Senator BARTLETT (4:47 PM) —Prior to the matters of public interest debate, I moved the first Democrat request for amendment to the Family and Community Services Legislation (Simplification and Other Measures) Bill 2001. I will now speak to that request and will do so at some length, partly to enable the minister's representative and Senator Evans to get here but also because it is an important issue, and I think it is appropriate to put it on the record. The minister made fairly dismissive and somewhat unfair comments prior to my moving this request, suggesting that it was a case of the Democrats trying to make people feel warm and fuzzy. I would certainly reject that. It is a significant issue. The people who are affected are small in number but have a legitimate claim. I think it is appropriate to take that claim seriously. The minister also indicated that there are some ongoing discussions and consideration of the issue by the government. Therefore, we should wait to see the outcome of those and basically leave it up to the government as to whether or not they do it. She said it may come about anyway, and we should just butt out, sit back and wait and see if it comes about.

I will speak briefly further to the request for amendment. It is quite simple: it relates to amounts paid by the Republic of Chile under the laws of that republic by way of compensation to victims of the military dictatorship which ruled during the period 1973-90. During that period under the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, thousands of workers, both men and women, were forced from their jobs in Chile for political reasons. Ten per cent of the population were expelled or exiled from Chile after the coup d'etat. More than one million people were forcibly expelled. Those citizens who were known, or suspected, to have sympathies with the democratically elected and overthrown government were forced to suffer one of the most brutal cases of persecution and institutionalised terror that the world knew at that time. They were held in concentration camps where torture was practised as a matter of course and from which both men and women disappeared without trace. More than 3,000 people were killed in cold blood. Most of their bodies are still missing. Others were forced into work gangs for political prisoners.

When democracy was restored to Chile, the government of the Republic of Chile enacted three acts through congress which would indemnify and compensate Chilean citizens who suffered the traumatic experience of exile or disappearance, those who had unjustly lost their jobs for political reasons or those who were deprived of their freedom. These acts were to further compensate financially the spouses and parents of persons imprisoned or who disappeared, presumed dead. These acts from Chile were legislated exclusively for those victims who suffered during the reign of terror that began in 1973, to pay them a special compensation named `pension of mercy without contribution'. I am sure all senators would equally acknowledge the significant and serious suffering that those people went through and the appropriateness of that payment. I am certainly not trying to suggest that we have some mortgage on recognition of that. I think that is widely acknowledged.

Of the one million people forced to leave that country, I understand that there are approximately 400 people of Chilean origin living in Australia who are eligible to receive, or are receiving, the pension of mercy without contribution. We already have a precedent for this in that money paid to victims of Nazi persecution by the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Austria is exempt from the income test for social security purposes. This request for amendment seeks to provide that exemption from the income test similarly for those from the Republic of Chile who receive that pension of mercy without contribution.

Our understanding is that none of the countries in which Chileans found political sanctuary during the military dictatorship, or which have the relatives of missing people eligible for this compensation, treat this payment as additional income for the purposes of additional income tax or for the withholding of the benefit. That is due to an understanding of the international community of the victims of the military dictatorship. We believe that it is appropriate to accept that in Australia. That is why we are proposing to exclude the pension of mercy for these people of Chilean origin from the income test in the Social Security Act.

I was aware, as the minister indicated, that there are ongoing discussions with the Chilean embassy, and also with others, on this issue. They are welcomed. It certainly would be useful to hear an indication from the minister as to how long those discussions will continue. From the Democrats' point of view, it is good that the government is considering not just this issue but other payments that may be appropriate in this area, such as those from France and the Netherlands. The issue comes back to consistency. If there are arguments—and no doubt there are, or it would not be being considered—for payments in relation to other countries, the Democrats think it would be appropriate for those to be included in the exemption. We do not think that it is a reason to not proceed with this one. The numbers of people are fairly small, but the issue is appropriate.

Whilst it is good that the government is considering it—and, as the minister said, this may well come about anyway, and it would be good for the government to accept that— the Senate is a legislative chamber. As part of this legislation relates to compensation, we think it is appropriate for the parliament to propose changes to legislation. That is a role of the legislature. Obviously the government is in the position to put forward legislation and to decide whether or not to accept legislation in the form passed by the parliament—and it can express that viewpoint in the House of Representatives—but the Democrats certainly reject any inference that it is somehow inappropriate for us, or any other senator for that matter, to put forward legislative amendments on issues that we think are significant. The role of the legislature is not to just sit back and hope that the government does what it says it will do or to hope that the government will address problems without the legislature putting forward amendments. If we were all to just sit back and wait for the government to address issues, we may as well not spend time assessing, considering and amending legislation. So the Democrats believe it is quite appropriate to put forward this request. If the government is looking at it anyway, that is good.

Certainly we hope the request for amendment is passed. We believe the issue is sufficiently significant and that there is no reason why it cannot go forward now. We believe that this is as good a time as any to make it happen. The principle is clearly established and is appropriate. Whilst the minister's indication is that it is under active consideration—and I think there is at least some indication that it is sympathetic consideration— nonetheless these people are in this situation now. I am not convinced that it is necessary to simply sit back and wait for the government to do as it sees fit at an indeterminate time down the track, particularly with an election coming up in the not too distant future and the potential change of government which would mean that people would have to go back to square one on the whole issue. I still hope that the request for amendment will be given consideration. I could understand it if the opposition felt it appropriate to give the government a bit more time, although I believe that it is an appropriate time to pass it now. I urge the government to reconsider and accept this now. The onus as to whether it accepts it is obviously on the government.

As I indicated in my second reading remarks, the Democrats support the bill as a whole. We think it has positive measures in it, and we certainly do not want to jeopardise it or hold it up. I guess that puts the onus on the government as to whether or not it will accept this request for amendment. The Democrats believe it is a good request for amendment and appropriate to put forward now.