombs or by atomic bomb, the one and only purpose of the bombing is to effect the surrender of the bombed nation. The people of that nation, through their representatives, may surrender and, with the surrender, the bombing ceases, the killing is ended. Furthermore, a city is assured of not being bombed by the law-abiding belligerent if it is declared an open city. With the Jews it was entirely different. Even if the nation surrendered they still were killed as individuals. It has not been shown throughout this entire trial that the killing of the Jews as Jews in any way subdued or abated the military force of the enemy, it was not demonstrated how mass killings and indiscriminate slaughter helped or was designed to help in shortening or winning the war for Germany. The annihilation of defenseless persons considered as `inferior' in Russia would have had no effect on the issue of the war. In fact, so mad were those who inaugurated this policy that they could not see that the massacre of the Jews in many instances actually hindered their own efforts. I quoted that particular passage from that particular decision of the United States military tribunal at Nuremberg as the case to which I referred during Question Time. Senator HAMER(Victoria) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the answer. I should like to make quite clear at the outset that I do not for a moment suggest that our bombing crews or other servicemen who served their country in the Second World War are war criminals. My concern is that the War Crimes Amendment Bill, as it is at present drafted, will do that. I am also not suggesting that under that proposed Act they will be prosecuted. But, as the War Crimes Amendment Bill stands, I believe it says to our servicemen, who with great courage bombed Germany in the Second World War, `You are war criminals'. We want to make quite clear that that is not what this Parliament thinks. I do not find the Minister's answer relevant. He quoted a case before the Nuremberg tribunal, but he should remember that the charter under which that tribunal was operating specifically exempted Allied servicemen from its terms. So we have to look back to what this Government is now doing in proposing the War Crimes Amendment Bill. The Bill refers to the definition of a war crime in the Nuremberg charter. Eliminating the provision that applied then, about allied servicemen not being covered by that definition, that charter says that it is a war crime to bomb a country recklessly or wantonly or if the bombing was not justified by military necessity. It is no defence to argue that people were acting under orders, that they were not aware of whether a certain action was or was not a military necessity because they had no means of knowing. If they did it, according to the way in which the Government's Bill is now drafted, they would be liable as war criminals. I do not find the Minister's answer at all relevant to the issue. What we must make quite clear in this Bill is that allied servicemen, acting in good faith and fighting a war at great personal danger in what they regarded as the defence of their country's interests, are not going to be vilified by this Government as war criminals. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Stone proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The failure of the government to address the question of abuse of power by elements of the trade union movement as typified by recent behaviour in the building industry in Canberra. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- The PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator Stone on this matter of public importance, I indicate that I have been advised that writs have been issued against persons involved in the building industry dispute in Canberra alleging defamation in relation to the conduct of the trade unions in the dispute. It was put to me that there may be a problem with the sub judice convention. The essence of the sub judice convention is that, subject to the right of the Senate to debate matters of public interest, debate in the Senate should not be such as to involve a substantial danger of prejudice to proceedings on foot before the courts. The issuing of writs, of course, does not necessarily mean that proceedings will take place, and, in this instance, strictly speaking, there are no proceedings as such to prejudice. Moreover, until proceedings have actually commenced, the danger of prejudice must be regarded as much less than when the proceedings have started. I think the most that I can do in the present circumstances is to ask honourable senators to have regard to the indication that the conduct of certain individuals concerned may be the subject of legal proceedings, and ask them not to say anything which would clearly prejudice court proceedings as such. I call Senator Stone. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.23) —Thank you, Mr President. I have noted carefully what you have said by way of your prefatory remarks and, of course, I shall abide scrupulously by your guidance in the debate on this matter of public importance. I say at the outset that one of the reasons I am speaking first in this matter of public importance debate is that the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber, Senator Chaney, was so overcome by cheering Her Majesty yesterday or, for that matter, by cheering the excellent speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) at the opening of the new Parliament House that he has temporarily lost his voice. I think that is a matter of great regret. I am sure that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) would agree with me on that point. Without spending too much time on the new Parliament House, I think it is apposite that that matter be referred to in the context of the debate on this matter of public importance, which, as the President indicated, relates to the failure of the Government to address the question of abuse of power by elements of the trade union movement as typified by recent behaviour in the building industry in Canberra. Although the particular matter to which I shall be referring later so far as the latter part of the matter is concerned is a more recent event, nevertheless, as we are all aware from several debates in this House and particularly from the work of Senator Warwick Parer and his rorts committee, there can have been few greater examples of abuse of power by elements of the trade union movement than those which occurred in the course of construction of what is-and we all agree-in the end an extremely fine building, the cost of which has been enormously increased as a result of those abuses. Let me come to the matter for debate. The abuse of power by elements-and I emphasise the word `elements'-of the trade union movement is, I regret to say, an acknowledged part of our industrial relations scene today. I emphasise that word `elements' because I am perfectly well aware that we have many decent trade union leaders in this country and, of course, a great body of decent members of trade unions. I distinguish clearly between the members of trade unions and, in some cases, the bosses of trade unions, but we are speaking about the activities of a certain element of the latter in this debate this afternoon. The abuse of power undertaken by those elements is an acknowledged part of our industrial relations scene. We recently saw, at long last, the conclusion of a most serious industrial relations dispute which began almost three years ago-the so-called Dollar Sweets matter which involved the affairs of a small family company situated in Melbourne. This company is responsible for the creation of hundreds and thousands, as they are called, which used to delight me as a small child and which are used on cakes prepared for small children-or at least they were in my day. In 1985, that company experienced very serious industrial disputes amounting to intimidation and other forms of threats of violence. In his original judgment, which I think is called the interlocutory judgment, Mr Justice Murphy of the Supreme Court of Victoria had a number of things to say about the actions of the trade unionists, including some members-not merely leaders-involved in the Dollar Sweets case. I will read to the Senate one or two extracts from the judgment of Mr Justice Murphy. There was an industrial dispute and a number of the employees of Dollar Sweets went back to work. A number refused to do so and formed a picket line at the entrance to the company's plant. The judgment of Mr Justice Murphy, delivered on 12 December 1985, states: On one occasion a truck driver, an electrical contractor, having been told by the picket line in the lane that he could not proceed to the said premises, then attempted to enter the premises from the front, but was again warned by the second defendant, Mr. Frizziero, that he could not enter because there was a picket line and that if he did attempt to do so, there would be trouble. Not wanting trouble, the electrical contractor departed without performing the repair work on a machine which he had come to repair for reward at the plaintiff's request. The plaintiff was the proprietor of the company, a Mr Frank Stauder. His Honour continued: It was submitted by Mr Strong of Counsel, who appeared for all the defendants, that the electrical contractor may have been in sympathy with the Union cause. I prefer the inference that he was intimidated by the veiled threats by Mr Frizziero and the picket. His Honour went on to say: A serious incident occurred on the 23 July, 1985, shortly after the picket line commenced. The plaintiff company by contract with Rowntree Hoadley Company received at approximately weekly intervals regular deliveries of about two tonnes of material which it used for making hundreds and thousands . . . On 23 July the truck driver from Rowntree Hoadley attempting delivery was deliberately turned back by the picket . . . This deliberate act of turning back the driver was calculated to interfere with, and has interfered with, the plaintiff's business and contracts for supply quite seriously, and its inability to supply its regular customers with hundreds and thousands has contributed to a considerable loss of profit. At a later point in his judgment, His Honour referred to what might be, in the minds of many, an even more serious offence. I quote from page 7 of the judgment: It seems from the evidence that the activities of the defendants on the picket line have not been confined to obstruction and besetting- I understand `besetting' is a legal term of a rather minatory and intimidatory kind- of customers and invitees of the plaintiff company. The picket has been indiscriminate, and the material before me- that is, before Mr Justice Murphy- satisfies me that the picket has obstructed all persons- not merely people wishing to do business with the plaintiff company, but all persons- who have wished to do business with other shops in the said lane, shops unconnected with the plaintiff. This form of what, I think, must be described as anarchy- I will come back to that word later in my remarks- has of course also the effect of dissuading clients of the plaintiff from proceeding in the normal way to perform contracts with it, and I consider this particular action only in that light. Finally, Mr Justice Murphy noted some further activities on the part of some members of that picket line. He said that on 1 August 1985, Mr Lendon, who was a truck driver, a commercial carrier, with his own small business-he was a truck owner-driver engaged full time in the carriage of commercial goods-was followed for a considerable distance by another vehicle driven by one of the defendants who happened to be the vice president of the Victorian branch of the defendant union in this case. He noted: Mr. Lendon was fearful enough to seek assistance by radio from another taxi truck which came to his aid. However, although Mr. Lendon asked Mr Johnson- that is, one of the defendants- not to follow him any further, during the following week Mr. Lendon's vehicle was followed again by a blue Commodore driven by . . . Mr. Frizziero, the second-named defendant. He deposed, and I accept- that is, Mr Justice Murphy- that after this had happened some ten times, Mr. Lendon contacted the police and soon after Mr. Frizziero ceased to follow him. Mr Justice Murphy went on to detail, in a rather compelling, minute way, the forms of personal intimidation and violence to which people seeking to go about their lawful business were being subjected. He detailed the forms of personal harassment by those elements of the trade union movement. In conclusion, one can only note that recently the real courts-as distinct from the arbitral tribunals-found or were about to find in favour of those defendants, to the point where the matter was settled out of court, with considerable damages being awarded to the injured parties. What does this mean? It points very clearly to the importance of having a system which generally binds both sides-employers and those who work for them. The importance of that need is acknowledged by the Government. The Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon. Ralph Willis, said when he presented the first version of his Industrial Relations Bill on 14 May last year: An essential element of any industrial relations system which provides benefits and protections to registered organisations- trade unions, in this context- and their members is that there should be effective means of ensuring compliance with the decisions of its institutions- that is, institutions of the industrial relations system. He went on to to say: The principal initiative- the principal initiative in his then Bill- is that the present bans clause provisions, which have long since fallen into disrepute and are now substantially moribund, will be replaced by a new direction and injunction process. One might say that that was said a year ago and that since then there has been an election and other things have happened, but despite his personal humiliation over the dropping of that Bill prior to the 1987 election campaign, the Minister, Mr Ralph Willis, kept on insisting that in due course he would bring in a better compliance system than that which he described as moribund. What we have today is nothing of the kind. As late as June of last year, which was after the Government had come partially to its senses in relation to its proposed legislation and had abandoned the attack on the Trade Practices Commission in relation to the powers under sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act and the previously proposed attack on the common law rights of employers and employees, the Minister was still saying, as he said on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio program The World Today: That will leave us with a compliance system which is more similar to the one which currently exists but with some very substantial differences, a direction system which I believe will be much more effective than the current bans clause which has virtually been moribund for 20 years and also with an array of non-monetary penalties where unions or the employers refuse to accept Commission decisions or orders. This debate takes place in the context of the Government's failure to do anything of the kind-its failure to take any action at all in this regard. Indeed, on the contrary, today the Government or its representatives are continuing to accuse those even raising issues of this kind of being not interested in what is euphemistically described as a positive approach to industrial relations. The fact is that this is a continuing problem in a number of industries, particularly the industry which is mentioned in the matter of public importance letter-namely, the building and construction industry. I wish to refer briefly to a dispute in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) involving White Constructions Ltd. The first thing to note about that dispute, which was between that company and the Transport Workers Union of Australia and others, is that the Transport Workers Union simply failed to turn up for the hearing of the dispute. It sent a telegram saying that it had not been advised of the dispute, which was totally untrue. It had been advised, as the transcript of proceedings made clear. The union failed to turn up. Mr Commissioner Baird, who is a very well respected Commissioner of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission operating in the Australian Capital Territory, had a number of things to say about the behaviour of trade unions in the Australian Capital Territory in these matters. I quote from page 27 of the transcript, which records the Commissioner as saying: I deal with sometimes four disputes a day, and I have got to say while Parliament House has been described by various people as some sort of circus, it may have been, at one time, the circus, but I can tell you it is only a very small potato in the circus that goes on in the rest of the industry up there. Mr Commissioner Baird went on to say: I might say, that I have been unofficially informed . . . that there are substantial payments being made to crane drivers in tower cranes to get lifts done on sites in the Australian Capital Territory, which are totally illegal. He went on to say, and I think this is a key passage in his remarks: My attitude to the whole situation in Canberra, and the building industry, is that I have endeavoured to hold the industry to the principles set out in the wage guidelines and to the criteria that applies in regard to claims, and site allowances, and so on, and particularly the settlement of dispute clauses, and I find that while there are a number of cases where they are adhered to, the preponderance of disputes occur as if no agreements existed of any kind . . . We have just heard the Leader of the Government in the Senate tell us by way of a statement after Question Time that some agreements have been entered into in relation to the submarine construction project in Adelaide. But what does that mean? Nobody has the slightest faith any longer in the willingness-I almost said `ability'-of the trade union movement to adhere to agreements entered into. Certainly, Mr Commissioner Baird, in the remarks which I have just quoted, made his view on that matter very plain. He went on to say in a further point in his remarks: Now, am I to assume that the union is going to support liars and frauds, because that is really what I am faced with, and I must say, it is getting to a stage where the description of anarchy- that is the word I said I would come back to- is the only description. I mean, we have just had a case where I dealt for 12 months with a case, gave every opportunity for the union to appear, put its arguments, leaned over backwards to ensure that the union's position was put, discussed it with the shop stewards at inspections, raised it in every recorded hearing before the commission, and the union simply failed to appear in 12-once in 12 months-twice in 12 months. Now, the position with the other unions, is similar. There are a series of breaches of agreements that have been made in regard to such things as claims for payment while people are on strike, which are quite outside the undertakings which are given. There are bans imposed without regard for any of the settlements of disputes clauses, and we have got that many settlement of disputes agreements when people talk about them and point to this agreement, and that agreement and the other agreement, I must say I get confused which one we are talking about. Commissioner Baird continued: I must say, if I were an employer I would have no hesitation, if I could not get the work done, and have issued a lawful instruction to take whatever course was available to me to either enforce the order or shut the job down. That is my approach to them. That is to say, to the wreckers in the trade union movement within the building industry in the Australian Capital Territory. The Commissioner's description of the situation as anarchic is, if anything, an understatement. The Government's response to various pleas for intervention has been to ask both parties to behave reasonably. Its approach has been to put an equality of blame, so to speak, on both unions and employers. The fact of the matter is that that kind of response from the Government is a pathetic and inadequate response to a situation where one side and one side alone in this case-I emphasise that-is behaving totally unreasonably. This is something which I am sure my colleague Senator Reid will draw out. There is in fact no difficulty in prescribing a remedy. The Government itself presented a remedy in a previous Bill in May last year. Indeed, Senator Chaney has put forward a private member's Bill which is before the Senate at present. What we have from the Government on this matter is a simple, clear and downright abrogation of responsibility. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(3.43) —I am rather astounded that the Opposition has brought on today, on a single sitting day straight after the opening of the new Parliament House, this matter of public importance. What we have just heard is a quite extraordinary contribution by Senator Stone. If this were an Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission hearing, there would be no need for the Government to reply because there would be no case to answer. What we have as a matter of public importance is a request for the Government to take action in regard to industrial relations in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) as a result of particular incidents. We have a very thin, if not pathetic, effort to make a case by weaving some materials together, resulting in the claim that the Government has a case to answer. In replying for the Government I will deal with some of the things Senator Stone has said. The matter of public importance is a curious affair. It is curious from several points. Firstly, I recognise that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Chaney, is suffering a voice affliction today-perhaps the worst injury a politician can have-and, therefore, Senator Stone has been chosen to carry this issue for the Opposition. Senator Stone is a curious choice to carry this for the Opposition. He is a member of the H. R. Nicholls Society, a notorious extreme-- Senator Stone —I am not just a member; I am the President. Senator COOK —I thank Senator Stone for informing me that he is the President of the H. R. Nicholls Society, a notorious right wing organisation in Australia given to extraordinary and extreme comments about industrial relations which all reasonable commentators dismiss as being on the lunatic fringe. We have a full front bench for the Opposition. Many other front bench Opposition members could have been chosen. However, Senator Stone was called. That is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. The matter of public importance is curious as well because industrial relations is one of the strongest points in this Government's record. We have a very good record in industrial relations. Perhaps we can now look forward to being attacked because we have brought the Budget deficit, bequeathed to Australia by the Liberal-National Party in 1983, into surplus. Perhaps we can be attacked for creating one million jobs since we came to power in this country. That is a thing of which the Opposition disapproves. Perhaps we can be attacked for that. Perhaps we can be attacked for the success of our family package-for recognising the needs of Australian families and improving their conditions. Perhaps we can be attacked for those important, compassionate and worthwhile social reforms. If we can be attacked for all those things we can be attacked in regard to industrial relations. We have a very good record on industrial relations matters. The Opposition has chosen to attack us on one of our strongest points. I congratulate the Opposition on it. I ask honourable senators opposite, `Please keep it up, fellows; we would like to see a bit more emphasis on what we have done that you think is bad because the Australian people don't share your opinion'. The matter of public importance is curious as well because the Opposition does not come to this debate with clean hands. Honourable senators opposite cannot stand here in this chamber and say, `We speak with a perfect record of industrial relations in Australia'. They cannot do that for the very good reason that the Opposition has had one of the worst records in industrial relations of any Opposition in terms of its intervention in industrial relations debates. When it was in government under Malcolm Fraser it presided over one of the most divisive eras of industrial relations in Australia. It is curious that honourable senators opposite have come in here without clean hands and have dared to accuse us. It is also curious that nothing new has been added by the Opposition. We have heard all this before. This is Cold War rhetoric. I listened to Senator Stone carefully. To put it in pure, straight logical terms he raised three particular incidents. One was the reference to the new Parliament House construction-a matter on which Senator Stone vaguely touched. When the Fraser Government was in power it had an opportunity to do something about that. We did something about it; honourable senators opposite did not. I ask honourable senators opposite not to criticise us on that. We heard a long and boring excerpt from the Dollar Sweets judgment. It was very interesting. We understand-Senator Stone concluded-that the case was settled out of court. We then heard a bit about construction in Canberra. We have heard of three cases. Out of a total work force in Australia of over 6 1/2 million workers we have had three cases. We have an absolute logical fault. The Opposition is trying to make a general case from three incidents. Any student of logic could tell the Opposition that that is not the way logical progression is constructed. The Opposition would fail in that elementary exercise. Having said all those things, let me say that we do not shrink from debating the matter. We will answer the points. I will take the first point concerning the Quadrant construction contract in the ACT. I want to table for the information of the Senate a Press statement by the Minister for the Arts and Territories, the Hon. Gary Punch, on this subject. His Press statement is instructive. He said that if there are allegations of a criminal nature those allegations should be taken to the police. He enjoined the people who make those allegations to take that route. We do not shrink from that. We are not a government that supports criminality in any form. However, if someone has an allegation to make let him take it to the proper authority and submit it to due process. Secondly, what did the Minister say? He said that the employers in this particular case had not availed themselves of the full range of opportunities available under the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. They should do that. They should do it immediately. It is no good Senator Stone putting forward argument in this chamber that ought to be put to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, a properly constituted Commission, to settle a particular issue. This is not the forum. Senator Stone may not have noticed but this is the Senate-the proper place for political debate. Debate settling industrial relations matters should be in the proper forum. Thirdly, Senator Stone has said that if there are broader allegations to be made or broader issues to be canvassed they should be canvassed before the building industry inquiry which is being conducted by the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That inquiry has already sat for 21 days; it has 15 more days scheduled. All of the parties concerned are participating in that inquiry. Emerging in the process of that inquiry is a common desire to seek solutions to the problems in the industry. That inquiry is looking at relationships under the award, at industrial relations management on the employers' side and contractual arrangements, as building companies enter into them, in order to see the impact of those contractual arrangements on industrial relations. I table the Press statement of the Minister. That document is a clear, open and proper rebuttal by the Government of the issues raised by Senator Stone. Some of my colleagues in this debate may wish to canvass that matter more fully. Let me go back to one of my opening comments concerning the records of this Government and the Fraser Government-a government under which Senator Stone played a unique advisory role when he was Secretary to the Treasury. The most favoured index to chart whether the industrial relations course is rocky or smooth is the industrial disputes figures. Under the Fraser Government the average number of working days lost per month totalled 249,600. Under the Hawke Government, the figure is 116,100-a reduction of 54 per cent. Senator Stone —You don't have a dispute when you are bludgeoned into submission, Minister. You don't have a dispute under those circumstances. Senator COOK —The raw figures show that under our Government there has been a 54 per cent reduction in the number of disputes in this country. Senator Stone might wish to quarrel with that, but I do not think even he can go past the figures. Another perhaps more important benchmark than the figures I have given is a table I have showing the annual average working days lost per 1,000 employees. This is important because, as we have created one million new jobs and the number of people employed in the work force has increased, we would expect the propensity to dispute to increase accordingly. From 1976 to 1982-that is, the Fraser period-there was an annual average of 591 working days lost per 1,000 employees. From 1983 to 1986, on average 243 working days were lost per 1,000 employees. That is a reduction of 59 per cent. We do not have all the figures for 1987, but in the 12 months to the end of November 231 working days per 1,000 employees were lost. Those figures indicate a consistent pattern. The Australian people understand this, and all the polls that have been taken show that. The people respond, `Yes, we believe Labor governments can handle industrial relations better'. They remember the divisiveness of the Fraser years. They remember when Australians were pitted against Australians on the industrial relations front. People listening to the debate today will regard the sort of rhetoric typified by Senator Stone's speech as an echo from an older era, the Fraser era. I turn to another area of industrial relations in which I have a particular interest in my role as Minister for Resources. It is an area which stands for many Australians as a model for improvement in industrial relations under the Hawke Labor Government. I refer to the Pilbara, because by doing so we are able to make an important point-- Senator Stone —Try Robe River. Senator COOK —I am going to try Robe River, and I think Senator Stone will be sorry he invited me to do so by the time I have finished. It is no secret, it is a matter of public record, that industrial relations in the Pilbara during the Fraser years of office were tragically at a high level and it is a matter of recrimination from both sides as to who was responsible for that. Indeed, it can be said that on some occasions workers were responsible. On some other occasions employers were responsible. Certainly the cultural psychology of the region was such that it was a highly disputatious area. In 1984 we established the Western Australian Iron Ore Consultative Council, with the Western Australian Government, and we talked with the industry about the need to make it more competitive so that employers could reward their shareholders, so that workers could obtain job security and better remuneration for the activities they were engaged in and so that, because of the better competitiveness of an Australian export industry, there would be more returns to the Government and thus to the public pocket. What is the record of the consultative process we established in the Pilbara? The number of days lost in the iron ore industry went as high as 166,000 in 1979 and, in the year preceding the establishment of the Council, 105,000 days were lost. In 1984, the year in which the Council was established, the number of days lost dropped dramatically, to 40,000. Since then, even with the Robe River disputes, overall disputation has remained at historically low levels, at less than half the average pre-1984. The figures for 1987, up to October-which is the latest available published material-show the lowest incidence of days lost in the last 10 years, down by 21,000. The 1987 performance is all the more impressive given that it includes strike action which occurred at the Robe River operations for most of January. Disputation for the remaining nine months was exceptionally low. The point is that not only because of our approach on the macro-stage, across the whole sweep of the Australian economy, have we done better but also in particularly disputatious industries, with our conciliation processes, the bringing together of the parties and the harmonising of interests, we have been able to reduce industrial disputation and develop a competitive industry in the Pilbara-with the exception of Robe River. What is unique about Robe River? There are a number of things unique to Robe River. Senator Stone —It doubled its productivity in the last 12 months; that is what is unique about it. It had done what Australia has to do-double its productivity. Senator COOK —My understanding is that it has increased its productivity but it has not increased it startlingly out of line with productivity increases in the rest of the iron ore industry in the Pilbara, and it has not done it in such a way that in the longer haul the figures per worker engaged to tonne of output will remain consistently high, because it has done it at the cost, I am advised, of running down all its maintenance on plant and equipment. Because it has not employed workers on maintaining its plant and equipment it is facing the inevitable-that is, sooner or later it will have to stop doing some mining work and start repairing its plant and equipment. Then, when we get a full and proper sample of its figures, we will be able to see the truth about Robe River. But this is not a debate about Robe River. Had it been I would have looked forward to filling my available time by pointing out the contrast between Robe River and the rest of the Pilbara. At the end of last year and the beginning of this year we wrote new contracts for the supply of iron ore to Japan. We regained a significant share of the Japanese market. The companies that regained that market were Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd and the Mt Newman Mining Co. Pty Ltd. They were the companies for which the Iron Ore Consultative Council approach worked; they were the companies that could demonstrate real gains-not illusory gains and not asserted gains but real gains in productivity of up to, I am advised, 40 per cent. This was able to be done through the consultative process. The point I was making earlier was that the macro figures speak eloquently across the scope of the economy in a particularly disputatious area. They speak eloquently, again, in terms of what this Government has been able to achieve in industrial relations. We are able to apply those figures and compare situations. There is a problem in the Australian Capital Territory with the Quadrant site, there was a problem with the new Parliament House and maybe the Dollar Sweets dispute was a bit shonky, but logicians would sit here and gape at someone of Senator Stone's education and background bringing into this chamber what he purported to be a credible argument concerning these three situations. It clearly was not a credible argument. However, it is not the case that the Commonwealth sits back in rapturous contemplation of its own successes in this field and thinks, `Well, that is enough; we have done sufficiently well to prove our credentials, to establish yet again in the minds of the Australian electorate that we are better at industrial relations'. On 28 April, just a few weeks ago, Ralph Willis introduced into the House of Representatives a new Bill to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. This Bill, for the first time in 84 years, comprehensively overhauls the provisions of the existing Act. Anyone who has had anything to do with industrial relations in Australia knows that the patchwork quilt of endless amendments and amendments on amendments which then amend further amendments that constitutes the existing Act is a playground for lawyers, and cases drag on endlessly because the legislation itself is some sort of impediment to the conduct of better industrial relations. It is only during the period of a Labor government that there is a cushion to enable reviews to take place and amendments to be brought in. The Willis Bill does a number of important things. It removes the unintelligible sections from the Act and introduces a number of amendments, which will mean that an Australian Industrial Relations Commission will be introduced to replace the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and a number of specialist tribunals that have applied in this country as well. There will be the provision of greater powers for the new Commission to deal with union demarcation disputes-an important area that needs greater attention. There will be speedier and simpler union amalgamation procedures. I hope that this will mean that there will be fewer unions in Australia and they will be better able to manage their resources and therefore better able to play a role in representing their members and thus prevent disputes in advance of their arising. It will provide new requirements which will restrict future registrations of unions to organisations with more than 3,000 members. There will be provision for fixed term certified agreements which are not necessarily constrained by the Commission's wage fixing or other principles. There will be greater emphasis on dispute settlement procedures at workplace level, including new rules for the use of grievance procedures. There will be a requirement for union elections to be by secret ballot conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission unless an exemption is granted; and provision for greater cooperation between the Federal and State industrial tribunals. That is a list of the main features of the new Bill. This Bill arises in the landscape of industrial relations in this country at a time when we have demonstrated huge gains in improving industrial relations. It arises after an extensive round of consultations between unions and employers. Though no one is saying, `We wholeheartedly endorse it', because that is the nature of the industrial relations business, it is going forward in a climate in which it is possible for the Government to say accurately that no-one is going out stringently to oppose it either. In the concluding minute that remains to me in this debate, I wish to rest my case on Senator Stone's argument by quoting from the Melbourne Herald on 26 April 1988. The person being quoted by the Herald said: I frankly am in no doubt that the wages outcome which has been delivered so far by the Government could not have been achieved by a coalition Government, even if I had been Industrial Relations Minister. Who was the speaker? Who was the Herald quoting? Was it a member of the Australian Labor Party? No. Was it a Democrat? No. It was quoting the former Minister for Industrial Relations under the Fraser Government, Ian Macphee. In that quotation he gave an accolade to the Hawke Government's achievement in industrial relations-an accolade that was supported later when, at a Liberal Party-organised function of top business talent, the businessmen gathered also underlined what Mr Macphee had said in support of it. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(4.02) —All honourable senators, and indeed members of the public, are aware that today is a special sitting day brought on by the pressure of Government business. The Australian Democrats believe that the requirement today is to get on with that urgent business. Therefore, we will not be taking up the time of the Senate needlessly by helping the Opposition in its continued practice of using urgency motions and matters of public importance as a union bashing exercise. We believe that there are far more important things to do this afternoon. Frankly, we hope that this matter does not set the tone of the debate in the next two weeks, focusing, as the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) said, on the vitally important Industrial Relations Bill which will come before this chamber probably in the second week of the next three-week block. We would like to see the tone of that debate positive and constructive. Unfortunately, we sense that this afternoon's supposed matter of public importance is an indicator of perhaps a return to the old days of abuse and ridicule across the chamber, at a time when we need to be addressing these matters with a new outlook and a much more constructive approach. Therefore, the Australian Democrats do not intend to take up the time of the Senate this afternoon by participating further in this debate. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(4.05) —It is a pity that the Australian Democrats see this matter of public importance in the way mentioned by Senator McLean. We would like the debate to be more positive. Certainly we in Canberra would like the debate to be much more positive, because the catalogue of industrial history in recent times in the Australian Capital Territory, which I shall go into in a moment, will indicate to honourable senators that it is very important for this Territory to attain a better industrial relations environment. It is very important to the future development of this Territory to have an environment in which people will consider investing, which will bring business here and which will further widen employment opportunities-particularly for young people, so that they are not as dependent on the Public Service for jobs, if they want to live in Canberra, as they have been in the past. The Democrats say that there is a requirement to get on with business. Yes, there is, because the Government has put forward a program that is beyond reason for this period of parliamentary sittings. If the Government thinks that it can take that step and tell the rest of us that we are not able to raise matters which are of importance in our electorates, I believe that we will not fulfil some of the purposes for which we have been elected. The Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) dealt at some length with a reduction in disputes, but did not bother to tell us about the number of bans that have been imposed not only in the ACT but throughout Australia-but particularly in this Territory. How often are there threats which result in an issue being avoided before becoming a dispute? I refer to threats which have required drivers to become members of unions or be put out of work; threats aimed at carpenters on the Parliament House site in times gone by to the effect that if they did not join the union they would never work again. We have not heard much about that sort of thing. One may well be able to produce figures to show that there have been fewer strikes. We know why that has been the case-bans can bring an industry to its knees without any loss of income to union members, whereas there is loss if there is a strike. The Government's new industrial relations package which was introduced into the Parliament last month and which has been referred to is critically deficient in that it does not include provisions to enable the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to enforce compliance with its orders. That is why this matter is important now. The Bill that was envisaged last year did make such a provision, and we know that that is why it went away. Senator Chaney's private member's Bill, which has been referred to, seeks similar provisions, and they are important. Sufficient evidence is available to indicate that such powers are needed for the Commission if we are to get on with increasing productivity and, in the particular instance to which I am referring, creating in the Australian Capital Territory an environment in which it will be easier to attract business-to make this a place where businesses will want to come and to feel that there will be some benefits to them if they do so. Let us look at the history of Canberra in recent times. I want to run through a few examples of industrial matters in this Territory. The Quadrant dispute has now been going on for about 12 weeks and is the latest in a long line of industrial disputes. I shall come back to that later. Let us look at 1987, at some of the more major disputes; there were lesser disputes than those to which I shall refer. Plumbers on the new Parliament House site were on strike for two months. They went on strike after the implementation of an Arbitration Commission decision to deduct about $50 per week from their wages as a punishment for conducting an industrial campaign for a log of claims outside the current wage guidelines. They returned to work only when the money was restored. The Commission had no power to do otherwise. In early August social workers went on strike over pay anomalies. In September there was a dispute involving the Professional Officers Association in the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority, a dispute which had been current in the previous June. That dispute involved a ban on work in the pathology laboratories. In September there was an industrial dispute involving Canberra's garbage service. In that month also one saw the culmination of industrial action by ACT nurses, who had been fighting to have a new career and pay structure implemented by the Health Authority. The Authority's refusal to comply with the pay and career structure prescribed by the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which was to have been in place by 10 August, was another instance of the Commission not being in a position to enforce its orders. It was a clear case of the employer ignoring the Commission's ruling. The dispute continued; nurses walked out of hospitals, and elective surgery was cancelled. How often have we heard that in this chamber in relation to the ACT over the last four or five years? Honourable senators know the impact on patients when elective surgery is cancelled. That dispute continued for more than a month. In October doctors passed a vote of no confidence in the ACT Health Authority. There were bans on freight deliveries by members of the Transport Workers Union. There was a health inspectors' ban over pay and conditions. A demarcation dispute between three unions at the ACT Electricity Authority went on for 10 days before it was referred to the Commission. There was a printers dispute, threatened ward closures at public hospitals and a TAFE teachers strike over work claims in October. The Hospital Employees Federation (HEF) placed bans on the collection of waste at the Woden Valley Hospital over safety issues which prevented supplies going into the hospital. Again, as I indicated, that ban slowly brought the hospital to a halt while not interfering with the pay of those who were involved. The Commission gave the Authority stand-down orders for unionists who refused to perform duties. At the time the Salvation Army was feeding the patients in the hospital. The union maintained a picket line outside it. In spite of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission orders to the HEF to try to settle the dispute, it continued for more than a week. Two weeks later contaminated waste was found at ACT tips. No-one would deny that that should not occur. It led to bans on garbage collections which affected the people of Canberra generally and caused the closure of the tips. Interestingly, at that point Mr Willis was prompted to observe that industrial relations in the ACT health industry were dreadful. But he did not seem to have remembered that when he got around to the legislation he drafted recently. The garbage dispute continued, with tips closed for more than a week. There were bans on garbage collections from homes. The dispute affected the hospitals. There were calls for the dispute to end because of the hazard to the newborn and the sick in the hospitals resulting from the non-collection of garbage. The matter was before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for six days. It was only when the Health Authority agreed to pay the stood-down workers, whose bans had prompted the stand-downs, that it was resolved. The Commission rescinded its stand-down orders because the hospitals were to be closed down if the garbage was not removed. What is that, if not threats of the kind which ought to be abolished by the Arbitration Commission? In November there were problems with the teachers over staffing issues. Also that month firemen in Canberra refused to carry out duties other than emergency calls. In December there was a social workers' strike. The situation continues this year. Another garbage dispute commencing in January affected street sweeping and the like. Some restaurants were forced to close because they could not get rid of their garbage. On 18 January this year the Arbitration Commissioner, Mr Bain, said that he thought most of the issues had been resolved. But the strike went on. On 19 January the union decided not to meet again about the dispute for another two days, in spite of the fact that the Commission hearing had been scheduled for that day and the following day. The dispute dragged on until the Australia Day weekend. The union returned to work on the Friday but did not fully re-open the tips until the following week. So the workers got paid for the holiday weekend but the dispute was not resolved. It ended on 27 January. There was further industrial action in February. In January there were problems with nurses at the Blood Bank. There were motor vehicle registry bans in support of the second tier wage claim affecting the re-registration of vehicles. In February there were bans by members of the FEDFA, disrupting bus services, just as the school year began. Many children in Canberra need buses to get to school. Also in February wardsmen at the Woden Valley Hospital imposed bans. Licence restrictions at the motor vehicle centre affected trainee taxi drivers. Many of the 40 would-be taxi drivers were not able to take tests which would have enabled them to proceed with employment. Then there was the Quadrant dispute. There are 45 employees on that site and three full-time union officials. This is in spite of the fact that when the matter was before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in February the Commissioner hearing the case ordered a lifting of bans and a return to work. It is interesting to note the comments of Commissioner Baird, a responsible and well-respected Commissioner. He said: I deal with sometimes four [ACT] disputes a day, and I have got to say while Parliament House has been described by various people as some sort of circus . . . it is only a very small potato in the circus that goes on in the rest of the industry up there. In dealing with the dispute in question he said: I find that no sooner is an agreement made, or an undertaking given, that it is broken. I just do not understand that kind of situation. There is almost no credibility with the undertakings given by the union. One of the problems I have with the unions is that demands are made, bans are imposed. It is nothing for an organiser to go onto the job and simply ban this machine, that machine, this job and that job, and walk away from it, sometimes without even discussion with management. My attitude to the whole situation in Canberra, and the building industry, is that I have endeavoured to hold the industry to the principles set out in the wage guidelines and to the criteria that applies in regard to claims, and site allowances . . . He described the situation in the ACT as bordering on anarchy. One cannot blame the Commissioner for the frustration he has felt arising out of this situation which he has described so vividly in his findings. I hope that the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, reads those findings carefully and gives some thought to the Bill he is introducing, recognising the need for this situation not to continue. The Commissioner outlined his further difficulties in attempting to resolve the issue in dispute when he attempted to contact the union involved: I have tried to find-on one occasion I actually spoke to the FEDFA office, asked for Bob Elkin to discuss a matter. The lady on the switch asked Bob was he in, he said `No', all of which I heard on the phone. Now, am I to assume that the union is going to support liars and frauds, because that is really what I am faced with, and I must say, it is getting to a stage where the description of anarchy is the only description. I hope that Mr Willis reads those words and takes them into account. The Commissioner described how it has been impossible to get the union to appear to put its position in hearings before the Commission. He also said that other unions are similarly unwilling to cooperate. As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, there are other disputes. Other statements by the Commissioner could easily be read out here. They are all part of the story. I reiterate the need for us to be able to get on with the building industry and other industries in Canberra without these interruptions which gives the area a particularly bad name. It seems that the Government is unwilling to tackle the issue. It is just not prepared to do anything which might upset the unions, to which the Government seems to be totally mendicant in its industrial relations policy. The threat by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions last August that the Government can still introduce a Bill, but that it will have to be a Bill that does not do anything on compliance, seems to have overwhelmed the Government. The Government does not appear to be willing to deal with this issue. I say to the Government that it is necessary for the Bill to be looked at again from this point of view. It is certainly necessary for the ACT. I hope that that will be the case before the debate that has already been foreshadowed for later in this session commences. Senator BURNS(Queensland)(4.19) —I was interested to read the words used in this matter of public importance about the power of the trade unions. I am always interested to hear honourable senators opposite talk about how the trade unions and the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission operate. They do so on the basis of having read newspaper reports or a transcript of a particular Arbitration Commission case. I have had 20 years experience in the trade union movement with industrial matters. I know how it operates. I know how people think. I know how some people try to take advantage of others. There are those on both sides who keep their word and believe that honour is important. Others do not. To suggest that, because of some hiccup in Canberra, the Government should create legislation that would be used to make industrial and economic slaves, to bludgeon workers and deprive them of their rights, is a gross distortion of what needs to be done. Senator Stone raised the matter of Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd. There was, and is currently, legislation on the books which enabled Dollar Sweets to take legal action. Dollar Sweets has had a decision; the people who were involved in that dispute have paid the price. But Senator Stone still had to talk about the matter. I think he quoted Justice Murphy, who preferred the version of events that intimidation was used on the picket line to the version that someone may have turned back at the picket line because he supported the cause that the workers were involved in as just. Let me say, as the person who has experienced and who has been on many picket lines: if I experienced any intimidation on picket lines it was the other way round. If, after having explained the workers' position, you suggest to an interstate truck driver who is about 14 stone-and you are about 10 stone-that he might give you some assistance, there is certainly intimidation, but it does not come from the person on the picket line. We heard about the powers of the unions-this abused term. The unions have power all right-they have the power of persuasion. They have power from their members' knowledge of the way they have been exploited over many years. As anybody who has read history knows, the trade unions started out as friendly societies with unpaid officials. They were defensive and they were conservative. Sure, they had to have industrial and political conflict with authority. When that occurred in the shearers' strike earlier this century the army and the police were lined up against the union. The leaders were put in gaol. In later times some of them were able to show their capacities when they entered the State Parliament in Queensland. Why did these things occur? It was because of the greed and the authoritarianism of the employers who used those government forces of the police and the troops. Of course, the general society view in those days was that owners had a right to rule-there were the trappings of authority and the riches that went with that authority. The view was that workers ought to be content with poverty and having no rights and that they should depend upon the patronage of the people who did have power. The trade union movement and the Australian Labor Party have a proud record of having changed that order of society. The trade union movement and the Labor Party have been instruments in achieving justice and fair play. Sometimes this has been through industrial disputes. But whenever there is an industrial dispute the workers involved lose their total earning capacity-something their families cannot afford. Does anybody in this chamber or anybody in the community believe that they would do that out of a desire to show that they are honourable or want to hurt their employer? I defy anyone who uses any degree of intelligence to come to that conclusion. Of course they do not; they do it because of an unjust situation and because that is the last weapon they have to use. When talking about suppressing the workers we should look at some of the awards. For instance, in the metal industry award there is a provision that a person found stealing from the boss or engaging in some other misdemeanour can be charged in the court and fined in accordance with the law-and I have no complaint about that-and then have the employer take $1,000 of holiday pay away, $1,000 that the family cannot afford. That is a double penalty. This could happen where a person has worked for 11 months and has accrued $1,000 in holiday pay. I have no problem with one or other of the penalties being applied by the employer. If anyone in this chamber walks in off the street and commits the same act he can be brought before the court, but cannot lose wages. There is a heavier onus on workers and unionists. I recall a dispute at Clyde Engineering more than 30 years ago under the old system involving the court and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The penalties were heavy and the Commissioner was not even allowed to look at what the dispute was about. It was about welders who were welding on a surface that would poison their lungs. The Commissioner said, `I am not interested in the merit of the dispute. You are illegally in dispute-fined #500'. Is that what members of the Opposition want? If they do they ought to be ashamed of themselves. Honourable senators opposite want an aggressive adversarial system in which people cannot talk to seek solutions to their mutual benefit. We have to look to the future and we should look at current practices. Senator Reid reeled off a whole list of disputes. There was not one word about who was to blame. There was not one word about what they were about. She quoted Jim Baird, a good friend of mine for over 30 years. This man was secretary of the metal industry national negotiating committee and he always strove for fair play for the workers. But he used to be attacked in the Press and maligned by people in the Opposition and those associated with them during those years of his service to the trade union movement. Now he has some new-found wisdom that the members of the Opposition want to quote in this chamber. I question their sincerity; I am certain of their hypocrisy. Ian Macphee was quoted by Senator Cook, I think wisely so. Anyone who makes a statement as straightforward and honest as the statement Ian Macphee made deserves recognition. But, of course, Senator Stone, who has now gone from the chamber, said, `He did not know; he made a mistake'. Let us examine the record of both people and their experience. Senator Stone was a public servant all his life. He worked in Treasury. He used to put forward views on how the economy worked. Now he has other views, which sometimes Senator Walsh questions. But Mr Macphee worked for the employer organisations for many years. He knew what industrial relations were all about; he understood. He worked in the field and he knew-unlike people on the other side of the chamber. He made an honest comment. History will show, and anybody who wants to examine recent events will know-and I can say from being in those negotiations over recent years-that the slowing down of wage increases and the loss in real wages that have occurred as a result of the agreements and the cooperation between the Labor Party and the trade unions could not have been achieved by the Liberal Party of Australia in conjunction with the trade unions. Why? All honourable senators opposite want to do is bludgeon, deceive and disadvantage workers. They do not care about workers; workers cannot trust them. So Ian Macphee was totally right. A man of some eminence, Mr Fraser, also made a statement recently that the Labor Government has really now reduced the argument to who is the best manager and that ideology is no longer the question. I agree that there is the question of who is the best manager, and I know whose side most fair minded people would come down on. But I do not believe that the question of ideology is gone, and I hope it never is. But the national interest should be paramount in the view of all of us. We must all change, and in seeking a better life we must seek to create better management situations-which, of course, goes to the question of how labour operates, how workers are paid, costs to industry in terms of management's capacity to operate, the terms and the way in which money is invested, the new methods of just-in-time and all those things that are now buzz words being used in industry. They are the sorts of things that will create wealth in this country. That wealth will go towards financing other programs, which people are so fond of talking about in our community and in this place, to help the disadvantaged and do the things that need to be done. Adequate defence against people who may wish to attack this country and the ability to provide better education for more people also depend on our ability to create wealth. What are our chances of creating wealth in the manufacturing industry? After all, manufacturing provides most jobs and is capable of creating a tremendous amount of wealth compared with other areas. In this respect I suppose I cannot refer to wool to the same extent as coal, because wool is more valuable. Certainly nobody in the Labor Party has ever questioned the importance of the role played by the wool growers in this country. If one sends a shipload of coal to a foreign country one does earn income. But if one sends a shipload of computers or other manufactured goods one earns 100 times more. That is where the creation of wealth is-in the manufacturing industry. Is such wealth going to be created by a work force coming to work every day of every week threatened with not having a say in its future? Are they not considered to be worthwhile people? Do they not have a contribution to make? It seems that they can have an idea as long as they keep it to themselves. The employers have cornered the market in terms of expertise and intelligence and the ability to be creative and to build this country. The workers are really machine fodder-they are an extension of the machines they work. Employers have no hesitation in sacking 500 workers and putting in a machine on economic grounds. They do not worry about the workers. But the workers are still expected to make a contribution. They are expected not to enter into disputes as a means of trying to protect their livelihood. They are not expected to worry about working under conditions which expose them to loss of life or limb or destruction of their health. They are expected not to worry about that but to continue to work in the interests of the country. What is meant by that, of course, is that they should work in the interests of the people who control capital. I do not want it to be thought that I am saying that all employers, anyone who has had any authority in industry, are bad or dishonest people. Only most of them fall into this category. I have met a small minority of employers who are decent people, to whom honour is important, who keep their word, who are concerned about the people who work for them and who look at things on a team basis. Work is being done by various committees on this subject. The Senate Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology has been given a reference by this chamber in respect of the refurbishment of manufacturing industry. It has come through to us from talking to witnesses, through our own attitude and certainly through our own experience as people in the community, that there needs to be an attitudinal change both in respect of management and amongst the workers. We have to come to the conclusion that if we can build something bigger and better for this community, if we can make the cake bigger, we can all have a bigger slice. But we have to take into account the rights of people in industry. It could be that jobs will be lost as a result of reorganisation of work and management. Such a change has to be carried out slowly. People should know what is happening. There will have to be retraining and jobs will have to be created in other industries. Where it is not possible to do that, the community must play a legitimate role in supporting people who are between jobs. People must be given more education. We must do this rather than bringing more immigrants to this country. I am not suggesting that we should close our doors. Certain people deserve consideration in that regard. But I think more emphasis has to be placed on the financing of the measures that I have mentioned. I am talking about cooperation between management and labour. The trade union movement needs to be seen as an agent for good. Amalgamations will allow trade unions to become more viable. Their income will be greater and they will be more efficient. They will be able with management to take on projects which will change the face of this community. The trade unions have gone a long way along that road. I might inform the chamber that they have gone a lot further than have many employers. The trade unions have suggested changes that will be in the interests of the community, changes which in many cases have been resisted by employers. I think the proposition put forward by Senator Stone is ill thought out. It is a cheap political manoeuvre that has been put forward by someone who does not understand the issue that he is raising. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(4.34) —We are debating this afternoon the following matter of public importance put forward by Senator Stone: The failure of the Government to address the question of abuse of power by elements of the trade union movement as typified by recent behaviour in the building industry in Canberra. In the course of my speech I would like to recap on the debate that the coalition has put forward thus far; to look over the contribution put forward by the Government, namely that of Senator Cook and, to a more limited extent, that of Senator Burns; and, finally, to suggest some points which Senator McMullan, who will speak after me, could take the opportunity to address. Let me first recap the points that the Opposition is seeking to make. We are talking about the abuse of power by elements of the trade union movement. Senator Burns does not seem to understand that. He seemed to be putting forward the proposition that we are saying that all unionists are bad and evil people in the way that he implies nearly all employers are. Obviously, he has not read the wording of the matter of public importance. Senator Burns —You have been saying it for years. Have you changed your mind? Senator VANSTONE —As the honourable senator has had the opportunity to speak, he might like to take the opportunity to be quiet and let other people put their case forward. We are making the point that elements of the trade union movement, not the entire trade union movement, are causing significant trouble in the community by abusing the power that is bestowed upon them. We want to put forward the proposition that there is a real need to have a system which binds both sides, both the employee and the employer, in industrial relations. This seems to be acknowledged by the Government. One needs only to turn to the second reading speech of Mr Willis on the Industrial Relations Bill to see that. In the election campaign last year, after the withdrawal of the industrial relations legislation, Mr Willis acknowledged the need for effective sanctions. Yet, one had listened to what Senator Burns had to say. We are concerned that the Government continues to accuse people who raise the problem of abuse of union power as not being interested in a positive approach to industrial relations. That is, of course, a ridiculous proposition to put forward for two reasons. Abuse of union power is a continuing problem in certain industries and in particular in the construction industry. It is just not sensible to deny that. What is sensible is to try to address that problem and see what part the Government can play in doing something about it. Of course, there are a number of ways in which one can take a positive approach. One can point out the positive steps that one thinks can be taken. One can also do that by pointing out where one thinks there are faults and by highlighting those faults. It is only by highlighting the faults and the problems in the system that those with the capacity to do something about it can have those faults brought to their attention and be set upon a path of actually doing something about them. So I see nothing wrong with the coalition raising the problems that exist in the construction industry, particularly in Canberra but in all industries across Australia. There is nothing wrong with pointing out those problems. Quite the opposite, it is our job to do so. Senator Burns does not seem to understand that it is the Government's job to respond in some sort of constructive way, not in an emotive or abusive way, about what it is going to do about it. That would seem to me to be a positive way of handling this matter. It is true that in raising this matter of public importance we have chosen to concentrate on the Quadrant building dispute in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). We have done so not because it is the only dispute that one could pick but because it happens to be a current and topical dispute. It is a dispute with which undoubtedly many members of this chamber are familiar as a consequence of reading the Canberra Times in a way that they would not be if we picked a dispute of a lesser nature in another State. That is not to say that the Quadrant dispute is the only one or that it has a higher priority than others. But it is a dispute which is before us at the moment and which, therefore, is worth addressing in this debate. The Government's response thus far to the Quadrant dispute has been for the parties to behave reasonably. I understand that Minister Punch put out a Press release in which he said that both parties to this dispute ought to come to their senses, stop this petty squabbling and childish fighting, sit around the table, work out their differences and get on with the industry in Canberra. I only wish that Minister Punch had offered that advice to the participants in this debate thus far. It is my view that the contribution of Government senators has been one of squabbling and childish fighting. I will come to Senator Cook's contribution later. It is a pity that Government senators have not applied their Minister's advice to the contribution that they have made in this debate. Government senators have made a pathetic and inadequate response to the situation surrounding the Quadrant dispute which is the subject of the debate we have raised today. As we have said, there is no difficulty in prescribing the remedy. The Government put it in the May 1987 Bill and the Opposition has it in a private member's Bill which is before the Senate. It is simply a matter of the Government not wishing to face the problem full on. You may recall, Mr Acting Deputy President, that Senator Cook set himself up as an arbiter of whether there was a case to answer, or whether Senator Stone had made a good enough case for the Government to bother to respond to. He said that there was not a good enough case to respond to and then proceeded to respond. Thus, he placed himself in a somewhat illogical position. The main point that I understood Senator Cook wanted to make was that the coalition did not come to this debate with clean hands. He said that our industrial relations record had been far worse than that of the Government and therefore, with dirtier hands than the Government, we had no right to raise the matter. Clearly that is a ridiculous proposition to put forward in the first place, but let me turn to the record on this matter. I would like Senator McMullan, if he has time in his speech, to address some of his remarks to the point I am about to make. It is true that there has been a reduction in the industrial dispute statistics, especially when one looks at the number of working days lost. The number of working days lost has fallen. However, what is not recorded in those statistics is the number of disputes which involve bans and limitations. These do not show up in the statistics but can be extraordinarily damaging. I am informed that those sorts of disputes approximately doubled between 1982 and 1986 and have remained at an extraordinarily high level. Given that Senator Cook raised the matter of industrial dispute statistics and chose to concentrate-as I understood him-on the question of the fall in the number of working days lost, I would appreciate Senator McMullan addressing in his speech the question of the rise in the number of disputes involving bans and limitations, which can be just as costly, if not more costly, than working days lost. In addition, Senator McMullan may wish to put forward some sort of explanation of why the Government claims that the fall in industrial disputation is a consequence of its capacity to handle industrial relations, when the figures show that between 1980 and 1985 working days lost due to industrial disputation fell internationally. In Australia, the fall was 62 per cent; in West Germany, 73 per cent; in the United States of America, 64 per cent; in France, 56 per cent; in Italy, 77 per cent; in the United Kingdom, 46 per cent; and in Canada, 65 per cent. It is not as though Australia is alone in having a fall in industrial disputation. In his contribution Senator McMullan might like to explain why Senator Cook seems to think that this fall is purely a consequence of this Government's efforts. With respect to the Quadrant site, the Government has said that the employers should seek use of the bans clause option, which I understand they have now done. But the Minister should not come into this chamber and suggest that the employers should take up an option and proceed as far as they can before this Government is prepared to turn its mind to the role it can play in improving industrial relations across Australia and, in particular, the ACT. I remind Government senators of the words of their Minister, the then Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who had this to say about the present bans clause provisions in relation to the Industrial Relations Bill which he introduced on 14 May last year: The principal initiative is that the present bans clause provisions, which have long since fallen into disrepute and are now substantially moribund, will be replaced by a new direction and injunction process. So, the Minister responsible for these matters says that the bans clauses are totally ineffective and that, if he had his way, they would be thrown out and a more effective system would be introduced. Yet honourable senators opposite still say, `Oh, well, that's good enough for the employers; that's the path that they can follow and until they follow that, we are really not going to worry too much about what they have to say'. The other point that Senator Cook tried to make was that the coalition, in presenting this argument, had concentrated on three disputes: Dollar Sweets, the new Parliament House site and the Quadrant site. By some feat of gymnastics in logic, he seemed to say that therefore the case was not good enough. He said, in effect, that the coalition needed to present a long list of cases before the Government would be prepared to listen. That is clearly an inappropriate way to suggest that Parliament should behave because, by the time we listed all the industrial relations problems that we could list in order to substantiate the case, there would be no time left for us to put forward further elements of the debate. I noticed that Senator Cook did not deny that these problems have existed and do exist. Senator McMullan might like to make some comment on the effectiveness of industrial relations in the ACT and what he thinks about the number of times people cannot catch the bus to work because of disputes and the number of problems in the ACT Health Authority. I am not sure whether he listened to Senator Reid. She referred to many more examples, admittedly concentrating on the ACT. She referred to the August 1987 social workers' strike over pay anomalies, the September 1987 dispute between the Professional Officers Association and the Health Authority, and problems with the garbage services and nurses in the ACT in that same month. In October there were problems with the doctors in the ACT and bans on freight deliveries by members of the Transport Workers Union. There was a health inspectors ban over pay and conditions and a demarcation dispute between three unions at the ACT Electricity Authority and a printers' dispute. Again, in October there was a strike by technical and further education teachers over work claims. In October-November there were bans by the Hospital Employees Federation of Australia over the collection of hospital waste. Senator Burns made the point that in Senator Reid's speech there was no reference to who was right and who was wrong. In each of the disputes that Senator Reid raised-and there were many more than I have had time to mention-the coalition has not suggested that it is the employee who is at fault, but the full range of examples which she put forward does underscore the point that the industrial relations system is not working as it should, particularly in the ACT. Senator McMullan —That is not what your matter of public importance says. It does not say, `It could be anybody's fault; we are not sure'. It blames the unions. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Senator McMullan, you will have a chance to speak later. Senator VANSTONE —Yes, Senator McMullan will have plenty of opportunity to speak later. In conclusion, I want to refer to one other point made by Senator Cook-that was that, if activity being undertaken within the ACT amounted to some sort of criminal activity, it could be referred to the appropriate authorities. I draw his attention to page 29 of the transcript of the findings of Commissioner Baird of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which states: I could go on and give some other interesting examples of things which have happened; threats about demonstrations when I- that is, the Commissioner- wanted to carry out inspections; verbal abuse at a football club, which I underwent by members of the FEDFA, while I was having dinner; If Senator McMullan thinks it satisfactory that a commissioner should put forward a position that he has been abused-I think one can take that to mean threatened-and had his work interfered with, let him say so in his contribution to the debate. All we are seeking to do is highlight the failure of this Government to address the question of the abuse of power by some elements-not all-of the trade union movement. We say that that abuse is typified by the behaviour of the building industry in Canberra. We look forward to Senator McMullan's contribution. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator McMULLAN(Australian Capital Territory)(4.48) —I do not intend to fall into the trap of letting somebody else dictate the agenda of the matters which I ought to address, but I am confronted with an interesting question to start with. The question is: Why is this matter before us today? There has been no new information. All we have had is a rather turgid tour of a number of old and well worn cliches and the stringing together of a few non-analysed and isolated examples without any reference as to why any of those examples which were listed by my colleague Senator Reid did or did not constitute an abuse of power by unions, employers or whatever. It really has been a very limited attempt to establish a case of what the matter of public importance describes as `an abuse of power by trade unions' but which was not really addressed in the proposal. So why is this matter before us? Is it that somehow or other this is the biggest issue in Australia today? That is obviously not the reason. I suspect that it is a diversion. Senator Stone is raising this matter because he is not allowed to talk about tax any more; the various parties in the coalition cannot agree on media ownership. The coalition's policy on constitutional reform is divided and it has to start making up things that it knows to be untrue about constitutional reform proposals. Its members have to be quiet about industry policy in the hope that, if they do not say anything, both sides might think they agree with them. This is not, by any measure, the biggest issue in Australia today. Has the matter been brought on for discussion simply because strikes are suddenly getting out of hand? Obviously that is not the case. I know that people do not like it when figures show that disputes in Australia are falling by 60 per cent. They like to quote things slightly out of context and make bold assertions that other things that cannot be measured are getting worse. It is a case of, `I can't prove it, but if you would like to respond to it, I would be very pleased'. I am sure that they would be very pleased, but it would be a waste of my time when I could be pursuing the substantial question of the Opposition's failure to establish its case. Senator McLean made a most effective analysis of Senator Stone's remarks and established quite clearly that no case to answer had been proposed. Perhaps there is another reason why this matter has been raised. Perhaps the Opposition thinks that the Government has not done anything about industrial relations in the building and construction industry or about industrial relations in general. Of course, we negotiated the 1987 building agreement which contained a number of elements designed to significantly reduce lost time and improve efficiency and productivity. In any industry that has had a very long history of industrial relations difficulties, there are no magic wands. This matter will be solved by neither magic wands nor big sticks. These new provisions have been in operation for only a few months and they need more time to be bedded down, but they do appear to be making a significant contribution to the improvement of industrial relations in the building industry nationally. A number of other positive developments are going on. Union amalgamations have occurred and others are at an advanced stage. These will improve substantially the potential for the sensible management of industrial relations in a number of industries, including the building industry. The 1987 building agreement set up the restructuring sub-committee which is examining the very important question of award classifications, productivity and training. We are starting to get positive proposals from the Government, not a litany of sad excuses. The Construction Industry Council, under the chairmanship of the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones), is also looking at developments in the industry. Furthermore, as Senator Cook said, there is a major inquiry into the building and construction industry to which matters of general concern can be referred. If the problem really is one of some misuse of power by the trade unions, the Industrial Relations Bill contains tougher sanctions against corrupt practices by union officials-not that we think that they are frequent; there is no evidence of that, but there is some evidence that they have occurred. That is a cause of concern and the Government is acting to resolve that matter. I reiterate that the only reason I am not surprised that this matter comes before us is that the Opposition is probably in desperate need of a diversion. I now turn to the substance of the matter, as it relates to the ACT in general and Quadrant in particular-we did not hear anything else about the building industry in the ACT-and the suggested failure to address it. What does the Opposition propose? Some reference was made to Senator Chaney's Bill. Senators from the Liberal and National parties are concerned that there are only two big sticks with which to hit unions, not three. They want to have triple jeopardy. They could have penalties under common law, the Trade Practices Act and some new penalty introduced in Senator Chaney's Bill. They fail to understand the internal logic of the 1987 proposal of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) which would not have allowed that triple jeopardy to occur. The Liberal and National parties want to introduce a Bill by Senator Chaney that will let an employer appeal against a refusal of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission member to give a direction but will not let a union appeal against the direction itself. They want to set up a Bill that has no maximum penalty for a breach of an injunction. As I have said, they want to establish the triple jeopardy option and proceed with a lopsided approach, going back to the old destructive adversarial behaviour which they love so much. That shows the total deficiencies of their approach to industrial relations. What distinguishes my capacity to speak on the Quadrant dispute in the Australian Capital Territory from that of those who have spoken in this debate is that I have actually spoken to the people involved. I have spoken to the employers, not just to the association that purports to represent them. I have spoken to the association, the employers, the unions and the workers on the job. I have been to the site and have looked at it. I have examined the facts of the situation. I do not, as Senator Vanstone does, just read the Canberra Times and hope that it will contain something useful. In my discussions with representatives of the employers they have made it absolutely clear that they do not want the Government to become directly involved in resolving the dispute. Quite sensibly and properly, they want the normal, proper processes of industrial relations to solve the dispute. The conciliation process, which no-one has bothered to mention in this debate, regarding the dispute in question is continuing directly between the unions at a territorial and national level and the employer, White Industries Ltd. I understand that as recently as last week further proposals were put forward arising from that process of conciliation, including the good offices of Commissioner Baird. Those proposals may not in themselves lead to an immediate settlement of the dispute, which everybody would welcome, but they do indicate that the process is continuing and that it would be entirely inappropriate for the Government to come in with a big stick, thumping one side in the dispute, which was the failed Liberal Party tactic of industrial relations during its all too long seven years in office. People involved in this debate should be aware of the appropriate activities that the Government is taking at three levels to deal with the question that is raised. With regard to the specific dispute, the conciliation process is continuing and that is the only way in which, in the end, the dispute will be solved. With regard to the broader issues of possible misuse and inappropriate activities by individuals, whoever they may be and on whichever side they may be in the building industry in general, a Full Bench inquiry is proceeding to which all parties have made submissions and to which people involved in this dispute have been urged to make submissions. If illegal activities are being undertaken, there is the police power to examine and prosecute. As Senator Button has made clear in the Senate previously, if there are activities appropriate for the attention of the police, that is the place to which they should be referred. All those processes are under way. The tragedy for the Opposition is that if only it knew anything about this dispute and the general situation in the building industry, which it does not, it would know that the Government has all the resources at its disposal properly in train. I am aware of and concerned about the comments of Commissioner Baird on 26 February. Like Senator Burns, I know and have a very high regard for Commissioner Baird. He is a person with a long history of involvement in industrial relations. When he expresses concerns, I take it very seriously. It is very interesting that today in the Senate we have this breathless urgency about matters raised by Commissioner Baird 10 or 11 weeks ago. Suddenly it has become a matter of public importance that a very respected former union official and now arbitration commissioner raised some matters of concern 11 weeks ago. Those important questions have been addressed quite properly and, in many instances, have been referred to the police, for general inquiry, or continue to be the subject of conciliation. So how does it suddenly become a matter of public and breathless importance before us today? In this debate there was some passing reference to the question of corrupt payments. I have to say two things about that: firstly, at this stage it has not been established that this has taken place and, secondly, it always seems to be ignored in such questions that if corrupt payments are being received somebody is making corrupt payments. It certainly cannot be, as the matter of public importance implies, that this is solely a problem concerning the trade unions. Nobody has ever been bribed by himself. A person can be bribed only by somebody else; it takes two. If that problem exists, it should be investigated properly. It is not a question of saying that there are terrible workers out there who are absolutely abusing their position. There is certainly no indication that any trade union has ever at any stage endorsed a unionist taking such payments. If they are being made, they are not supported by the trade union movement. They are certainly not supported by this Government, nor should they be. Firstly, the evidence has to be presented and, secondly, there has to be some indication why this constitutes an abuse of union power. If the unions had the power they would stop those practices. Were there other corrupt or illegal practices? There has been no sign that the police have found evidence of any. If they do find evidence, the proper legal processes should take their course. Although the matter has been referred to the police, somewhat belatedly, by the people who have made the allegations, there have been no indications that there is such evidence. I think that we have had a very one-sided approach by the Opposition today. In regard to Quadrant we have had essentially the reading of a series of Master Builders Association Press releases into the Hansard in the pretence that this constitutes analysis. There is no indication that anyone has spoken to anyone else-not even to the employer directly concerned in this dispute, let alone to the union or the workers. I do not want to take all the 15 minutes allocated to me. The contribution from honourable senators opposite has not been worth that much time. In summary, I would like to say that the Government has in place a comprehensive range of initiatives dealing with the specific issues in this dispute. If the allegations are true-this has not been proved; merely asserted-they are neither typical, which the matter of public importance implies, nor an abuse of trade union power by the trade union movement, which does not support such practices. There may be some criminal activity by one or two individuals, if that can be established. I think that here we have a failed attempt at diverting the attention of the Senate. It is a sad waste of the Senate's valuable time when we have all gathered here to try to deal with the necessary and important business that the Australian people call upon us to do. I hope that in future when we have to deal with matters of public importance they are indeed matters of substance and matters of importance. Assent to the following Bills reported: Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements (Maintenance of Income Test) Amendment Bill 1988 Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority Bill 1988 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)(5.03) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave not granted. Senator TATE —This Bill will amend the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954, the National Health Act 1953, the States Grants (Nurses Education Transfer Assistance) Act 1985 and the Australian Institute of Health Act 1987. The major purpose of this Bill is to introduce new nursing and personal care staffing and related funding arrangements in nursing homes. It also provides for improved respite care. These measures will enable better targeting of Commonwealth funding to those aged people most in need of residential care and will achieve greater efficiency and equity in Commonwealth funding of nursing homes. The Bill also provides for increased freedom of choice for members of health insurance funds currently locked into a single health benefits organisation. This will be done by removing existing impediments to transfer between such organisations. Over the past 10 years, major criticisms of the nursing home program have been made by representatives of the industry, aged people, unions, Commonwealth parliamentary committees and other representative bodies. The criticisms have covered a broad range of matters, including unfair distribution of taxpayers' funds between facilities; the significantly varying levels of staffing between individual residents, homes, industry sectors and States; poor standards of care provided in many nursing homes; the amount of nursing and personal care funded in nursing home bore little relationship to the actual care needs for residents; the lack of flexibility in the nursing home arrangements and the absence of incentives for improving efficiency in management; and the growth in expenditure which has characterised the nursing home program over many years and the resultant high costs to residents and the taxpayer. The Government has responded to these very serious criticisms in a positive way. The Government outlined early in 1986 an integrated program of reform of residential care services for aged people. The program of reform has been undertaken on a phased basis to ensure that the process of adjustment was smooth and to avoid disruption of the care of the 110,000 frail aged residents and the employment of the tens of thousands of dedicated people providing that care. In the 1986-87 Budget and subsequently, the Government has provided significant additional resources to implement the strategy. Initiatives taken in the first three stages of the reform process have included a needs based planning system for expansion of nursing home and hostel places, development of geriatric assessment services, new quality of life and quality of care standards in nursing homes, increased hostel recurrent funding and new flexible arrangements for the capital funding of new hostels. Also, as part of this process, the first major step was taken to introduce an equitable national standard funding approach to financing nursing home care with the transition phase to be completed in 1991. The first element of this process, the standardisation of infrastructure costs, commenced on 1 July 1987. This Bill will enable the implementation of much of the fourth stage of the reform strategy and will do much to enhance the care of the aged. The package of reforms includes a range of measures to improve the quality of care for nursing home residents by a substantive increase in total funding for needed nurses; linking Commonwealth funding to the needs of individual nursing home residents, based on national nursing and personal care standards and resident classification; further increases in funding for geriatric assessment, gerontic nurse training and nurse reskilling; special provisions to support small nursing homes and, where appropriate, to help them restructure and rationalise their management; creation of an additional 4000 respite care places by 1995 and a supplementary respite care benefit. To help ensure that nursing home care is affordable by all Australians who need it, this package of reforms will provide that, by 1991, residents will no longer face the burden of substantial fees over and above the statutory minimum resident contribution of 87.5 per cent of the pension plus rental assistance. There will also be funding for a crackdown on fraudulent practices engaged in by a small minority of nursing home proprietors. These reforms aim at higher quality care for residents in nursing homes throughout Australia by giving the management of each home flexibility in the use of its nursing and personal care staff to tailor services provided to the individual needs of each resident. For the first time in Australia this Government initiative, foreshadowed in 1987, will link Commonwealth funding for nursing homes to the needs of individual nursing home residents. In developing the package, the Government recognised that a significant input was required from service providers and community organisations if the objectives were to be achieved. To this end extensive consultations have taken place with service providers, consumer and welfare organisations, unions and State governments on the package. The Government sees this consultative and participative approach as vital and will ensure the closer involvement of these groups also in the monitoring and review of the new arrangements. The Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) will also shortly announce new approvals totalling around $80m for funding of 3,000 hostel and 500 nursing homes places to help expand hostel care generally and fill serious gaps in the network of nursing home services. Geriatric assessment services are helping to ensure that aged people receive proper professional help in finding the type of services which best meets their needs. As a result people are not going into nursing homes when there are alternatives which better meet their requirements. Increasingly, nursing home care will be targeted at more highly dependent people. Commonwealth spending on nursing and personal care staffing has increased by 38 per cent in money terms from $420m in 1985-86 to an estimated $580m in 1987-88. It is essential that these substantial resources be targeted to those most in need of care through the implementation of the proposed national nursing and personal care standards. These arrangements, provided for in the Bill, are based on the recommendations of the Commonwealth-State working party on nursing home standards established in 1986 to provide advice on these issues. The Minister has paid tribute to the State and Territory governments and their representatives who played such an important role in developing the new arrangements in conjunction with the Commonwealth and the nursing home industry. I support these sentiments. There will be a direct link between the service needs of nursing home residents and approved staffing levels. Staffing levels will be established on the basis of categorisation of individual residents; that is, a specified staffing level will be approved for each resident per week. This staffing level will be uniform for a resident with a given service need level across Australia and will entail a redistribution of both funds and hours across the whole non-government aged nursing home sector. There will also be a deliberate targeting of resources to those most in need of nursing and personal care services. The standardisation of nursing and personal care staffing hours and costs will increase the level of financial control for the Commonwealth and will provide, for the first time, a sound, equitable and efficient basis for determining staffing levels. While nursing and personal care staff hours will be uniform across Australia, the hourly rates at which they are reimbursed will of course be consistent with different State award rates. No longer will the Commonwealth simply set fees to reimburse whatever the nursing home happens to incur on staffing levels. Under the new arrangements nursing homes which spend more than the amount determined through the nursing and personal care staffing standards arrangements, plus a small tolerance, will not be permitted to impose that excess cost on their residents or on the taxpayer. Under the new categorisation arrangements, a resident classification instrument (RCI) will be completed by a geriatric assessment service or the director of nursing in each home, in respect of each person newly admitted or to be admitted on or after 1 July 1988, to permit such a person to be classified into one of five categories, depending on the assessed level of care they need. There is provision for review by the Secretary of the Department of Community Services and Health and by the Minister. The Bill also provides for each category to be allocated a specific number of nursing and personal care staff hours, which will be used in calculating nursing home fees. A fee will also be set for the existing unclassified residents. The Bill amends the National Health Act 1953 to provide that a resident contribution will be set. Existing residents will not be required to pay more under the new arrangements than they would have under the current system. Also, under the new arrangements, the amount a resident pays will not increase as fees increase as under the current arrangements. This will provide greater certainty for residents and remove a cause of serious concern, particularly as over 80 per cent of residents rely solely on the pension. The Bill provides for transitional arrangements which allow any necessary adjustment to be undertaken gradually. These arrangements will also include assistance for small nursing homes. For example, the Minister for Housing and Aged Care intends to allow small nursing homes the choice of either joining the new system from 1 July 1988 or waiting until 1 March 1989. Small homes, even though they account for only 5 per cent of beds, are an important part of the industry, particularly in remote areas. In the past, they have been relatively highly staffed for their residency dependency levels. It may also be necessary to provide assistance for some small homes to restructure or to supplement the resources of those small homes which need to remain small, for example those in remote areas or catering for Aboriginal or ethnic groups. All homes will be able to take advantage from the outset of the increased flexibility that the new system will give them to manage their resources more effectively. Since residents in the highest categories of service need attract the greatest resource levels, almost all homes will overall have scope for further increasing their staffing resourcing by admitting such residents. By the end of the transition period, the funded staffing levels for about two-thirds of all nursing home residents will have risen. All residents should benefit from the capacity of nursing home management to draw flexibly on their approved hours to provide special services including the various therapies whenever these are required. The Bill also provides for the monitoring of the accuracy of the resident classification instruments submitted by the nursing homes, and the reclassification of residents where necessary. Measures will also be able to be taken under the financial arrangements principles to ensure that nursing homes do not routinely use nursing and personal care staff, whose cost is directly reimbursed to the home, to carry out the tasks of other staff whose costs are intended to be met by the standard grant under infrastructure cost funding arrangements. In implementing these changes, the Minister intends that an additional hour per resident per week of nursing and personal care be provided nationally across the board. In particular, this extra time will allow homes to provide increased therapy services to their residents, services which are sadly lacking under the present arrangements. It will also allow for increases in in-service training to maintain and develop staff skills. Both these elements are critical to the provision of high quality care. The Minister proposes to make allowance for 24-hour coverage to be provided by a registered general nurse in all homes and nursing and personal care administration time for each home's director of nursing. These proposals recognise the importance of professional nursing in the provision of high quality care, and that more effective management of staffing resources will lead to more efficient and effective care provision. The introduction of the nursing and personal care arrangements will result in a net increase of some 2,000 jobs nationally by the end of 1989. The Government is concerned that some 23 per cent of nursing home residents across Australia are required to pay more than the statutory contribution of 87.5 per cent of pension plus rent assistance. Nursing home costs are such that these aged people pay, on average, about $1,600 extra each year, creating financial hardship for many. The reforms contained in this package reaffirm the Government's commitment that by 1991 no resident will be required to contribute more than the statutory contribution. The only exception to this would be the small number of aged people with substantial assets or income who wish to pay for care and accommodation outside these funding arrangements. A small proportion of non-government nursing homes for the aged, comprising up to 6 per cent of the beds in each State, will be permitted to charge residents an additional contribution to that which would otherwise be payable. The Commonwealth benefit normally payable for these homes will be reduced by a minimum of 50c in the dollar for each dollar by which the unregulated fee exceeds the fee which would otherwise be charged. Nursing homes wishing to qualify for these arrangements will be subject to selection by tender. This proposal provides flexibility for service providers who wish to cater for patients who wish to purchase a higher level of accommodation or services. These arrangements modify those previously foreshadowed last year reflecting the views of industry, consumer and union groups, expressed in subsequent consultations. Legislation to implement this proposal will be brought forward for consideration in the Budget sittings. The Government is committed to the provision of respite care services as part of its strategy of responding positively to the care needs of aged people. Respite care is essential to prolong the length of time frail aged people can continue to live in the community among family and friends. Respite care is also critical in providing support, relief, and stress reduction for carers of frail aged people. This Bill proposes amendments to the National Health Act 1953 and the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 to increase the availability of respite care services in nursing homes and hostels and to make these services more accessible to aged people. The long term objective is two places per 1,000 aged persons in both hostels and nursing homes with an additional 4,000 places available by 1995. The Bill enables regulations to be made that provide for a payment of a respite care supplement in addition to the Commonwealth nursing home benefit and the Commonwealth subsidy to hostels. Nursing homes will receive a supplement based on a percentage of the standard infrastructure cost component of fees, which will be determined in writing by the Minister. The Minister proposes to set this supplement at 35 per cent of the standard infrastructure cost. In hostels respite care subsidies will reflect the level of care. The current respite subsidy of $8.05 per day will be retained for `hostel care' level residents. For `personal care' level respite residents, there will be a payment of the personal care subsidy plus a supplement also based on a percentage of the personal care subsidy. This percentage will be set at 25 per cent. The supplement will be payable for 63 days for each recipient in a year and will provide an incentive for organisations to offer respite care services. Arrangements for approval of admission for respite and classification of patients will be in line with the arrangements applying to new admissions to permanent care. The Bill also provides for persons involved with the provision of respite care not to provide false or misleading information consistent with similar amendments by Parliament for nursing homes and hostels in the Budget sittings of 1987. The Government has a continuing concern at the range of practices used by some residential care providers which may result in inflation of costs which must be met either by taxpayers or residents or both. The Government has agreed to provide additional resources for a continuing program to detect and prevent fraud. The National Health Act is also amended to allow contributors to health insurance who wish to transfer from one health benefits organisation to another because of factors such as lower contribution rates and other benefits, to do so without having to face difficulties through the imposition of new waiting periods. These measures improve the freedom of choice for that half of Australia's population which currently has private health insurance. Members will be able to transfer from one organisation to another without the imposition of waiting periods, or with reduced waiting periods where part or whole of the waiting period has been served in the previous organisation. Over the past decade a number of reports to Parliament have criticised the number of inappropriate admissions to nursing homes. The Government has responded to these criticisms by supporting the development of regional multidisciplinary geriatric assessment services to ensure that aged people seeking care could be fully assessed and advised of the most appropriate way of meeting their needs. It is now intended that these assessment services may approve admissions to specified nursing homes or nursing homes in a particular region. The insertion of a new provision into the National Health Act will enable this to be done. The Bill also provides for the amendment of section 40ad of the National Health Act. This amendment will enable waiving of the 26 February 1988 deadline for proprietors to apply for fee increases resulting from costs that were incurred prior to 1 July 1987, but of which the proprietor did not become aware until too late to meet the 26 February 1988 deadline. This concession will be granted where the proprietor could not reasonably be expected to have made the application before 26 February 1988. Clause 17 of the Bill would enable the approval of a proportion of a fee increase sought by a nursing home proprietor to overcome cash flow problems caused to proprietors where there are a significant number of fee applications awaiting processing. Provision is made in Part III of the Bill to amend the Australian Institute of Health Act 1987 to clarify a cross-reference and to remove an unnecessary provision relating to the making of annual reports. Part V of the Bill seeks to amend the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Act 1987 caused by the wording of a transitional provision. Part VI of the Bill Provides for the amendment of the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Act 1985 to simplify the process of appropriating moneys for the purposes of that scheme. The new hostel respite care arrangements under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 are expected to cost an additional $1.9m in 1988-89, $3.4m in 1989-90 and $5.2m in 1990-91. The new financial arrangements for nursing homes and related arrangements are expected to result in increased expenditure of $17.6m in 1988-89, $44.7m in 1989-90 and $58.7m in 1990-91. There is no financial impact upon the amendments to the Australian Institute of Health Act 1987, the Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Act 1987 and the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Act 1985. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) 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)(5.20) —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- This Bill, together with its companion bills, Supply Bill (No. 2) 1988-89 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1988-89, seeks interim appropriations for the services of the Government for the period 1 July 1988 to 30 November 1988, by which date it is expected that the equivalent Appropriation Bills, which will form part of the Budget for 1988-89, will have been enacted. Supply Bill (No. 1) seeks appropriations totalling some $8,689m for the ordinary annual services of the Government. This is $37m, or about 0.4 per cent, greater than the equivalent amounts provided in the Supply Act (No. 1) 1987-88. A significant part of the increase reflects commitments which have been approved by the Government, price and cost increases and exchange rate variations. Major increases are: $125.3m for Department of Defence running costs, largely reflecting the flow-on of national wage case determinations and second tier awards from 1987-88 and transfer of defence removal costs from other appropriations; $32.6m to meet higher rate of student allowances and higher numbers of students qualifying for the Austudy benefits; $25.5m for the program for families with children due to the large full year effects of new services coming on-stream in 1987-88, the finalisation of capital grant projects under the 20,000 places commitment and indexation for cost increases; $24.3m for the program for aged people who need residential assistance reflecting the transfer of funding for approved services for non-nursing home residents from a standing appropriation, increased capital grant expenditure under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 and the Government's decision to increase special and geriatric assessment services. The running costs appropriations of departments have been adjusted to include the salaries costs of departmental secretaries and other relevant officeholders. At present these salaries are met from a special appropriation established under the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. This change, which has been cleared from a legal point of view, aligns departmental running costs `appropriations' with departmental running costs `budgets'. Finally, the Government has moved amendments to the Supply Bills (Nos 1 and 2) 1988-89 and the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1988-89 in the House of Representatives. These amendments are necessary to overcome restrictions on the use of the advances to the Minister for Finance, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives brought to notice by a recent legal opinion on the interpretation of the `urgent' and `unforeseen' criteria which must be met before an issue can be made from the contingency advances. The advances are provisions authorised by the annual Appropriation and Supply Acts and are necessary for the smooth running of a government because they provide flexibility, particularly for urgent and unforeseen expenditures. The current wording was introduced into Appropriation Acts on the recommendation of the 1979 report of the Senate Committee on Finance and Government Operations on the Advance to the Minister for Finance. However, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts during the course of its most recent inquiry into the Advance to the Minister for Finance, has obtained legal advice from the Attorney-General's Department which indicates that where, due to clerical error or inadvertence only, an amount for an expenditure has been omitted from an Appropriation Bill, that amount cannot be regarded as unforeseen and, therefore, should not be funded from the AMF. It has been assumed by successive governments that the criteria for the use of the advances does not preclude a situation where expenditure was foreseen but through clerical error or inadvertence no provision was made in the relevant Supply or Appropriation Act. The AMF and the subsequent advances to the President and Speaker have been administered on this basis prior to and after the introduction of the present working. In order to overcome the restriction on the use of the advances recently brought to notice by the legal advising it is necessary that the clauses relating to the advances in the Supply Bills (Nos 1 and 2) 1988-89 and the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1988-89 be amended to reflect the intention that clerical inadvertence be regarded as unforeseen. The only alternative to this course of action would be to introduce, for urgent passage, additional Appropriation Bills to meet each occurrence of an omission of an amount in relevant Appropriation Bills, where a government was inextricably committed to meet payments. The Parliament will be provided with details of amounts issued from the Advance to the Minister for Finance to cover errors and omissions by the addition of this category to those currently shown in the monthly tabling of issues from the Advance to the Minister for Finance. This document is tabled pursuant to recommendations in the previously mentioned 1979 report of the Senate Committee on Finance on Government Operations. The last amendment required for the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1988-89 is to increase the supply funding for the Parliamentary Reporting Staff. An amount of $935,000 was omitted from the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1988-89 in respect of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff. The omission came about through details of funding arrangements for the Parliamentary Information Systems Office not being available until late in the preparation of the Bill, and consequent amendments to the recurrent expenditure provisions in the Bill for all the parliamentary departments. The adjustment made for the Parliamentary Reporting Staff was in error. Notwithstanding the previous amendment, the joint advance to the President and the Speaker would be insufficient to cover the omission in respect of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff. I wish to emphasise that this Bill seeks interim provision only in respect of approved ongoing policies of the Government. It does not anticipate decisions to be taken in the 1988-89 Budget context for which provision will be sought in the Appropriation Bills. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) 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)(5.21) —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- This Bill seeks interim appropriations, totalling some $2,064m, for expenditure on capital works and services, payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory and certain other services for the period 1 July 1988 to 30 November 1988. The amount sought is $341m, or about 14 per cent, less than that provided in the Supply Act (No. 2) 1987-88. Certain new provisions in respect of which Government decisions have been taken have been separately itemised in the Bill in accordance with convention. The most significant of these are those items establishing the proposed revised funding arrangements for the Australian Capital Territory. In the 1986-87 Budget context, the Government announced that action would be taken to progressively place ACT finances on a basis consistent with Commonwealth arrangements with the States and local governments. As a further step in this alignment process an ACT fiscus will be established, incorporating both territorial and municipal functions, administered by the ACT Administration, to operate, from 1 July 1988, through a trust account established pursuant to section 62a of the Audit Act 1901 with a working capital advance of $55m. Funding will be provided in a way that parallels Commonwealth-State and local government arrangements. Consequently, the Bills have been restructured such that the ACT Administration receives its funds on a State-type basis from relevant Commonwealth departments. Apart from the working capital advance, this approach does not involve additional expenditures for the ACT. In addition, the inclusion of a `notated' appropriation item in conjunction with clause 6 will enable all Australian Capital Territory receipts (i.e. taxes, duties, fees, fines, charges, etc) of a State or local government nature to be paid direct to the trust account. It is estimated that some $93m of receipts will be involved during the Supply period. The only other significant increase in this Bill is $37.4m for community services and health largely reflecting indexation and unmatched moneys of the home and community care program. As indicated with respect to the Supply Bill (No. 1), the provisions in this Bill do not anticipate decisions to be taken in the 1988-89 Budget context. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) 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)(5.22) —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- This Bill seeks interim appropriations to meet expenditures by the parliamentary departments during the period 1 July 1988 to 30 November 1988. They total some $42.171m, which is $18.5m, or about 78 per cent, greater than the amount provided for in the Supply period 1987-88. The large percentage increase for the parliamentary departments Bill is attributable to moving and establishment costs, and increased operating costs, arising from the occupation of the new Parliament House. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.24) —I move: That the Australian Rifle Club Regulations (Repeal), as contained in Statutory Rules 1988 No. 17 and made under the Defence Act 1903, be disallowed. We believe that the Australian Rifle Club Regulations (Repeal) as contained in Statutory Rules 1988, No. 17, made under the Defence Act 1903, should be disallowed. To recapitulate a little, I inform honourable senators that since 1903, under the Defence Act, the Commonwealth Government has had responsibility for the supervision of rifle clubs and associations throughout Australia. The link between the Federal Government, in particular the Department of Defence, and rifle clubs and associations is an historical one, there being a strong belief in the need for a prepared and trained civilian defence force to supplement the regular defence forces. It is clear that the Government no longer thinks that this is a matter of any validity. Under this statutory rule, notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, Special No. S 56 on 25 February 1988, the Government has repealed the Australian Rifle Club Regulations, breaking an 85-year-old tradition. It is necessary to examine some of the reasons that might lie behind this action. There is no logical reason for the Federal Government abrogating its responsibilities in this way and changing the arrangement-passing control of these clubs and associations back to the States. In fact, this runs quite contrary to the Federal Government's present attitude towards firearms which, given the much talked about gun summit of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), is very much that firearms control is a matter in which the Commonwealth should involve itself. One of the portions of the Prime Minister's statement after the gun summit, dated 22 December 1987, was to the effect that the meeting had noted the advances made in the Australian Police Ministers Council towards achieving uniformity. This was the one area of gun control where there was uniformity. On the one hand the Australian Labor Party seemed to be most anxious to be seen to be taking a responsible attitude towards gun control-it seemed to enjoy the media coverage it was getting at that time-but at the same time it was attempting to wriggle out of its responsibilities to have a supervisory role and control of rifle clubs and associations. What has been done? As a result of the repeal of the rifle club regulations and orders under the Defence Act, which it has been said will come into effect on about 30 June, from that date it will be necessary for all rifle clubs to comply with the State or Territory law relating to their place of residence. Many problems would arise from these changes. One which is a practical problem for those who enjoy shooting as a sport-in passing I might say that Australian sportsmen have had considerable success in this area of sporting activity-is that the carriage of firearms across State and Territory borders would be extremely difficult. A rifleman who lived in Western Australia and who wanted to take part in the national Queen's competition in the Australian Capital Territory who decided that he would drive across, perhaps bringing his family with him to make a holiday of it, would need of course to have his Western Australian licence or permit. He would need a South Australian licence or permit if he travelled with his rifle in his vehicle across South Australia. If he took a certain route he could require a Victorian licence or permit and a New South Wales licence or permit and, finally of course, an Australian Capital Territory licence or permit to enable him to take part in the event in Canberra. Or, for example, an Australian Capital Territory shooter, who would go out of the Australian Capital Territory many times a year, would take part in competitions in New South Wales and Victoria and perhaps further afield. He would finish up with a whole range of licences and, without uniformity, if each State merely has its own licences and permits arrangements, this could make it extremely difficult for the sport to continue. Many shooters visit other States several times in a year. This highlights the desirability of reasonable and sensible uniform legislation so that this absurd situation does not arise. The former New South Wales Government indicated that it did not quite know how it was going to deal with this problem of sportsmen travelling from one State to another. It looked as though shooters would have to have a licence for every State or Territory that they entered. As a result of the election of the Greiner Government in New South Wales it seems that a more rational attitude towards gun laws is prevailing and the Government has indicated its intention to retain the reciprocity arrangements with other States or Territories where shooters are licensed but that has not yet come into being. The Australian Rifle Club Regulations were the only form of uniform firearms legislation in existence, albeit depending on the National Rifle Association for satisfactory implementation. But nothing put forward by the Government indicates that that was in any way unsatisfactory. Neither the rifle club movement nor its individual members have abused the privileges bestowed by the regulations which, as I indicated, have been in existence since 1903. In spite of this, the Labor Government has simply decided for no apparent logical reason to destroy the legislation which has worked well for the last 85 years, to destroy the one element of uniformity which exists. It is recognised that there probably need to be some changes. The shadow Minister, Peter White, attempted to talk to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and wrote to him without any success. We recognise that there are issues to be discussed and we would be anxious to talk to the Government about them but that has not been possible until now. By disallowing these regulations, we hope that the Government will enter into discussions and eventually come forth with a package which has the well-being of the clubs in mind, as well as the need for the security the Government talks about. One of the other potential problems relates to the inspection and certification of the rifle ranges. In the past regular inspections have been carried out about every three years by an officer, appointed by the Minister, who is called the inspector of rifle ranges. He issues a certificate of safety if he is satisfied that the range comes up to the required standard laid down for classification by the Department of Defence. With the repeal of these regulations, the inspections will be carried out by an officer delegated by the State or Territory government in which the range is situated. We may well have a situation where different arrangements apply for every range. There have been suggestions that the former New South Wales Government planned to increase the safety area by about 200 per cent. That would have closed down all but about two rifle ranges in New South Wales. It seems clear that the former Labor Government in New South Wales, aided and abetted by the Federal Government in repealing these regulations, was attempting to wipe out the sport, proposing to increase the safety area merely as a device to achieve that. Many thousands of sports men and women use the ranges for recreational and sport purposes. It is my view that there should be ranges where they can enjoy their sport. The clubs that I know of go to great lengths to look after the young people who want to be involved in shooting, to see that they are channelled into the clubs, that they are taught safety and responsibility in firearms, and that they do not enjoy their shooting by driving around the countryside firing at road signs and other things. The Government's attitude has totally ignored the responsible approach that the clubs have taken in the past. I understand that now the New South Wales Government has a working group of defence, police and shooting club representatives looking at the best way of dealing with the rifle ranges with a view to ensuring that they continue to operate. This may mean that ultimately there will be different standards, but that ought to be avoided if possible. I believe that if the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, took a leadership role in this area he could achieve the uniformity that he seems to want, and perhaps the arrangements for clubs could operate better than they have done in the past. We do not believe that this in any way would compromise public safety. There have been no incidents to date on any of the ranges complying with the old regulations which suggest that there is a need for new regulation in the safety area of the clubs. That is not a credible explanation. With the repeal of the regulations, additional problems are created for the clubs with respect to club rifles. Club rifles are used and made available for new members. They have been essential in recruitment drives. This ensures that new members of rifle clubs learn responsibility with firearms long before they start buying firearms themselves, the sorts of weapons they would use as competitors on the ranges. In the Australian Capital Territory it would also be necessary for courses to be conducted in firearms safety, as has been proposed in the new gun ordinance. I hope that the ordinance in the Australian Capital Territory is being reviewed in relation to what it was going to be earlier this year. Prior to this year there were discussions about changing the Australian Capital Territory ordinance. Most of the people I have talked to who knew something about it were pleased with the arrangements coming into effect and were quite happy with the changes that were proposed. But that was not the case once the heated environment of the New South Wales election took over. In recent times one of the problems with the Federal Government's changes to Australian Capital Territory gun laws has been a general lack of information available to those most concerned about their impact. The rifle club here is not certain how those provisions would operate for the holding of rifle club licences in the future. The rifle clubs' administration of course would be adversely affected by the changes. They would be put to considerable trouble administratively by the repeal of the regulations, rewriting constitutions, rules, by-laws and competition laws to eliminate all reference to regulations and constitutions. The Rifle Association would also be affected. None of that impact seems to have been taken into account by the Government. It is not impossible to make these sorts of changes, but the necessity for doing so has not been clearly defined. I believe it is important that these regulations be defeated, that the disallowance motion be supported, and that the opportunity be left for the Government to reappraise what should occur, to discuss the matter with the Rifle Association, with the Opposition and with people who are concerned about the degree of safety. Senator Robert Ray —You would not understand it. You have understood none of it so far. There would be a very low entry level if we had to discuss it with you. Senator REID —I did not hear what the Minister said. Senator Robert Ray —It does not matter. Senator REID —I am saying that we believe there should be discussion with those involved, with the people who are concerned and with the Opposition, which has an interest in this. The shadow Minister attempted to talk to the Minister for Defence. He wrote to the Minister before the matter came up for debate in the Parliament, before the disallowance was moved, but that opportunity was not taken up. The Government wanted to go ahead with it in any event. It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to some ghastly events which have taken place, and no-one denies that. Senator Robert Ray —It has nothing to do with that. These regulations were drawn up before those events, in effect. Senator REID —If they were drawn up that long ago, that makes it even more surprising that there has not been more discussion about their impact and what they are trying to do. If that is the case, I find it quite extraordinary. Senator Robert Ray —They were in the pipeline even when you were in government. Senator REID —In those days there were considerable discussions with the Rifle Association and the clubs concerned. I have a considerable file about the discussions that were taking place at the time. Senator Robert Ray —You did absolutely nothing about it. Senator REID —Is the honourable senator suggesting that I knew nothing about it? Senator Robert Ray —I am saying that the Liberal Government spent seven years doing nothing about it. It knew the regulations were a shambles. Senator REID —The Liberal Government was aware that the changes needed to be made, and discussions were going on. I certainly knew about it and my predecessor, John Knight, knew about it because it was his file, which I inherited, that first drew the matter to my attention. No-one is suggesting that there are not matters that ought to be revised, but this is a very ham-fisted way of dealing with them and it ought to be rejected. I believe it is an attack on responsible gun owners and users. If in fact it was all planned well before, the timing of the Government's bringing it forward was very poor indeed. It is clear now that Victoria has backed away from the draconian legislation that it was thinking about during the time of the New South Wales election. It is clear that the whole gun summit was some sort of reaction, like the tax summit and the drug summit. It was interesting to note the comment in the Australian that the first the South Australian Premier knew about it was from news reports. I suspect that that was probably the case, and that seemed to be so at the time. Significant solutions are required to the whole area. Many of the problems in the social area have very little to do with guns or their availability, but are problems which cause these acts of violence to occur. Acts of violence are also carried out with motor cars and knives. In fact, the number of murders that take place with knives and other instruments is quite significant. None of us would deny that they are matters of great importance, but attacking gun clubs in this way will not make the slightest bit of difference to the way firearms are used in crimes and acts of violence of the kinds that have occurred. There is a lot of interest in my area in a new gun ordinance and in what is going on in the other States. The local clubs are not happy with the level of advice and information they have been receiving. They have had a good relationship with the Department of Defence and the situation has worked well for, as I have said, some 85 years. It would be a pity if the Government were not able to sit down and work out a satisfactory way of proceeding. It is my hope that these regulations will be disallowed and that the Government will embark upon the course I have suggested for the future. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(5.40) —The Australian Democrats will support this motion of disallowance. In doing so I would like to acknowledge the attempts on the part of the Minister and the Government to accommodate particular needs that the Democrats have in relation to the Australian Rifle Club Regulations. I believe we have had constructive dialogue and we are now faced with the possibility of resolving the difficulties and problems with all parties coming to the table fairly soon. That does not alter the fact, however, that we find ourselves supporting the motion of disallowance for reasons which I will now briefly elaborate on. The eventual effect of the regulations would have been to transfer to the States the control of rifle clubs and associations, and we believe the ultimate effect would have been the closure of a considerable number of the controlled safe spaces where people are now able to use licensed weapons. The loss of such controlled safe spaces, we believe, would have encouraged people to use their weapons in uncontrolled and unsafe spaces, and that would have been contrary to the public interest. We believe that this question can be viewed on two levels. The first is the effect on clubs and associations and their members, who have been very responsible. It would be difficult to cite a group in our community which has such an impeccable record for safety as that of these gun users. Yet they would have been the ones negatively affected by this particular regulation. However, we were more concerned with the effects in the broader context of gun control. In the past, the rifle clubs and associations have made a considerable point of the fact that through membership of clubs and associations people were able to acquire small arms skills which were put to very effective use indeed in two world wars. However, the situation has changed quite dramatically and we see rifle clubs and associations as providing the opportunity in the 1980s and into the 1990s for people to acquire small arms skills which will allow the safe and responsible use of small arms in times of peace. The history of these clubs and associations is a very long and proud one. The National Rifle Association dates back to 1860. In fact, at the time of the First World War some 50,000 members of the Association in New South Wales alone enlisted to fight for their country. The Association's record in sporting attainments is a very proud one indeed. During two world wars six Victoria Cross winners came from clubs and associations. So, looking back on a proud history going back to 1860, it is little wonder that the clubs and associations are very concerned about a set of regulations which could dramatically truncate their membership and possibly deprive them of the majority of the spaces which they require to continue to function effectively as sporting organisations. Under the Department of Defence a number of regulations have been in place over the period since 1901. Certainly the current regulations have gradually fallen into disuse. They are most inappropriate for the 1980s and into the 1990s. Worst of all, they have not been applied, so that a degree of laxity has developed around the current regulations. Certainly, the situation that prevails at the moment is most unsatisfactory. There is an urgent need for review. In that process of review I think it is understandable that clubs and associations are out to protect their privileges. That is quite an understandable reaction. At the moment they do enjoy some privileges. As Senator Reid has already indicated, they are exempt from the need for licences. The imposition of licence requirements on them would be a great inconvenience. They are also exempt from the need to have liquor licences in their clubs. They have certain privileges in relation to ammunition. They are protecting their interests and privileges. Having regard to their proud history, we believe that it is probably reasonable that they would react in that way. Senator Robert Ray —But is it justifiable? Senator McLEAN —That is something that must be discussed. It seems to us that the imposition on them at the moment is worthy of discussion. As the Minister mentioned in his earlier interjections, during the period of the Menzies Government there was considerable review of regulations and over a period of almost three decades now there has been an acknowledgment of the fact that the regulations are inadequate, are in disuse, are not being applied, and that the time is right for review. It is probably unfortunate that this regulation has thrown that process into confusion. It is certainly unfortunate that it coincided with a period of intense and fairly emotive discussion associated with the New South Wales State election. Of course, election campaigns are probably the worst of all contexts in which to discuss things rationally and to arrive at the right solution. Senator Robert Ray —Especially State elections. Senator McLEAN —Especially State elections, as the Minister says. So it is certainly time to tidy up. There is a feeling of that need among the bureaucrats who administer this area of regulation on behalf of the Minister. That is also understandable. It has been sitting in their `too hard' tray for a long time and they are fairly anxious to resolve the problem. They attempted, of course, to pass the difficulties to the States. It is the reaction of the Australian Democrats that this would be most unfortunate because we believe that we are moving into an era in which we need uniformity of gun laws and that the responsible and necessary thing, as we move into that era, is to have available areas of safe, controlled space called rifle ranges, where people can qualify in the use of, acquire competence in the use of, and prove their competence in the use of, small arms. Whether those small arms are rifles, pistols, automatic or semi-automatic weapons is an area for debate and negotiation. Certainly, the Australian Democrats believe that we must move towards uniformity of gun laws and that the rational thing, as I say, is to have available places where these weapons-which are used, hopefully, by fewer people-are used in controlled, safe spaces. Our feeling is that if these controls pass to the States we will certainly move into a grey area. The reactions of the States are unclear. We know that the reactions will not be uniform, that they will be divergent. We believe that it is contrary to rational uniform gun control to pass the matter to the States. We sense lurking in the background pressure from potential property developers who would like to get their hands on many of the spaces which are now used as rifle ranges. Obviously, the example that has been in the news lately is the Anzac Rifle Range, which occupies a nice piece of real estate in New South Wales. Perhaps it would be appropriate for that to be put to alternative uses, but we sense lurking in the background developers who would like to get their hands on quite a number of these spaces. The spaces fall into three broad categories: Commonwealth land under Commonwealth control; State land under State control; and private land on lease to clubs or associations. In other words, putting it in blunt terms, we sense a potential real estate rort. Senator Robert Ray —It has nothing to do with the regulations, though. Senator McLEAN —The application of these regulations and the transfer of control to the States means no control. It means that the situation is out of control-out of the control of the organisation that has controlled it responsibly, well and constructively for 80 years and that happens to be experiencing a hiccup about whether or not it should continue in that role. We believe that it should. As gun controllers, the Democrats would like to see in the next decades fewer guns in the hands of fewer people. We acknowledge that some people need to have and should be entitled to have guns. Those who have guns should be required to prove their competence. But, first of all, people have to acquire a competence. In other words, they have to be taught how to use guns. There is a need for safe controlled places where they can use guns and where they can be trained in and acquire the necessary skills and prove their skills. We think it is unrealistic in an area the size of, say, New South Wales to have only two places where that can be done. Quite obviously, if there were only two places-and that was the case under the previous State Government-people simply would not go to them to acquire competence, or prove their competence or have their competence tested. We see that as being an unfavourable development. In summary, we believe that the effect of the regulations would ultimately have led to the closure of ranges, and we view that unfavourably. The Democrats prefer the status quo in the short term. We urge the Minister and all interested parties to come to the table as soon as possible. The Minister has outlined to us-and we must accept the fact-that there is some doubt at the moment about liability if there were to be an accident. Admittedly, there have not been accidents previously. But if there were to be an accident, under the regulations at the moment probably the individual, the clubs or the associations involved would be liable. That is a serious problem and there is a need for quick action. However, we believe that the status quo in the short term will ensure that most satisfactory solution and provide us with the time to arrive at an ongoing long term solution to the problem. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(5.53) —I have decided to intervene at this stage of the debate because I am sure that the speeches that will be made by Senator Brownhill and Senator Panizza will be along similar lines to that made by Senator Reid. Of course, those speeches are basically unnecessary because Senator Reid, as a Whip, can count and she knows that the regulations will be disallowed. But, of course, everyone has to get on to the record and make irrelevant speeches in this place. The speeches are basically irrelevant if they do not go to the nub of the matter. Therefore, the speeches are made not to assist us with the disallowance of regulations but as something to send out to all constituents. As usual in this place, as so often happens, we seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. Even though it was not said specifically, the Liberals are pretty soft on gun laws in any sense and the Australian Democrats are fairly hard on them. Apparently we will be defeated by being caught in the middle sitting on the fence. For the record, that is basically what has happened here. Senator Reid said that we are trying to wriggle out of supervision and control of gun and rifle clubs. There has been no supervision and no control of them for almost three decades. Senator Panizza —Because the Commonwealth hauls off the inspectors. Senator ROBERT RAY —Right; because the Commonwealth hauls off inspectors. Who did that? Was it Sir Robert Menzies who did that? We have had a few Liberal Prime Ministers. The original decision to pull out of this area, basically on the grounds of advice from the Department of Defence that these regulations were no longer valued for defence purposes, was made under the Menzies Government in 1959. Since that time-the great white father of the Liberal Party apparently disagreed with the view held by Senator Reid-there has been no direct relevance to defence in the rifle clubs. Subsequently when Sir Robert Menzies retired Prime Minister Holt must have taken the same attitude. He did not intervene and reimpose supervision and control. When he went Prime Minister Gorton did not intervene on this issue; when Prime Minister Gorton went, Prime Minister McMahon did not intervene; and, finally Prime Minister Fraser did not intervene. Here we have the creme de la creme of the Liberal Party-- Senator Panizza —You left one out. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Panizza says that I left one out. I did not go to the Country Party and Black Jack McEwen because he was only given a month or two in the big job after he blackballed McMahon. He was not able to connive his way into it and he had other things on his mind than supervising gun clubs in that very historic period. He was too busy blackballing the late Sir William McMahon. But to come in here and say that we are trying to wriggle out of supervision and control in 1988, when the decision basically was made in 1959 for defence reasons that the regulations relating to rifle clubs were no longer relevant, is amazing. The second amazing thing that is said is that we are attacking rifle clubs. I am here to state that we are not. I have a great deal of admiration for rifle clubs. I am going to visit one next Saturday-the Williamstown range in Melbourne. I look forward to that. We are not saying that the rifle clubs are irresponsible or that they have not behaved with decorum; they clearly have and they represent some of the best citizens in this country. I will come to the nub of it later as to why we seek the repeal of the existing provisions. But to come in here with that accusation is simply false. We then hear the assertion put forward that what we want is uniformity around Australia. We might get uniformity on certain rifle clubs, but in terms of dealing with guns in the community, those opposite are creating a lack of uniformity within each State. They say, `If you happen to be a rifle shooter in a rifle club on this particular range you have these rights, but if you happen to hold a pistol or a bazooka, or whatever else is allowed if you are in Queensland, you have a different set of rights and responsibilities'. So the argument on uniformity is basically a shallow one. We then have the red herring of the sell-off argument. What Senator McLean said about the sell-off of ranges is a complicated matter. I would not like to see the overall number of ranges available reduced, but I do say to him that it has nothing to do with the regulations and, more to the point, the real problem with some of the rifle ranges at the moment is that the places where they are can be much more socially useful for other purposes provided they are replaced somewhere else with accessible ranges. In other words, if there is a range in the middle of Williamstown it may be more socially desirable for the community-remembering that it is in the western suburbs of Melbourne, which is a deprived area-to put all sorts of community environmental things in that area and then move the rifle range out to the other side of Bacchus Marsh. But it really is not a relevant issue with regard to the regulations. If there are sell-offs, they will occur no matter what sorts of regulations we have in place. I suggest that decisions will be made by government on two grounds-social utility and fund raising. I am honest enough to say that fund raising is one aspect available to government. We have been asked to knock over these regulations and it is said that that will force us to come to the table. We will come to the table; we will be begged to come to the table. But to say that we have not been to the table, as some people have suggested, is not true. I have been involved in discussions with representatives of rifle clubs. As late as a couple of weeks ago they flew to Canberra to meet with me after the disallowance motion was defeated in the House of Representatives, but before it was brought on in this chamber. I was happy to talk to them about some of the issues. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) came to my office to do so too. He was happy to do so. I thought that we had come to a fairly amicable arrangement with them. Apparently, the accusation is made that we have not discussed it with the Liberal Party of Australia. I have not discussed it with the Liberal Party because, given its attitude in the House of Representatives, I thought that Opposition members had made up their minds on the issue. But if they say they have an open mind on these things I will make sure they are properly consulted and brought into the negotiations when the issue comes back. We are really dealing with Statutory Rule 1988, No. 17. This was gazetted on 25 February 1988 and repealed the Australian Rifle Club Regulations as part of a package. That package also included a new regulation-the Defence (General) Regulation-which exempted rifle clubs from State liquor licensing requirements during a shoot. It also made a firearms order which exempts members of rifle clubs from State gun licensing requirements. It needs to be clearly understood that this package was reached after lengthy negotiations with the National Rifle Association of Australia last July. The Government, through Senator Tate, the Minister for Justice, announced at the Premiers Conference on gun control last December that exemptions from liquor licensing and gun licensing would be repealed after six months. I think that was to be by about 1 July this year. The Australian Rifle Club Regulations were largely concerned with internal administration of rifle clubs. For many years now these parts of the regulations have been in disuse as the rifle club movement, like any other sporting association, has established itself on a self-standing basis. The only active parts of the regulation were those concerned with exemptions from liquor licensing and gun licensing. We regard it as inappropriate that the Commonwealth Government should be involved in these issues, which are properly for State and Territorial authorities. So, for the Opposition to make its case today, it really has to say not whether the regulations are good or bad in a technical detail, but whether the Commonwealth needs the power over this area and whether it should have that power. It seems to me that the argument so far relies on history. I find it rather strange that, standing in a States rights House, I hear one conservative Liberal member, and no doubt many more, jumping up and saying, `We want the Commonwealth to have power; we don't want it devolved to the States'. It is an interesting argument; I wonder how consistently it will be applied to other legislation. When we seek the power out there for one vote one value, we will hear the Opposition coming up with all the arguments for State rights. But still, I guess we live with those forms of hypocrisy. For many years it has been the view of the Defence Force that sports rifle shooting has no significant military value. That case has not been addressed here today. Senator McLean —Yes, it was. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator McLean says that it was. I have to say that it was inadequately argued or failed to compel me with its logic. I will acknowledge that Senator McLean has at least raised it. I am simply saying that it is up to the Opposition to prove that Federal powers should override State powers in this matter. The one argument historically used from the start of the century was that firing rifles had a big defence responsibility. But the defence forces and the Department of Defence, under the great white father Menzies and all the other Liberal Prime Ministers, took the view that it no longer had that effect; that it, like a lot of things, had outworn its usefulness. Just because something was useful in 1920 does not mean it has relevance today. This is one of those classic issues. It is difficult to argue that, because the sport provides shooting skills, it should have a special defence relationship. If that argument is to be sustained I simply argue: why do we not regulate on pistol shooting? Many people in the defence forces use pistols as they do rifles. Parachuting is now an essential military skill. Are we supposed to bring in parachuting regulations all over the place specifically because parachuting may have a defence requirement? Do Senator Panizza and other members of the Opposition want us to bring in regulations for all the martial arts: kung-fu, tae kwon do and all the rest, because they will have a military connotation? I wonder. They may provide useful skills but are they absolutely essential skills that require the Federal Government to intervene over the States? While the repealed regulations were in force, members of rifle clubs were subject to no effective gun control, other than internal discipline. They have been exempted from State laws while the Defence Department was in no position to ensure that proper controls were enforced. What has happened is that rifle clubs-I admit that they use self-discipline-have no control in their various States, basically, in many of these areas, yet they have no supervisory body and no control from us. What does the Opposition want us to do-set up an internal police force to go round to all the rifle clubs now that they have self-management? Is that what the Opposition wants us to do, as well as enforce every regulation? I dare say that, if we did that and started pulling up citizens of rifle clubs and placing them in magistrates courts, honourable senators opposite would be the first to jump up and say that we were pettifoggers and to ask what we were doing persecuting the rifle clubs because of minor breaches of regulations. The Opposition would be arguing for self-control, self-organisation, of those groups. The States have a basic responsibility for control of these activities. As far as we are concerned, the Commonwealth has no desire to override them. I make the point again: the States are in charge of various guns in the community, with one exception. The Opposition has to justify that exception and say why different principles and attitudes will apply to that one exception because of an historical oversight, almost, these days. The purpose of the general regulations and the firearms order was to provide rifle clubs with time to negotiate with the States on their requirements. We have made it quite clear that, if the date of 1 July was not satisfactory, if that would put too much pressure on them and did not give them enough time, we were willing to extend it. We were willing to extend the date to the end of the year, if necessary, to give them more time to negotiate with the States. We are still willing to do so. We have made it clear that we are willing to do so. We have made it clear to the rifle clubs that, if they are saying that we are putting pressure on them and that they have to reach a quick decision by 1 July, we will extend the date to the end of the year. They agreed with us, but apparently the Opposition does not do so. The degree of exemption from State gun laws enjoyed under the repealed regulations has been widely misunderstood. The exemption is from State licensing requirements. I want to stress that it is from State licensing requirements. There is no exemption if weapons prohibited by the States are held by a rifle club member. In other words, if a State government wanted to prohibit a particular rifle, it could not be used or owned by that member. The only exemption is to whether he is licensed to use within a State a particular weapon that is allowable within a State. The argument that we will do away with all sorts of guns in this way is nonsense. If the States are so minded, and they do not like the Commonwealth regulations, they are likely to go much further than the Commonwealth ever would. So, in the end, this could act as a weapon to be used against rifle clubs. The motion to disallow and leave in existing things could be used as a weapon against them, to bring them under control, to ban the weapons-not just the licensing aspect. The exemption applies to members of clubs approved by the Minister. The reality is that the process for approval of clubs is covered in one of the parts of the repealed regulations which have been in disuse. No approvals have been given for many years and this is because the rifle club movement has been self-managing since the 1960s. If we disallow these regulations which give the clubs some cover of their liability, at least to 1 July and, if extended, to the end of the year-and most of these clubs have not been given proper approval-they will be liable; they will have no cover whatsoever. The Opposition should think about that when it seeks disallowance. I say here that, if things go wrong, it will be on the Opposition's head. Madam Acting Deputy President, I am certain that you would be interested to know that, reflecting the anachronistic state of the repealed regulations, members of clubs are required to be male. Apparently, no female members of clubs enjoy any exemptions. That is how hopeless these regulations we seek to repeal are. In other words, if a male takes his spouse there and is shooting, she is not covered by the exemptions because she is female. What a ridiculous set of regulations. I wonder why Senator Reid in her pitter-patter for the rifle clubs did not mention that fact. After this notice of motion for disallowance of the repeal of the Australian Rifle Club Regulations was given, further concerns were raised, particularly by the Australian Democrats but certainly by various rifle clubs, about the safety of rifle ranges. One of their concerns-I think Senator McLean reflected on this-was that by handing these ranges back to the States we would give the States the power, through false safety levels, to squeeze out the rifle ranges and then presumably sell the land. I think it needs to be understood and emphasised that at this stage there is no connection between repealed regulations and range safety. The regulations did not provide exemptions from State legal requirements on safety. So that is really in part, if you like, a non-issue. However, many of the ranges are established on Commonwealth owned or leased property and for that reason the Commonwealth has overseen their safety. It should also be emphasised that the regulations have no link with the issue of whether the Commonwealth should continue to own or lease rifle ranges. That is a policy question and quite distinct from the regulations. However, on behalf of the Minister for Defence I am able to say that he is prepared to consider representations made to him on the question of range safety and other rifle club issues. In other words, we would be willing in the right circumstances to promulgate regulations which would give a uniform template-the same as used by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. If we had put these regulations through and an accusation were then made that the regulations would lead to the closure of ranges and that people would go out and shoot in an indiscriminate manner in the countryside, we would have been willing to use at least one of our powers to put in a template with a reasonable safety distance-not some ridiculous one imposed by State governments. That offer is on the table. It is not going to stay on the table forever because we are not going to be salami-sliced back on everything and make all the offers. Something has to be given back. The thing we really seek is the admission that these regulations are so outdated, outmoded and unenforceable that they should go, unless there is a compelling reason and argument otherwise. Here today so far that compelling reason has been paper thin. Two things have to be proved. Firstly, it has to be proved that there is still a defence requirement for rifle shooters and that there is a benefit to the defence of this country. That has not been established here at all. Basically, it has never been argued much by the rifle clubs, which insist on the sporting nature of the activity. I concede that and endorse it. I am sure that everyone would like to see Australian shooters continue in world class competition. The second thing that has to be established is why we should override State power in this matter. Why should we create inconsistencies within States where rifle clubs are treated in one way and every other form of shooter is treated in another way?I think it should be mentioned briefly that the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances also referred to this question of time. I think it argued that the sunset clause was far too brief. I indicate again today that had these regulations continued we would not have had a problem in extending them beyond 30 June 1988. We are getting to the situation where, quite obviously, these regulations will be disallowed. What that really means in the long run is that we will have a whole area of confusion. The Opposition is not proposing to disallow the other two changes we have made. Those changes are already in place. They cannot be disallowed or changed. The Opposition is changing one section. So, instead of having the mess that we had, say, in June last year we now have a much more complicated mess. What that means for the rifle clubs of Australia is that most of them are not properly registered, most of them are not covered in a legal liability sense. They are covered only as long as these regulations are in place. They would have been covered if a proper agreement had been negotiated with each State government. That is the position. That is the effect of disallowing these regulations. In summing up, I again stress that the development of these proposals pre-dates what some people would call the hysteria on gun laws. They have been in the pipeline for quite some time. When it was appropriate to bring them forward, they were brought forward, with no particular dependence on what happened as a result of events in other States involving the misuse of guns. The accusation that we are in some ways out to get, nobble or in any way destroy rifle clubs is absolutely untrue. As I have said before, the initial regulations were not enforced for 29 years. It was a Liberal Government that made the decision in 1959 to opt out, and from 1959 to 1972 and from 1975 to 1983 the Liberals did not make any changes. They allowed the whole system to slide. I do not blame them for that, because they said on Defence advice that Commonwealth control over these areas was no longer of any relevance. That is what they were told, and so previous Liberal governments cannot be blamed for the fact that a situation evolved whereby the regulations fell into disuse. But they fell into disuse for the very good reason that the then Liberal Party Prime Ministers and Ministers for Defence could see that the regulations were useless, that they contain no defence component whatsoever and that they should slide. It seems to me that the only argument that can be brought to bear now is: `Look, we have put rifle clubs in a privileged position; why should we take their privileges away? After all their members are voters and they have lobbied us; why should we affect them?'. But we have to ask ourselves every now and then why one group of shooters should be put in a privileged position if there is no justification for it. What is unique about them that places them in a privileged position? The eventual answer is, `Absolutely nothing'. I am a realist. I recognise that these regulations are going to be disallowed. But I think in the long run, once they are disallowed, the people who will suffer most will not be the Liberal senators sitting on that side of the chamber, who will wash their hands of the matter and move to another issue; the people who will suffer most will be the members of the rifle clubs themselves because the clubs will be placed in the invidious position of having no proper legal liability cover. The clubs will not be properly approved and, in the end, they will have to come back to the Commonwealth Government with a set of proposals that we can negotiate on. As I say, we have negotiated before and we remain ready to negotiate again. We cannot negotiate for months on end as we do have other priorities, other things to do, but we still remain open to negotiation on these matters. In the meantime the clubs will be put in a terrible position. I know there is no point in going on-as there is not ever in this chamber-because even if I have mounted a logical argument I will not change the eventual vote. I would like to wish this matter a speedy passage but I notice the other side is prepared to put up more speakers. It is ironic that we have called a one-day sitting to get through non-controversial Government legislation but we will be lucky to start debating it by 8.30 tonight. Senator Reid —It is the last day for this. It is not our fault it has just been brought on. Senator ROBERT RAY —Maybe it was not Senator Reid's fault on the matter of public importance. We will be lucky to start debating Government legislation by 8.30. Senator Reid —It is Senator Walsh's fault. Senator ROBERT RAY —Now we have the whingers on the other side saying it is Senator Walsh's fault. If they cannot stand the heat in the kitchen they should get out. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(6.20) —As the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) has tried to shoot me down in flames-pardon the pun-I would like to make a couple of things clear. I have 30 years experience in rifle clubs, and have competed for three different clubs. The coalition parties have the full support of the National Rifle Association of Australia (NRAA) behind us. We were informed by the Minister earlier today that we are not working in the best interest of the NRAA and that the NRAA has been talking to the Government. As of late yesterday we still had the full support of the Association. As has been said in this debate, rifle clubs in one form or another have existed in Australia since the mid-1800s. No special licences were needed but a member of a rifle club had to carry identification and was limited to four rifles. The Government's intention has been made clear. Under section 124 of the Defence Act, the Governor-General may make regulations. Statutory Rule No. 17 repealed the Australian Rifle Club Regulations. This, in effect, transferred the control of rifle clubs from the Federal Department of Defence to the various State governments. This was deemed, as the Minister said, to have happened on 15 March 1988. Under section 123g of the Act, which allows the Minister to make orders, the Minister made order No. 56, which came into effect on 25 February 1988, directing that members of all rifle clubs and associations affiliated with the NRAA would not be subject to the firearm provisions of their own States or Territories where rifles were used by authorised clubs for any organised shoots, or where public carriage of rifles used for this purpose was from storage to the range and back again. As I said, one was limited to four rifles. The insertion of order No. 56 provided NRAA clubs and associations with time-approximately six months-to adjust to State laws. With this course of events, these clubs and associations assumed the same status as any other sporting club and association. The end result provided much disparity between the various laws of the States. The Minister shot us down on that one. He said that it was okay to have regulations made by different States. But this sporting organisation has existed for many years. The Australia-wide uniformity would be lost to all the clubs and organisations. It was found that in making order No. 56 the Minister had omitted small bore rifle organisations. Small bore rifles such as the old .303 with a .22 barrel fitted were left out. The Minister subsequently made order No. 66 on 4 March to include small bore rifles, but curiously lifted the ban on automatic and semi-automatic rifles as well as the limit of four rifles per person. No explanation has been given for that. If there are dangerous weapons they are the automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Lifting the limit of four rifles per person does not worry me greatly because not many people will rush out and purchase .762 rifles at a cost of $1,000 each and exceed that limit. Senator Robert Ray —Only collectors would do that. Senator PANIZZA —Yes. Perhaps it may be opportune to portray the history of rifle clubs in Australia as well as their importance and achievements. As Senator McLean said, the first rifle clubs were established in Australia in the mid-1800s with the formation of the Sydney Rifle Club in 1842. Australian rifle teams began competing in inter-colonial shoots-- Senator Robert Ray —We had slavery then. Do you want to restore that? Senator PANIZZA —Yes, we did, but this is a little different from slavery. These competitions nurtured good relations with America. In 1876 we competed in the Championship of the World in Philadelphia. Every year-and I have competed in more than one-we have the premier event, the Queen's Prize. Senator Robert Ray —That is terrific. We agree with that. Senator PANIZZA —Good, you agree with it. To be able to keep it going we need to remain uniform. The first Queen's Prize was held in Queensland in 1878, with New South Wales and South Australia coming in in 1879 and 1891. These competitions are held over ranges from 200 yards to 800 yards, going up in stages of 100 yards. Senator Colston —Yards or metres? Senator PANIZZA —The old ranges were measured in yards, but these days they are in metres. The umbrella responsibilities of the rifle clubs were taken over by the Army, as I said, way back in 1901, and since 1903 the Defence Act has guaranteed special rights-I know that that does not go down too well with the Minister for Home Affairs-for full members of rifle clubs. This includes having the right to possess and carry rifles without State licence. But by the same token when the NRAA wanted to keep this uniform, it was prepared to license them with State authorities, so that they would then be under the umbrella of the Commonwealth as well. However, the Minister's Department would not listen to them. Senator Robert Ray —What happens if the State bans those rifles? They can't carry them any more. Senator PANIZZA —That is right, they cannot carry them any more; but obviously the States will have the good sense to keep a sport like this going. Senator Robert Ray —Of course. Therefore, they should control the sport. Senator PANIZZA —There are other firearms, such as pistols, that are used in clubs. Senator Robert Ray —You have just hung yourself. You said the States could do this adequately. Senator Vanstone —The Minister has had his go. Senator PANIZZA —Yes, the Minister has had his go, but I do not mind arguing it out. As was said, it was a valuable defence. The Minister cuts me down when I am dealing with these valuable defence people. A lot of people who went into the Army came out of rifle clubs over the years, and they have nothing to be ashamed of. These people are held in high regard around the world. In 1921 the Commonwealth Council of Rifle Clubs was reconstituted as a civilian organisation under the Department of Defence. In 1931 it was transferred to the control of the Military Board and functioned as a reserve to the Citizen Military Forces. There was nothing wrong with that. In 1946 rifle clubs came out of the recess that had been imposed on them by the war, and were re-established under the Army. In 1971 the umbrella organisation became the NRAA. Senator Robert Ray —Why did Menzies dump them? Senator PANIZZA —Why didn't he? He probably had a good reason. What is more, why did not Whitlam dump them in 1973-74? Senator Robert Ray —Why did Menzies dump them in 1959? Senator PANIZZA —Why did not your Prime Minister dump them? We could argue all night about that one, but no one will ever win the argument. We had the chance, admittedly, to dump them then and your side had the chance to do so in 1974. It has taken four years of this present Government to try to do the same thing. So do not point the finger at Menzies or at anyone else, if your side has not been prepared to do it for itself. Senator Robert Ray —I want you to explain why. Senator PANIZZA —My explanation would be as good as the Minister's as to whether it should or should not have been done under Whitlam or the present Government. The arrangements that had been put in lasted until this year. Since 1903 we have gained fame all over the world by our rifle shooting. The latest such occasion was at the Edinburgh Games, where Golinski of New South Wales and Corbett of Victoria won the silver in the pairs. Australia has about 500 full time clubs, with 8,000 members-they are quite large in numbers. On and off over the last 30 years I have been a member of three different clubs. Since the formation of the first clubs in Australia, they have been a reliable source of teaching young fellows to shoot. Senator McLean-and I am not one to agree too often with the Democrats-pointed out that that is an area where young people can learn to use their rifles. The cadet detachments having been done away with throughout most of Australia, where many of us used to learn to handle rifles, at least we can now use the rifle clubs. Indeed, when my own two sons asked for gun licences, I said `Get into a rifle club and learn how to handle a rifle before you ask me whether you can have a licence'. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator PANIZZA —Before the dinner break I was dealing with the history of Australian rifle clubs. As I said, since the formation of those rifle clubs there has been a good and reliable source of teaching young people to handle rifles. The present policy of the NRAA is to admit women and men at the age of 16 years, although there is a move to drop the limit, with members not being able to own a rifle until they are adept at handling one. They must complete at least three months apprenticeship and must participate at least four times a year in standard practice or in competition to remain a member. So much for history. I now come to the Opposition's view and my view. The Government has stated that it no longer considers that rifle clubs and associations bear any relevance to the country's defence needs and that it is no longer appropriate for the Defence Department to be involved in their affairs. My view is contrary. As I have already said, in the past Australia has drawn on the skills of rifle clubs for the nation's defence forces. This has been not only in time of war; there has been close liaison in time of peace. This valuable asset will be lost under the present proposal by the Government. In handing control over to the various States a number of factors detrimental to the continued existence of the clubs will occur. They include the adjustment of safety regulations away from those of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. At present there is a safety template of 1,830 metres and it is anticipated that the increase in the safety template under State laws will mean that many civilian ranges will not be able to comply. As I said, at present the safety distance is 1,830 metres, which I presume is the old 2,000 yards. With even the newest rifleman on a rifle range there is very little chance of a bullet passing the stop butt. Increasing the template would cause many civilian ranges to close and would prevent the building of new ones because it would be outside the resources of rifle clubs. As I have already mentioned, Australian riflemen have achieved fame in various competitions around the world so the closing of civilian ranges will disadvantage this national sport. The Government has already disadvantaged a large number of civilian shooters by selling Williamstown rifle range in Victoria. On a recent trip to Sydney I noticed that the Anzac range, which was mentioned by Senator McLean, is on the market. Like Senator McLean, I consider that this could be as a result of developers anxious to get onto that good piece of dirt for their own ends rather than leave it to the sport that has had it for so many years. On hearing of the impending sale of the Anzac range I inquired about the Swanbourne range in Perth to see that it was not to be sold. I was assured that Swanbourne was not to be sold and that the Army is even updating its facilities there. Incidentally, the Special Air Service Regiment is located adjacent to that range in Perth. By forcing the closure of any additional ranges the current trend of disadvantaging rifle clubs will continue. With the handing of control of rifle clubs and associations to each State body, the NRAA would be disadvantaged during national competitions, as I have already pointed out, because of the lack of reciprocal arrangements for the carrying of rifles across State borders. Senator Reid mentioned this earlier. It is all very well for us to say that this will not be a problem but unless the requirements are set out in black and white they could cause difficulty. The change has not come about because the Minister for Defence was tired of rifle clubs or for any reason of that nature. It has come about because officers of that Department considered that it was demeaning to their Department and it was time to get rid of the rifle clubs. That was obviously the easy solution. After the gun summit and the subsequent saga there is very little chance of uniform gun laws. There could have been uniform gun laws until a few State elections came along and that was the end of it. The repeal of the regulations has not been brought about by the quest for uniform laws, nor by the Hoddle Street and Queen Street tragedies. The Minister told us this afternoon that the changes were in the pipeline anyhow. If the practice of continued lease arrangements agreed by the Commonwealth is discontinued, the rifle clubs using these ranges will be at the mercy of State governments, some of which would like to see many of the ranges closed. It is all very well to say, as the Minister intimated, that one could sell ranges, such as the Anzac range and Williamstown, in the busy areas for development purposes. But who is going to pay for the new ones? The Federal Government will grab what is there. It will certainly be outside the reach of the rifle clubs. What will happen if these regulations are disallowed? The Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Ray, said this afternoon that they would be left wide open. I am sorry that the same Minister is not in the chamber now because I was enjoying the exchanges we were having about these rifle clubs. I have sought a ruling from the Deputy Clerk of the Senate, backed up by the Clerk. It is not that I did not trust the Deputy Clerk's findings, but it is good to check with both the Deputy Clerk and the Clerk to see whether they give the same reading. They did. They state that by disallowing the regulations we will get back to exactly what we had before. A few regulations will not be repealed by disallowance. Senator Ray said that he would welcome my incorporating this document in Hansard. A section of it states that there could be some ambiguity. Madam Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to have the correspondence from the Clerk of the Senate incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Senator Panizza You have sought advice on the possible consequences of the disallowance of the Australian Rifle Club Regulations (Repeal) (S.R. 1988 No. 17). The Australian Rifle Club Regulations (Repeal) is part of a complex delegated legislative package designed to Terminate the involvement of the Defence Organisation with the establishment, administration and control of rifle clubs and associations; Continue the exemptions which these bodies enjoy from State and Territory gun and liquor laws, (the intention is that the exemption is to be temporary but there is no sunset clause); Provide interim controls over the use of guns and liquor by these bodies pending the application of State and Territory laws in about 6 months, by which time, it is said, all necessary administrative arrangements will be in place. The legislative package comprises the following- Australian Rifle Club Regulations (Repeal) Rifle Clubs (Firearms) Order (25 February 1988) Rifle Clubs (Firearms) Order (Amendment) (4 March 1988) Defence (General) Regulations (S.R. 1988 No. 18) The disallowance of the Australian Rifle Club Regulations (Repeal) will produce a number of consequences including the following- (i) Since the Regulations repeal several sets of earlier regulations which have, until now, controlled the activity of the clubs and associations, their disallowance will revive those earlier regulations. They will come back into force from the moment of disallowance (subsection 48 (7), Acts Interpretation Act 1901). (ii) Those revived regulations will give rise to certain rights and obligations which may repeat or conflict with those recently put in place by the remaining pieces of legislation in the aforementioned package which have not been disallowed. A situation of considerable legal uncertainty may arise from this. (iii) If the Australian Rifle Club Regulations (Repeal) is disallowed, the Government cannot, without permission embodied in a resolution of the Senate, make any Regulations ``the same in substance as'' those disallowed, until a period of 6 months has elapsed (subsection 49 (1), Acts Interpretation Act). JOHN VANDER WYK 29-4-88 Senator PANIZZA —I thank the Senate. The NRAA knows full well that, after so many years-since 1903 or whatever it was-some of the regulations need tightening, something needs to be done. All along it has endeavoured to get around the table with the Minister but has not been successful in this. As I said earlier, I have been in constant contact with the NRAA which has maintained all along that it would prefer to have these regulations disallowed and then come back to the negotiating table. I welcome the support we have had from the Australian Democrats today. As I said earlier, I do not often praise the Democrats but in Senator McLean at least we have an experienced Army man, experienced in the handling of rifles and on rifle ranges. He has seen what this is all about. In winding up, I will get on to a few of the points made by the Minister at the table, Senator Ray, before the suspension of the sitting for dinner. Once he could see himself in the corner, just like the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) did with the media legislation, he started to give us red herrings. The last time we were here the Minister for Transport and Communications decried our objections to what that legislation would do to the people in the country. I immediately jumped to my feet to talk, but my Whip and my Leader prevented me from doing so. This evening I shall not take that Minister to task but I shall certainly take to task the Minister who was at the table before dinner on what he was saying. He got on to the argument of States rights. He is trying to give rights back to the States so they can make their own regulations and rules about rifle clubs. It may have suited that Minister to say that this evening. As I said earlier on, I wish he had remained in the chamber. When we were discussing the heritage legislation there was no concern shown for States rights, whether in Tasmania or Queensland. The Government rode roughshod over them and did not worry about them. Once the heritage legislation takes effect we will see how much Senator McKiernan stands up for States rights in Shark Bay. I ask the Senate to disregard that argument completely because the States to date have had complete faith in the Commonwealth to run these rifle clubs properly. As I said earlier, there are 8,000 members, plus their supporters, in rifle clubs throughout Australia-so we could class the sport as having a fairly medium sized following-and their wishes should be taken into consideration. The Minister who was in the chamber earlier feared that, if these regulations were disallowed, they could not be brought back for six months. I understand, from reading this document, that the same regulations cannot be brought back within six months but that legislation that would suit the NRAA, the Federal Government, the rifle clubs and probably the State governments could probably be brought back in here next week. I did say that the coalition would be very happy to sit down with the Government and formulate policy. I am sure the Australian Democrats would be very happy to join in such a round table conference with the Minister responsible, with us and with the NRAA. All we need is the invitation from the Minister to do so, and we will be only too pleased to accept it. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(8.13) —The regulations which the Government seeks to repeal relate to rifle clubs and associations throughout Australia and if the Government were to win this debate, I think it would have a far-reaching effect. I am not going to speak for very long, because this matter has been debated very well by my colleagues, starting with Senator Reid. Senator Panizza has just given a wonderful explanation of this debate which I will not elaborate on. The thing that concerns me most is that there has been no explanation by the Government as to why it wants to repeal the regulations. Since 1903 the Federal Government has had responsibility for the supervision of the 500-odd clubs in Australia and the 8,000 members who shoot at those rifle clubs. We have to ask ourselves why it is all being changed now. Defence preparedness has been part of the Australian way of life, along with the use of rifle ranges. The Anzac Rifle Range in New South Wales, as the previous speaker said, is still subject to legal action and it may be some 18 months to two years before it is resolved and we know what the outcome is. There has been a terrific amount of opposition from all the gun clubs to the changes that this Government is trying to impose on the community. As I have said, for years they have been doing a responsible job training people in the safe use of firearms. Under the present Department of Defence controls there has always been uniformity throughout Australia, and that is as it should be. With the transfer to the States of control of the rifle ranges this situation will change and inconsistencies will creep in. Shooters will have to apply for separate licences when they travel interstate, for example. Rifle range leases on land under Commonwealth control will be terminated and the leases will be renegotiated with individual clubs. Again, that will lead to inconsistencies throughout Australia. This measure will cause enormous financial pressures on clubs and many will be forced to close or seek alternative ranges. This could lead to a breakdown of the educational role played by the clubs. The Federal Government has been getting at a very cheap price a corps of trained firearms personnel throughout Australia, which will stand future generations in good stead as a deterrent to anyone who wanted to use force to come into this country. This corps of good rifle persons is now under threat. The rifle clubs have always been well able to administer their own affairs. I do not think that is in dispute here tonight. However, the facilities provided by the Defence Department-the provision of the land-will be lost, and we are concerned about that. If the Federal Government is genuine in its desire to curb the increased misuse of firearms it is going the wrong way about improving the situation. This move is likely to lead to a decrease in the number of clubs with facilities and will therefore lead to a reduction in the number of trained personnel available to instruct people in the safe use of firearms. That is another point that this Government has not thought about. If legislation similar to that proposed by the former New South Wales Labor Government were introduced anywhere else the problems would be enormous. Just consider some of the problems that would have arisen in New South Wales if the Labor Government had been returned. Rifles would have been able to be used only on the home range. Where would that have left the inner club shoots? Senator Panizza —They could borrow theirs when they had finished with them. Senator BROWNHILL —Luckily the New South Wales people saw the wisdom of changing the Government in that State because of what would have happened there had former Premier Unsworth been returned. Clubs would have lost their liquor licence privileges and they would have had to make application to local police licensing sergeants. There was to be an increased danger zone area in New South Wales-from 150 acres to 450 acres-which would have caused great problems. There was to be a lengthening of the danger zone around each rifle range from two kilometres to 4.5 kilometres, which probably would have meant that only a couple of rifle ranges in the whole of New South Wales would have been able to be used. Of course, few ranges anywhere in Australian would qualify if those provisions were to be imposed upon the community by a State Government. Victoria has different legislation from that which applies in some of the other States. So the inconsistencies that would abound, with all the States being different, would cause terrific problems. I have no hesitation in supporting Senator Reid, who led this debate tonight for the Opposition. I commend the Australian Democrats. Like Senator Panizza, nobody quite knows which way the Democrats will vote; but we are saying the right thing about them tonight. This is one of the few times that the Democrats are doing the right thing and voting with their heads rather than with their feet. Question put: That the motion (Senator Reid's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 10 —— Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael McLean, P. A.Baume, Peter Macklin, M. J.Bishop, B. K. Messner, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Panizza, J. H.Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R.Calvert, P. H. Patterson, K. C. L.Chapman, H. G. P. Powell, J. F.Coulter, J. R. Reid, M. E.Durack, P. D. Sheil, G.Hamer, D. J. Stone, J. O.Hill, R. M. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Jenkins, J. A. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Wood, W. R. Aulich, T. G. Devlin, A. R.Beahan, M. E. Evans, GarethBlack, J. R. Foreman, D. J.Bolkus, N. Gietzelt, A. T.Burns, B. R. Giles, P. J.Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Schacht, C. C.Cooney, B. C. Tate, M. C.Crowley, R. A. Walsh, P. A.Devereux, J. R. Zakharov, A. O. Watson, J. O. W. Collins, R. L.Teague, B. C. Jones, G. N.Walters, M. S. Richardson, G. F.Chaney, F. M. Reynolds, M.Puplick, C. J. G. McMullan, R. F.Short, J. R. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 27 April, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Vanstone had moved by way of 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 MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.27) —The Student Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, on which we had a reasonable amount of debate a couple of weeks ago, deals basically with penalties for fraud. At present, under the Student Assistance Regulations the maximum penalty for offences is a fine of $100, although it is possible under the Crimes Act for a person to be sentenced to a maximum of two years imprisonment for deliberately making an untrue statement in connection with or in support of an application for assistance. I will move some amendments during the committee stage of the Bill and I will leave my remarks in connection with them until then. I wish to raise some other matters in connection with penalties. It is not at all obvious, particularly in the 1988 Austudy information brochure, that the Government had or has any intention of increasing penalties. I will be interested to see whether the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) in his second reading response informs the Senate of the plans the Government has to publicise these very much increased penalties. As I have said, this information is not in the 1988 Austudy brochure, from which most students would be expected to get their information on Austudy. It may be in the 1989 brochure. The second reading speech made by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) gave no indication of the types of savings that the Government anticipated would result from the measures in this Bill. The explanatory memorandum says that the Government expects these measures `to result in significant savings'. It goes on: It is not possible, however, to quantify these savings until compliance surveys have been undertaken to investigate further the extent of fraud under Austudy. What will be the financial costs of detecting and preventing fraud compared with the savings? Presumably, the Government must have had some basis upon which it made the decision to take this course rather than some other course. Hopefully, if the Government is looking at significant savings it would have looked also at the cost structure that it has managed to build into this Bill. In that regard, I think the Senate would be very interested to know whether or not those costs are in fact less than the savings. If so, I think we can ask ourselves, in lieu of the recent statement made by the Wran committee with regard to the graduate tax, whether the net savings will be returned for student assistance in any way. This might test the bona fides of the Government with regard to the propositions that have been made in the Wran report; for example, whether any savings made in this area will be used to improve the very meagre stipend of the Commonwealth post-graduate award scheme. The Austudy scheme is an age-related student assistance scheme and covers not only those students in higher education but students aged 16 years and over. It is one item that seems to have escaped the debate since the Wran committee report was published. Presumably the argument which applies to higher education in the Wran report also applies to all the non-compulsory years in secondary school. That was conveniently fudged, as was the technical and further education matter, by suggesting that those hard decisions would be put off to another time. I suggest that there is no philosophical, financial or any other basis upon which we could exclude the non-compulsory secondary school years. Presumably people get an advantage out of those and it seems to be the sole basis upon which the Government is likely to make any decision about whether or not it goes ahead with that scheme. Austudy replaced the previous assistance scheme. I think that it is pertinent to the general debate that is going on in the community at the moment that we look a little more closely at this whole financial package of support for students. In 1988 a dependent student will get maximum assistance when the adjusted family income is $16,000 or less. This limit was increased from that in 1987, of $15,745, by less than would match inflation. The figure of $16,000 in weekly terms represents 64 per cent of adult average weekly full time earnings-I think that that is an important figure to remember; the December quarter Australian Bureau of Statistics figures were used in this instance-whereas it was at a comparable level to the average weekly earnings when the predecessor scheme was first introduced in 1974. That particular proposition is somewhat difficult to come by from the statistics, but a very interesting and authoritative review of that was undertaken when the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission was undertaking its review of efficiency and effectiveness in higher education, and that is its estimate. That is a very important item which has been missed from the current debate in the community about whether or not students on lower incomes are able to partake of higher education. Somehow or other people seem to have assumed that it is only the fee that is of any importance in this area. In assuming that, they have missed the two major determinants of entrance of people from lower socioeconomic groups into higher education-firstly, the educational benefits that those children are able to receive in primary and secondary schooling; and, secondly, the financial support schemes that are available during higher education. After all, it is a far greater cost to live and house oneself while one is studying in higher education than it is to pay even the fees suggested in the Wran committee report. If we look at the failure by governments in 1974 to increase the income limit at least to full indexation, we see that we are obviously faced with a decreasing ability of children from lower income groups to partake of higher education in an effective way. But it goes beyond that. Of course, the living allowance for dependent students is another area which is reduced as the family income increases. It is not payable if adjusted family income exceeds the following levels: if a 16- or 17-year-old student is living at home it is $26,000 in round terms; if a student is living away from home it is around $31,000. If the student is 18 years or over and is living at home that figure goes up to $28,000, and if the student is living away from home it is $34,000. The Senate should note that a lesser rate of reduction applies if the student has a brother or sister who is 16 years or over. The allowable family income then rises. If we consider that, together with the fact that the Government has under active consideration an assets test on Austudy, we are looking at a very difficult area for many students. The area which has probably tended to be neglected in the debate is that of independent students. I refer to the May mini-statement of last year-of course, we are about to have a May mini-statement this year-and note what this Government has done to assist low income groups to partake of higher education. In 1978-79 the then Government took nearly $30m out of Austudy-on the Government's estimates for that year the figure was $27.6m. In 1988-89 it is projected that $59.2m will be taken out. The Government will take $60m from Austudy which is, in its terms, the money provided for low income groups to partake of higher education. This is the type of commitment that this Government has to assisting people from those groups in the community who have the talent and imagination to partake of higher education. The Government has directly attacked the major area of support for low income groups and I believe it has done so in a most cynical way-by manipulating the criteria by which a person is able to get those particular allowances. It is interesting to note that in the period leading to the March 1983 election when the Labor Party was in opposition, the current Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), who was then the shadow Minister for education, so presumably we can put some credence on his word, said that the Liberal-National Party Government of Mr Fraser had `cynically manipulated' the criteria by which students were able to get assistance to higher education and that the incoming Labor Government would liberalise these to an enormous extent. Since 1983 we have had a continuous and continuing erosion of support for students through the Austudy scheme. At the moment it is far more difficult for a student to get the independent rate. Of course, that status is now granted if a student has reached or will reach the age of 25. This is presumably the only area left in our community where we consider a person to be still a child when he or she is 25. Everywhere else one is presumed to be an adult at 18 years of age, but in education we say, `No, they are children until they are 25 because the parents have to look after them and we are going to base the determination of their ability to undertake study on the income of their parents, despite the fact that they may be 25'. What else has been used to erode student support? The Government has changed the criterion of the amount of work. Status is granted if the person has been employed in the work force for a period totalling three out of the previous four years. Until 1988 the period was two years. We now find that, by that type of operation, the Government, in its own terms, is able to save $60m which would otherwise have gone to students in lower socioeconomic groupings in this country. Senator Sanders —That is enough to buy two F18s. Senator MACKLIN —Probably that is what it will be used for. One of the other arguments that have been touted around-it might be worth while mentioning it at this point-is the one that the Minister mentioned the day before the report of the Wran Committee on Higher Education Funding was released; that is, since fees have been taken off with a wave of the hand there has not been any change in terms of assistance to those groups in the community which are disadvantaged. It is interesting that, since Susan Ryan has left, the Government's commitment to the advancement of women seems to have evaporated. When fees were taken off, the major educationally disadvantaged group in the community at that stage was women. Women comprised about a quarter of the tertiary education student body. This year, they comprise one half of that body. In other words, we have seen one of the major social changes of our times taking place because it is via higher education and entrance to the professions that the women of this community have been able to gain their rightful place. Despite all the laws that we pass in this place, women's average incomes are less than those of men with comparable jobs. At least we have, by a series of policy mechanisms, enabled breakthroughs to be made in higher education, but we have not gone far enough. It is interesting that women in this community make up 6.6 per cent of enrolments in engineering in higher education and 66 per cent of enrolments in arts. In the higher education sector there is a massive disproportion with regard to the ability of women to partake of the types of educational advantages that they ought to be able to partake of on an equal status with men. This Government and this Minister, with a wave of the hand the day before the Wran committee report was presented, dismissed an operation that had been going on for some time. I am not saying that this all came about as a result of the abolition of fees; that would be absolutely stupid. Obviously it came from a whole host of areas, not least of which were the very effective campaigns run by women to raise their status and to make the point to the males of this community that they were no longer willing to be treated as second class citizens. It is undeniable that the removal of fees was a major advantage because, on the reimposition of the administration fee, in terms of the fine grain studies that were done at a number of institutions, we saw that the two groups that suffered were women and mature age students. Interestingly, women and mature age students were the two groups that suffered from the administration fee. Why was that? It is pretty easy to see that many mature age students were women, particularly single mothers who were trying to gain a variety of qualifications to support themselves and their families, which is something which I thought this Government would have supported. They found themselves, at the beginning of the academic year, having to fork out an amount which might seem piddling to us but which was very large in their budgets. They were unable to do so because they had to provide uniforms, school books and whatever else for their children. As women have been doing so often and for so long, they put the educational advantages of their children first. It might be a short-sighted policy, but it is one with which one cannot argue. When fees are reimposed, we will find that women's access to higher education will be rolled back. The Government can wave its arms as much as it likes, but women's access to higher education will be rolled back. It is still the case in this community that when a family has to choose which member of the family should partake of higher education, because it cannot afford for each member to do so, those old traditional values will reassert themselves. Women again will be in the disadvantageous position in the family in which, on average, they have always been. Despite the fact that they might be the brightest members of their families, they will not get the chances. Until those particular social values are changed-and we are far from that at the moment-this move by the Government will disadvantage women greatly in an area in which, I think, great strides have been made, although, of course, when one looks at some of the other factors, for example, in terms of women's penetration of the higher levels of academia, one notes that we still have an awfully long way to go. I think that the arguments that have been put up can be dismissed. They can be dismissed on the basis of fact. They can be dismissed on the basis of any understanding of the types of forces which operate in our society to give some groups advantages over others. I think another point that we have been trying to grapple with for quite some time is the interrelationship between the support we give to students and the support we give to unemployed people in our community. I imagine the Government will soon make an announcement, through some other report of course, that, since people who get unemployment benefits are being advantaged by them, they will have to pay those benefits back when they get employment as well! That announcement might be in the May mini-statement or the Budget. Presumably it would be based on exactly the same proposition and would relate also to those people who partake of the non-compulsory secondary education sector. People who use roads will probably also have to pay. I imagine that the Government will turn all roads into tollways! The difficulty with the comparison between the education allowance and the unemployment benefit is that, in spite of the fact that in 1983 the then shadow spokesperson for education for the Labor Party Opposition, who is now the Minister, said that these would be brought together in this Government's first Budget, we are now, in 1988, five years on, still grappling with the problem. The Government has eliminated only part of the disincentive. This year for 16- and 17-year-olds the at-home secondary rate has risen from $40 to $50 a week to align it with the maximum job search allowance. I should say that the allowances for those unemployed in that period have been reduced. That is how the two amounts have come together. Of course, the standard job search allowance in the May economic statement of last year was $25. As for students aged 18 to 21 years, the maximum rate for tertiary students living away from home has risen from $80 a week to $91.20 to align it with the intermediate unemployment rates. However, the at-home rate for students aged 18 to 21 years, while increasing to $60 a week from $55 a week for tertiary students and $45 for secondary students, is still less than the unemployment benefit. I think it can be argued further that the benefits under the Austudy scheme and unemployment benefits continue to be misaligned because, while Austudy is means tested on parental income-as I pointed out before when I cited the example of 25-year-olds being considered children-unemployment benefits are not means tested. Unemployment benefits for people aged 18 years and over are not dependent on parental income. Therefore, there is a major disparity between those two support mechanisms. Again, it is a disparity which tells against lower socioeconomic groups. While some students will get the maximum Austudy, which is the same that they would get if they were in receipt of unemployment benefits, I believe that we will find that many potential students would still find unemployment benefits offering a greater amount than they could receive under Austudy. Of course, not only the 18-year-olds but also the over 21-year-olds are in that bracket. I have already mentioned the support schemes of Austudy, which are rehearsed again in this Bill. The original intent of the support schemes was directed quite specifically at assisting those whose parents were not able to support them while they undertook higher education. The difficulty at the moment is that a combination of the reduced unemployment benefits, longer periods before unemployment benefits can be received and improvements in the education allowance have helped, in some way at least, to reduce youth unemployment. Certainly this is indicated in the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures. We have also seen an increased retention of this age group in school education and in technical and further education training. I say `retention'; I do not use the word `participation'. There is a difference which seemingly the Government has not yet woken up to; I hope it does soon. Any schoolteacher will explain the difference between retention and participation. It is fairly elementary, but the Government still does not accept it. As far as higher education is concerned, putting aside for one moment the school education and training sector, Austudy, in its former guise of the tertiary education assistance scheme, along with the abolition of fees, has been criticised for not facilitating a broader socioeconomic mix. Recent studies have found that in certain areas the mix is not all that different from that which existed in 1974. I have suggested one element where it is different, and there are other elements, but it is remarkable that there has been any movement at all. When fees were abolished, again according to the Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education, over 70 per cent of students were receiving some government support compared with the current 40 per cent-70 per cent last time we had fees compared with 40 per cent now. So if we remove fees and then take away the major support mechanism-that is, the mechanism by which people live and clothe and house themselves-fairly obviously we are not going to do terribly much about changing the socioeconomic mix. The problem we will face is a problem faced by the United States. It is a problem that will bedevil the Government if it goes down the track proposed by the Wran committee report. The vast bulk of taxes in this country are paid by pay-as-you-earn (PAYE) taxpayers who are on basically middle class incomes. They already pay. The cry in the United States when it tried the Wran approach was that only the very poor and the very rich could afford higher education. The United States had to bring in support mechanisms for the middle classes so that everybody had support mechanisms. We will get back to that. Unfortunately it will take 10 or 15 years and we will have destroyed a couple of generations in the process. The political realities are there. They are the political realities that the Australian Labor Party did not address in 1983. It went on a binge in relation to what it was going to do about private schools but reneged on its proposals when it got into government. Of course the 1983 policy would never be implemented by any government that felt pressure from the private sector, and it was not. In fact, while the Labor Party was meeting at one of its splendid conferences and actually putting through a resolution, the Government had to make a decision which went in exactly the opposite direction and entrenched funds for private schools at a level they had never had in the past. I do not know why the private schools sector is still upset with the Labor Government because it gave them something that the Fraser Government never did. This Government was not willing to address the political issue in the context of 1983 and it is not willing to address that political issue now. That is, in time the PAYE taxpayers will revolt because they will be required not only to finance the entire system through their taxes, as they do now, but also to pay for their children. The poor, who do not pay taxes, will not be expected to pay and the very rich, who of course do not pay taxes, can afford to pay. The PAYE people will be the ones who will be hit twice, and they will revolt. If this Government is re-elected it will have to change back to a system which enables the children of the people who pay the taxes in this country to have reasonable access to higher education. A number of other points could be made, particularly in regard to the pittance which was given to our higher degree students. The Government is not willing to face this matter. In 1959 the award was 85 per cent of the salary of a research assistant, 73 per cent of a university tutor's salary, and 64 per cent of a grade 1 research officer. The ratios remained more or less constant for about 15 years. Since that time, however, they have dropped markedly. In 1987 it was not 85 per cent but 40 per cent; it was not 73 per cent but 40 per cent, and it was not 64 per cent but 37 per cent-an incredible reduction in support given to those undertaking higher education. Whilst this Labor Government railed against the Fraser Government move to introduce fees on second higher degrees, it has been more damaging to the ability of people to undertake second and higher degrees. In gross terms we are putting out fewer than under the last Fraser Government. That is an extraordinary proposition to have to face. This Government has perpetrated another of its con tricks on the community and expects to be able to get away with it. However, I do not believe that this time the education community will wear it. The students certainly will not wear it. Neither will those people who want a higher education be willing to wear it. Higher education is part of the solution to the economic problems that face this country. It is not part of the problem and should not be treated by this Government as such. Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! I draw attention to the presence in the gallery of former Senators George Hannan and Sir Reginald Wright. On behalf of all honourable senators I extend to them a warm welcome. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Debate resumed. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(8.57) —Despite the slightly strident tones of Senator Macklin, I do not intend to canvass all the issues that might be drawn out of a consideration of foreshadowed and green papered possibilities in the Government's overall contribution to the educational possibilities for Australians, particularly young Australians. It is important to note one or two matters which I believe have widespread community support and appreciation in this Government's approach to educational assistance, particularly for young people in our community. For many years one of the matters which were of great concern in the community was the fact that unemployment benefits were higher than student assistance rates. This obviously acted as a disincentive to those students, their families and the households in which they lived, to consider undertaking some form of education and training, and acquisition of knowledge and skills, rather than taking the unemployment benefit. This was a very clear disproportion which acted in a way which undermined the possibilities of those young Australian to put themselves in a position where they might participate in the work force with the added educational qualification or skill. It is this Government which has moved to align the benefits for both student assistance and unemployment to a comparable amount of dollars, to remove that particular disincentive to participation in education. I believe that throughout the general community that has been extremely well received. It is also important to note-without being as naive as Senator Macklin charged the Government with being-that it does not always follow that the mere fact that one remains at school means that one is really participating in some sort of educational process. The fact is that the retention rate of those students participating in years 11 and 12 in our secondary system has increased very dramatically. Over the period 1983 to 1988, roughly some five years, the retention rate to the final year of schooling, year 12, has increased from 40.6 per cent to 53.1 per cent, while the retention rate to year 11 has increased from 63.6 per cent to 71 per cent. I state those figures for the record to indicate that this Government's policies, including the aspect relating to student assistance, are providing more opportunities for youngsters to remain in the education system. Undoubtedly that has great merit and provides a sounder basis for the sorts of opportunities in which we wish to participate in years to come. The Opposition has moved a second reading motion amendment which supports the amending Bill, whose main task is to give the Government more ability to combat fraud and to recover overpayments made under the scheme. The provisions in the Bill are comparable to those in the Social Security Act 1947. It requires individuals and organisations to provide information needed to verify entitlements and requires debtors to disclose their financial situation. It makes it an offence to give false information in relation to an application for assistance and so on. These are matters which the community would require any government to make provision for to ensure that the expenditures not of tens of millions but of hundreds of millions of dollars in well-merited support of students is not abused. In particular, there is a general reaction in the community against those who would fraudulently manipulate any system of government assistance because not only is it in an individual case an act which has criminal elements, but it creates an atmosphere in the community where those students who in this case are properly entitled to support will not have that general measure of community support. That is what will happen if the general community thinks these schemes are riddled with those who merely manipulate, use and abuse the process. Therefore, there is an overall general reason for tackling the problem of fraud and combating it with measures which one hopes will act as a deterrent and which do not have to be invoked in many instances. It is improved detection and the structure of penalties provided which we believe will provide a deterrent value such that the provisions of this Bill will not need to be invoked in many cases. But it is essential that provision be made to combat fraud and to deal with people who fail to repay overpayments. The Opposition's second reading amendment is to the effect that: 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. Although this amendment may have been well-conceived, or at least plausibly conceived, last year, it bears no relation to the operation of Austudy in 1988. It is true that in early 1987 delays arose because it was necessary to introduce a new processing scheme and the old computer system simply could not cope with it. We know that that was the case and there was much debate in this chamber about it, particularly during Question Time. I am informed that during 1987 the computer system problems which caused the delays were rectified. The result has been that the system has functioned smoothly for 1988. The vast majority of applications were processed within three weeks of receipt. That is better than the four to six weeks which Senator Patterson said was accepted by students as being realistic. Despite an increase in applications, 98 per cent of applications received so far this year have been processed compared with 62 per cent at the same time last year. We believe that the teething problems-and there were of course testing problems-with Austudy administration have been overcome. I do not believe that the Opposition's second reading amendment bears any relation to the facts as they have been experienced by many thousands of students in the course of this year. The rate of successful appeals was referred to earlier in the debate. For the information of honourable senators, the rate of successful appeals to the student assistance review tribunals, is currently running at about 17 per cent. The Price Waterhouse report on fraud in the area of student assistance was also referred to in the debate. The report concluded that there was a need for improved deterrence and detection arising from the potential, rather than proven, level of fraud. Recommendations of the report, which included increased deterrence, more streamlined checking and automatic data processing system changes, are being acted on. In that situation I believe that the general second reading amendment proposed by the Opposition ought to be rejected by the chamber because, as I said, I do not believe it bears any real relationship to the situation that we are currently aware of. I was told that in the earlier debates some particular instances were raised by Senator Patterson and Senator Vanstone. The Department has been asked to take up those matters. I think some letters may have been tabled or some particular instances were raised and the Department will certainly take them up. On Senator Vanstone's general point that the powers would need to be used responsibly, I am advised that the provisions-of course, I would want to give this assurance to the Senate-will operate under strict guidelines and will be available only to designated officers. As I have come in as duty Minister, I am not sure whether Senator Macklin has foreshadowed his amendments on the penalties. Senator Macklin —No, I have not. Senator TATE —Then I will leave those to the committee stage. The Government believes that this Bill is timely and is drafted in a way which meets the concerns of the community and also that it will operate fairly and provide the Austudy financial assistance to students which they require in a way which will have the general support of the community. I believe this is very important if taxpayers' dollars are to be devoted to this very important purpose. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Vanstone's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael McLean, P. A.Baume, Peter Macklin, M. J.Bishop, B. K. Messner, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Panizza, J. H.Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R.Calvert, P. H. Patterson, K. C. L.Chapman, H. G. P. Powell, J. F.Coulter, J. R. Puplick, C. J. G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sanders, N. K.Durack, P. D. Sheil, G.Hamer, D. J. Short, J. R.Hill, R. M. Stone, J. O.Jenkins, J. A. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Aulich, T. G. Devlin, A. R.Beahan, M. E. Evans, GarethBlack, J. R. Foreman, D. J.Bolkus, N. Gietzelt, A. T.Burns, B. R. Giles, P. J.Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Schacht, C. C.Cooney, B. C. Tate, M. C.Crowley, R. A. Walsh, P. A.Devereux, J. R. Zakharov, A. O. Watson, J. O. W. Collins, R. L.Teague, B. C. Jones, G. N.Walters, M. S. Richardson, G. F.Tambling, G. E. J.. Reynolds, M.Reid, M. E. McMullan, R. F.Chaney, F. M. Sibraa, K. W.Lewis, A. W. R. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.15) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 8, clause 6, proposed paragraph 31h (a), line 21, leave out ``12 months'', insert ``1 month''. (2) Page 9, clause 8, proposed paragraph 36 (c), line 15, leave out ``6 months'', insert ``2 weeks''. The two amendments here are similar to those concerning a Bill debated on 25 March which dealt with penalties. At that time my colleague Senator Coulter moved amendments, basically the same as those I have moved here, that is, to bring back into some type of correspondence the penalty which is a monetary penalty and the penalty which is a financial penalty. The section we are referring to is that concerning a person who contravenes these various subsections and states: is guilty of a summary offence punishable on conviction: in the case of a natural person-by a fine not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment for 12 months . . . The point which my colleague put, and which I supported at the time and which had the support of the Opposition when Senator Lewis expressed very similar views, is that the Government had not in fact fulfilled an undertaking that it had made to the Senate some time ago, in fact when Senator Gareth Evans was Attorney-General, to undertake a comprehensive review of penalties in all Acts. Because of that, we had been waiting about four years for a result to come out of this particular inquiry, an interdepartmental committee or some other hole which it had gone down, and we were unwilling to wait any longer. The Opposition took exactly the same view. Indeed when Senator Lewis spoke he warned the Government that he would take a similar view with future Bills. I think one of the advantages of moving these amendments and putting the Government on notice that we intend moving these amendments consistently to these Bills, is that we do require from the Government some type of response as to when its inquiry with regard to penalties is actually going to bear some fruit. I will put these two items together, the $2,000 fine and the 12 months imprisonment. We are talking about a student, or with regard to a corporation, a fine not exceeding $10,000. I believe if we use the average weekly wage as a benchmark, and take that as being the amount of a penalty for 12 months, rather than a fine of $2,000 and 12 months, we would come up with $2,000 and one month. They are the comparable penalties in terms of the type of income. The Senate made these amendments to a previous Bill, and I think it did so on very good grounds, because of the Government's failure to address this issue in any serious and comprehensive way. Likewise, we believe that the period of six months should correspond with two weeks. It would be ironical indeed if the Senate, having reduced the penalties for non-compliance by companies operating in a particular area-that is, in the textile and footwear area-to get some comparability between fines and imprisonment, should not do so again in this area with regard to students. The reason I say it would be odd is that one could imagine that a company at least would have the possibility of finding the $2,000, or a business person who is not a company but who is operating a business might have a better ability of finding $2,000 than would a student. We could imagine that students, in committing an offence under this legislation, which is much more likely, given the types of stringent possibilities that we have seen coming out of the report of the Wran Committee on Higher Education Funding, than it was when this Bill originally hit the deck in the Senate a couple of weeks ago, could be very tempted to try to get round the provisions in this legislation. If they do so and cannot come up with the $2,000, they will face a penalty of up to 12 months imprisonment. Senator Patterson has suggested they might be able to study while they are there. I am sure she meant that in jest. While I understand that these are maximum penalties, it seems to us that, when setting penalties in a Bill, we should try to make some fist of comparability. The Government promised to do this. It even foreshadowed that it might be looking at a comprehensive Bill in the regard to penalties at some stage when Senator Evans was the Attorney-General. But absolutely nothing has happened. It is not an excuse to say, as Senator Button said last time, `It is all right; these are the same penalties we used in other Acts'. We know that they are the same penalties as used in other Acts-and they are wrong. We have to get some rationality into this matter, and I am quite sure that the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate), who is an eminent lawyer, is well able to comprehend the disparity between a maximum penalty of $2,000 in our society and a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment. The relationship is absolutely ludicrous. Yet if we in the Senate are in any way serious, I do not think we can allow legislation to continue to go through this place with this shoddy approach to penalties. Penalties are an important part of the enforcement mechanism of any Act. The Australian Democrats support the inclusion of penalty clauses. It is sensible to do so. But we do not think that this means that the Government can merely wave its arm or pluck out of the air any old figure it likes. It has to come up with some basic principles upon which it will set down penalties in the Act-and referring to other outmoded, outdated and wrongly drafted Acts is not the way to do it. I hope that the Government will accept this and as soon as possible will follow through with the promise made to the Senate over four years ago and come up with some comprehensive action with regard to penalties across the board. not only in these types of Acts but in all Acts that go through this Parliament. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(9.23) —The coalition will not support the Australian Democrats' amendments. It should be clear from Senator Macklin's speech that the Democrats deserve at least some explanation of that position. We are concerned about the disparity between fines set in legislation as maximums and the equivalent gaol term. It is true, as Senator Macklin has pointed out, that in many cases the maximum gaol sentence, if converted to loss of income on average weekly earnings terms, represents a far greater loss of income than the maximum fine represents. Conversely, the maximum fine divided by average weekly earnings represents a loss of income for a period of weeks far below the maximum option for weeks in gaol. As Senator Macklin has pointed out, this disparity has occasioned us on a previous matter to support a similar amendment. That matter related to the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority. In that matter we agreed that the gaol term should reflect the fine as represented by a loss of average weekly earnings time. The Democrats will no doubt claim that we ought to support their amendment on this occasion on the ground of consistency. They would say, `Having supported us at that stage, why not tonight?'. Of course, what we have to remember, however, is that this Bill needs to be seen as part of a whole scheme relating to the clamping down on fraud against the Commonwealth in social security areas and Austudy. There is a very strong case for the Parliament maintaining consistency in the different pieces of legislation which seek to improve the integrity of systems that are designed to distribute taxpayers' funds, of which social security and Austudy are just two very prominent examples. I have listened to what Senator Macklin has had to say tonight. He has indicated that it might well be the responsibility of other people to come up with a comprehensive package of reforms in this area. Perhaps the Australian Democrats may care to take it upon themselves to look at all the pieces of legislation, of which this piece is just a part, and to put forward a coherent package of reforms, rather than simply pick off the pieces of legislation as they are considered. There is no dispute about the disparity to which Senator Macklin referred. That disparity quite obviously is there. One would not want to waste time in trying to argue that it was not. Perhaps it is inappropriate for us to address that disparity on an `as it comes before us' basis and a more considered approach is required. Certainly, as this legislation is part of a package dealing with fraud against the Commonwealth in the delivery of taxpayers' funds, there is an argument for maintaining consistency within that package. In presenting such a package of reform the Democrats may well care to address the need for the two options presented in regard to options for sentencing-that is, gaol and/or fine-to be the same if converted to an average weekly earnings base formula. There are, of course, some who would say that when there is an option for sentencing in terms of gaol or a fine, the two are not meant to be equated, that when one has the option of one, the other or both, they are never meant to be looked at as being the same but are there simply to provide the judge with a range of options that will enable him or her to come up with a sentencing package that fits the alleged offence. So it may be that there are examples outside the sphere of those to which the Democrats have turned their minds thus far where it is appropriate for the judge to have a range of sentencing options covering fines and prison penalties, where each is not meant to reflect the other in average weekly earnings terms but is meant simply to provide the judge with an option of a mix. We have settled our minds on this matter, and I would be interested at some later stage to hear what the Democrats have to say about the argument that it is perhaps too simplistic to put the two options together and say that the fine ought always to be the same as the gaol term when one reduces them to an average weekly earnings basis. When the Democrats put forward such a comprehensive package, they might also address the flexibility of judges to select the sentence that is appropriate for the offence committed. It is not the case, as one might think from the arguments we have heard tonight and on other occasions, that a judge will regard the maximum gaol term as being equivalent to the maximum fine. That seems to imply that judges have no capacity to distinguish between the two and why the two are offered. The Democrats might also address the question-no argument has been presented tonight in this regard-as to how one achieves the balance, if one believes that the gaol sentence and the fine ought to equate in average weekly earnings terms. One can put one up or bring the other down in order to achieve a balance and the answer may not be the same in all cases. The coalition acknowledges the point that the Democrats raise that there is an extraordinary inconsistency on an average weekly earnings basis between goal terms and maximum fines. While we understand that on the basis of consistency they would want us to support them this time as we have before, in order to keep a consistent approach through the range of Bills that deal with matters of this sort we will not be supporting them tonight. However, we look forward to them, if they so choose, or perhaps the Government, addressing this matter in a comprehensive fashion rather than just taking this aspect of each piece of legislation as it comes forward. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.31) —I thank the Opposition for indicating its support for the range of penalties provided in this legislation. In response to Senator Macklin's amendments, I simply say that there is a lot of merit in what Senator Vanstone put to us about the usual pattern of penalty provisions in our system whereby we give to a judge as much flexibility as possible to deal with the tremendous variety of factual situations with which he can be confronted and the mitigating circumstances which might be taken properly into consideration. I agree with Senator Vanstone's statement that it is not simple to try to find some real correlation between a maximum penalty by way of a fine provided for in a particular provision and a maximum penalty provided by way of a term of imprisonment. These penalties are not set in legislation in order to be strictly comparable but to provide a range within which a judge can make a selection. It may well be that for a particular individual, and indeed for deterrent value quite apart from the circumstances of a particular case, a one-week term of imprisonment might in a particular instance have a much greater impact on the individual and on society than a maximum $5,000 fine. In such a case there is no relationship between the monetary penalty that might be imposed and a term of imprisonment. Lots of factors must be taken into consideration by a sentencing judge or magistrate and this legislation provides that possibility by setting maximums. I think it is important to note that these provisions are consistent with government policy that has been accepted hitherto by the Parliament. As I understand it, the penalties that have been chosen are the same as the maximum penalties for similar offences under the Social Security Act. I believe that when one is dealing generally with income maintenance legislation, whether it be in the area of Austudy or social security benefits, some consistency and a common approach would seem to be sensible. I also note-and by coincidence this has been made available to me-that clause 11 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, which is now an Act, contained the following provision which was accepted: Where a natural person is convicted of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth punishable by imprisonment only, the court may, if the contrary intention does not appear and the court thinks a pecuniary penalty appropriate in all the circumstances of the case, impose, instead of a penalty or imprisonment, a pecuniary penalty not exceeding: Various categories are then given, one of which is: where the offence is punishable by imprisonment for a period exceeding six months but not exceeding 12 months-$2,000; So there seems to be an acceptance by the Parliament, including this chamber last year, that that sort of proportion in maximum penalties was about right. But in making that statement, one would also be willing to admit that this is not an area in which it is very easy to find the correct comparabilities. Senator Macklin, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, has plucked average weekly earnings out of the air for consideration. That sort of proposition may not be appropriate. I am advised by Senator Maguire, for example, that in South Australia the idea of average weekly earnings on an Australia-wide basis has not really much applicability of the real average earnings of the great mass of the working community-wage earners and lower salary earners-in the South Australian community. To take average weekly earnings, which are truly an average of all wages and salaries throughout the community, including those of the very high salary earners, is perhaps to come up with a figure which does not bear a lot of real relation to the average income, let alone disposable income, that is available for most persons in our community. On that point, it would probably be a more real penalty to devise some system of multiples of after tax earnings, real disposable income. But, of course, it would raise very large administrative and other difficulties in ascertaining that. Nevertheless, the point about trying to find some proper sentencing principle in this area is an important one. Honourable senators will be aware that a review of Commonwealth criminal law, under the chairmanship of a former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Harry Gibbs, is being conducted. As I understand it, it is hoped that the reports on this matter, including the appropriateness of various penalties, will be available during this year. That will provide a well-considered basis for a more general review by this chamber of the structure of penalties under Commonwealth legislation. But we believe that what is being put down in this legislation is consistent with the Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 1987 and with social security legislation already in place. For that reason, I commend to the Senate those provisions in the Bill as it stands. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.37) —With regard to the propositions that the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) has just put forward, it does not make a great deal of sense to suggest that because we accepted something which was incorrect in the past we should thereafter compare ourselves with something that is incorrect. We are still waiting for the Government to do something with regard to crime. The reason that the Senate finally ended up doing something itself last time was the absence of any movement on the part of the Government to get its own house in order. The points made by Senator Vanstone with regard to maximum penalties do have some validity in terms of the differences between the amounts and the times. The maximum penalty is $2,000 or 12 months for an individual and $10,000 for a corporation. If we compare those figures, we presumably can come up with exactly the same offence for which an individual can receive a maximum penalty of 12 months in gaol or a fine of $10,000. So there is a comparability there because, fairly obviously, we will not gaol a corporation; we can only impose a fine of $10,000 on a corporation. That is the maximum. I see no comparability between those two penalties for an identical offence. Given the propositions that the Government is currently considering, I believe that we have the possibility of non-compliance. That is why I raise the point of how students are going to find out that they are risking 12 months in gaol for something that they previously did not realise carried that type of penalty. It is a serious amount and a serious length of time. I believe that some comparability at least between the individual and the corporation is needed. The comparabilities of the maximum fines applicable to individuals and the maximum fines applicable to corporations and how to deal with them first arose about four years ago. Senator Vanstone suggested that we come up with some type of overall scheme-- Senator Vanstone —Or the Government. Senator MACKLIN —Or the Government. I would be quite happy to come up with one. The difficulty is that we do not actually present the legislation to this place. This House only deals with the legislation as it comes through. Therefore, the only power we have is in terms of any amendments. When we brought this matter to the Government's notice-as we did a while ago-the Government responded that certainly this was a serious problem that needed consideration and that it was, in fact, undertaking that consideration. We took honourable members opposite at their word. It may be that the Minister has now given a reply in terms of the report that the Government expects on a range of matters which may also include some matters to do with sentencing. I hope that it does. I do not think that the Senate should be treated this way-by the Government bringing in legislation and saying that the penalties here are the same as those in some other area which, in turn, are the same as the penalties in some other area. We have already seen that occur on a number of occasions when we have tracked the item back to some of the earliest legislation that has gone through this place. I have in mind a particular piece of legislation that we had not so long ago which we tracked back to 1907, when the original proposition was made. It is not good enough. There are obvious difficulties in coming up with a comprehensive scheme. The reason we came up with the original notion last time of the relationship between time and average weekly wages was that these were statistically obtainable figures. They were meant to be the mean; the average. Indeed, in mathematical terms they are, unless somebody in the statistical department is telling a lie. They are ascertainable and hence it is conceivable that the Parliament could in fact pass an Act with regard to penalties in all Acts whereby they were updated by the amount of average weekly earnings compared with the timeframe. One can conceivably think of a penalties Act which incorporated those types of possibilities that were ascertainable and easily updated. That would remove this problem from all pieces of legislation that go through this place. I think we have to look at these types of solutions. The penalty clauses are an important part of any legislation. We rarely deal with them in any legislation and they are rarely discussed. Yet, they are included in almost every Act that we have passed. I do not think that is good enough. We have to turn our attention to those penalty clauses. I hope that the Government will do so. Until it does, we propose to raise these points on a regular basis as legislation comes here. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(9.44) —The Students Assistance Amendment Bill addresses the question of fraud amongst students who are receiving assistance. I would like to ask the Minister a question. It seems to me that we have been addressing this issue from one angle-that is, from that of student fraud-but given my training in human behaviour, I do not believe that students are basically out to cheat the system. The evidence that we have seen in some of the information that has been presented in the House of Representatives about the extent of the fraud involved in student assistance schemes leads me to my question why such fraud exists. I would like to ask the Minister whether it is possible that the level of allowable income, which has not been indexed and has remained constant since 1981 at $2,000, may be one of the factors which has contributed to the levels of fraud which we are seeing at the moment; and whether this unrealistic level has been a factor in forcing students into a poverty trap so that when they withdraw from courses and do not inform the Department of Employment, Education and Training, it is in order to pay back bills and meet other commitments that they made as students. They are then caught up in the dilemma of whether they should advise the Department or continue receiving Austudy. It would seem unrealistic to expect students to survive on a level of income which has not been indexed since 1981. I ask the Minister whether this may have encouraged students to engage in another form of fraud, which has not been addressed in this legislation, and that is participating in the black economy to hide money that they are earning to maintain their declarable income at $2,000. So, in fact, a double fraud is occurring as a result of this level of allowable income which I believe to be totally unrealistic and which, as I said in my speech at the second reading stage, means that a student could come nowhere within the range suggested by the Education Department for overseas students. I wonder whether the level of allowable income will be reviewed. I think that it might be one of the ways of reducing fraud. I do not think that it is necessary just to punish people; we should also look at ways of assisting them so that they will not be placed in a situation of committing fraud. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.46) —I believe that what Senator Patterson has said about some of the exigencies and causes which might motivate a person to commit a fraud sound plausible in some instances, but that does not in any way counter the necessity for this Parliament-and for this Government to bring measures into the Parliament-to ensure that the moneys which are, after all, moneys derived from exactions imposed on ordinary Australians in the community should be spent according to the strict tenor of the provision made for the expenditure of those moneys. Whilst all sorts of circumstances can lead to a person engaging in criminal activity, I do not believe that we can move away from the necessity to put in place legislation which punishes those who, for whatever reasons-and it is not always quite as noble or as much the product of exigency as indicated by Senator Patterson-have attempted to receive from the general community, via the Government, moneys to which they are not entitled. It is simply on that basis that the Committee is being asked to approve certain provisions this evening. As to the general review of the various thresholds, criteria, triggers and so on that have to do with enabling a person to qualify for a benefit, or which might disable him, those are matters of general continuous review in any Budget context. As to the general matters brought up by Senator Macklin yet again, I believe that what he said about the need to keep penalty provisions within a statute under continuous review is important. It is part of the function of the Senate chamber. However, as to his point about $10,000 seeming to be somewhat arbitrary when it is imposed on a corporation as a possible maximum penalty as opposed to $2,000 on a natural person, it is interesting to note, once again, that this chamber, in 1987 in the Crimes Legislation Amendment Act as it now is, provided that where a body corporate is convicted of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, the court may, if the contrary intention does not appear and the court thinks fit, impose a pecuniary penalty not exceeding an amount equal to five times the amount of the maximum pecuniary penalty that could be imposed by the court on a natural person convicted of the same offence. Quite obviously, that principle has been carried into the penalty provisions in the legislation before us, recognising the greater capacity, possibly, of a corporate body to pay a higher penalty than would be proper to impose on a natural person. (Quorum formed) Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(9.52) —I would like to ask another question of the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) regarding overpayments. I drew the attention of the Senate to some anomalies outlined by student welfare officers and to which the Minister has referred. I would like to know whether in fact some of those anomalies would be included in this clause regarding overpayments. I gave the example of a student, the child of a divorced couple, living with the mother and declaring the mother's income while being supported by the father who is on a more than adequate income. It seems to me that some of our legislation would encourage people to separate because sometimes they could be better off. In fact, such legislation could be considered anti-family. Some students would be better off if their parents were separated and they declared their mother's income which was meagre while in fact being supported by their father. Would these people also be classified as receiving overpayments under Austudy? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.53) —This is one of those cases for which it is very hard to get advice on the run because it relates to such a particular instance. I indicated to Senator Vanstone and to Senator Patterson that in relation to the particular instances they had raised in the debate on the second reading or were likely to raise here I would get written advice to them from the Department. I can try to get some information from the advisers in the chamber but that information would be sort of on the run and perhaps not as adequate as the question deserves. As I say, I would be willing to give an undertaking that a fuller answer will be given, if Senator Patterson is willing to accept that undertaking. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(9.54) —I accept that attempted explanation by the Minister. However, it concerns me that as I have gone through the legislation and also have been in contact with people involved in this area it has appeared that the anomalies are extensive and that students may unwittingly get themselves into a situation of being in breach of the legislation and, in fact, may be engaged unwittingly in fraud. The anomalies are extensive and can be listed one after the other. The coalition is agreeing with the Bill but I want to ensure that students will not be penalised because the regulations are so complicated that they will not quite know whether they are in breach of the legislation or not. I believe that the debate we had on the second reading and also the debate we are having in the committee stage indicate the complexity of the legislation associated with student assistance. Again, as I mentioned before, a student can be led into a situation of fraudulent activity as far as the Taxation Office is concerned because of the sorts of regulations that exist at the moment. I believe that this needs to be teased out very carefully. I would like some answers from the Minister so that we can be assured that students will not unconsciously find themselves committing a fraudulent act. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.55) —In order to get something in the record for those who might care to read the Hansard, I think Senator Patterson's particular example had to do with parents who were separated, one of whom was wealthy and one of whom was not, and the question of which parent might qualify for the purpose. I note that on page 27 of an Austudy booklet entitled Financial Support for Study 1988, put out by the Department of Employment, Education and Training, there is a section concerning the parental income test which I shall read into Hansard for the purpose of covering this matter somewhat, although I will still try to get the honourable senator's specific question answered. The booklet poses the question `Who are ``parents''?', and states: `Parents', for this purpose, include natural or adoptive parents, foster parents, step-parents or any other parent who may have assumed responsibility for you. If you had only one parent at 1 January 1988, that parent's income is taken into account. If your parents are separated at 1 January 1988, the income test is based on the income of the parent with whom you normally live. If, however, your parents reunite within six months of separating, your entitlement from the date they reunite will need to take into account the other parent's income also. (You must notify the Department immediately, if this happens). If your parents separate after 1 January 1988, you may be eligible for a concession applying to families which have experienced a recent significant drop in income. There is then a reference to another section. There is an attempt in the booklet, which is available to students, to indicate in fairly clear language what the situation is where there is a separation of the parents, and I believe that provides some basis for answering the sort of case Senator Patterson put. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(9.57) —I ask the Minister what measures the Government will take to ensure that students who have withdrawn from courses do not continue to receive the Austudy allowance, and what measures will be taken to ensure that postgraduate students in full time employment will not receive the postgraduate allowance. Since this is the aim of the legislation, it seems to me we need to ensure that measures are in place to catch the perpetrators of these extensive fraudulent acts, irrespective of what the motivation is-and we debated that a moment ago-for such fraud. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.58) —I am advised that there is a system of checking on enrolments in institutions which would enable one to know whether a student had fallen out of a course at some particular stage of the duration of that course. Senator Patterson does not seem to think that that is the case, but I would imagine there is some institutional knowledge of whether students are in fact undertaking courses. Senator Macklin —Is it Government knowledge? Senator TATE —I am told by the adviser that the Department of Employment, Education and Training has an ability to check with the institution the stage at which students who were initially enrolled have varied their enrolment, whether that variation be by taking a different combination of subjects or a lesser combination, or leaving the institution altogether. There does seem to be some capacity within the Department to check on that possibility. As to the concurrent holding of a postgraduate award and full time employment, I am not sure of the exact method of detecting that particular abuse and fraud. I will not say that it would have been easier with the Australia Card because that might generate another debate, and I have been here for two hours. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Tate) read a third time. Debate resumed from 27 April, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(10.03) —We are debating the Social Security Amendment Bill 1988 which will amend the Social Security Act 1947. A wide range of matters are covered by this Bill. I note from the second reading speech of the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, that the Government believes that `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'. The Government alleges that the program has dual objectives-and admirable ones they are-firstly, to ensure that every Australian resident obtains adequate income support as and when it is needed; and secondly, to protect the revenue, in other words, taxpayers' funds, by ensuring that payments are not directed to those who do not require them. In dealing with the Government's approach, the Minister for Justice said in the second reading speech: 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. It is odd that the Government makes that statement early in the text of the second reading speech on a Bill which deals, at least in some part, with anomalies not picked up at the time of the initial legislative change. I suppose that we are left in a position of saying `Better late than never', but certainly the number of anomalies picked up in this Bill is no indication that the comment made by Professor Gruen in trying to give some priority to the attention to detail paid by this Government is in any way realistic. I turn to some of the detail in the Bill. The Government seeks to make a change with respect to the manner in which certain compensation payments will be treated. This is an important change and requires that in future where compensation settlements are made those people who up to the date of settlement have been claiming either sickness or unemployment benefits will have to pay back the sum total of those benefits. For the purposes of the Act 50 per cent of lump sum settlements will be taken as being the result of economic loss. There is some concern over this move, and the Opposition intends to monitor closely the implementation of this aspect to ensure that it does not turn into a way which allows certain people to be unfairly treated as a result of this amendment. The Bill also deals with West German restitution payments and seeks to clarify those payments. It is interesting to look at a Press release issued by the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, on 30 November 1987 entitled `Restitution payments for Nazi victims'. The first paragraph of that statement reads: The Minister for Social Security, Brian Howe, said today that the Social Security Act would be amended to clarify the way social security income tests are applied to restitution paid by the German Government to people who were persecuted by the Hitler regime. It goes on to point out that this statement is made as a consequence of a meeting held with the Executive Vice-President of the Federation of Australian Jewish Welfare Societies, Mr Walter Lippmann. The release continues: In 1985 Mr Howe announced that German restitution payments for loss of income are taken into account under pension income tests, and that all other restitution payments would be disregarded. Mr Howe went on to give further details. But the point I raise is that his Press release of 30 November 1987 indicated that the Government intended to clear up the ambiguity that existed with respect to restitution paid by the German Government to people who were persecuted by the Hitler regime. The coalition says that this Bill, which is an attempt to put into effect the Minister's announcement of 30 November 1987, is unsatisfactory. This is a matter of concern to us, and most certainly to the Jewish community in Australia. I am sure that my colleague Senator Peter Baume, who will speak immediately after me, will be able to amplify these matters further. It is important to note that the Government indicated that it was going to clear up an ambiguity and that its moves were to be made after consultation. The coalition still believes that consultation has been inadequate to come to that conclusion because certainly the legislation is inadequate to deal with the matter outlined by the Minister. To put the matter in perspective for those people who until now have not taken an interest in these matters I shall give some of the background. The restitution payments we are referring to are provided by the West German Government to, as I understand it, approximately 1,000 people living in Australia who suffered under the nazi regime. They receive the payments as a consequence of their being in concentration camps or elsewhere, but one way or the other they suffered as a consequence of the monstrous administration in Germany at the time. Following the war they migrated to Australia. Perhaps it puts the matter in some perspective to indicate that the size of the payment depends on an individual's war history and suffering but that the general range is between $100 and $300 a month. Within the general outline of those payments there are two particular matters that we wish to raise. Firstly, those who are receiving compensation payments are, as I understand it, assessed on a percentage basis for loss of health, and a component of that may be described nominally as a loss of earning capacity. I further understand that the Government's amendment could be interpreted in such a way as to have the entire restitution payment described as income. Of course, that would have substantial consequences for the recipient of that payment in terms of social security benefits provided by this Government. The second point I wish to raise, in terms of the inadequacy of consultation, deals with people affected by the rules that I understand as the Reichversicherung rules. These people were working in Germany between 1933 and 1939 and during that time they would have paid superannuation contributions from their salaries. As a result of the nazi restitution laws of 1949 some of those people are eligible for entitlements because of the income losses they clearly suffered. Despite the Government's proposed amendment, these payments could still be interpreted as income. This is the point that the coalition seeks to address; namely, that income is not defined and should be. I foreshadow at this time that during the committee stage of this Bill we will move: Page 2, paragraph 3 (a), lines 21 and 22, leave out ``(other than an amount expressed to be paid for lost income)'', insert ``(other than an amount expressly to be paid for lost wages or salary)''. The coalition believes that this amendment will in some way clarify the ambiguity that we see as still being there and the ambiguity that the Minister's statement in November 1987 indicated would be resolved. The Bill covers a number of other matters with respect to the family allowance supplement and some other matters but I turn at this stage to the second reading amendment circulated in the name of the coalition. I move: At end of motion, add `, but the Senate deplores the fact that: (a) the Hawke Government's economic and social policies continue to cause a fall in living standards for Australian families, and (b) the Prime Minister has refused to meet his 1987 election pledge that by 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty.' In March 1983 the average family had a further $42 a week as disposable income. One does not need to spell that out in terms of loaves of bread, pounds of butter, or whatever. I am sure that we all understand what a further $42 a week in disposable income means to an average family. Senator Bolkus —Four bottles of red for you. Senator VANSTONE —The Minister indicates that it will be four bottles of red. He obviously drinks more expensive bottles of wine than I do. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) says, following the election disasters that this Government has faced-namely, in Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Victoria, Western Australia, New South Wales and Queensland-that there is nothing wrong with the Government's policies, that all the Government has is a marketing problem. I recall raising in this chamber with Senator Reynolds the matter of whether the Government had lost touch in terms of its economic and social policies because they were continuing to cause a fall in the living standards of Australians. Senator Reynolds denied that the Government was out of touch with needy Australians. I recall further reminding her that the Caucus has now insisted-I think the Press release says `called for', but nonetheless it has insisted-on social justice impact statements from each Minister accompanying any proposal. I recall Minister Reynolds still denying that that was any indication that the Government was out of touch and refusing to acknowledge that it was an indication from Caucus that that is what Caucus believed. Minister Reynolds advised the Senate that the Office of the Status of Women was advising the Cabinet on these matters as they related to women. She denied that the Caucus call for social justice impact statements was any reflection on the adequacy of advice being offered by the Office of the Status of Women, saying that it was simply an extension of that sort of advice to the whole population rather than to women in particular. It seems to me that if legislation is to be fair to low income and disadvantaged women then, presumably, at the same time it is going to be fair to low income and disadvantaged men. It is only in very limited circumstances that if the interests of women were catered for the interests of men would not be catered for. Minister Reynolds obviously has the idea that status of women matters can always be separated and dealt with in isolation. However, the new Federal President of the Labor Party, Premier Bannon from my State, has said that this Government is quite clearly out of touch. That is the point of the second reading amendment which has been moved by the coalition. Whilst it does not say that the Government is out of touch, surely the words indicate that, irrespective of the public relations machine the Government has put forward, the economic and social policies of this Government are continuing to cause a fall in living standards for Australian families and that the Prime Minister has thus far failed and, although he has not had very long, he will fail, to meet his pledge that by 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty. A further example is the housing problem today. This is the Government that, due to some ideological binge, chose to remove negative gearing and denied that it was having any substantial effect on renters, particularly renters in New South Wales. The Government continued to deny that its actions were having any such effect right up until the pending New South Wales election when something had to be done, at which time it was forced to renege, do a gigantic about-face and go back to where we said it should have been all along. It not only made moves like that. One could look at perhaps more concrete indicators of how the Government's policies are causing a fall in living standards. One could look to the ever-increasing number of people waiting for public housing in this country or, if one wanted to turn away from statistics and look to more realistic matters, one could look at the growing numbers of families living in caravans, whose kids would have no idea what it is like to go home and sit by the fire, because one does not generally have a fire in a caravan. Let me deal not in great detail with but at least make some reference to part (b) of the coalition's second reading amendment dealing with the pledge of the Prime Minister that Australian children will not be living in poverty in 1990. It seems clear that the Prime Minister's much publicised claim that no Australian children will be living in poverty by 1990 is not much more than that. He seems to have, and I assume that his views are a reflection of the Government's views, a blind belief that poverty is simply a function of the almighty dollar. He does not seem to understand that poverty is far more than that. It is a function of the lack of options or understanding of the options that are available to one. The eradication of poverty is not to be achieved by throwing taxpayers' money at people who are living below an income line that is deemed to indicate they are in poverty. The eradication of poverty will be achieved through a range of social policies that produce a more equitable society, one in which people understand what their options are and are in a position to take advantage of those options on behalf of themselves and their families. The sorts of options I am talking about, to name just two, are education and employment. If a family does not understand what options are available to themselves and more particularly to their children in terms of education, that family will continue to live on a very low income or in poverty stricken circumstances. If the family does not understand what employment and training options there are, or if there are inadequate training options, it will continue to live in poverty. For the Prime Minister to indicate that he can fix this in such a short space of time indicates a clear lack of understanding on his part as to the nature of poverty in Australia. Poverty, as I have said, is far more than simply a lack of income and cannot be removed by increasing social welfare benefits for those who are perceived to be in poverty stricken circumstances. Members of this Government crow incessantly about the family allowance supplement. I want to say a number of things about that. Firstly, it was extraordinarily late in coming. This Government got into office in 1983. It is now 1988 and this is the first move made by this Government to address the problem of families in all that time. The Government is silent on its record until this time. (Quorum formed) Prior to the quorum being called I was referring to the crowing that this Government does on its own behalf in relation to the FAS scheme. I indicated that this measure was really the first substantial thing that this Government had done with respect to families. I would not wish to exclude from that the much approved changes made to maintenance collection, which came about with the support of the coalition. Of course, I cannot mention those initiatives without mentioning that Senator Durack on our behalf put forward a number of amendments, which the Government has now accepted but which when Senator Durack put them forward originally it consistently refused to accept. Senator Coates —He dealt with only one aspect of it. Senator VANSTONE —The point has been made that Senator Durack's Bills dealt with only a limited aspect of the wider range of matters which, I accept, are dealt with by the child maintenance collection legislation. That is quite true. But that interjection is evidence of what seems to be a pretty heartless situation, that if one is intending at a particular time to deal with only the problems faced by a limited group, that limited group can, as far as this Government is concerned, just wait. Basically it can just go jump over the fence until this Government is prepared to put a package of legislation forward and incorporate those amendments in that package and seek the electoral glory, such as it is, for itself. I think the interjection put forward by one of my colleagues opposite indicates just the view that the coalition is seeking to point out. It is typical of the attitude of this Government that everything can wait; people in need can wait. The number of people who missed out on the benefit of Senator Durack's amendment while the Government was considering getting its act together I would not like to calculate and present the Government with. But that is typical of its attitude. These people can just wait until the Government has got it all together and then they can accept its particular amendments. It is a shameful situation that the Government chose to take that path, but nonetheless it did. The other point I would like to speak on in relation to this particular scheme is that it covers only a limited proportion of families. The Government would do well not to crow about how wonderful this scheme is and say what a wonderful job it does for families when there is such a limited proportion of families that it in fact helps. In support of the second reading amendment that we have moved about the falling living standards of Australian families, let me refer honourable senators opposite to an interview given by Senator Crowley in Adelaide several weeks ago. She acknowledged, in fact, the inadequacy of the systems put forward by the Government. I noticed some quiet overtaking honourable senators opposite, probably because they have not heard the interview, but they would do well to listen to it. Senator Bolkus —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. If it were not for the solicitation by Senator Vanstone I would not be rising to this matter. Those of us on the Government side-Senator Crowley is not here at the moment-cannot explain this matter, but I have seen the actual reference to which Senator Vanstone referred. Once again, in the context of a rambling speech she seems to have missed the point totally about what Senator Crowley was saying, and she should withdraw. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Bolkus, what is the point of order? Senator Bolkus —I am just saying, Mr Deputy President, that it is half past ten. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Pursuant to sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(10.30) —This afternoon a matter of public importance was submitted to the Senate for discussion. It dealt with the Government's failure to address the question of trade union abuse of power. In my address to the Senate this evening I will not only endorse the terms of that matter of public importance but also add that the reason that the Government has failed to stop the abuse of union power is that it has refused to stand up to union officials. It is the so-called union officials who have been responsible for the abuse of power and authority and, indeed, abuse of the laws of the land. The people of the heavily industrialised area of the Latrobe Valley, the area in which I was born and raised and in which I have an electorate office, have far too often been subject to this abuse and intimidation of their basic rights as rank and file members. The abuse and intimidation inevitably have come from a small but influential section of union officialdom in the Latrobe Valley. Nobody who lives in the Latrobe Valley will forget or forgive the 1977 power dispute. Mr John Halfpenny led his union in a most bitter, worthless and unnecessary dispute that adversely affected not only the families of Latrobe Valley but most Victorians. The union leadership in this dispute was bereft of reason, compassion, wisdom or common sense. It is no wonder that my office gets a great many representations from rank and file unionists about union abuse. It is no wonder that I receive a great many representations because this area of Latrobe Valley is represented at both State and Federal levels by Labor parliamentarians. Now that another viewpoint is represented in the Latrobe Valley, there will be stronger representation of the rank and file. The Australian Labor Party (ALP) has failed to deliver the voice of the Latrobe Valley rank and file. To this end the recent gun laws debate and subsequent State legislation became a strong test case for the rank and file in the Latrobe Valley. In this case the rank and file's anti-gun laws legislation stance was being ignored by union officials at branch meetings. The dissatisfied unions were able to organise both a rank and file committee and a petition not only stating their opposition to the gun laws but also requesting that the union officials make their views known or they would withdraw their union dues. I say quite openly that my office and my services were given to this rank and file committee. The result was a backdown by the union officials, a spate of visits by State Ministers to the area to meet the rank and file committee and, of course, the inevitable awakening of State and Federal Labor parliamentarians to the rank and file cause. Clearly, what was happening was that the union officials were not doing their job of representing the rank and file. They were far more concerned with protecting the troubled State Government's gun laws. Clearly, their loyalties were with the ALP and not with the workers. The result proved that the rank and file, when organised, are the most effective and responsible force for controlling irresponsible union officials. Another case of union officials misusing the power of their office has been brought to my attention. The Senate would recall the Queensland power dispute in 1985 and the effect that that dispute had not only on the people of Queensland but also on industrial relations in this country. During the long drawn-out Queensland power dispute the Victorian Electrical Trades Union in the Latrobe Valley imposed a $5 a week levy on Latrobe Valley workers. The levy was meant to have been sent to support the striking workers in Queensland. One wonders whether all or any of the money ever reached the families of the striking Queensland workers, particularly if one takes into account the 1977 distress fund collection of $160,000 by the Latrobe Valley unions which was never distributed. Further to this, one Mr John McNamara led many in bucking the union officials' move to impose this levy by not paying the prescribed levy and eventually having that levy removed. Since that time the ETU has led a vendetta against Mr McNamara by black-banning him from his work site. This vendetta has now been taken to the most bitter level. Of late the ETU has been threatening Mr McNamara with legal action to collect unpaid unions dues from the time the ETU black-banned him in May 1985. The ETU's actions in this whole affair have been to deny Mr McNamara basic work rights. For a union to force one of its members from his job and then insist that he pay dues shows that the ETU officials have contempt for the rights of the ordinary worker, for the rank and file. The ETU's action to force payment of union dues again raises the very serious question of compulsory unionism versus freedom of association in this country. Mr McNamara is not going to be left to be hung, drawn and quartered. He has my full support and will be given the support of my office. Mr McNamara has sought legal defence against the ETU demands. Clearly this vendetta by the ETU officials must be fought. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.37) —I want to refer to a matter that is of importance in the Australian Capital Territory. I refer to an article which appeared in the Valley View of 4 May in an article called `Kelly's Corner' by the honourable member for Canberra. The article, which is headed `Bad luck, Canberra!', states: The Opposition's confusion over media ownership does not matter much. But the effect on Canberra, and of other regional areas, of their eventual decision to block the Government's extension of audience reach from 60 per cent to 75 per cent does matter. Senator Evans, the Minister for Transport and Communications, has indicated that aggregation of Canberra, Wollongong and Orange into one area could have moved forward to early 1988 under the 75 per cent rule. That would have meant two more commercial stations for us to watch. That would have given us a much greater choice of sport, of movies, and of current affairs. Thanks to the Opposition, that is now off, for at least a year. It will be late 1989 at the earliest that aggregation can happen. I find it very interesting that the article suggests that it will be late 1989 at the earliest before aggregation can happen. As I understood the legislation, this was to occur by the end of 1989. In fact, many of these stations are prepared and anxious to proceed with aggregation before that time. As far as WIN4 and Orange, the two stations which will be coming into Canberra, are concerned, I understand that they wish to proceed at the beginning of 1989. I do not think there is any doubt that they wish to commence at the beginning of 1989. The Government is clearly trying to foster confusion in the community. Perhaps it is doing so to harm us. Perhaps it is a smokescreen for what it is intending to do in this area. I think it is time that the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) gave us a few answers. When does he intend to present the Government's timetable for commencing television aggregation? Will he be requiring all television licensees in the respective approved markets to aggregate simultaneously, which because of different capital requirements, incidentally, is not supported by most regional television operators? If this is the case, is it true that this will have the effect of delaying the introduction of additional commercial television services to some regional viewers? Given that some regional television operators have expressed a desire to aggregate a lot sooner than the Government's proposed timetable-that is, early 1989, not late 1989, based on the 60 per cent audience reach-does it indicate that the quite outrageous claim of the Minister of Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) in this article that such a limit will delay the commencement of the aggregation process is totally false and should be seen for what it really is, that is, some sort of political smokescreen? I believe that we are entitled to know. It is perfectly clear to anybody that under the present legislation, with the intention of those stations which have said that they wish to aggregate, the two stations which intend coming to Canberra can do so early in 1989. If there is to be any delay it can only come, not from anything that the Opposition has said or done, but from a decision of the Government which is yet to be announced. I say to the Minister for Transport and Communications that it is time he gave an honest answer to the Senate and to the people of the Australian Capital Territory as to his or the Government's intentions. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.41 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 17 May The following papers were tabled: Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 71. Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 57, 75 and 76. Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 72. Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 66. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 64, 65. Defence Act- Determinations 1988- No. 13-Education Allowance. No. 14-Payment of Financial Entitlements Consequent Upon the Death of a Member or a Former Member. No. 15-Overseas Living Allowance and others. No. 16-Textbook Allowance. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 58, 73. Fisheries Act- Fisheries Notices- No. 163a-Southern Shark Fishery-Minimum sizes, gear restrictions and endorsement requirements.. No. 170a-Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery-Quota Requirements. No. 204-North West Shelf Deep-water Trawl Fishery-Prohibition on Trawling without endorsement. Plan of Management- No. 15-Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery (Amendment). No. 16-Northern Prawn Fishery (Amendment) and Northern Prawn Fishery (Special Provisions) (Repeal). No. 17-Southeast Trawl Fishery Preliminary as amended. No. 18-Southern Shark Fishery. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 63. Fisheries Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 61, 67. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under subsection 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Law Officers Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 55. National Health Act- Determination made by the delegate of the Minister under subsection 4 (1), for purposes of paragraph (dd), dated 23 March 1988. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 56. National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 79. Naval Defence Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 74. Plant Variety Rights Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 62. Radiocommunications Act-Standards-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 69, 70. Science and Industry Research Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 77, 78. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 59, 60. World Heritage Properties Conservation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 68. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S MESSAGES-ASSENT TO LAWS: Messages from His Excellency the Governor-General were reported, informing the Senate that His Excellency had, in the name of Her Majesty, assented to the following laws: 28 April 1988-Message No. 46- Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements (Maintenance Income Test) Amendment Act 1988 (Act No. 13 of 1988) 5 May 1988-Message No. 47- Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority Act 1988 (Act No. 14 of 1988) The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 24) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, 15 September 1987: (1) How many US Air Force planes have flown into Australia from Harewood (Christchurch) in New Zealand in each of the years 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. (2) Which RAAF bases or civilian airports have they used in Australia during this period. (3) a. Have any planes of the French Air Force stopped over in Australia since 1963; if so, where and when; b. where were they coming from; and c. where were they going to. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The United States Military Airlift Command operates C141 Starlifter aircraft through Christchurch to Australia on a scheduled weekly basis. There were approximately 50 of these flights in each of the years in question. Additional USAF flights from Christchurch for each year are as follows: 1982-1 1983-2 1984-5 1985-Nil 1986-2 (2) The airfields used during this period were Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) International, Melbourne International, Perth International, Alice Springs and RAAF Bases Darwin, Fairbairn, Pearce, Richmond, Amberley and Laverton. (3) A schedule of French Air Force aircraft movements through Australia from 1963 to March 1987 is attached at Annex A. SCHEDULE OF FRENCH AIR FORCE AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS THROUGH AUSTRALIA SINCE 1963 KC135 Singapore-Darwin-Noumea 25 Jun 65 C135 Singapore-Darwin-Papeete 12-14 Jul 65 DC6 Denpasar-Townsville-Unknown 23 Jul 66 DC6 Jakarta-Darwin-Townsville-Noumea 31 Jan-1 Feb 68 Breuget 763 Noumea-Townsville-Darwin-Tunbali 4-5 Mar 68 Mystere 20 Bali-Darwin-Townsville-Noumea 2-10 May 68 DC6 Jakarta-Darwin-Townsville-Noumea 17-18 Jun 68 Breuget 763 Bali-Darwin-Townsville-Noumea 15-16 Oct 68 Mystere 20 Noumea-Townsville-Darwin-Jakarta 11-12 Oct 68 C160 Singapore-Darwin-Woomera-Darwin-Jakarta 9-11 Oct 68 Breuget Bali-Darwin-Townsville-Noumea 11-12 Dec 68 Breuget Noumea-Townsville-Darwin-Bali 14-15 Jan 69 DC6 Jakarta-Darwin-Townsville-Noumea 10-11 Feb 69 C54 Noumea-Canberra-Sydney-Noumea 24-29 Mar 69 DC6 Jakarta-Darwin-Townsville-Noumea 13-14 Apr 69 DC6 Jakarta-Darwin-Noumea 14-15 Aug 69 C160 Singapore-Darwin-Canberra-Amberley-Lae 19-25 Oct 69 Mystere 20 Bali-Darwin-Townsville-Noumea 21-22 Mar 70 Breuget 763 Singapore-Darwin-Townsville-Nandi 25-29 Mar 70 DC6 Jakarta-Darwin-Townsville-Nandi 24-29 Mar 70 Mystere 20 Noumea-Townsville-Darwin-Bali 9-10 Sep 70 Mystere 20 Bali-Darwin-Townsville-Noumea 22-23 Apr 71 Mystere 20 Noumea-Townsville-Darwin-Bali 29-30 Sep 71 DC6 Singapore-Darwin-Noumea 1-3 Jan 72 Mystere 20 Bali-Darwin-Townsville-Noumea 22-23 Apr 72 C160 Noumea-Darwin-Singapore 15-16 May 72 Mystere 20 Noumea-Townsville-Darwin-Bali 1-2 Sep 72 Mystere 20 Bali-Darwin-Townsville-Noumea 9-10 Apr 73 C160 Bali-Darwin-Sydney-Bathurst-Sydney-Darwin-Bali 9-14 73 C160 Bali-Darwin-Adelaide-Jakarta 24-29 74 Mystere 20 Noumea-Townsville-Darwin-Bali 14 Nov 74 DC6 Noumea-Darwin-Singapore 1-2 Dec 74 C160 Bali-Darwin-Townsville-Noumea-Townsville-Darwin-Bali 4-11 Apr 76 C160 Bali-Townsville-Noumea 11-12 Oct 81 C135F Djibouti-Perth-Noumea 27-29 Apr 82 C135F Diego Garcia-Darwin-Noumea 6-8 Dec 82 C160 Bali-Townsville-Noumea 16-17 Feb 83 C135F Jakarta-Darwin-Noumea 23-24 Jan 83 B747 Sharjah-Darwin-Noumea 16 Jan 85 C160 Noumea-Melbourne-Noumea 15 Mar 85 DHC6 Noumea-Brisbane-Sydney-Lord Howe Is-Norfolk Is-Noumea 26-29 Nov 85 C160 Noumea-Norfolk Is-Noumea 19 Dec 85 B747 Indonesia-Darwin-Noumea-Darwin-Indonesia 22-24 Jan 86 DHC6 Noumea-Brisbane-Sydney-Lord Howe Is-Noumea 15-18 86 C160 Noumea-Darwin-Bali 7 Oct 86 C160 Noumea-Norfolk Is-Noumea 17 Nov 86 C160 Indonesia-Darwin-Townsville-Noumea-Townsville-Darwin 30 Nov 86 C160 Indonesia-Darwin-Townsville-Noumea-Townsville-Darwin-Indonesia 6-8 Feb 87 (Question No. 183) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 February 1988: (1) In respect of the 1986-87 Annual Report of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and Defence Force Ombudsman, does the Department of Defence accept to any degree the criticisms of the Defence Force Ombudsman over the time it took to handle the Ombudsman's inquiries regarding complaints from serving members of the Defence Force and what is the Department's or Government's response to these criticisms. (2) Is it Departmental practice to delay the response to the Ombudsman's inquiries. (3) What measures have been taken or are being proposed to address the inordinate delay on the part of the Department of Defence to respond to inquiries from the Ombudsman. (4) How many outstanding inquiries from the Defence Force Ombudsman have been referred to the Department. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2) and (3) I draw the attention of the honourable senator to the remarks of the then Chief of the Defence Force which immediately follow the criticism of the Defence Force Ombudsman at page 72 of the 1986-87 Annual Report. My Department continues to give priority attention to the handling of all Ombudsman cases. There is continuing attention directed to ensuring that the elapsed time between receipt and response is reduced to a minimum. Inevitably, resolution of more complex cases and those involving policy reviews will take longer, particularly if it becomes necessary to involve policy areas of other departments in discussions. It is normal practice in my Department to inform the Ombudsman of the latest position on all cases where significant delay in resolution becomes apparent. (4) Currently, 28 inquiries are being actioned. (Question No. 221) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: (1) How many apprentices has the Department employed since 1 January 1988. (2) How many apprentices have been employed by Statutory Authorities for which the Minister is responsible since 1 January 1988. (3) Can the Minister provide a breakdown of the numbers of these apprentices in their respective trades. (4) Can the Minister also provide a further breakdown showing in which State or Territory the apprentices have been employed. Senator Cook —The Minister for Community Services and Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There are no positions of apprentice in the organisational structure of the Department and, consequently, no apprentices have been employed since 1 January 1988. (2) None since 1 January 1988. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. (Question No. 222) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice on 23 February 1988: 1. How many apprentices has the Department employed since 1 January 1988. 2. How many apprentices have been employed by Statutory Authorities for which the Minister is responsible since 1 January 1988. 3. Can the Minister provide a breakdown of the numbers of these apprentices in their respective trades. 4. Can the Minister also provide a further breakdown showing in which State or Territory the apprentices have been employed. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: 1. 75 apprentices have so far been employed by the Department since 1 January 1988. In addition to these 75 apprentices, the Department's Construction Group proposes to recruit a further 56, making a total apprentice intake for the Department in the order of 131 for 1988. The additional apprentices in the Construction Group will be recruited under the TAP and Group Training Schemes and under special arrangements being negotiated with the ACTU. (The break-up by discipline and State of these additional apprentices is yet to be finalised). 2. There have been no apprentices employed by Statutory Authorities for which the Minister is responsible since 1 January 1988. 3. - Apprenticeship Total Carpenter ... 12 Bridge/Wharf Carpenter ... 1 Electrical Fitter/Mechanic ... 8 Electrician ... 8 Fitter/Turner ... 14 Painter ... 3 Plumber ... 9 Refrigeration Mechanic ... 8 Diesel Fitter/Mechanic ... 1 Motor Mechanic ... 5 Printing Machinist ... 3 Hand and Machine Composing ... 1 Fitting and Machining ... 1 Binding and Finishing ... 1 75 4. - Total NSW Vic. Tas. ACT Qld SA NT WA 75 ... 24 23 - 20 - 5 3 - (Question No. 249) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 February 1988: Can the Minister provide details of how many employees of the Department are presently listed as unattached (to a substantive position within the Department). Senator Tate —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There are 127 officers presently listed as unattached (to a substantive position within the Department).