Tuesday, 23 August 1983 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES SENATE Hansard 1983 FIRST SESSION OF THE THIRTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT (SECOND PERIOD) Pursuant to the Resolution of the Senate passed on 3 June 1983, the Senate met on Tuesday, 23 August 1983, at 3 p.m. The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) has been made a member of Cabinet and has been appointed Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis ) has been appointed Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Industrial Matters. I also inform the Senate that following the resignation of the Hon. M. J. Young from the Ministry on 14 July 1983 the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) was appointed Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the House, and the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) was appointed Special Minister of State. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I understand that at this stage no further statement is proposed to be made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) with respect to the resignation of the Hon. M. J. Young. I do not wish to take the time of the Senate because this matter is being canvassed in the other place and I would expect any statement made in the other place ultimately to be repeated here. I understand that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has now indicated that he will make a statement in respect of that resignation. The original announcement in the lower House, the House of Representatives, was made in similar terms to that made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Opposition has sought a fuller statement. I understand that that statement will now be forthcoming after the suspension of Standing Orders. I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate, when that statement is available to him, to make it available also to the Senate. Senator Button —Yes. The PRESIDENT —During the winter adjournment the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) directed to me a request, made by the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans), that permission be granted for certain pages of the Senate Hansard to be adduced in evidence before the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. In my absence the Deputy President, Senator Hamer, in accordance with precedent , granted permission on 24 June for the pages in question to be adduced in evidence before the Royal Commission, subject to the strict observance of the principle, contained in the Bill of Rights and applying in Australia by virtue of section 49 of the Constitution, that debates and proceedings in the Parliament are privileged and may not be questioned in any tribunal. The Deputy President advised the Senate party leaders of his action. A statement issued by the Royal Commission on 11 July on issues which it proposed to resolve included references to proceedings in the House of Representatives. Mr Speaker expressed concern to the Commission that the examination of certain of those issues might infringe article 9 of the Bill of Rights as they appeared to question actions of members of the House within the House. Mr Speaker then decided, as he is indicating to the House of Representatives today, that he should be represented by counsel when the question of parliamentary privilege was to be argued. Mr Speaker sought support for his assertion of the privileges of the Parliament from the Deputy President, who gave his agreement to the counsel, Mr T. E. F. Hughes, QC, indicating to the Commission that he, the Deputy President, on behalf of the Senate, supported the submission made on behalf of Mr Speaker. I am informed that counsel did refer to that support in his remarks before the Commission. Mr Speaker continued to be represented before the Commission by a local counsel , Mr Walmsley, during the examination of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the former Leader of the House, Mr Young, the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). At that time I felt it advisable that I as President of the Senate should similarly be represented during the examination of the Attorney-General to ensure that nothing occurred during the proceedings which involved questioning any statements made in the Senate or the motives in making such statements. I was therefore represented by the same counsel during the Attorney-General's appearance before the Commission. Because of the importance of freedom of speech to the Parliament and my own responsibilities to the Senate, I have taken this opportunity to inform the Senate of the actions taken to uphold that fundamental principle. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Mr President, on behalf of the Opposition, I indicate our support for the steps which were taken by the Deputy President in your absence and subsequently by you on your return to Australia. The Opposition believes that the action which was taken by Mr Speaker and supported by the Presiding Officers in the Senate was appropriate action to protect the privileges of the Parliament. We want to assure you of our support for that action and any similar action that should be required in the future. Now is not the time to debate the matters of principle which are raised in your statement but I think the statement does raise important questions of that nature. It brings out the differences between the function of this Parliament and the function of a royal commission. It makes very clear that each has a role to play and that that role is to be played properly in accordance with the legal duties which are upon each of those bodies or institutions. As far as the Parliament is concerned, we take the view that the holding of a royal commission does not lift from the shoulders of the Parliament its responsibility for matters which go to the national interest. I make that point at this stage because there has been some debate and there have been some assertions about the freedom of members of the Opposition, and, indeed, the freedom of other elements of the community, to make comments on matters which we see as having an overriding national interest. It is important that the proper role of the Parliament, and indeed the proper role of the Opposition, is preserved and upheld at all times. It has been made clear by the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Andrew Peacock, that he will not be prevented from discussing matters of national interest. I believe that was a very proper course for him to take, one which certainly has the full support of the Opposition in this place. Again, Mr President, I commend you and your Deputy for the action you have taken to protect the privileges of the Parliament. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-The Government notes the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). As he pointed out in the course of his remarks, it is not appropriate to debate all the details of that statement at this time. We regard the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition as generally an impeccable statement of principle but, in saying that, there would be qualifications upon some of the detailed examples upon which he drew to identify particular principles which he sought to enshrine in his statement. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Discrimination against Women To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'. And Whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the Nation at this time. (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Button (from 121 citizens), Peter Baume (from 163 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 655 citizens), Chipp (from 22 citizens), Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 179 citizens), Harradine (from 576 citizens), Macklin (from 11 citizens), Peter Rae (from 34 citizens), Robertson (from 626 citizens), Ryan ( from 1,633 citizens), Scott (from 325 citizens) and Sibraa (from 57 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia, Believing that men and women are equal but different, Convinced that Australia can provide equal opportunity for all citizens without foreign treaties, Concerned that ratifying the UN Discrimination Convention would give a Communist-dominated international committee the power to judge Australia's laws, Humbly petition that your Honourable House will not ratify the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and we will always thus petition. by Senators Maguire (from 357 citizens) and Messner (from 216 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth- That currently discrimination in provision of work, in appointment to jobs and in promotion exists in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy, sex and/or sexual preference; and That currently discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is exercised against particular groups of individuals-in particular, against married women. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under federal awards, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex and/or marital status. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Giles (from 30 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We the undersigned are opposed to the Government's method of operation of its proposed 'MEDICARE SCHEME' because of the inconvenience of changing, the removal of freedom of choice, the loss of jobs in the Health Insurance industry and the huge cost of conversion; since the Health Funds are currently agents for 30 per cent of Commonwealth funding it seems most obvious that they should be agents for the whole scheme. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 1,188 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Western Australia respectfully showeth: That the plan by the Australian Telecommunications Commission to withdraw public telegram facilities and downgrade telegram standards by: 1. planning to withdraw the 24 hour telegraph service at the Chief Telegraph Office in each capital city and in Canberra and Darwin 2. closing country telegraph offices 3. increasing telegram charges whilst downgrading the service 4. withdrawing telegram operating facilities from a large number of suburban and country post offices 5. generating serious delays in telegram delivery by reducing standards of service through centralisation of the network and reduction of operating and delivery staff will reduce an available means of communications in commercial enterprise, deny the opportunity for people of Australia to make contact with family and friends in times of emergency, and civil or natural disasters, particularly for the 30 per cent of Australians who are not telephone subscribers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take measures to ensure the maintenance of an efficient, effective public telegram service to meet the needs of the Australian people socially, publicly, commercially and in times of emergencies and civil or natural disasters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Giles (from 40 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your Petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 1,240 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the members of the Women's Services of the 1939-45 War not at present considered eligible for Defence Service Home Loans should qualify as '' Australian Soldiers'' under the Defence Service Homes Act. They volunteered for service with the Naval, Military and Air Forces, serving wherever they were sent in whatever capacity they were required and yet are refused Defence Service Home Loans. They took the oath to resist His Majesty's enemies which meant to fight His Majesty's enemies, and although not used in actual combat in war zones, they were available for that use and had a sufficiently grave need arisen would have been used, to serve with distinction as have women of other lands. In accordance with the Acts and Regulations of the period, the women of the Military Forces had enlisted for service anywhere, some of the Naval women to sail in any waters, others with service on warships optional, while the women of the Air Force could have been sent to Papua New Guinea or other territories under the control or care of Australia. Ex-servicemen of the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Imperial Force and the Royal Australian Air Force who volunteered in the 1939-45 War but were not sent to War Zones are granted home loans. Not to grant eligibility to all Ex- servicewomen of 1939-45 War is unjust and unfair. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that you favourably consider amending the Defence Service Homes Act by repealing Sub-section 4 (2A) (b) (c) (d) of the Principal Act as amended by No. 137 of 1978, and grant eligibility to all members of the Women's Royal Australian Naval Service, the Australian Women's Army Service, the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force, the Australian Army Medical Women's Service, and the Voluntary Aid Detachment, of 1939-45 War. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Collard (from three citizens), Macklin (from 21 citizens), Martin ( from two citizens) and Walters (from four citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That all members of the Women's Services 1939-45 War qualify as 'Australian Soldier' under the Defence Service Homes Act for loans because on voluntarily joining the Australian Forces they took the oath to resist His Majesty's enemies making themselves available for combat duty in War Zones, and according to Acts and Regulations of the period the Military women had enlisted for service anywhere, some Naval women to sail in any waters, with all servicewomen available for service in Papua New Guinea. As those members of the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Imperial Force and the Royal Australian Air Force of 1939-45 War who were not sent to War Zones are granted loans, refusal to grant eligibility to all Ex-servicewomen of 1939- 45 War is unjust and unfair. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that you amend the Defence Service Homes Act by repealing Sub-section 4 (2A) (b) (c) (d) of the Principal Act as amended by No. 137 of 1978, and grant eligibility to all members of the Women's Royal Australian Naval Service, the Australian Women's Army Service, the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force, the Australian Army Medical Women's Service, and the Voluntary Aid Detachment of 1939-45 War. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from seven citizens) and Harradine (from six citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That citizens of Western Australia view with great alarm the removal of Director of the Office of Child Care and fear for the future of that office and the children's services programme which it administers. We believe the Office of Child Care to be inappropriately placed within the Department of Social Security, where children's services are in competition with welfare services for the aged, disabled, and other such groups. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled , should take every step as necessary to obtain immediate withdrawal of the Office of Child Care from the Department of Social Security and the establishment of a Children's Commission. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Giles (from 32 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Martin (from 142 citizens) and Ryan (from 99 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Division of Moore respectfully showeth: That there is great need for the establishment of one new Community Youth Support Scheme project in the Subdivisions of Duncraig and Wanneroo, because of the high level of youth unemployment in these subdivisions, in order that the CYSS project can provide a range of activities which develop the skills, abilities and self reliance of young people resident in the Subdivisions of Duncraig and Wanneroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that proposals for the establishment of one new Community Youth Support Scheme project in the Subdivisions of Duncraig and Wanneroo be granted favourable and prompt attention by this Parliament and its Ministers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Giles (from 335 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned students and staff of the University of Queensland respectfully showeth: (1) that in 1979 the Liberal Government introduced overseas student fees, (2) that those fees have been regularly increased since their introduction, (3) that the financial burden has caused hardship for overseas students studying here, who have limited earning capacity. We call on this Government to review the decision taken to introduce tertiary fees for overseas students. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Macklin (from 106 citizens) and Martin (from 43 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Division of Moore respectfully showeth: That there is great need for the establishment of a new Community Youth Support Scheme project in the Subdivision of Girrawheen, because of the high level of youth unemployment in this subdivision, in order that the CYSS project can provide a range of activities which develop the skills, abilities and self reliance of unemployed young people resident in the Subdivision of Girrawheen. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that proposals for the establishment of a new Community Youth Support Scheme project in the Subdivision of Girrawheen be granted favourable and prompt attention by this Parliament and its Ministers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Giles (from 190 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Church of Mary Queen of Peace, Klaipeda, Lithuania was the only church permitted (by the Soviet authorities) to be built in post-war Lithuania. That the church was built by the Catholic parishioners from their own resources and with support from overseas Christians. That upon completion of the church building in 1960, the church was not allowed to be consecrated and, in 1961 was resumed by the State for purposes other than religious. That this resumption of the church and the subsequent persecution and arrests of the local clergy and other christians is contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenent on Human Rights. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled request the Australian Government to communicate most strongly to the Government of the USSR the sympathy of the petitioners for the plight of the Lithuanian Christians and ask that the Church of Mary Queen of Peace be restored to the Catholics of Klaipeda for the practice of their religion without interference. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sibraa (from 202 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- 1. The concerns which people around the World have for the increasing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction; 2. The global concern that any nuclear exchange will inflict on humanity unimaginable death and suffering; 3. The vulnerability that Australians will face in any nuclear conflict between the major powers; 4. The public concern that Government should explore all avenues to ensure that the nuclear threat is eliminated. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament establish a Senate Select Committee on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace to investigate the creation of a Ministry of Peace and Nuclear Disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Gietzelt (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That in 1911, as part of its new responsibility for the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth accepted a binding legislative commitment to construct a railway from Adelaide to Darwin-a promise which has never been fulfilled. The lack of essential transport links has had, and continues to have, serious consequences for the economic and social development of the Northern Territory, and indeed all of Australia. That the future expansion of new industries in the Territory and new trade opportunities for Australia, particularly with South-East Asia and the Western Pacific, depend on the development of the railway to link the port of Darwin with the rest of Australia. The railway is therefore an essential national project related directly to Australia's overall prospects for future economic growth. We therefore protest the Commonwealth's continuing failure to construct the railway. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Prime Minister and Members of the Federal Government honour the promise made by the Commonwealth over 70 years ago , the promise made by the previous Commonwealth Government this year, and endorsed by the present Government in opposition to complete the construction of the railway by 1988, Australia's Bicentennial year. We call on the Prime Minister to give his personal assurance that the Commonwealth will honour its past and present promises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 916 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that your Petitioners do not want a Uranium Enrichment Plant constructed in South-East Queensland because : (a) there is no known way of safely storing uranium waste products; (b) there has not been an environmental impact study conducted into the effects of such a Uranium Enrichment Plant; (c) Australia has adequate coal supplies to provide energy for industry; (d) the risks to local inhabitants from the operation of such a plant have not been established; (e) the products of such a plant will contribute to the prospect of nuclear war ; (f) the local area would become a target in the event of such a nuclear war; (g) the investment in such a Uranium Enrichment Plant would be better spent in research into clean, renewable energy sources such as solar energy. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: (a) legislate to give power to the Commonwealth Parliament to make decisions on the export of products from Uranium Enrichment Plants; (b) reject all applications for the export of products from Uranium Enrichment Plants; (c) legislate to give power to the Commonwealth Parliament to make decisions on foreign investment in Uranium Enrichment Plants; (d) reject all applications for foreign investment in Uranium Enrichment Plants ; (e) do all in the Senate's power to prevent the construction of a Uranium Enrichment Plant in South-East Queensland. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully submit that although many occurences of sexual harrassment in the workforce have been reported to various State government authorities, such as the Victorian Commission for Equal Opportunity, the real incidence of sexual intimidation in employment will not be known, or countered, until a national policy towards sexual harrassment is determined and implemented. We therefore submit that: 1. The National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation be commissioned to conduct a nation-wide study of discrimination based on sex, both in the private sector and the Public Service, with a view to advising the Government on the development of national policy. 2. The major priority of such a study should be to determine a legally- enforceable definition of sexual harrassment. 3. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations should bring forward in Parliament legislation, arising from such a study, to outlaw discrimination and intimidation in employment based on sex. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robert Ray (from 113 citizens). Petitions received. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations: The Income Tax Regulations (Amendment), contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 111, and made under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. (2) That the Committee report to the Senate on or before 4 October 1983. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, contingent on the Senate on any day concluding its consideration of any item of business and prior to the Senate proceeding to the consideration of another item of business, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate. INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1983 [No. 3] Notice of Motion Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 in relation to gifts of certain property to charitable funds . Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should implement the policy on which it was elected in relation to uranium, namely: (a) a moratorium on uranium mining and treatment will be declared; (b) any commitment of a previous Government to the mining, processing or export of Australia's uranium will be repudiated; (c) as a ''minimum position'', Australia's involvement in the uranium industry will be phased out; and (d) in line with paragraph (c), no new mines will be commenced or come on stream during the period of a Labor Government. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, Stage 2 of Kakadu should be declared a national park, under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, forthwith. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should allocate the equivalent of 0.1 per cent of the annual defence budget for work on arms control and disarmament. These funds should be used to establish a Peace Development Studies Institute in Australia which would examine the ways in which disarmament and arms control can contribute to national security interests, support scholarly research, and conduct public education programs. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, four sitting days from today, I shall move: That the Health Insurance Commission Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 88, and made under the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973, be disallowed. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) (a) That a Standing Committee of the Senate, to be known as the Standing Committee on Treaties, be appointed to consider all treaties laid before the Senate, and any other treaties to which the Committee may have access, and to report in respect of each such treaty- (i) whether Australia should undertake to be bound by that treaty if that treaty is not already binding upon Australia; and (ii) the effect which Australia's being bound by that treaty has or would have upon the legislative powers and responsibilities of the Australian States. (b) That, for the purposes of this Resolution- ''treaty'' means any agreement or proposed agreement in writing between two or more countries which imposes or would impose rights and obligations upon those countries and which is or is intended to be binding upon those countries; and ''undertake to be bound'' in relation to a treaty refers to any action which would have the effect of making that treaty binding upon Australia, including the signing of documents, the ratification of that treaty or adherence or accession to that treaty. (2) (a) That the Committee consist of eight Senators, four nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats, and one independent Senator. (b) That, of the Senators appointed to the Committee pursuant to sub-paragraph (2) (a), there shall be at least one Senator for each State. (c) That, if nominations made under sub-paragraph (2) (a) are such that appointments to the Committee in accordance with those nominations would not comply with sub-paragraph (2) (b), the President shall notify the Senate accordingly and ask for fresh nominations, and if those fresh nominations are such that appointments to the Committee in accordance with them would not comply with sub-paragraph (2) (b), the President shall notify the Senate accordingly and the Senate shall determine the appointments to the Committee in accordance with this paragraph so far as is practicable. (3) That the Committee may proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (4) That the quorum of the Committee be four. (5) That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the Committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a sub-committee be two Senators. (6) That the Committee elect a member nominated by the Leader of the Government as Chairman. (7) That the Chairman may from time to time appoint a member of the Committee to be Deputy-Chairman and the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (8) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy- Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (9) That a Senator, though not a member of the Committee, may participate in its public sessions and question witnesses, unless the Committee orders otherwise, but shall not vote. (10) That the Committee or any sub-committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, and to meet and transact business in public or private session and notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives. (11) That the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and that a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings of the Committee as take place in public. (12) That the Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint counsel to advise the Committee, and other persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the Committee, with the approval of the President. (13) That the Committee have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such recommendations as it may deem fit, and make regular reports on its deliberations. (14) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator CHANEY —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Is it a fact that in the national wage case the Government has argued against the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission giving due consideration to an industry' s capacity to pay? In view of the difficulties currently experienced in many industries, can the Leader of the Government comment on the employment consequences of this position if it is adopted by the Commission in its rulings? Senator BUTTON —I am unable to answer the detailed part of the question relating to what the Government has argued in the national wage case in relation to capacity to pay. I will obtain an answer to that from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations as soon as possible and provide it to the honourable senator. If such an argument was advanced, I assume that it would have been advanced in the context of a number of submissions which the Government put forward in relation to wages policy and the implementation of that policy and the Government's desire to establish a centralised wage fixation system. I remind the honourable senator that for some time there have been disagreements in the community about the consequences of any national wage decision which may be given this year. It is a matter of judgment to determine what the effects of such a decision are likely to be overall, having regard to a number of factors. In the light of those circumstances, the Government has made a judgment about its wages policy and the general desirability of the wages policy which it has pursued before the Commission in the light of consideration of employment and general economic recovery. Senator ELSTOB —Mr President, my question is addressed to you. It relates to the parliamentary scarves which are meant to complement the ties available to male members. Why did the House Committee find it necessary to have the scarves made in Japan, especially as the material and workmanship in them are far inferior to those of the ties, which are Australian made? Do you agree, Mr President, that the Parliament has a prime duty to use and promote Australian made goods, not only as an example to the rest of the community but also to improve employment in Australia? The PRESIDENT —I do not know offhand whether the scarves referred to by the honourable senator were or are made in Japan. I shall have inquiries made into that aspect. I agree with the honourable senator that Parliament has a responsibility to use as much as possible Australian made and manufactured products. I will refer the honourable senator's question to the Joint House Department and obtain further information for him. Senator DURACK —I remind the Attorney- General of the request made to him by the Prime Minister on Thursday, 14 July, for his opinion as to whether the then Special Minister of State, Mr Young, may have committed any offence under the Crimes Act concerning statements he made to a Mr Walsh on the evening of 21 April. I also refer him to his reply to the Prime Minister, which, I take it, was dated 18 July, in which he stated that at that stage he was not in a position to give a concluded opinion as to Mr Young's position under the Crimes Act, but for all practical purposes that would not occur until relevant witnesses had given their testimony to the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. In view of the fact that a number of relevant witnesses have now given evidence to the Royal Commission, has the Attorney-General given further consideration to the request of the Prime Minister to which I referred? When does the Attorney-General expect to be in a position to give an opinion to the Prime Minister on that matter? Will he assure the House that the opinion he gives will be tabled? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that in answer originally to the Prime Minister I said that it was impossible to give any kind of answer on the substantive questions involved until the relevant witnesses had given their testimony. There were, in fact, three relevant witnesses, Messrs Young, Walsh and Matheson, all of whom have now given their testimony. The difficulty is that some of that evidence, bearing upon the issues involved here, was given in camera and it was necessary to make special application to get access to it. That has been done this week. Only in the last 48 hours have I been in possession of all relevant transcripts. There are still some difficulties which confront any attempt to write an opinion on the state of the evidence simply because there is a degree of conflict in it. That creates difficulties which the honourable senator will, I hope, appreciate. Nonetheless, it is my hope that I can produce an opinion of the kind requested by the Prime Minister within a matter of days. I am certainly considering the matter in conjunction with the Solicitor-General at the moment with that end in view. I further indicate that it is certainly my intention to table that opinion in this chamber when it is finally prepared. Senator COLEMAN —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. I refer her to an article in the Australian of 16 August in relation to pyramid selling of health foods in New South Wales and the actions the New South Wales Attorney-General, Mr Landa, has taken to ban some goods in that State. My concern is that on John Bell's Consumer Access program in Perth last week a nutritionist from the Western Australian Health Department advised that these goods are very dangerous high protein diet products which can lead to mineral imbalance and claimed that similar dietary products had resulted in several deaths in America. I remind the Minister that pyramid selling relies on the continuing recruitment of people to participate, which dramatically increases the price of goods to consumers, and that at least one of these products was found to contravene the Pure Foods Act of New South Wales, which to me at least indicates that bogus claims on labels and in advertising were being made as to its efficacy. Will the Minister advise what action the Federal Government can take under the Trade Practices Act to ensure that this insidious method of exploitation is outlawed in this country? Senator RYAN —I can understand the concern expressed in the honourable senator's question. Information provided to me by the Minister responsible for consumer affairs federally, Mr Barry Cohen, is to the effect that the Trade Practices Commission has received legal advice that the schemes prohibited in New South Wales do not contravene the Trade Practices Act. However, consideration of an amendment to remedy this defect in the Trade Practices Act is at an advanced stage and it is anticipated that such an amendment will be introduced in this sitting of the Parliament. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer a question concerning the withholding tax legislation which is to come into operation on 1 September. Will the Government confirm that in response to representations by the Australian Democrats it has made arrangements whereby the Australian Taxation Office will streamline administrative procedures to overcome disadvantages caused to small businesses by the introduction of the tax? Will the Minister confirm that it has been agreed that, if the arrangements made by the Taxation Office to deploy additional staff do not handle the number of applications involved before 1 September, interim rate variation certificates for a period of up to two months, showing in the case of applications for exemption a zero deduction rate, will be issued? Will the Minister also confirm that similar interim rate variation certificates for a period of up to two months will also be available to tax agents acting on behalf of clients where they have not been able to assemble the necessary information for lodgment by 1 September? Finally, if the proposed move by the Liberal Party to refer the withholding tax question to a Senate committee is successful-which it will be because we will support it-will the Government move quickly to remedy any injustices to small businesses which would be revealed in the committee's hearings by means of regulations additional to those now before the Senate? Senator WALSH —Senator Chipp has asked a number of questions. I understand that he and some other Australian Democrat senators met the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and Mr Hurford last night and made representations on this matter. I have discussed the matter with the Treasurer today. As a result of the discussions last night, among other things, the Commissioner of Taxation has today issued a Press release which I will, at the appropriate time, seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. That release covers two of the three questions Senator Chipp asked. Firstly, he asked whether, because of delays by the Taxation Office in the processing of applications, an interim zero rate of variation certificate would be granted for a period of up to two months. The answer is yes. Likewise, to his second question as to whether accountants who have been unable to assemble the necessary documentation in time will, on application, be granted on behalf of their clients a zero rate of variation certificate, the answer is yes. The third question concerned the proposed reference of this matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I can, on behalf of the Government, give an assurance that, if it can be demonstrated that anomalies exist in the administration of this law introduced, I emphasise, or forecast by the previous Government more than 12 months ago, the Government will , of course, give consideration to amending it. That is completely consistent with statements which have been made by me on this matter in Western Australia, by the Treasurer and by various other people on behalf of the Government. But, of course, the details of the procedures under which the Government is committed to the elimination of tax evasion, unlike apparently the members of the present Opposition, are always subject to review if it can be demonstrated that they are causing anomalies or that more efficient administrative procedures can be put in place. I would like to make a couple more comments. The Australian Taxation Office, I am advised, by last night had received 16,000 applications for certificates of exemption or variation. The total number anticipated by the Taxation Office is in the vicinity of 30,000. By mid-afternoon on Friday just over 11,000 applications had been received. They are coming in now at a very fast rate and are being processed by the Taxation Office at a rate of 2,000 to 3,000 a day. Over 11,000 applications were processed by last Friday evening. It is almost certain that applications received by 28 August will be processed in time for the introduction of the tax on 1 September. But if, because of some unforeseen circumstance or a last minute deluge of applications, processing spills over into the next month, the procedures which I have outlined in reply to Senator Chipp's question will apply. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a 2 1/2-page statement on this subject issued today by the Commissioner of Taxation. Leave granted. The document read as follows- COMMISSIONER OF TAXATIONEmbargo The Commissioner of Taxation, Mr W. J. O'Reilly, today gave the following details of applications for exemption from, or variation of, the rate at which tax is to be deducted from payments to which the prescribed payment system is to apply as from 1 September. He also explained some administrative procedures which, if needs be, will be put into operation to ease the transition into this system of collecting tax to be credited against tax ultimately assessed for an income year. As at the close of business on Monday, 5,876 applications for exemption, and 10 ,230 applications for rate variation had been lodged, and 4,030 applications for exemption and 7,370 applications for rate variation had been approved. 263 or 4.4 per cent of applications for exemption, and 233 or 2.2 per cent of applications for rate variation had been refused. Further information had been requested in respect of 536 applications for exemption and 523 applications for rate variation. The Commissioner said that the great majority of applications were being processed on the same day as they are received, and he added that if the rate at which applications are being lodged increases, further staff will, of course, be allotted to processing them, and if necessary, overtime will be worked, to ensure that the 'turn around' time does not increase. The Commissioner also outlined administrative procedures being held in reserve against the contingencies that a flood of applications is received in the last day or two of August, or that tax agents indicate that they will not be able to complete and lodge applications before the 1 September commencement date. As to the first of these contingencies, in the unlikely event that, despite the deployment of additional staff and the working of overtime, it appears that the ATO will not be able to process applications that have been lodged in time for certificates to be issued before 1 September, interim rate variation certificates for a period of up to two months, showing, in the case of applications for exemption, a zero deduction rate, will be issued, to be replaced by the actual certificates when processing of the applications has been completed. In the second of these contingencies, tax agents who have been asked by their clients to complete and lodge applications for exemption or rate variation but who find that despite their best efforts, they will not be able to assemble the necessary information and lodge the applications in time for processing before 1 September, will be able to apply for the issue of interim rate variation certificates for a period of up to two months, to be replaced by actual certificates when applications are lodged and processed. The agents wishing to make application for interim certificates should supply with their application a list showing the name, address and file number of the taxpayer, with an indication as to the dates by which it is proposed the basic applications will be lodged. Brief reasons why the basic applications cannot be lodged in time should be given. While these procedures would operate as necessary, the Commissioner urged taxpayers who wished to obtain certificates to lodge their applications as quickly as possible so that they could be certain about their situation under the new system. The Commissioner also referred to some basic elements of the system. He explained that exemption certificates would be issued to applicants who can demonstrate that they are unlikely to have any tax to pay in a particular year ( for example because of losses incurred in a previous year). In addition, exemption certificates would be issued to applicants who have been in business at established premises for a significant period, have maintained satisfactory accounting and taxation records, have conducted all business financial transactions through a business bank account, and have satisfactorily complied with his obligations under Acts administered by the Commissioner. As part of the last requirement, applications for exemption certificates are to be supported by a declaration by a tax agent or other prescribed person as to the accuracy of the applicant's last income tax return and, where the applicant's records are not audited, by a source and application of funds statement reconciled with the applicant's last return. Rate variation certificates may be issued on application by taxpayers who consider the basic 10 per cent rate will be too high for them because, for example, they incur significant expenses for material or labour. Applications for rate variation are in a much simpler form, and require the applicant to estimate his gross prescribed payments income for 1982-83, the tax that will be payable on that income and the rate, calculated from these amounts, at which tax would need to have been deducted from prescribed payments to meet the amount of tax. Canberra 23 August 1983 Senator JONES —My question is to the Attorney-General and refers to his statements regarding a question of privilege in the South Australian Parliament and his warning to the media against publication of sections of a speech by Mr Peter Duncan in that Parliament. Can the Attorney-General clarify the position of the electronic and print media in relation to qualified privilege in reporting proceedings of parliaments in this country? Does an editor or working journalist risk prosecution by accurately reporting those proceedings or are such people expected to censor their reports from Parliament? If there is a risk of prosecution, is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation also liable when it carries actionable material during a live broadcast? If any existing legislation in Australia is likely to compel this type of Press censorship, will the Attorney-General ensure that overriding legislation will be introduced immediately to allow complete and uncensored reporting of parliamentary proceedings? Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator asks me what in effect is a series of questions seeking my legal opinion on matters of some complexity and difficulty. I think perhaps the most appropriate response under those circumstances is to seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the opinion which I have today completed jointly with the Solicitor-General and forwarded to the Royal Commissioner under cover of another letter, which I will also seek leave to incorporate in Hansard, explaining the position in my view as it affects both Mr Duncan and the media which reported his remarks. The only matter not specifically addressed in that legal opinion but which was raised by Senator Jones was, I believe, the particular question of the position of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation when it carries otherwise actionable material in a live broadcast from this chamber. In relation to that, I inform the honourable senator that the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946-I think it is section 15 thereof-makes it absolutely clear that no action or proceedings of either a civil or criminal nature can be taken in respect of the ABC as publishers or distributors of what we may say in the chamber in that respect. But the issue is a complex one. Rather than endeavour to summarise that degree of complexity, I think the best thing is for me simply to incorporate in Hansard the full text of the opinion and the covering letter. I seek leave accordingly. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- Attorney-General Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 GE:AOB 23 August 1983 Mr B. Cox, OBE, MBE Secretary Royal Commission on Australian Security and Intelligence Agencies PO Box E349 Canberra, ACT 2600 Dear Mr Cox, I refer to your letter of 18 August in which you bring to my attention newspaper reports of a speech by Mr Peter Duncan in the South Australian Parliament and the statement of His Honour Mr Justice Hope indicating his intention to refer matters raised by that speech to me. The Solicitor-General, Sir Maurice Byers QC, and I have considered the points raised in His Honour's statement and have prepared in response the Joint Opinion appended to this letter. Our conclusions may be briefly stated as follows: (1) While Commonwealth law may in some circumstances be capable of overriding claims of parliamentary privilege in both Commonwealth and State Parliaments, neither s.6D or s.60 of the Royal Commissions Act, nor s.92 of the ASIO Act have that effect. (2) Mr Duncan could not, accordingly, be prosecuted under these provisions even if they were otherwise applicable to him. (3) Media reports, however, even if constituting no more than fair reports of what is said in Parliament, may as a matter of strict law be capable of prosecution under those sections to the extent that they involve: wilful contravention of a Commissioner's suppression order; a wilful prejudgment or prejudicial treatment of issues being dealt with by the commission; or identification of an officer (other than the Director-General), employee or agent of ASIO. Notwithstanding the conclusion in (3), and the possibility that the law in question may have been breached, I do not propose to take any action in relation to those accounts of Mr Duncan's speech which have appeared in the media to date . A number of accounts were published or broadcast before my statement of 18 August counselling caution by the media, when it is reasonable to suppose that the media in question were acting on the assumption that fair reports of parliamentary proceedings were fully protected. Subsequent to that caution, reasonable restraint has been exercised in all cases of which I am aware. As we state in our Joint Opinion, there are obviously acutely sensitive questions of public policy involved in these matters. Other than in the most exceptional circumstances, we believe it to be more appropriate that reliance be placed on parliamentarians and the media exercising reasonable self-restraint than that the sanctions of the criminal law be applied to them. We are sure that His Honour's statement of 4 August 1983, drawing attention as it does to the need of the Commission to be able to proceed with its deliberations in a calm, dignified and unprejudiced atmosphere, will have been closely heeded. I would be grateful if you would convey the above to the Commissioner. As discussed with you, I propose-because of the intense public interest in this matter-to immediately publicly release the text of this letter and the accompanying Joint Opinion. Yours sincerely, GARETH EVANS Re Royal Commission on Australian Security and Intelligence Agencies Joint Opinion On 18 August the Royal Commissioner on Australia's security and intelligence agencies, the Honourable Mr Justice Hope, referred to the Attorney-General questions relating to the interaction of federal legislation with the parliamentary privilege of a Member of a Parliament of a State. The Attorney- General has thought it appropriate that the matter be considered by both himself and the Solicitor-General. Reference by the Royal Commissioner 2. The Commissioner's action followed a speech made in the Parliament of South Australia by the Honourable Peter Duncan on 17 August 1983. That speech contained a number of allegations and comments in relation to issues that are being examined by the Royal Commission, to evidence that has been given to the Royal Commission, and to the manner in which the Royal Commissioner has conducted the inquiry to date. 3. The Royal Commissioner stated on 18 August that some of the detail of the speech suggests strongly that the ultimate source for that detail is evidence given in camera to the Commission and subject to orders by the Commission prohibiting its publication. It seems reasonably clear that Mr Duncan's speech involves a prejudgment of matters relevant to a determination of paragraph (c) of the Letters Patent of 17 May 1983 appointing Mr Justice Hope a Commissioner to inquire into and report upon the matters therein specified. The Commissioner stated that, if the speech is not protected by the Parliamentary privilege, offences may have been committed against several federal statutory provisions. Constitutional Question 4. We have considered first whether the privilege of free speech members of State parliaments enjoy under State Constitutions would provide complete immunity from the application of federal law in all circumstances. We believe not. 5. Free speech for things said in proceedings in Parliament is provided for in s.38 of the Constitution Act of South Australia. Section 106 of the Commonwealth Constitution specifically deals with the saving of each State Constitution, and provides for its continuance until altered in accordance with the Constitution of the State. However, it is relevant to note that s.106 is expressed to be subject to the Commonwealth Constitution, and it has not been treated as invalidating a law which otherwise falls within Commonwealth legislative power: Attorney-General (Qld) v. Attorney-General (Cwlth) (1915) 20 CLR 148, at 172; Engineers Case (1920) 28 CLR 129, at 154; Melbourne Corporation Case (1947) 74 CLR 31, at 83. In Stuart-Robertson v. Lloyd (1932) 47 CLR 482, federal bankruptcy law was held applicable to State parliamentary allowances payable under the New South Wales Constitution to members of the State Parliament. 6. On the other hand, we note that Commonwealth powers have been considered to be subject to an implied general limitation, affecting all Commonwealth legislative powers, that the Commonwealth cannot legislate to impair the capacity of the States to function: Victoria v. Commonwealth (1971) 122 CLR 353. We note that most recent cases dealing with the applicability of Commonwealth laws to the States have been concerned with their effect upon State executive power. They are not cases that explore the extent to which a Commonwealth law otherwise valid may affect the parliamentary functioning of a State. In an analogous situation in the United States, it was held by the Supreme Court that freedom of speech of individual state legislators must yield where important federal interests are at stake, as in the case of federal criminal statutes: United States v. Gillock (1980) 445 US 360. Whether that decision would be followed completely in Australia is not certain, but at the least it indicates that it is not intrinsically incompatable with federalism for federal laws to inhibit free speech by State legislators in appropriate circumstances. 7. Certainly if federal law is to have such an application the power supporting it would need to be commensurate with its effect. One example of how federal law might have an overriding effect could occur in the context of matters prejudicial to the defence and safety of the country in times of war; in our view a law which forbade a person, whether in a parliament or not, to make public the position of a convoy at sea and thereby to expose those manning it to the risk of death by enemy action, would be a valid law. Federal Statutory Provisions 8. In our view, the crucial question in the present case is not the constitutional one but rather that of statutory interpretation: whether the relevant federal provisions, on their proper interpretation, extend to what is said in proceedings in the parliament of a State by a member. Whatever may be the constitutional position, it is clear that parliamentary privilege is considered to be so valuable and essential to the workings of responsible government that express words in a statute are necessary before it may be taken away: see Duke of Newcastle v. Morris (1870) LR4HL 661, at 671, 677 and 680. In the case of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, s.49 of the Constitution requires an express declaration. 9. In the light of these considerations, we turn to the relevant federal provisions. Sub-sections (3) and (4) of s.6D of the Royal Commissions Act, as amended, are as follows: ''(3) The Commission may direct that- (a) any evidence given before it; (b) the contents of any document, or a description of any thing, produced before, or delivered to, the Commission; or (c) any information that might enable a person who has given evidence before the Commission to be identified, shall not be published, or shall not be published except in such manner, and to such persons, as the Commission specifies. (4) A person who makes any publication in contravention of any direction given under sub-section (3) is guilty of an offence punishable, upon summary conviction, by a fine not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months.'' Section 60 of the Act provides: ''60. (1) Any person who wilfully insults or disturbs a Royal Commission, or interrupts the proceedings of a Royal Commission, or uses any insulting language towards a Royal Commission, or by writing or speech uses words false and defamatory of a Royal Commission, or is in any manner guilty of any wilful contempt of a Royal Commission, shall be guilty of an offence. Penalty: Two hundred dollars, or imprisonment for three months. (2) If the President or Chairman of a Royal Commission or the sole Commissioner is a Justice of the High Court, or a Judge of any other Federal Court, of the Supreme Court of a Territory or of the Supreme Court or County Court or District Court of a State, he shall, in relation to any offence against sub-section (1) of this section committed in the face of the Commission, have all the powers of a Justice of the High Court sitting in open Court in relation to a contempt committed in face of the Court, except that any punishment inflicted shall not exceed the punishment provided by sub-section (1) of this section.'' 10. The Commissioner has from time to time made orders, whenever evidence of a witness was taken in camera, prohibiting the publication of that evidence. Evidence given in public is not the subject of any order under ss.6D(3). Where a witness gives evidence as to part in camera and as to part in public, the transcript of his evidence contains passages which have been blocked out to give effect to the various orders which have been made. It is also the case that some orders originally prohibiting publication of all or substantial portions of evidence have later been varied by the Commissioner so as to diminish the scope of the prohibition. 11. The proceedings before the Commissioner are not in the nature of court proceedings. No reason thus exists to confine a direction given pursuant to ss. 6D(3)(a) so that it applies only to parties (for there are none) or to persons before the Commission. In other words, the subsection may bear its literal meaning, with the result that publication of evidence by 'outsiders' in contravention of the terms of a direction subjects the publisher to the penalties imposed by ss.(4) of s.6D. Of course, knowledge that publication is forbidden is necessary, for the sanctions are criminal ones: Cameron v. Holt ( 1980) 142 CLR 342. 12. Section 60 (1) applies to a Commission the rules that have been worked out as to contempt of court. Sub-section (1) in its first arm-that is, so much of it as includes 'insulting language towards a Royal Commission'-applies the rules relating to contempt in the face of the court, as ss. (2) would suggest. We think the remainder of ss. (1) extends to attract the rules relating to other contempts. In particular, the words 'in any manner guilty of any wilful contempt ' make it a contempt for persons publicly to prejudice issues being dealt with by the Commission where that is done deliberately: see, for example, Attorney- General v. Times Newspapers Ltd (1974) AC 273. 13. We do not think that either sections 6D or 6O of the Act can be construed as subjecting the members of the Parliament of the Commonwealth or the members of the parliaments of the States in relation to what is said in proceedings in parliament, to the penalties to which those sections refer. They cannot be construed as declarations under s. 49 of the Constitution. They contain no clear and express language cutting down parliamentary privilege. They must therefore be construed as not intending to affect it. 14. We have also considered s. 92 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979, but if anything the conclusion that parliamentary privilege is not affected is even clearer in the case of that provision. It is apparent from ss. (2) of s. 92 that ss. (1) does not apply to statements made in the Commonwealth Parliament. When the rule requiring express removal of the privilege is borne in mind, we take it to be clear that s. 92 (1) does not apply to statements made by a member of a State parliament in proceedings in parliament. Sub-section (2) suggests, however, that those who broadcast or report State parliamentary statements may offend ss. (1). Media Reports 15. There are, of course, substantial reasons for treating the prohibition in the federal provisions we have examined as also not extending to fair and accurate reports of proceedings before any parliament. The common law treats reports of those proceedings as necessary to be protected in the national interest. In defamation proceedings, the interest of the public in being informed of what occurs in parliament has been said to require that fair and accurate reports of parliamentary debates should be privileged: see Wason v. Walter (1968) LR4QB 73 at 89. 16. Nevertheless, the federal provisions in question clearly apply to media reports, which are not-despite a common impression to the contrary-themselves protected by parliamentary privilege. While, for example, s. 249 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act (S.A.) fully protects publication in that State of parliamentary proceedings, that provision cannot stand if inconsistent with s. 6D and s. 60 of the Royal Commissions Act and s. 92 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act. 17. There are powerful arguments of public interest which may be urged against this position. We have indicated them above. It may be that were the matter to be tried, the court might be minded to afford some protection to the media for its report of parliamentary proceedings by some extension of the principles in the Duke of Newcastle case. However, we think that, as the law now stands, the provisions of the Royal Commissions Act require the conclusion that those who publish statements made by a member of the parliament of a State which amount to a contempt of the Commission are liable under s. 60 (1) of the Royal Commissions Act if the contempt is a wilful one; and, where an order prohibiting publication has been made under ss. 6D (3) (a) and the publisher knows he is publishing contrary to an order, for a breach of s. 6D (4). We have already indicated our view as to s. 92 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act-ss. (2 ) indicates that those who broadcast or report State parliamentary statements may offend against ss. (1). Conclusion 18. It is our view, therefore, that the statements made in the Parliament by the Honourable Peter Duncan are not subject to s. 6D or s. 60 of the Royal Commissions Act, nor are they subject to s. 92 (1) of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act. We also think however that as a matter of strict law publication of those statements may in certain circumstances expose the publishers to the penalties provided by the three sections. GARETH EVANS M. H. BYERS Attorney-General Solicitor-General 23 August 1983 Senator PETER RAE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the statement by the Federal Secretary of the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation, Mr Townsend, in relation to the Victorian Government's motor vehicle offset arrangement with General Motors-Holden's Ltd, and to the claim that this will save 40 jobs and create 150 new jobs? I ask whether it is a fact that Mr Townsend said: The action by the Victorian Labor Cabinet in successfully working the offset program is one to be followed up by Senator Button in Canberra. The offset deal can work nationally. Does the Minister agree with any such proposal and, if so, what steps has he taken or will he take to implement such a proposal? Senator BUTTON —A number of comments made by Mr Townsend have been drawn to my attention, although not that one specifically. Senator Rae smiles. I think he would understand, with his knowledge of the vehicle industry, such as it is, that numerous people within that industry are anxious to draw the attention of the Government to particular points of view which they hold. Mr Townsend has been vociferous and outspoken in the interests of the members of his union whom he represents. In regard to the view expressed by Mr Townsend, to which the honourable senator has referred me, I can only say that I will see that I get some detailed explanation of that view and make sure that it is examined. Certainly I will not say in the context of Question Time in the Senate whether or not I agree with that view, because a wide variety of ramifications may have to be considered. Senator Peter Rae —When you have considered it, will you let us have a reply? Senator BUTTON —Senator Rae asks whether, having considered the view in detail, we will let him or the Senate have the benefit of our decision in relation to any matter arising from that view. Of course we will. Senator REYNOLDS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer the Minister to a recent statement made by the former Treasurer, Mr Howard, who responded to the Prime Minister's announcement that the Government would fund the construction of the Burdekin Dam by commenting: I wouldn't have regarded the Burdekin as any more sacrosanct than other areas. I'd have put it into the hotch potch with some other things. Does the Minister regard this as typical of the Opposition's attitude to north Queensland and could he outline the Government's plans for the all-important Burdekin scheme? Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. My point of order is that that is not a question which relates in any way to the Government's administration. It does no more than seek a comment on the Opposition. The PRESIDENT —I do not uphold the point of order. Senator BUTTON —I begin, with the wisdom of experience in the Senate, where I have sat for seven years listening to Ministers answering questions, by saying that I appreciate the great work which Senator Reynolds has done for the people of north Queensland. Every honourable senator would be conscious of the diligence she has displayed in pursuing the interests of north Queenslanders. Insofar as the question relates to the Burdekin Dam, let me say that the Government has honoured the commitment which it made during the election campaign in respect of the Burdekin Dam. That is in sharp contrast to the conduct of the previous Government, which made this promise in numerous pre- election campaigns and did nothing to carry it out. The Commonwealth has appropriated substantial funds for stage one of the Burdekin project. Some $13m has been appropriated for 1983-84. This will enable construction to commence, including the commencement of a construction village and works area, as well as other associated facilities. The credit and the money appropriated for that purpose have been appropriated by the Commonwealth Government in response not only to the general undertaking which we gave prior to the election but also to representations from local members of Parliament, such as Senator Reynolds. They are Commonwealth funds; they are not funds appropriated by the Government of Queensland. In answer to the particular point raised by Senator Reynolds in her question relating to Mr Howard's alternative Budget, let me just say this: I am not surprised that Mr Howard is making comments about the Budget to be brought down tonight because in a very real sense he has a proprietary interest in it; it is his Budget. The size of the deficit, which will be announced tonight, was given to us by Mr Howard. The parameters of the Budget are confined by the incompetence of the former Treasurer under the Fraser Government. When the Budget is brought down tonight that will be made abundantly clear. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I address a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I noted the settlement of the H. J. Heinz Co. Australia Ltd 11-week dispute. My understanding is that the settlement included a pay increase of some $16 a week and a $600 strike-pay payment to the employees . I ask the Minister: In view of the National Economic Summit Conference communique and the understanding that we had with regard to a centralised wage fixing system and the suppression of sectional claims, will the Government be making any submission to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in its hearing of the national wage case, as comments have been made that regardless of the Arbitration Commission's ratification or not of this new settlement this money will be paid? It seems to me that this cuts across the understandings that we had of the benefit of a centralised wage fixing system and the Government's approach to it. Senator BUTTON —In some ways I and the Government agree with the view put by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle in terms of the implications of her question. In the recent national wage case the Government put to the Arbitration Commission that it should require a commitment from every trade union to abide by the 'no extra claims' provision before the union would be eligible for any increase awarded by the national wage bench. The Government, along with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Australian Industry, believes that a suppression of sectoral wage claims is essential for the successful operation of a centralised wage fixing system. Therefore, the Government does not condone the activities of the union in relation to the Heinz employees or the settlement which was reached between the company and the union. Under the Government's approach it will be necessary, of course, for the Commission to satisfy itself as to the consistency or otherwise of this settlement and whether it is in accordance with the principles which the Commission has been asked to bring down in the course of the national wage case decision. The question of whether the members of the union who are employed by the Heinz company are eligible to receive the national wage case benefits will be dealt with by the Full Bench of the Arbitration Commission. The Government has asked the Bench to deal with that matter in a particular way. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I seek a clarification of the last comment made by the Minister. Does the Government intend to make a submission to the Arbitration Commission against the ratification of the settlement which was made recently? Senator BUTTON —The Government has made a submission in relation to all sectoral wage claims outside the centralised wage fixation system. If the Government's view prevails with the Arbitration Commission, as we hope and believe it will, any sectoral claims which appear to be outside the national wage case decision will be referred to individual deputy presidents or commissioners of the Arbitration Commission to be dealt with in the light of the national wage case decision. In that circumstance the Government would certainly intervene in those proceedings, which would be the appropriate proceedings to deal with a particular sectoral matter which went beyond the national decision. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Minister for Social Security to a dispute in Murray Bridge in South Australia between the staff of Charles David Pty Ltd and members of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. Is the dispute one over manning levels? Is it a fact that the staff members of the company are prepared to work under the existing award conditions for the industry but that the company will not let them do so unless they accept a new work situation? Does not this action of the company in effect amount to a lock-out? In the light of this will the Minister consider approving the payment of unemployment benefit to the families of the workers involved? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Bolkus has said, there is a dispute in the abattoir run by Charles David Pty Ltd at Murray Bridge. It has been going on for some weeks. As is often the case in disputes of this type in the meat industry it is difficult to determine whether this dispute is the result of industrial action by the union or, as Senator Bolkus would imply, there is a lock-out in the abattoir. My Department has spent some time trying to determine the facts of the situation and, I understand, it has only today received from the company concerned-having received information from the union at the end of last week-a suggestion that it will employ people who are willing to work under what it considers reasonable award conditions. In those circumstances the Department of Social Security has, as Senator Bolkus knows, decided that these people are out of work as a result of industrial action and will not receive unemployment benefit. However, as the information that my Department has received does not coincide with information from the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and other sources, I will, after Question Time-I received this information only on my way into Parliament-ask my Department to look further at the situation to see whether it is a lock-out and, in those circumstances, whether the unemployment benefit will be paid. I expect the Department's problems in this area to be settled in the next couple of days. Senator PETER BAUME —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, concerns the way in which non-government schools will be funded following the abandonment of the percentage link which relates grants to costs in government schools. Will the Minister guarantee that under the new formula which is proposed to replace the percentage link, schools will not be worse off? Senator RYAN —I can certainly guarantee that under the new formula that will replace the percentage link those schools which need improved standards will not be worse off. Clearly one of the objectives of changing the arrangement of the funding of non-government schools is to achieve a fairer distribution of funds. That implies that some schools which have been receiving a very high level of Commonwealth subsidy but which do not need that level of subsidy will lose some of it. This has already been the case with some of the decisions I have announced. It will continue to be the case under the new formula. The new formula will be worked out by the Commonwealth Schools Commission over the next few months in consultation with representatives of all school organisations which are relevant, with State government departments, Catholic education commissions and so on. Some mysterious formula will not be pulled out of a hat and applied to schools. The consultation processes have already begun. As well as that, of course, consultations are being carried out at State level through State planning and finance committees and the results of those consultations will be fed into the process by which a new and more equitable formula can be sorted out. It is very clear to anybody who takes an objective look at what has been happening with Commonwealth funding of schools that the old percentage link formula did not achieve our objective of raising standards in those schools which were badly off and the establishment of an acceptable community standard throughout schools. There was no way in which the gaps between those schools which were operating at a very high standard and those which were operating at a very low standard were being closed by the application of the percentage link formula. So this new formula, the aim of which is to achieve an equitable distribution of funds and ultimately a satisfactory standard of education for all Australian children, will proceed. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask a supplementary question. Now that the Minister has said that some schools will be worse off, will she identify which schools they are? Senator RYAN —If Senator Baume had paid attention to the answer, he would not have asked that supplementary question. Senator Peter Baume —I listened carefully. Which schools? Senator RYAN —The schools which will receive less by way of Commonwealth support will be those identified as a result of the new formula as not needing Commonwealth grants. As we do not yet have that formula, clearly it is impossible to name particular schools, but in the development of that formula all schools which are recipients of Commonwealth grants will have an opportunity to participate. The general answer to Senator Baume's supplementary question is that those schools which are able to operate well above what is established as an acceptable community standard for all schools will receive reductions in their grants. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. How effectively is the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service operating? What plans are there for the future of the service? Senator GIETZELT —The Government has a very strong commitment to providing facilities and services to the veterans of the Vietnam war. That is what prompted the Government to act very quickly to establish a royal commission into the use of herbicides in Vietnam. The Government also has a strong commitment to continue the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service initiative which was begun some 18 months ago and has proved to be a very popular and acceptable form of government assistance to veterans. I point out that something like 15 per cent of all Vietnam veterans are already in receipt of benefits from the Government. In addition, the counselling service provides a very important emotional backup to the wives and children of veterans. It has proved to be popular and the Government has agreed to extend the service to Townsville and to Hobart in Tasmania. During the recess I had the opportunity to move around the various States and to talk to those operating the counselling service. They are providing a remarkable service to those who served in Vietnam. Accordingly, there is no doubt that the service will continue for some time and that it needs to be extended to those who live in outlying areas. The Commonwealth Government has established a system whereby veterans are able, at no charge, to make an STD call to the service, and that has proved to be a very important adjunct to the counselling service. There is no doubt that those who served in Vietnam want to know whether their state of health today is a result not only of reaction to the use of chemicals in the war but also of their involvement in a war with a difference, an unpopular war, and a war which clearly has created a number of psychological problems. To that extent the counselling service has a future, and one which this Government agrees will be extended as far as finances permit. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the recent Australian Council of Trade Unions and Confederation of Australian Industry task force which was set up by the Government to examine the Government's changes to superannuation. In view of the Treasurer's commitment to allowing maximum possible time for the widest possible debate on the Government's changes, will the Minister release to the Senate the report of the task force? Finally, given the continuing confusion about the present status of the Government's actions in this area, will the Minister advise the Senate what other committees, working groups and/or independent studies consisting of departmental and/or union and/or industry representatives the Government has initiated and when they are expected to report? Will the Minister undertake to table those reports when they are available?. Senator WALSH —Of course, I cannot release the Australian Council of Trade Unions and Confederation of Australian Industry report to which Senator Messner referred because I do not have it. What I can and will do is ask the Treasurer whether he cares to release it either here or in the House of Representatives. I will also ask him whether any other reports are in existence and whether he intends to release them. With reference to the latter part of Senator Messner's question, I dispute his suggestion of continuing confusion regarding Government policy in this matter. There is no continuing confusion. From the time that this announcement was made on 19 May, it was stated necessarily that the fine details of these proposals could not be spelt out or discussed and negotiated with interested parties prior to the announcement of a broad commitment of principle. The reason for that ought to be self-evident, even to members of the Opposition, because, if the Government had made an announcement that it was about to renegotiate or change the taxation rules with respect to lump sum or other superannuation payments, the irresponsible members of the Opposition, led by the discredited former Treasurer, would have attempted to start a run on the superannuation funds in the same way as they started a run on the dollar- regrettably successfully-prior to the election and at great cost to the Australian nation and the Australian taxpayers. The most responsible comment from members of the Liberal Party of Australia in the last Parliament on this matter came from the former member for Moore, who said quite unequivocally that in tackling the thorny question of superannuation payments and taxation, the present Government had done what the previous Government would have done years before if it had had any courage. Of course, courage was an attribute that was sadly lacking in the previous Government. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. The Department of Social Security published in May of this year the national guidelines for conducting investigations into domestic circumstances. Will the Minister tell the Senate whether the investigations into private habitats and habits of Australians have resulted in many or any differences in social security payments? How many alterations, if any, that he knows of have been made to benefits paid? Is there any estimate of the administrative costs of following up de facto type cases of couples or coupling? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Crowley said, in May the Department of Social Security , under instructions from the Government, released the national guidelines for the conduct of investigations into domestic circumstances. This is a difficult area of social security which has caused much heartburning over the years to various Ministers for Social Security and members of this Parliament. The action in May of publishing these guidelines was, I believe, the first time that a government had allowed the people who were involved to understand the criteria used by field officers when conducting enquiries. At the same time, field officers have been instructed to conduct any inquiries with sensitivity and care . Single pensioners are now given, as a matter of right, the criteria taken into account when decisions are made about their pensions. They receive such details when they receive their pension so that they know where they stand. Over the last couple of years, decisions of the Federal Court of Australia and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal have specified several concerns, which include financial, social and sexual relationships which could be taken into account when determining rights which involve domestic relationships. The advice that single pensioners are given stresses that these inquiries are sometimes necessary but are to be conducted with sensitivity. They are advised that home inspections are not to be made. Field officers have been advised also that home inspections are not to be made. Single pensioners are also told of their rights of appeal. They are told that interviews need not be conducted at home. These investigations are difficult. They are difficult for those conducting them and they are difficult for those being investigated, but we believe it is extremely important that the system be fair and be seen to be fair, that social security clients receive their maximum payments and that taxpayers' funds are, in fact, protected. It was unfortunate that when the guidelines came out a large section of the Press took them to be the first guidelines which had been issued and, in fact, reported them as being part of a crack-down on social security beneficiaries and , in particular, on single pensioner beneficiaries. It was equally unfortunate that some people, on reading these articles, but without reading the new guidelines, chose to criticise both the Department and the Government for what they saw as a sudden crack-down in this area. This was not so. The guidelines were drawn up after considering the views of the various courts, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the various Social Security Appeals Tribunals. They represent an advance in civil liberties in this country. I believe that they have clarified the situation considerably. Fortunately, other journalists, realising the mistake that had been made by their careless colleagues, corrected this. I hope that in future we will continue to modify the guidelines in the light of experience and in the light of views we have from the various courts and the various appeals tribunals. In relation to the second part of Senator Crowley's question, I do not have details of how many pensions and benefits have been taken off people under these guidelines. I will certainly see whether that information is available although I must say that I think it would be very difficult to obtain it at this stage. Senator HARRADINE —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. It relates to the fact that the Senate will debate the Family Law Amendment Bill 1983 tomorrow and on Thursday. Is it not a fact that when Bills of this nature have come before the Senate leaders on both sides of the Parliament, including former Senator Murphy, have indicated that a free or conscience vote would be allowed? Is it not a fact that the Government has taken the unprecedented step of denying a conscience vote or a free vote to members of the Government in relation to the Family Law Amendment Bill 1983 and thus has bound them to vote for it in totality, including the divorce by post proposition? Did the Minister instigate that step? Does that direction bind members of the Government from voting against, firstly, any amendments to the amending Bill, the nature of which would not yet have been notified to the members of the Government, let alone the arguments for them, and, secondly, any amendments which were circulated during the 1982 debate and which were designed to give realistic legislative support for the institution of marriage? Senator GARETH EVANS —It has always been the case that certain aspects of family law legislation have been quite properly regarded as proper subject matters for a conscience vote. In particular I refer to issues relating to the grounds for dissolution of marriage, which have been controversial in the past. Senator Missen —The whole Bill; all of it. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is true. Indeed, it is the case, as Senator Missen and miscellaneous other people who are joining him in his reaction have said, that that is so as far as the whole Bill is concerned. One of the difficulties about the whole Bill being treated as a non-government measure of an ordinary social policy kind, notwithstanding that the overwhelming bulk of its provisions is uncontroversial, both in the original version and certainly so far as the amendment Bill now before the Senate is concerned, is that it has been impossible to get debating time for the Bill in question because managers of business on respective sides of the Parliament have been unable to request of their troops the kind of discipline that normally prevails in relation to Government measures. We have had the absurd situation, as a result, that a family law Bill has been around the Parliament in one capacity or another now for nearly three years. Certainly that long has expired since the recommendations which have given rise to this Bill were prepared and it has not been debated, even though the overwhelming bulk of it is utterly uncontroversial as even the most conscience-stricken squawker on the other side of the Parliament would agree. As a result, we simply want to get the Bill through in the interests of those many people who are being disadvantaged by the present inadequate operation of the law and by the inability of the courts to give the kinds of remedies required. I refer in particular to problems in the property jurisdiction, and so on. Against that background, I recommended to my Party-I did indeed initiate this, Senator Harradine, and I make no apology for it-that the Bill be treated as a social policy measure of an ordinary government kind, save and except insofar as any individual Caucus member wanted to raise, within the Parliamentary Labor Party, the propriety of any particular clause in the Bill being treated in that way. Agreement was reached, without any dissent in the Labor Party room, that the Bill be treated in that particular way with the opportunity being given to honourable members to raise any particular clause of the Bill, as it was then before them and the Parliament, which they thought should attract a conscience or an undisciplined party vote and that the Caucus could then determine that the matter be dealt with in that particular way. No one has raised any objection to any particular matter that is in the Bill in the form in which it has been brought forward. I do acknowledge that a question will arise-- Senator Walters —You would not have got away with it if Senator Mulvihill had been here. Senator GARETH EVANS —I ask Senator Walters to be patient. I am doing my best to get to her. I trust I will answer all of the points which are in issue. There is a question that may well arise in the course of the Committee stage of the debate relating to amendments. Notwithstanding the enormous notice honourable senators opposite have had about the amending passage of this legislation, amendments may be brought forward at the last minute which do manifestly raise conscience issues or issues which are felt to be appropriately so described by particular members within the Labor Party. If that arises, it is my intention to seek the adjournment of the Committee stage vote on any such particular clause in order that the Party can make the appropriate decision about freeing up what otherwise would be a disciplined vote in respect of such matters. The intention is not to ram through in any way, shape or form any particular aspect of this legislation. The intention is, however, certainly to try to expedite the passage of important social legislation which is long overdue. We are in receipt of innumerable representations to this effect from responsible bodies around the country to get the particular legislation through so that people will in fact get the kind of family law that, notwithstanding the best intentions of certain honourable senators opposite, they are not getting at the moment. Senator HARRADINE —Mr President, I ask the Attorney-General a supplementary question by reason of the fact that he did not respond to the last part of my question. I asked: Does that direction bind Government members from voting against amendments about which there has been ample notice given, which were canvassed in the 1982 discussions and which are designed to give realistic legislative support for the institution of marriage? There are three at least of those particular amendments that have been circulated quite broadly. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not think the Caucus decision should be taken as in any way referring to those amendments which have been previously foreshadowed but which are now formally before us. Senator Harradine —Not formally yet. Senator GARETH EVANS —Not formally yet, but which the honourable senator has foreshadowed, as he says, on numerous occasions. I take it that the content of those amendments is reasonably well known to my colleagues, but to the extent that it is not and any of my colleagues wish for an opportunity to be taken for a vote to be freed up in relation to any such matter, I am sure they will draw that to my attention and we will follow- Senator Harradine —They are bound to vote against it. Senator GARETH EVANS —No, they are not bound to do so; that is not what I am saying. If any individual wants the matter dealt with in that particular way, as I have indicated, I hope that the procedure to be applied is that that matter will be raised with me. Accordingly I, having the conduct of the legislation on the Government's side, will seek the adjournment of any such matter in order that a party room position on it can be worked out. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Government still monitoring the trial of Father Brian Gore in the Philippines, a trial which has evidently been mounted to intimidate those who work on behalf of the poor and oppressed suffering under that odious regime? In view of the assassination of Senator Aquino while surrounded by military officers and security police of the Philippines Government, what hope does the Minister hold for a fair trial for Father Gore? Will he insist to the Philippines Government that there be no extra-judicial execution of this troublesome priest? Senator GARETH EVANS —The case of Father Gore remains of deep interest to the Government and of deep personal interest to the present Minister for Foreign Affairs, who advises me that he and his Department are continuing to monitor the situation there very closely. It is the intention of the Government to give Father Gore all appropriate assistance to ensure that he has the opportunity to clear his name in accordance with the due process of Philippine law. The situation at the moment is that consideration by the presiding judge of a bail petition is proceeding in the relevant Philippine court, but that cannot commence until newly appointed prosecution lawyers submit a memorandum summarising the prosecution case. I understand that a 30-day extension of the normal deadline for such a submission has been sought by them. That expires in a couple of days time-on 26 August. All the available information indicates that due processes of law within the Philippines are being followed in this matter. Certainly, at this stage Father Gore has required no additional assistance from the Australian Government. If that situation should change in any way-as I say, we are monitoring it very closely-we will certainly make sure to the best of our ability that that assistance is provided. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and refers to the answer he gave in response to a question from Senator Reynolds this afternoon and to the statement which was part of that answer, namely, that the Fraser Government did nothing to bring about the building of the Burdekin Dam. I ask Senator Button: First, does he assert that no Commonwealth money was allocated to this project by the Fraser Government? Second, does he say that there was no agreement between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments for the financing and building of the dam? Third, what money did the previous Government allocate for the Burdekin Dam, what was its commitment and what amount was allocated by the Queensland Government for this year? Fourth-I ask this whether or not the Leader of the Government is able to answer any of the foregoing specific questions-is it not a fact that the Minister has misled the Senate in his answer to Senator Reynolds? Senator BUTTON —A sum of money was appropriated by the Fraser Government last year, I think, in respect of preliminary works and feasibility studies on the Burdekin Dam. In my answer I was referring to the simple fact that for some seven or eight years pre-election commitments had been made in respect of the Burdekin Dam which were not honoured in the period immediately following the election campaign in which those undertakings were made. At the time the Fraser Government went out of office there was no agreement with the Queensland Government in respect of the building of the Burdekin Dam. There was an exchange of letters but no agreement had been entered into. As I said earlier, over a period promises and undertakings had been given which had not been followed up in the period following the election. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. Is it a fact that in the last Budget $6.5m of Commonwealth money was provided for this project-not for preliminary works but for the dam itself? Senator BUTTON —I am unable to answer the second part of the question precisely but the figure sounds correct. I hear the former Minister who was responsible for many of those undertakings chortling away at the back of the chamber. I think the figure is correct. Senator ROBERTSON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. Is it a fact that the Australian Electoral Office in the Northern Territory is conducting a postal campaign directed towards those who did not vote in the last Federal election? Is he aware that this postal method of conducting the inquiry has no regard for the lifestyle of the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory? Many Aboriginal people will be denied a vote in the next Territory election as their place of residence is constantly changing. Will the Minister undertake to investigate the situation and perhaps look at alternative methods of carrying out the investigation to ensure that Aboriginal people are not disadvantaged? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have had the campaign to which the honourable senator refers drawn to my attention. I certainly share the sentiment underlying his question-I am sure the Government as a whole does-that there should be no suggestion whatsoever that any enrolment exercise which is proceeding following the last election should be conducted in such a way that it may in fact have the effect of disadvantaging Aboriginal Australians. With that sentiment very much in mind, I will certainly draw the honourable senator's question to the attention of the Special Minister of State to ensure that an immediate investigation of the situation is in fact carried out. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, concerns the proposal by the Government to issue children of 14 years of age with their own personal Medicare cards. Does the Minister not feel that this will further erode communications between parents and their children, especially with regard to sex education? I ask the Minister whether this proposal is not further evidence of the destabilising of family life in this country. Further, apart from the most obvious and well publicised problem of allowing children of 14 to be issued with a prescription for the pill without parental consent or knowledge, how can any government justify allowing these children to be given access to birth control measures when it is in fact a criminal offence for any person to have carnal knowledge of a child under 16 years of age? Senator GRIMES —This is a serious matter. A great deal of unwarranted concern has been generated in regard to the Government's policy on the issue of Medicare cards. I am sorry to hear someone like Senator Bjelke-Petersen adding to that problem. The Government in no way seeks to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship as defined by the various State laws, nor can it do so. The Medicare program in fact simplifies the administration of the payment of hospital and medical benefits. Nothing in this system is designed to hinder or facilitate the rights of all Australian citizens to seek medical advice, and Senator Bjelke-Petersen should remember that. If at present a medical service is sought and lawfully obtained from a medical practitioner, the Government has certain obligations under the health insurance system to pay any medical benefit arising out of that consultation or service. This will continue to be the case under the Medicare program following its introduction on 1 February next year. The Medicare card in no way entitles a person to receive or disqualifies a person from receiving medical advice. The card is a convenient and permanent record of the Medicare number which will facilitate the payment of the medical benefit. The Government, like Senator Bjelke-Petersen, strongly prefers that wherever possible Medicare cards should be issued to family groups. I expect-I am sure the Government also expects this-that the overwhelming majority of enrolment applications will be filled out by the head of the household to include his or her dependent children. However, in those few cases where there is a need for a child to be issued with a separate card that will be done provided the Health Insurance Commission is satisfied that a genuine reason exists. If Senator Bjelke-Petersen does not believe that sometimes a genuine need exists, I suggest that she consult her colleague Senator Walters, who I am sure will tell her that in our investigations into the homeless youth of this country we found that unfortunately there are cases in which such a need exists. However, the Medicare legislation will not affect in any way whatsoever the present State laws regarding the treatment of children by medical practitioners and the consent of parents or guardians which may be necessary under the different State laws before such treatment can be obtained. For the Commonwealth to take any other position than that which I have just outlined would be to introduce into an administrative area questions of morality and community standards which would more appropriately be dealt with elsewhere. I believe that the community is not assisted in this matter by the sort of alarmist behaviour exhibited by people like Senator Bjelke-Petersen and others when referring to an unfortunate but small number of people in our community who deserve our protection as much as does anybody else. The PRESIDENT —Earlier during Question Time Senator Elstob directed to me a question concerning the manufacture of scarves issued by Parliament House. The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The parliamentary scarves to which the honourable senator referred were selected by the Joint House Committee as the most suitable for the purpose intended. Senators and members are, by the very nature of their occupation, required to travel extensively. The material of the scarves was required to be of a type that was light and fashionable, also easy care, non-iron and wrinkle free. The material chosen was 100 per cent polyester. The Joint House Department sought samples from a number of different suppliers and manufacturers, from which the material selected was obtained. However, it was not able to locate an Australian manufacturer who made the type of material which was selected as being suitable. Consequently, an imported scarf was made according to the Committee's specification. The Joint House Department did have regard to Australian manufacture. However, in this case, it was not able to locate a source of supply . Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation. On 21 April this year in answer to a question in the Senate I made the statement that the communique-- Senator Chaney —Was the Senate sitting? Senator BUTTON —I was, as will emerge. On 21 April in answer to a question without notice I said that the communique adopted by the National Economic Summit Conference had been adopted unanimously, with the exception of Mr Bjelke- Petersen, the Premier of Queensland, and two representatives of the Law Council of Australia. I have been advised by the Law Council of Australia that that answer was not correct in that both of its representatives endorsed and supported the communique that was issued at the end of the Summit. Accordingly, I retract that part of the answer which I gave and apologise to those two representatives of the Law Society, who very wisely endorsed the communique issued by the Summit. Resolutions The PRESIDENT —For the information of honourable senators, I table the resolutions adopted at the Australian Constitutional Convention held at Parliament House, Adelaide, 26 to 29 April 1983. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In doing so, I make some very brief comments. As indicated shortly after the Adelaide meeting of the Australian Constitutional Convention, the Government viewed the outcome of that Convention with mixed feelings. On the one hand, there was the unfortunate tendency on the part of the Opposition to approach the Convention in a partisan manner and to make use of stacked delegations from Queensland and, slightly more subtley, from Tasmania. On the other hand, the Convention did achieve some positive albeit modest progress; for example, in relation to advisory opinions, conventions of the Constitution and the endorsement of a four-year term for Parliament with a Senate term equal to two terms of the House of Representatives-that is, with simultaneous elections. Four of the Adelaide Convention resolutions-resolution 2 on advisory opinions, resolution 5 on practices that should be included in the Constitution, resolution 6 on terms of the Parliament, and resolution 15 on the interchange of powers-are, as I announced yesterday, to be put to referendum early in 1984, in the event, of course, that the referendum Bills are passed through this Parliament. It should be noted that resolution 5, the recognition of practices which should be included in the Constitution, is embodied for the most part in the removal of outmoded provisions proposal which is part of that intended referendum package. All of the substantive Adelaide resolutions are now thus being implemented as a result of this particular initiative. It should be said also that the Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill gives effect to much of the 1976 resolution of the Hobart Convention on that subject. So we are cleaning up, gradually, a number of the outstanding affirmative resolutions of the Constitutional Convention. A large number of matters that were referred to the Convention Standing Committee are now under examination by sub-committees which have been set up to examine the judicature, the structure of government, external affairs, industrial relations, fiscal powers and constitutional amendment process issues. The Commonwealth Government and the Opposition are represented on each such sub- committee and provision has been made for representation of the Australian Democrats on the Executive Committee of the Convention. So, Mr President, despite the setbacks at Adelaide, the Convention's committee system is now working well, I believe, and the signs at this stage indicate that all governments will be approaching the next scheduled Convention, in 1985, with a more constructive and open minded attitude. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.27) —It does little to advance any matter to play fast and loose with the truth. The Attorney -General (Senator Gareth Evans), in speaking to this matter-I understand he was trying to build some common support-again, in his usual way, referred to stacked delegations. I wish to remind the Senate of discussion which took place in the Senate and elsewhere about the composition of the delegations which went to the Constitutional Convention. I remind the Senate and the Attorney-General of the composition of the Tasmanian delegation, which followed a pattern established by a State Labor Government in Tasmania. That composition has been followed at a series of conventions and reflects the unusual parliamentary composition of that State. The fact is that there is a large number of independents in the Upper House of that State. That was acknowledged by the State Labor Government. It is also a fact that there have been some changes, with people moving from being party representatives to independents. The pattern of representation with respect to Tasmania that I remember particularly well is one which extended over many years and which was never stated by the Federal Australian Labor Party, when the Labor Party was in power in Tasmania, to be a stacked arrangement. Mr President, I wish simply to put the record straight again because I believe that this piling of folklore upon folklore to create quite false impressions is totally unhelpful and is the sort of reason why the present Attorney-General will fail in his task of constitutional reform. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —I present the third report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing relating to matters considered by the Committee, including the annual estimates of the Department of the Senate. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Salaries and Wages Pause Act 1982-Second Report on Operation of the Legislation-pursuant to resolution of the Senate on 16 December 1982. 2. Non-Electrical Absorption Type Refrigerators and Freezers and Parts-IAC Report. 3. Sodium and Potassium Alkylxanthates (Developing Country Preferences)-IAC Report. 4. Power Transformers (Developing Country Preferences-IAC Report. 5. Rural Adjustment-IAC Report. 6. Gelatin (Developing Country Preferences)-IAC Report. 7. Dairy Industry-Extension of Underwriting for 1983-84 Season-IAC Report. 8. The Sugar Industry-IAC Interim Report. 9. Injection Moulding Machines-Temporary Assistance Authority Report-pursuant to section 30B (2) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973. 10. Agricultural Wheeled Tractors-Temporary Assistance Authority Report- pursuant to section 30B (2) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973. 11. Australian Abattoir and Meat Processing Industry-IAC Report. 12. Certain Iron and Steel Products and certain Alloy Steel Products-IAC Report . 13. Fluorescent and Filament Lamps-Temporary Assistance Authority Report- pursuant to section 30B (2) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973. 14. Certain Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles-Temporary Assistance Authority Report pursuant to section 30B (2) of the Industries Commission Act 1973. 15. Grain Harvesters-IAC Report. Second Report on Operation of the Legislation Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(4.31) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I have noted the second report which has been presented on the operation of the Salaries and Wages Pause Act. During the recess I noted the difficulty that had occurred in some States with regard to the spending of Federal funds and the action of the Government in that regard. I am pleased to see the statement which has been made today with regard to the expenditure that has now been undertaken and the claims which are to be made in the future. When the States agreed to the guidelines on 19 January, it was expressed by the Government that the object of the wages pause was to provide employment on projects which would make a worthwhile contribution to the community and to promote greater equality and opportunity for the unemployed who are disadvantaged in the work force. After a great deal of discussion those guidelines were agreed to by all States. I note that the Minister at the time said that he was pleased that they would be able to develop community projects. As I understand it, this has occurred in many places throughout Australia. The guidelines were purposely flexible so that the States had the greatest degree of diversity for projects which they believed were of worthwhile community development. I think that is the outcome of the funds that were released by the wages pause in the Australian Public Service. It is of interest to note that the June quarter rise of average weekly earnings was only 0.9 per cent. Surely this is evidence of the effectiveness of the wages pause which was undertaken. That rise of 0.9 per cent is the lowest quarterly increase in male total earnings for four years. I think it would be agreed that this is substantially, if not entirely, due to the wages pause. While the low rise for the June quarter is welcome, the annual June-on-June rate of 6.8 per cent in rises in average weekly earnings means that our wage levels have been rising at roughly double the rate of those of our major trading partners. Senator Button —You should have thought about that last year. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — It is very easy to talk about last year, but I think we have to look very hard at next year. Senator Button —Come on. It was 18 per cent in 1982. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —Yes. What we are looking at now is something that is still very much out of kilter with the competitive market that we would be seeking for our products. I believe our competitive position would be considerably worse if the wages pause had not been undertaken when it was. If we are to receive the full benefit from that lower June quarter rise in average weekly earnings, it would seem that we ought to be looking at a continuation of the wages pause so that this lower and more competitive approach to our trading partners would be able to be sustained. I wanted to use this opportunity at the time of the presentation of the brief second report on the outcome of the wages pause and the spending by the State governments of the expenditure to point to that effect in the June quarter and also to point to the fact that we still have wage levels which are considerably higher than those of our trading partners. The cost of living rise of 2.1 per cent in the June quarter, resulting in a 4.4 per cent rise in the first half of 1983, has made very difficult the wages policy that is being pursued by the present Government as far as competitiveness is concerned. These comments are made in the constructive belief that the wages pause has given an opportunity for employment around the community to a number of people who would not otherwise have had access to those programs which have been developed with State governments. I welcome the report that has been brought foward. As I say, I believe that a continuation of the wages pause would have been in the best interests of Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Reports Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(4.35) —I move: That the Senate take note of Papers Nos 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 13 and 14. These reports are of a non-rural nature. Senator Scott will deal with the rural reports. These deal with three basic subjects in relation to protection policy and the Industries Assistance Commission. They can be grouped together regarding the question of developing country preferences, rural related matters and forms of protection for iron and steel products and certain other products. I propose to deal with the first and third reports fairly briefly, but to draw attention to a few matters. Regarding transformers, it is noticed from the report that the IAC found that transformers imported from Korea and Taiwan at developing country preference rates were not causing or threatening to cause injury to Australian industry. Local industry increased sales and profits over the past two years and employment levels remained steady. However, the Government rejected the IAC's findings and withdrew the preference because of the rapid market penetration from Korea and Taiwan, as indicated by the IAC and information received since the IAC's report. Imports at concessional rates were adversely affecting industry. On that basis the Government took steps, as it did in certain other matters, to alter the developing country preference, which has been a matter of very considerable importance. I hope that the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) will agree to a specific debate taking place at some stage in relation to the developing country preference and Australian attitudes towards it. The second matter which was dealt with by the IAC concerned gelatin and involved Brazil. As a developing country, Brazil was able to export gelatin to the Australian market at concessional rates. The question became one of whether this procedure threatened to cause injury to Australian industry. The IAC based its finding on information supplied by a Brazilian manufacturer that supplies from that country were limited; that Brazilian imports, even at 250 tonnes per annum, would account for just over 10 per cent of the estimated Australian market; and that that was the maximum it was likely to be able to export to Australia because of its need to export to other markets and its limited production. However, in that case the Government rejected the findings and removed the preference as a result of more recent information that indicated that Brazilian imports had exceeded expected levels since the report was given to the Government. In other words, that is a similar position to the one concerning transformers. This affects substantially the application of the developing country preference being given to the manufactured goods of certain countries. The IAC report on alkylxanthates recommended that these products from Yugoslavia and the People's Republic of China be removed because of the threat of injury. The Government accepted the recommendation and said that the market situation would be monitored for a 12-month period and prompt action taken should it become evident that duty free imports from alternative developing country sources were causing or threatening to injure the local industry. That is one instance of the Government accepting the report of the IAC in relation to that matter. The theme running through these reports appears to be that the Government has considered the information available to the IAC; it has then considered whatever information may have come onto its possession after receiving the IAC's report, although the source and the full nature of the information is not necessarily disclosed; and it has made a decision either to agree or disagree with the report, basing that decision substantially on the further information which it has received. I would be interested to hear whether that is to be the practice of this Government in dealing with IAC reports. The IAC report on the steel industry is perhaps a better known and more publicised one in view of the recent steel industry package. The DEPUTY PRESEDENT-Order! the honourable senator's time has expired. Senator PETER RAE —In view of the way in which we are dealing with some nine or ten items together, Mr Deputy President, I wonder whether I might have a brief extension of time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have indulged the Senate. It was your wish that the reports be all tackled together. Are you agreeable to an extension of time being granted, Senator Button? Senator Button —Mr Deputy President, I have no objection to that but, of course, it is not for me to say. I would be quite happy for Senator Peter Rae to finish his speech, but it may be that other honourable senators want to speak on the reports. I would be happy for an extension to be granted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is leave of the Senate granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Senator PETER RAE —This course has been followed in an attempt to save time overall. I thank the Senate for its co-operation. There is a significant difference between the IAC recommendations with regard to steel and the package which has been developed in consultation between the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button), the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and the trade unions involved in the steel industry in Australia and also in consultation between the Steel Industry Advisory Council and the downstream users of steel. Reference has already been made to the fact that the package is a short term proposition which appears to enable BHP to obtain some preference for a period in return for one desirable and one perhaps less than desirable element. The desirable element is the negotiation of a productivity agreement and the apparent insistence of the Government and acceptance by the trade unions involved that the quid pro quo for protection must be productivity. I believe it is highly desirable in Australia that there be an acceptance of that view. Otherwise protected industries could act as pacemakers in industrial awards which create terms and conditions which are quite unreal and which only exacerbate the problem for which protection was given in the first place, rather than reducing it. The less than desirable aspect of the agreement, I believe, is that it is for a period of five years only, during which time there is to be an investment by BHP , which is regarded as firm to $500m and possible up to $800m, at a rate of investment which is less than that at which BHP itself has been investing over the last three years and which, on BHP's own very well publicised case over the past 18 months or so by way of both submissions to the IAC and the publication of various documents, advertisements and everything else is very much less than that which will be required over a period-it suggested ten years-to give Australia a modern, competitive and efficient steel industry. The amount which would be involved is $2.8 billion. Of course, this will take the steel industry in Australia only a short way down the path. There are other aspects of the matter which on another occasion I could comment on. In speaking very briefly to these reports I wished to draw attention to those aspects and to invite a response in due course from the Minister to the points I have raised. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to speak further. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(4.45) —Speaking only as a back bencher who does not come from a steel town, I believe it would be well to put on record very briefly some of the responses from the well-informed Press around Australia to the steel package which was negotiated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, which saved that industry from possible extinction as a feature of our national economic life. In the Australian Financial Review of 12 August the compiler of an article said: With the steel industry plan announced yesterday, Senator John Button has done what few politicians have ever managed-combined industrial reality and political necessity into a compromise package that might work. Nothing less, of course, could be expected of a Minister of Senator Button's ability and standing, but it is good to see it acknowledged in the responsible economic Press of this country. It has been acknowledged by the responsible economic commentators not only as a compromise but also as one that has every possibility of working. Even more, of course, has saved three steel cities from a situation in which grave depression would have descended on many families and many workers at present residing in those cities. We had the spectre of large- scale unemployment hovering over those cities. It has been dispersed in an arrangement which allows the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd shareholders and the market generally to invest in the steel industry as conducted by BHP at a rate which-I agree with Senator Peter Rae-is perhaps not a rate which many of us would think necessary, and which on the statements of BHP's management earlier this year, would seem to be necessary to make it internationally competitive. One wonders why BHP was not more forthcoming in its proposals to put money in it at a minimum rate of $500m a year. One wonders whether it is enough to achieve the level of investment that is needed to bring BHP into an internationally competitive position. Nevertheless, when one combines that with the productivity agreement which has been negotiated-I think Senator Rae was correct to point to this as one of the essential quid pro quos of the trade union movement-I think there is cause for hope. As I understand it, whilst management has agreed that there will be no retrenchments once the plan is in place, unions for their part have agreed not to oppose unreasonably increases in productivity running at some 2 per cent above the national trend rate. I understand that agreement was reached with the executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I believe it is a key part of that negotiating process. What we faced, of course, was a combination of BHP and the unions, who could have exercised sufficient industrial and political muscle to create a situation in which the Australian consumer of steel products was once again supporting an industry which was not prepared to put in the necessary investment and employment situations which did not have regard to the need for improved productivity. I believe that not only did the downstream users for once coalesce into a force which made it possible for the Government to withstand some of the pressures which BHP, and naturally its employees, were bringing to bear, but also in the overall package we now have a situation in which bounties will be publicly monitored by the Parliament in a way which is more beneficial to public scrutiny than is perhaps the case with tariff protection. I believe that with the report to the Parliament of the monitoring authority that has been established in place of the IAC to supervise the implementation of this package we will have a public opportunity to see how the bounties which, as I said, cannot be disguised are operating in support of the revitalisation of this industry, a revitalisation which I think most commentators would agree is an achievement of this Government which is well regarded throughout the Australian community. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(4.50) —I wish to speak briefly on item 13 , the Temporary Assistance Authority report on fluorescent and filament lamps. I draw the attention of the Senate to an anomaly which exists in Western Australia and which the Authority has overlooked. Unfortunately, it results in a very poor service to the people of Western Australia. The anomaly concerns lamps which are imported specifically to meet the requirements of Western Australia, where the voltage is generally 250, as compared with 240 volts in most of the other States . To accommodate that and to look after the demand, and particularly because of the poor performance of Australian-made lamps, which last only about 1,000 hours , in Western Australia a company was established to import lamps which were rated at 260 volts. That company was helping the consumers in Western Australia. It was well received and well supported until a multinational manufacturer with a base in Australia sought and gained support for the protection of its products , which were not made to look after the Western Australian market. A by-law which gave access to the Australian market to imported lamps with a 260 volt or higher rating was changed and the minimum rating increased to 280 volts, which took them out of the range of necessities for most people in Western Australia. I think it needs to be recognised that the 260 volt lamp which was being imported by the Western Australian company had a rated 3,000-hour life-this was reported on by the Australian Mineral Development Laboratories-compared with the rated 1,000 hours of the other product available to the people of Western Australia. We have suffered in Western Australia as a result of this restriction on the importation of the most suitable lamp for our State, and I should have thought that the Temporary Assistance Authority would have recognised that. However, the contrary was the case, and this seems to be typical of the approach of so many organisations which look at the macro aspect and ignore the smaller businesses of Australia, which do help consumers. The Authority's response to an application by Lighting Supply Co. Pty Ltd that a recently revoked by-law which had admitted lamps with a voltage rate exceeding 260 volts be reinstated was that a new by-law had been issued which restricted by-law entry to those lamps rated over 280 volts. As the company's evidence was submitted by statutory declaration, received after the public hearing had been completed, and therefore the Authority was unable to obtain the comments of other witnesses, the Authority did not consider that there was sufficient basis for any recommendation concerning the company's request. I think that that indicates a lack of consideration not just towards small business but to the people of Western Australia, and it needs to be recognised. Question resolved in the affirmative. Reports Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.55) -I move: That the Senate take note of Papers Nos 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 15. I wish to make a brief comment on the six papers relevant to primary industry. No. 5 is the report on rural adjustment. The Industries Assistance Commission in its report has recommended that there be no change in the rural adjustment scheme to meet the immediate adjustment problems consequent upon the severe drought which in most places, although not all, has now concluded. This report is dated April, when the drought was still raging. The Commission suggested that perhaps there had been unnecessary generosity or advantage to those who were not fully efficient producers or husbanders of stock and that matters relevant to fodder subsidy, interest rates and so forth perhaps had been abused. I must say that almost any matter that is relevant to the survival of an industry will in some measure be abused, but basically the provisions were well received, they were generous and, very significantly, they were needed by an important industry . We sometimes lose sight of the fact that the drought which brought about the introduction of these provisions was the most severe both in extent and climatically that this country has ever seen. Perhaps we also forget that many people who, on the surface, should have been better equipped were relatively young operators who had very significant debts and were in the early stages of their time on whatever land or property they may have had. Basically, Australia' s primary producers are the most efficient in the world on a per capita basis, and we need to make sure that, as the drought recedes into the background, the necessary incentive is made available to enable the community on the land to survive the impact of droughts. That sort of incentive comes from a proper measure of tax deductibility in areas such as facilities for the storing of fodder, conservation of soil and water, depreciation, income equalisation deposits, which already have been tampered with, and the investment allowance, which has proved to be just as important to the metropolitan and commercial areas of rural Australia as it has to the rural properties themselves. It is in these areas that we need to establish a proper direction, thus creating the sort of capacity necessary for defence against droughts if and when they occur. Paper No. 7, which refers to the dairy industry, merely relates to an extension of underwriting for the 1983-84 season. This extension applies to leviable dairy products. Basically, the money has not been required, but its presence is of great importance to the stability, strength and confidence of that industry. The recommendation of the IAC is that it be applied again for the 1983-84 season. I believe that Senator Macklin will refer to Paper No. 8, the IAC report on the sugar industry. The industry has suffered significantly as a result of the drought and the downturn in overseas prices. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator SCOTT —I seek leave to continue my remarks for five minutes. Leave granted. Senator SCOTT —In referring to the sugar industry one can never fail to refer to the tragic circumstance that the European Economic Community still refuses to become a party to the International Sugar Agreement, and consequent upon that are many of the price problems that confront this industry. However, the Commission has recommended no alteration in support for this industry. The pricing arrangement which applied in 1979 for a five-year period will remain basic to the circumstances of the remainder of this year and to the middle of 1984. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 6 dated 23 August 1983. Assent to the following Bills reported: Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill 1983 Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 1982-83 Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 1982-83 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1982-83 Bounty (Room Air Conditioners) Bill 1983 Bounty (Steel Products) Bill 1983 Taxation (Interest on Overpayments) Bill 1983 Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1983 Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1983 Income Tax (Individuals) Amendment Bill 1983 Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 1983 Income Tax (Payments for Work) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 Customs Amendment Bill 1983 Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1983 Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill 1983 Supply Bill (No. 1) 1983-84 Supply Bill (No. 2) 1983-84 Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1983 Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 Economic Planning Advisory Council Bill 1983 Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1983 Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1983-84 Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1983 Christmas Island Agreement Amendment Bill 1983 States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Amendment Bill 1983 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1983 Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1983 Community Employment Bill 1983 National Health Amendment Bill 1983 Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 Broadcasting and Television Amendment (Election Blackout) Bill 1983 Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill 1983 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1983 Navigation (Protection of the Sea) Amendment Bill 1983 Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill 1983 Membership Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964, the Senate elect Senator Robertson and Senator Teague to be members of the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies on and from 23 August 1983 and that they continue as members for a period of three years from that date. Membership Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Australian National University Act 1946, the Senate elect Senator Georges and Senator Peter Rae to be members of the Council of the Australian National University on and from 18 July 1983 and that they continue as members for a period of three years from that date. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That paragraph (8) of the resolution of the Senate of 22 April 1983, as amended , establishing the Select Committee on Statutory Authority Financing, be varied to read as follows: That the Select Committee report to the Senate on or before 8 September 1983. That motion is supported by the Committee. I wish to explain that the report is with the Government Printer but will not be available this week. There was a delay in the preparation of certain of the material caused by circumstances entirely beyond the control of the Committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 1 June, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —Mr Deputy President, I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the Senate to have a cognate debate covering this Bill and the Migration Amendment (Emigration of Certain Children) Bill 1983 as these are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is it the wish of the Senate to have a general debate covering both measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.5) —The Senate is about to commence debate on fairly extensive amendments to the Family Law Act and to debate cognately the Migration Amendment (Emigration of Certain Children) Bill which proposes to incorporate into the Family Law Act certain provisions of the Migration Act. Before commencing debate on these Bills, I refer to a very disturbing situation which has arisen as a result of answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to Senator Harradine at Question Time today. In my experience it has been traditional for the Senate, and indeed the Parliament, to consider family law matters as matters of conscience and to accord to senators and members a free vote and complete freedom for debate on these matters in the chamber. That was certainly the approach which the Opposition parties took when we were in government and which we intended to take on this legislation which was in fact introduced by me when I was Attorney-General in the previous Government. Despite the fact that it was introduced by me as Attorney-General it was certainly intended that it would be treated as a Bill on which senators would be given a free vote. Certainly the Opposition approaches this matter in the same way and will give its senators a free vote. However, it has transpired from answers from the Attorney-General at Question Time today, to which I have referred, that the Government, and presumably the Caucus, have decided that this legislation will not be given that traditional standing in this chamber or in another place. It is regarded as a Government measure and Government members and senators will be bound to support it as they are bound by their Caucus vote to support all Government measures regardless, presumably, of conscience or of major disagreement with the provisions of the measure. It is bad enough in itself that the traditional way in which family law matters are debated in this chamber should be so grossly changed in such a peremptory and autocratic way by the announcement of the Attorney-General but it also overlooks the fact that other matters may well be raised in this debate as proposed amendments, which by their nature will be very different from the provisions of this legislation and will be clearly matters of conscience. The Attorney-General has informed us that, if something like that does arise, the legislation will go back to Caucus for a debate on whether it will be accorded the status of allowing a free vote. Debate in this chamber will have to be adjourned to enable this process to take place. Government senators will not be free to express their views on proposals at the Committee stage without the permission of Caucus, which will sit outside this chamber and will tell Government senators how they can approach matters of such a sensitive and traditionally a conscience character. I believe this is a most serious step. It is a most unfortunate way in which to commence debate on a measure of such sensitivity as amendments to the Family Law Act. Senator Evans's reasons for it are specious in the extreme. He said that that was the only way that he was able to have time allocated to the legislation , so that the time could be controlled and Government senators participating in the debate disciplined in a rigorous way by the Whips. Apparently it was only by that sort of guarantee being given that the matter was able to be allotted parliamentary time. He referred to the difficulty in getting this legislation brought on, following its introduction. In fact, a Bill substantially in the form of the present measure was introduced in October 1981. That Bill gave effect to a large number of the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. It also gave effect to a number of recommendations of the Family Law Council and to certain matters which had been identified by the Attorney-General's Department and others as suitable for early amendment. It was an extensive Bill. Because it was treated by the previous Government and by me as Attorney-General, as warranting free vote and free debate, a decision was made to let it lie on the table for some time so that the public generally, and expert bodies such as the Law Council of Australia, could have the opportunity to propose further amendments. They made full use of that opportunity. Certain senators like Senator Missen, who had a particular interest in this matter, also took the opportunity available to them at that time. A great many amendments were submitted by various organisations, senators and people in the community. A tremendous amount of work was done during the first part of 1982 to try to sort out all these amendments, and decide which of them to incorporate in the Bill, which the Government wished to present to the Parliament in the tidiest form possible. That is why progress was delayed during 1982. When that process seemed to be nearing completion it was hoped that parliamentary time might be found to debate the matter in the Budget session of last year. It is worth noting that a great deal of the Parliament's time then was taken up by motions of Senator Gareth Evans and other members of the former Opposition attacking the Government, and me in particular, over the Costigan report. So a great deal of time that could otherwise have been available for debating the Family Law Amendment Bill was wasted. Senator Gareth Evans, who now complains about the delays that have occurred, chose then to use the precious time of the Parliament to make political points against the former Government rather than debate this measure. Since then, because of the early election and other factors, there has not been a further opportunity to debate it. That is the only reason for the delay. I want now to say a few words about the Bill and about amendments to it that may be considered during the debate. I say at the outset that the Bill is substantially a machinery measure. The Bill makes changes which seem desirable as a result of the workings of the Family Law Act since it came into operation in early 1976. The Act had been in operation for several years when, on my initiative, a parliamentary committee was set up to consider its workings. The committee reported in August 1980, after the Act had been in operation for several years. Of course, we have had an even greater opportunity over the years since to see areas where there have been difficulties. I repeat, many of them are of a machinery, rather than a policy character. By and large the object of the Bill is to give effect to such matters as I have described. Therefore, it would be more suitably debated at the Committee stage rather than at the second reading stage. It is clearly a Bill which should be given a second reading without lengthy consideration. By and large attention should be focused at the Committee stage on matters of detail. However, some broad general questions, no doubt of a non-political character, should be raised in the second reading debate. I propose to raise them. The Family Law Act, which was the subject of great consideration-certainly in this Parliament in 1974 and 1975 and by a committee of the Senate for some time prior-was, without doubt, a major piece of social legislation, indeed a revolutionary one in many respects. The abolition of the concept of matrimonial fault represented the single most important step taken that had been taken in matrimonial legislation in Australia. Indeed, although it was not the first legislation of its kind in the world, it certainly was in the forefront of reform in the matrimonial-family law area. The establishment of a no-fault basis for family law and of the Family Court of Australia represented two most profund changes in this field. The proposals which became law and which took effect in early 1976 were clearly ones which needed to be watched carefully. They were, in many respects, experimental. That is why I, as Attorney-General in the previous Government, proposed that the Parliament should review the operation of the Act. It did so in 1979-80 after the Act had had a reasonable opportunity to operate. The question that I think must be considered, although it is not directly raised in the Bill, is: How successful has that experiment been? The parliamentary committee took the view that basically it had been successful. It did not recommend either the abolition of the Family Court, which a number of people had severely criticised, or the introduction of fault grounds for divorce . Might I say that I entirely agree with those views of the parliamentary committee. However, I think I am bound to say that, over recent years, great disquiet has been developing in the community about the social effects of the Family Law Act, in particular the effect that it has had on parents in regard not only to their marital responsibilities and their responsibilities to their children but also their responsibilities to their marriage partners, regardless of the question of children. There are, I think, two aspects to it. Whether or not it is fair to blame the Family Law Act in such a severe way, as many people do, for a number of these ills that are perceived in the community, the fact remains that the Family Law Act does remain a focus of attention by many people for these reasons. Profound social, moral and religious questions are involved. We are all very well aware of the major changes in social and moral values, changes which have become much more widespread in recent years and which may well account for matters which are giving such concern to large numbers of people in the community. I believe that it is more these factors than the Family Law Act which have contributed to this state of affairs. I think it is incumbent upon us as members of parliament responsible for these laws to scrutinise them, to consider them and to determine whether there are any aspects of this legislation which may be contributing to the wider breakdown of marriage-the breakdown of marriage has been with us for a long time-and to the more widespread neglect of one's duties not only to one's marriage partner but also to the children of the marriage. During the years that I was Attorney- General I received an enormous amount of correspondence from people concerning the problems they had encountered under the Family Law Act, and, indeed, in the Family Court; problems, naturally enough, of such a kind that people would be seeking to blame institutions for them rather than themselves. But I do not think we can get away from the fact that a large section of the community, a very responsible section of the community, feels that the Family Law Act, the philosophy of the Act and even the institution of the Family Law Court and the approach of the Court, have in some way accelerated this process. They feel that they have not bolstered the institution of marriage but have contributed to a weakening of these ties and responsibilities. I want to mention several matters, all of which need attention in this debate and, I hope, in the Committee stage. When this Family Law Amendment Bill first appeared in the Senate, Senator Chaney and I moved an amendment requiring a two- year separation instead of one year as the ground for divorce. We moved that amendment because we felt that moving so quickly to one year separation would be seen as the Parliament giving the imprimatur to what is occurring-the breakdown of responsibilities to spouses and to children. In the event, that amendment was not accepted but I still believe that expansion of the period of separation is a question that should be considered in this debate. There is no doubt whatever, I think, that people see the ground of separation for one year as an easy way out of a marriage. It does not encourage them to work at their marriage and to give deeper consideration to their responsibilities. Then there is the question of counselling for reconciliation. I am bound to say that section 14 of the Act, one of the fundamental sections of the Act, which requires judges and those dealing with matters under the Act to give consideration to the possibility of reconciliation, is a dead letter. I do not know that much effect has ever been given to it. I was very concerned when talking to counsellors under the Act. The provision of counsellors was one of the major new steps that this Act introduced. The Family Court pioneered this field and the role of counsellors is very important. I am not criticising it; nor do I want to be seen as criticising them. Nevertheless their approach was this: 'Well, it is too late at this stage to do anything. The parties have decided that they want a divorce and the best thing we can do is to ease them through it as painlessly as possible'. That is a very worthy objective, I know, but I think there ought to be more attention given to this aspect, particularly when we have this very easy ground for divorce-one year's separation. It would not be too much, and it would not be too late, for better efforts to be made to counsel people towards reconciliation. I think some attention should be given to that matter in this debate. Another matter which I think is of great importance-I propose to move an amendment in regard to it-is the fact that far too many people are now able to slough their responsibilities to their spouses and to their children on to the taxpayer. This is because of the provisions of the Act which say that in considering maintenance and property settlements the Court shall take into account-not may but shall take into account-the eligibility of either party for a pension under any law of Australia or a State. I believe that the long term effects of that provision in this Act have been very unfortunate indeed. I believe that it has resulted in more and more people being able to take a much more cavalier attitude to their responsibilities. They know that the supporting parent's benefit or the widow's pension is available and at dissolution of marriage they can so structure their financial arrangements and their liabilities to each other in such a way that they can maximise the benefits which can be obtained from the State, from the taxpayers. The great expansion of cost to Government of welfare payments, in particular the supporting parent's benefit, has been well documented. I do not intend to go into it. It was accepted as a very worrying fact by the previous Government and is so accepted by the present Government. I notice that Senator Evans in an interview published in the Australian of 11 April this year spoke about this problem. In fact, he foreshadowed in this debate the very matter I am mentioning. He said: Any changes to the Family Law Act would probably include removal of a section which directs courts to take welfare payments into account when setting maintenance payment levels. He said that he had set up an internal inquiry within the Attorney-General's Department to develop the proposal. He continued: I'm expecting a report from this inquiry in two or three months. I would like to know from Senator Evans what is happening about that. It was certainly a matter about which the previous Government had been concerned for some time. In fact, the Attorney-General's Department had been looking at this matter for some time, long before Senator Evans became Attorney-General. Therefore I do not know why this proposal seems somehow to have been bogged down . The Joint Committee also referred to this problem in its report. It said: . . . . relatives should not be in a position to transfer their obligations to support relatives to the community at large . . . This is obviously a matter which must be seriously considered in this debate. Senator Chaney, who was then the Minister for Social Security, and I indicated in a statement on 21 January this year that we would be proposing this amendment . We were then Ministers in the previous Government and we intended to introduce an amendment of this kind had we had the carriage of this Bill through the Parliament. Therefore, I foreshadow that amendment. I think that is something which will bring home to people their responsibilities. It will affect their hip pocket nerve and may well, in the long term, reverse the cavalier attitude to marital and parental responsibilities. Senator Gietzelt —Are you proposing an amendment? Senator DURACK —That is an amendment I will be moving. It may have been circulated, I do not know. Senator Missen —It has been circulated. Senator DURACK —I wish to speak about one other matter. I refer to the proposal in this legislation with regard to divorce on the papers, which is the correct way of describing it, although it is known popularly as divorce by post, which it is not. For the sake of convenience I will refer to it by its popular description. I introduced this proposal in the original Bill. It is contained in that Bill and in this Bill. After the Bill was laid on the table for consideration I was very much impressed by the widespread criticism of this provision. Although from a mechanical point of view it is a very sensible proposal, the perception of it is very bad. I think the Senate should give consideration as to whether this proposal should proceed. In this area we are concerned with perceptions of social and moral responsibilities. I think there is a question mark about the way in which the Family Law Act is working in respect of these very sensitive matters. I do not think we should take any steps further down the road which may be seen as the Parliament giving approval to lessening the social and moral obligations that partners in marriage have to each other and to the children. (Extension of time granted) I appreciate the indulgence given to me by the Senate. I will not abuse it. I have nearly finished. I have suggested that in this debate it is incumbent upon us to give some broad consideration to the role of the Family Law Act in relation to the social and moral obligations which the partners in marriage have to each other and to their children in addition to a close consideration of a large number of machinery matters that this legislation brings forward and which I support overwhelmingly. I have said that the Act was a great and revolutionary socal experiment. We should be looking at the legislation in a broad way at this stage. A parliamentary committee has done so, but I believe it is the obligation of this Parliament to do so as well. I have indicated that in my opinion there has been a worrying decline in standards of marital responsiblity. There is widespread concern in the community that this process of decline has been occurring. Whether or not the Family Law Act can be blamed is another issue altogether. But I think that the perception of the Family Law Act is important because legislation is the way in which this Parliament is called upon to discharge its responsibilities to the community. The views that it expresses through its legislation carry some weight not only in political matters, but also in social and moral ones. I have suggested some ways which ought to be considered by this Parliament which can bolster the institution of marriage. I do not think any of us believe that we should be quite deliberately doing anything which will weaken those obligations. We would all want to see those obligations strongly held to and observed. In this debate we should look at ways in which we may positively take some steps to give a directon to the community by our views on these matters. At the same time I do not think we should be taking any steps in this legislation which will further accelerate the weakening of those obligations. Certainly we do not want to do anything in or to the Family Law Act which may weaken the role of the Family Court and the Act itself. Therefore, on reflection, I think it would be better if we did not adopt that particular recommendation. I put it only in that broad perspective, not on its own. In this Parliament we should be giving very deep consideration to the very sensitive matters that are dealt with by the Family Law Act. Regrettable as it is, these attitudes are widespread in the community. Marriage breakdown does occur. We may regret it, but we have to have legislation to provide for it when it occurs. But our legislation should be designed to bolster marriage and not weaken it. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(5.29) —The Family Law Act was passed originally in 1975 after a heated debate which met its climax after a very heated public discussion. Much of the heat was generated by misapprehensions, ignorance and the belief in myths about marriage and its dissolution. It has been interesting to see in the public discussion on these amendments over the last few months, that ignorance and misapprehension are still much alive on these issues and that the myths persist. We have heard some of them in the last few minutes. In 1975 I remember hearing from the visitor's gallery in the other place the dire predictions about social collapse voiced by those whose consciences impelled them to oppose the Family Law Act. Eight years on and those predictions can be seen to have been, at the least, grossly exaggerated. Any legislation which has extensive profound social implications, as this has, needs to be in operation for some time before it is clear what changes are desirable. In 1978 a joint select committee of both Houses was appointed to review the operation of the Family Law Act. That committee reported to Parliament in 1980. In 1981 the then Attorney-General introduced the Family Law Amendment Bill, but this had not passed the second reading stage when the election was held in March this year. I am pleased that we have been able to move fairly quickly and bring this matter on for debate early this session. I am speaking on this Bill not as a lawyer but as a former student counsellor who counselled many children and their parents before, during and after their involvement in family court proceedings. So I have been able to observe the way in which the provisions of the Act and the work and procedures of the court affect families and particularly the children of those families. I have worked with those families to minimise the trauma of the whole process of family breakdown long before, as well as after, court proceedings. It is from that perspective that I wholeheartedly support the amendments now before the Senate, more than half of which seek to implement the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. Many groups and individuals in the community have also contributed usefully to this set of amendments. I understand they are still doing so. The public discussion in the period since the Committee report was presented has had this positive result. As I said earlier, there are some prevalent myths still being aired which need to be dispelled. I will mention two before going on to discuss some provisions of the Bill. The first is that the Family Law Act itself has contributed to family breakdown and has been the cause of rising divorce figures. Divorce rates have risen in the last decade but I believe that there are many, many reasons for this, including recently the stresses caused by unemployment and resultant poverty. If the Family Law Act has contributed, I suggest it is because it has enabled relationships to be ended with more decency, less complication and at a lower cost than was possible under the previous provisions. In other words, the marriage breakdowns which were hidden by lack of money or reluctance publicly to prove guilt have now been able to be decently buried. I assert that countless Australians and their children are the better for having been released from a dead or destructive relationship. The second myth is that children are always better off in an intact two-parent family. It is a tragedy that many parents maintain a destructive marriage relationship, often in their eyes for the sake of the children when those children are often all too aware of the tensions that their parents believe are hidden and express relief when the breach finally comes. I welcome the changes in social and religious attitudes which have lessened the stigma of seperation and divorce, particularly for the children. Yet I have been amazed how often, even up till this year, teenagers believe they are different from their classmates because their parents have parted, when it is certain that many of those classmates also belong to one parent families, or, these days, often to blended families. I deal now with some provisions of the Act which seem important to me, again from my perspective as until recently a counsellor working with the people whom the amendments in the Bill aim to help. I welcome the widening of the definition of a child of a marriage to include all children who are recognised to be members of the family, including adopted or ex-nuptial children of either partner and children who are born as a result of artificial insemination or in vitro fertilisation. I welcome the proposal that proceedings be heard in open court. This was the subject of dissent from the original Joint Select Committee report. I would have agreed with that dissenting view if safeguards had not been made very tight, as I believe they have been made in these amendments. There are considerable advantages in open hearings. Firstly, justice is seen to be done and the operation of the court is open to public scrutiny. This may help dispel misconceptions such as that men never get custody or, conversely, that maintenance provisions always disadvantage women. Open courts could also minimise the fear of the unknown, which I think is very important in any court. At present most people going into a family court situation have no idea, and no way of knowing, exactly what is going to happen and what the procedures of the court are, unless they are represented by a very conscientious solicitor. Such an arrangement would also give those who may be called to give evidence in the court some knowledge of procedures and thereby would overcome the reluctance of some of these people, such as the teachers of children involved, to take part in proceedings. This should help the court in its deliberations. The risk of identification and the invasion of privacy is minimised by the rules about publication and the heavy penalties for breach of those rules, including the ban on the publication of court lists. However, I think that the provisions in respect of open hearings will need to be watched very carefully when they start operating and may need to be amended further. I am pleased that the distinction has been drawn clearly between counselling to assist parties to resolve differences, which is confidential, and the counsellor 's report to the court as a guide to the judge's deliberation. I hope that strong efforts are made to explain this distinction to the parties involved. The situation has been muddied at times. It is difficult for the counsellor to delineate both parts of his or her role, particularly a counsellor who lacks experience outside a court setting, and many do. It is clearly much more difficult for the other parties to understand what is to be regarded as confidential and what is not. I know that this has led to feelings that trust has been betrayed. Clause 25 gives due regard to the rights of children. We must remember that custody orders apply until age 18 years which many people now regard as getting out of the range of what is regarded as a child. It is proposed that in custody proceedings the court will be required to consider the expressed wishes of the child or the child's preference not to express a wish. I think that is very important because the necessity to express a wish about whom one wants to live with puts very great pressure on children. Where practicable, all parties must attend a counselling conference or series of conferences, the exceptions being in cases of urgency or where counselling facilities are not available. It is proposed that custody or guardianship be awarded to two or more persons and not necessarily the partners of the marriage. Therefore-and I have had cases in which this obviously would have been the correct solution-grandparents would be able to be awarded custody or guardianship because they are the ones who really care most about the future of the children and have the facilities to look after them. Right of access, similarly, could be granted to persons who may not be a party to a marriage. The range of restraining injunctions is extended in the Bill to include the entrance to the home or place of work of the party or the place of work of a child. I hope that this provision also includes schools, which are often placed in a very difficult position when teachers are confronted by an angry and demanding non-custodial parent and a child who clearly does not want to see that parent. There are a number of provisions regarding maintenance, two of which I would like to draw to senators' attention. It is proposed that in ruling on maintenance a court must take into account the eligibility for pensions, including overseas pensions and superannuation, and the financial circumstances of cohabitation-for example, it will no longer be possible to avoid maintenance by giving up work and living with a wealthy partner. I refer here to men as well as women. In property settlements, it is provided that account must be taken of contributions other than financial contributions, and that is something that is very important to women. They must also take into account the effect of the order on the earning capacity of the custodial parent. In many cases the parent who gains custody of the child has to alter his or her job or work pattern or even place of residence so as to look after the child, and these factors will now be taken into consideration. Further, the Bill provides that proceedings concerning the property of parties to the marriage will no longer have to be postponed until the marriage is dissolved. This will be of great benefit to children and the parent who has their care. Under the law at present, a family may be forced to leave the matrimonial home. Frequently for the parent and the child this means leaving the local school and social network although they may be able to move back in a year's time or longer. From the children's point of view this may be at least as painful as the final break-up of the parents' marriage. Lastly, I come to the provisions for proceedings in the absence of parties of the marriage-what has been most erroneously referred to as 'divorce by post'. Proceedings in the absence of the parties to the marriage will be able to take place under very strict conditions. This may occur firstly, in the case of where one party institutes proceedings for dissolution, the case is undefended and the applicant requests that the court proceed without the presence of the respondent . The other provision in this case is that the respondent has not objected to this course being taken. Secondly, where dissolution proceedings are instituted jointly, where both partners are asking for dissolution and one requests that the court proceed in their absence, to which the other does not object, or where both request proceedings to take place in their absence, it is possible for that to happen. In other words, there are ample safeguards to protect the people concerned and many would consider it a civilised way to end a marriage with dignity. Senator Coleman —And saves money as well. Senator ZAKHAROV —It saves money as well. These provisions will in many cases save considerable cost to the parties and to the Commonwealth, incidentally, where legal aid is involved. It will save inconvenience and loss of income where the parties are separated by distance. Most importantly, it will save the emotional upset and even possible aggressive behaviour which can result when two people meet in those circumstances, perhaps after a lengthy separation which has been accompanied by much bitterness. One group has put it to me that divorce proceedings are somewhat analogous to a funeral in helping to resolve the grief of the partners and so it is helpful for them both to be present. I do not believe that this analogy is valid. There may well be no grief by that stage. If there is grief, it is unlikely to be helped by the court process which in no way resembles a funeral ceremony or a wake. A confrontation in court may well open old wounds or inflict new ones. Apart from the benefit to the partners-I remind honourable senators that both partners must agree to such a hearing in their absence-there are benefits in reducing the waiting list for other defended actions. Waiting time will also be reduced by the delegation of some of the court's more routine work to officials other than judges. Any reduction in the waiting time before coming to court must benefit all parties but particularly children who, in my experience, often express the wish that it all be over so that they know where they stand or with whom they are going to live. Incidentally, pre-1975 it was not necessary for the respondent to be present in an undefended case. Finally, I will mention the argument relating to proceedings in the absence of the parties which has also been used about all other reforms in family law; that is, that it encourages people to take the break-up of marriage lightly. Some people apparently believe that making divorce difficult will make people more careful about contracting a marriage. My impression is that people are more thoughtful about deciding to marry now than they were when divorce was infinitely more difficult. The counselling provisions of the Act are a step forward in safeguarding the possibility of preventing final breakdown. However, if couples feel that they have foolishly rushed into divorce there is no bar to remarriage. I have two minor reservations about the provisions of the Bill. The first is the difficulty in ensuring that penalties will prevent publication of matters which may identify parties in Family Court proceedings. This will need to be closely monitored, especially in the early stages. The other reservation I have concerns the expertise and the time available to the court counselling service. I hope the Attorney-General's Department will make sure that that service is able to meet the increased demands upon it. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.55) —I have pleasure in joining this debate on the Family Law Amendment Bill 1983 and the Migration Amendment (Emigration of Certain Children) Bill 1983 which are being debated together. The latter Bill amends emigration laws. It is purely a case of bringing into family law provisions to protect children who may be taken from Australian jurisdiction. I will confine myself to the major Bill. I do not propose to make a long speech in regard to this matter. It is not that I do not regard it as a most important Bill-I do indeed and I believe the whole subject is of great importance-but it will be realised that some debate on the 1981 Bill commenced last year. In the course of the debate on the second reading of that Bill I made a speech which appears at page 160 of the Hansard for 18 August 1982. I hold the same views today about the matters which I raised during that debate but some developments have taken place which I think should be commented on briefly. I join with Senator Durack in being concerned that members of the Australian Labor party do not have a completely free right to tackle this matter in a non- party way. I can understand their difficulties. I also understand that it is very important that these matters should not necessarily be considered as matters of conscience. They are not matters of conscience. It is a matter of what are the best provisions to put into the Bill. This Bill is loaded with provisions designed to improve the operations of the Family Court and to operate the family law system more successfully. I think it is a pity if members of the Parliament on all sides cannot openly join in the debate without the cumbersome procedure whereby they have to obtain some leave from their party. Moreover, of course, as one who has given notice of a number of amendments to this Bill, I hope that members of the Australian Labor Party too will take the opportunity, overnight at least and before the debate resumes, to look at those amendments to consider whether they merit support. I say that not because I have proposed the amendments but because, in most cases, they are ideas which have been put forward by a number of bodies including the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act, the Family Law Council and the Law Council of Australia, through its family law group. I think these ideas ought to be put into the Bill to improve the workability of the Family Court system. We know, of course, that this whole arrangement has taken a long time. The report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act which I have here is the result of an extensive and long investigation by a Committee of this Parliament. It has formed the basis of the proposals that are now before us. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —For the information of honourable senators, I lay upon the table the following papers: Budget Statements 1983-84 Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the Year Ending 30 June 1984 Civil Works Program 1983-84 Government Securities on Issue at 30 June 1983 Payments to or for the States, the Northern Territory and Local Government Authorities 1983-84 Australia's Overseas Development Assistance Program 1983-84 National Income and Expenditure 1982-83 Income Tax Statistics Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year Ending 30 June 1984 Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in respect of the Year Ending 30 June 1984 Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the Year Ending 30 June 1984 in relation to the Parliamentary Departments Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement outlining the Government's budgetary proposals for the financial year 1983-84. Leave granted. Senator WALSH —Tonight the Treasurer is delivering in another place his Budget Speech for 1983-84. It is my privilege to outline to the Senate the Budget proposals of the Government. RECENT ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE This Government inherited an economy undergoing its worst recession in fifty years. Activity, both in the farm and non-farm sectors, began to weaken almost two years ago, and was still falling when the Government came to office. Gross Domestic Product has declined by 4.5 per cent from its pre-recession peak . The labour market deteriorated even more sharply than this figure suggests. Nearly three-quarters of a million Australians were already out of work when the Government took office. Unemployment had risen by 263,000 during the previous twelve months. Inflation, at 11.5 per cent, was running at more than double the OECD average and was accompanied by high interest rates. Obviously, the economic policies of the previous Government had failed to come to terms with Australia's deep-seated problems. The policy of 'fighting inflation first' had not only failed to restrain the inflation rate but had laid to waste large areas of our industries, relegating hundreds of thousands to the misery and indignity of unemployment. This Government sought and received a very clear mandate from the Australian people to put the country back on the path to economic prosperity and to deal with inflation and unemployment simultaneously-with a spirit of consensus and fairness that would give the strategy its greatest opportunity for success. With those objectives in mind the Government embarked upon the National Economic Summit, the May Statement of economic measures, the Premiers' Conference and now the Budget to build that consensus and hone the edge of its policies to turn those objectives into achievements. The National Economic Summit endorsed the broad thrust of the Government's economic strategy with particular support for the policy of fighting inflation and unemployment simultaneously. At the Premiers' Conference, an historic accord of all Premiers endorsed the Commonwealth Government's approach to its forthcoming Budget. The process of discussion, consultation and consensus has produced the first signs of optimism in a country wearied by broken promises, dashed expectations and depressed economic conditions. This Budget seeks to build upon that optimism-to nurture it, to develop it, until consumer spending and business investment regain their appropriate momentum. While that private sector spending is at a low ebb, the Government has accepted the need for a more substantial role for the public sector. Its policy in this Budget is to provide the maximum fiscal stimulus to the economy consistent with its anti-inflation objectives but without placing undue burdens on interest rates or the balance of payments. To this end, the Government took the opportunity in May of providing an early stimulus to the badly depressed building and construction industry, with measures directed at both private and public sector housing. In fulfilment of one of its major election commitments it also established the Community Employment Program to assist the long term unemployed. A similar approach was taken at the Premiers' Conference. Through both tax sharing grants and loan programs the Commonwealth assisted the States to increase their activity, including their large capital works programs. This Budget builds on those earlier steps. It is designed to provide a floor of activity in the economy while the private sector recovers. There are already signs of a pick-up in that activity. 1983-84 holds promise of a considerable improvement in economic performance. But our economic problems are deep-seated and they cannot be resolved quickly or by precipitate action. The key task of our policy therefore is to facilitate a sustained recovery that wears away the unacceptably high level of unemployment we are now experiencing. But this Budget is also about fairness and equity-about a re-ordering of priorities. It focuses assistance on those who have suffered most from the recession and on those areas so long neglected by our predecessors. Today's unemployed are victims of events beyond their individual control. It is unconscionable that they also be made victims of government indifference. Later in my Speech I will announce substantial increases in benefits to the unemployed. The Community Employment Program also makes its contribution in this area. It is directed at the longer term unemployed who, because of their lack of recent work experience, are particularly disadvantaged in job- seeking. We have also taken steps to fulfil our election pledge to introduce Medicare which will share the costs of health care for all Australians more equitably. Fairness also requires that those who are evading their obligations to society by avoiding tax are made to pay their share. The existing system and structure of taxation has developed in a fragmented and ad hoc fashion. The substantially increased weight of taxation overall makes the need for efficiency in tax arrangements all the more pressing. The Government has given this high priority both in the measures announced in May and those I will be announcing tonight. Before turning to the detail of our outlays proposals, I note that the burgeoning cost of our predecessors' programs, if left unchecked, would have severely circumscribed our ability to meet our own high priority commitments. On taking office we were advised that, on unchanged policies, the tentative Budget outlook for 1983-84 was for a deficit of $9.6 billion-including an increase of 12 per cent on 1982-83 outlays as then estimated. However, it became clear during the Budget process, in the light of more recent estimates, that outlays would be more than $800m higher than indicated in the forward estimates. A full reconciliation of the revised forward estimates with the original is provided in an Appendix to Statement No. 3 in the accompanying Budget Paper No. 1. If that had been the only change to the Budget estimates we would have been facing a deficit in 1983-84 of $10.4 billion rather than $9.6 billion. But because of several factors, including the higher growth estimates now in prospect, in part because of events put in train by this Government, the revenue estimates have increased by about $1.4 billion. Given that the residual deficit of $9 billion was higher than the Government had considered acceptable, our new expenditure initiatives could only be financied by cutting back on our precedessors' programs or by increasing taxes. OUTLAYS Because of the fiscal position the government inherited we were not prepared nor able simply to add our own programs to those of the previous Government. Rather, we have sought-and achieved-a substantial re-ordering of priorities. In doing so, we have reduced prospective expenditures, to the extent of almost $1220m in 1983-84, on those programs which supported organisations or individuals who could reasonably be expected to provide for themselves. Similarly, we have made revenue savings on program-related tax expenditures amounting to $230m in 1983-84; these include the income tax rebate for basic health insurance and the tax rebates for housing loan interest. On present estimates, a further $390m will be provided by the Medicare tax levy . The combined effect of these measures is to reduce the prospective 1983-84 Budget deficit by $1840m. Our decisions on new programs and additions to existing programs are estimated to add about $2490m to outlays in 1983-84; these include the introduction of Medicare, the Community Employment Program, our initiatives on public housing, measures to ease the plight of the unemployed, and a wide range of other initiatives-some already announced and others which I shall outline this evening . We have also provided substantial real increases in payments to the States and in a number of other areas. After allowance for the offsets I have just mentioned, totalling $1840m, the net cost of our new expenditure initiatives is about $650m. I repeat, therefore, that we have achieved our objectives for new programs, not by simply adding them on, but by a genuine re-ordering of priorities. Details of individual programs are set out in Statement No. 3 and other Budget statements: more information will be provided, as appropriate, by the Ministers responsible. HEALTH Under Medicare, to operate from February 1984, all Australians will be covered automatically for the costs of basic health care regardless of their income. Medicare will be a simple, equitable and universal system of medical and hospital cover; the additional outlays involved in its implementation are estimated at $600m in 1983-84 and about $1800m in a full year. Taking account of our decisions announced in May and estimated revenue from the proposed levy on taxable income, the net cost of Medicare to the Budget is estimated at $35m in 1983-84 and about $80m in a full year. The Minister for Health will introduce relevant legislation during the present sittings of Parliament. To counter medical fraud and overservicing, a special Surveillance and Investigations Program will be introduced in 1983-84; expenditure in this Field will double to $8m. SOCIAL SECURITY AND WELFARE This Government places very high priority on improving the lot of the most disadvantaged in our community. The welfare of this group deteriorated sharply, and its numbers increased substantially, during the seven years of the Fraser Government. We reject that Government's expenditure priorities and we reject their macroeconomic policies which added drastically to the ranks of the unemployed. But the damage cannot be repaired overnight. The measures I shall now announce, together with those I announced in May, represent first steps in re-establishing priorities in favour of those in the community who have suffered most from recent economic conditions. Further details will be provided by the Ministers for Social Security and Veterans' Affairs. Unemployment and Other Benefits The Government has already increased, from May 1983, the rate of unemployment benefit for single persons aged 18 and over by $4.25 per week to $68.65 per week , at a cost of about $100m in 1983-84. The Government has now decided to increase the rate again in November 1983 by $ 4.95 per week, or by $2 a week more than needed to allow for inflation, to bring the rate to $73.60 per week. Commencing in May 1984, this rate will be automatically indexed for increases in the Consumer Price Index; at that time, a $2 supplement will again be provided. On current reckoning, this will amount to a further increase of about $4.80 per week. The total increase since this Government came to office will be around $14 per week or more than 21 per cent; over the same period the combined married rate is likely to have increased, with existing indexation arrangements, by about 16 per cent to around $148.90 per week. The rate of unemployment and sickness benefit payable to single persons aged under 18 years, which has been increased only once since 1975, will be raised by $5 to $45 per week in November 1983. To encourage unemployed people to seek casual and part-time work, the income test for unemployment and sickness benefits is to be liberalised from March 1984 . Beneficiaries will be allowed to earn $20 per week rather than the present $10 per week without any reduction in the benefit they receive; and the upper limit of the non-benefit income range over which the benefit is reduced on a 50 per cent basis will be increased from $60 to $70 per week. These Budget measures are estimated to cost $118 million in 1983-84 and $276 million in a full year. Other measures which I shall announce shortly will also benefit the unemployed. Assistance for Families Supplements for Children of Pensioners and Beneficiaries The rate of additional pension and benefit for the 800 000 children of pensioners and beneficiaries, which has been increased only once since 1975, will be increased by 20 per cent to $12 per week from November 1983; the maximum rate of Family Income Supplement will be increased by the same amount per child. To ensure that such assistance is not reduced by the impact of personal income tax, all additional assistance for the children of unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries will be made non-taxable from 1 March 1984 at a full-year cost of $20 million. For beneficiaries who are standard rate taxpayers, this exemption will mean a reduction in tax of up to $3.60 per week for each child from March 1984. The comparable payments to pensioners, supporting parents and employed persons with low family incomes are already exempt from income tax. The Government will also legislate to provide for a uniform rate of mother's/ guardian's allowance of $8 per week payable to sole parent pensioners and supporting parent beneficiaries; we will extend, from May 1984, this non-taxable payment to single unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries with dependent children. The Government will be allocating $10 million in 1983-84, rising to $30 million in 1984-85, for high priority new and expanded projects and initiatives under the Childrens Services Program. The cost of these various measures to assist families is estimated to be $77 million in 1983-84 and $141 million in a full year. Assistance for Those Living in Remote Areas Most pensioners and beneficiaries living in remote areas of Australia can take little or no advantage of the Tax Zone Rebate. To redress this, the Government has decided to introduce a new payment for pensioners and beneficiaries living in Tax Zone A of $7 per week for single people $12 per week for married couples and $3.50 per week for each dependent child. These allowances, which will be payable from May 1984 and will be non-taxable, are estimated to cost about $3 million in 1983-84 and about $16 million in a full year. Retirement Incomes The Government is determined to make Australia a fairer society. We must reform our taxation and welfare systems so that tax burdens are spread throughout the community on the basis of capacity to pay, and welfare payments are provided according to needs. Since taking office, the Government has moved decisively to enhance our equity objectives in the retirement incomes area. In my May Statement, I announced the introduction of an income test on the component of age and service pensions for persons aged over 70 which was previously paid free of any income test. We have also reformed the tax treatment of superannuation. There is evidence of extensive and increasing avoidance of the pension income test by people who do not need the pension. One reason for this was the removal of the assets test in 1976. The Government has decided to reintroduce a test on both income and assets along similar lines to the test that applied before. An outline of the new test will be announced shortly by the Minister for Social Security. For the moment, I simply say that the exemptions will include the following types of assets: the pensioner's home or principal residence; a car for personal use by each pensioner; personal effects including furniture, household effects, a caravan, a boat, jewellery, works of art; and other assets to the value of $1500 for a single pensioner and $2500 for pensioner couples. Allowing for administrative processes, the new test will not operate until about 12 months after legislation has been passed. Meanwhile, the Government has decided to remove the exemption from the pension income test of certain income received from friendly societies, which has been increasingly exploited for the purpose of gaining or increasing pension entitlement. Removal of the exemption will take effect from 1 November 1983 and is estimated to save about $7m in 1983-84 and $10m in a full year. Pensioner Fringe Benefits The Government has decided to take action on the fringe benefit income test to reduce incentives for income test avoidance. This test, like the pension income test, will be based on income and assets; in the meantime, the Government will introduce automatic indexation of the income limits on a twice-yearly basis in line with increases in the Consumer Price Index. This will help to maintain entitlement to concessions for eligible pensioners whose incomes increase from time to time because of inflation. Assistance for the Handicapped The Government has decided to introduce, from December 1983, a spouse carer's pension. This will allow the husband of an age, service or invalid pensioner wife to receive assistance, on the same basis as wife's pension, where the husband provides care and attention for an extended period on account of his wife's severe physical or mental disability. Sheltered workshops, activity therapy centres and training centres for the handicapped will be eligible for certain increased subsidies towards staff costs , and a new bonus of $500 will be paid to people previously receiving sheltered employment allowance who successfully transfer to open employment. The total cost of the spouse carer's pension and the additional assistance for the handicapped is estimated to be $4m in 1983-84 and $10m in a full year. Emergency Relief The Government recognises the pressures on voluntary agencies at this time to provide additional emergency relief. To assist in meeting those pressures, the amount provided to assist such agencies will be doubled to $5m in 1983-84. Care of the Aged The Government is determined to reduce the extent to which Australians rely on inappropriate and expensive institutional care for the elderly and infirm. Pending the development during 1983-84 of detailed proposals on community care and the completion of a review of funding guidelines for nursing homes, the Government has decided to restructure the existing personal care subsidy for hostel care and to relate assistance more closely to the needs of hostel residents. We also plan to develop geriatric assessment units and to provide funds for essential research. The cost in 1983-84 is estimated at $9m Assistance for Migrants In 1983-84 an additional 60 grants at a cost of $778 000 will be provided under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme to assist ethnic and other community organisations to employ social welfare workers to provide services to migrants. The additional grants will bring the total number of grants under the scheme to 200 by June 1984. Assistance for Aboriginals The Budget provides $207m-an increase of 28 per cent-for Aboriginal advancement programs administered by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. These funds will be directed towards expanding the role of the National Aboriginal Conference and expanding existing programs for Aboriginals in the fields of employment, health, legal aid and community management and services; special programs will also be developed to assist Aboriginal fringe dwellers. Other spending specifically to assist Aboriginals will total about $167m in 1983-84, an increase of 22 per cent; for example, grants of $52m are earmarked for Aboriginals under the welfare housing program, and $7m is provided under the Community Employment Program for Aboriginal employment. Reflecting the state of the economy and the measures I have announced tonight, total outlays on Social Security and Welfare are estimated to increase by 19.3 per cent in 1983-84 to $16 843m. Consistent with our general approach of re-ordering priorities, the substantial improvements to our welfare system which I have just outlined have been achieved at a net cost of only $107m in 1983-84. EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING The Government has already announced several initiatives which will put people into work quickly, and which will also result in worthwhile improvements in the country's infrastructure, notably in such areas as roads and country town water supplies. In 1983-84 we expect to spend $958m on employment and training schemes-80 per cent more than in 1982-83-which, when fully operational, are expected to result in employment and/or training opportunities for about 300 000 people a year. Other spending aimed at increasing the supply of housing, Commonwealth office space and roads, maintaining the Commonwealth's assets and assisting the steel industry and steel-producing regions will also boost employment substantially. HOUSING Our housing programs provide increased, and more flexible, assistance for first home buyers and substantial additional funds for public housing. These programs, the details of which have already been announced, will lead to increased housing activity in both the public and private sector. This increase in activity is expected to create at least 30 000 additional jobs . Total outlays from the Budget on housing in 1983-84 are estimated at $912m, an increase of 23 per cent on 1982-83. CAPITAL WORKS Contrary to the failed approach of our predecessors, this Government supports the use of expansionary fiscal policy during economic downturns, including by way of capital works spending which directly stimulates employment. Substantial capital works spending is warranted by the overall slack in the economy, and in particular by the spare capacity at present in the construction sector. Further, after seven years of neglect under our predecessors, during which capital spending became the scapegoat for the lack of genuine expenditure restraint, there is a heavy backlog of urgently needed public works. Reflecting these factors, expenditure on civil works financed directly from the Budget is to be $390m in 1983-84, an increase of 16 per cent over 1982-83. Moreover, in total, direct capital expenditure and capital grants provided in the Budget will increase by about 22 per cent to $3700m in 1983-84. Airports There will be a major upgrading of our airports, including the relocation and upgrading of civil aviation facilities at Darwin at the total cost of $95m and the commencement of a new international terminal at Perth, to cost $48m. New aviation works to be started in 1983-84 form part of a program estimated to cost $213m over the next four years. Commonwealth Offices We shall embark on a major Commonwealth office construction program which will stimulate the construction industry and hold down our rapidly increasing expenditure on rental accommodation. Offices will be commenced in Townsville, Thursday Island and Lismore, and in Glenorchy and Bellerive in Tasmania. We shall also call for expressions of interest from the private sector with a view to proceeding with lease/purchase office development, as appropriate, at Parramatta, Newcastle, Wollongong, Dubbo, Rockhampton, Mackay, Cairns, Fremantle , Port Pirie and Devonport. Repairs and Maintenance Expenditure on repairs and maintenance (including funds under the Community Employment Program) will increase by 29 per cent to $220m in 1983-84. This labour intensive and geographically dispersed program will create jobs and will begin to redress the serious decline in the physical condition of Commonwealth assets that has been allowed to develop in recent years. TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS Total 1983-84 Budget outlays on transport and communications are estimated at $ 1705m. Because of the effect of once-only capital injections for Qantas, TAA, ANL and AUSSAT in 1982-83, this is about 3 per cent below 1982-83 spending. Roads Assistance Grants to the States and Northern Territory for roads will total $1233m in 1983 -84, an increase of 45 per cent. This includes $70m earmarked for expenditure on local roads under the Jobs on Local Roads element of the Community Employment Program. Road Safety Expenditure to improve road safety in Australia is to be increased in 1983-84 by 56 per cent to $6.1m. Rail The Government is undertaking a comprehensive review of Australian National Railways' operations with a view to improving its efficiency. Meanwhile, the $85m provided towards operating losses in 1983-84 compares with a subsidy of $106m in 1982-83. EDUCATION In 1983-84 our direct spending on education is planned to rise by about 11 per cent to $4211m; most of this-about $3515m-will support programs administered by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education and Schools Commissions. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has already announced funding details for these programs in calendar year 1984; they include measures directed towards increasing the participation rate of young people in post-compulsory education. Student Assistance The Government has decided to increase the main allowances under student assistance schemes from the beginning of 1984. The allowance payable under the Secondary Allowances Scheme will rise by 20 per cent; for TEAS and the other schemes, the increase will be between 5 per cent and 7 per cent. Income test requirements for all schemes will be eased with limits being increased by 6 per cent for 1984. The cost of these increases is estimated at $21m in 1983-84 and about $41m in a full year. Aboriginal Education To increase the number of trained Aboriginal teachers, the Government has decided to make available within the Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme a special allocation of 100 teacher training awards, to be available to mature age students; benefits will comprise a living allowance of $150 per week plus other normal entitlements. DEFENCE The Budget provides $5280m for defence, an increase of 10.4 per cent on 1982-83 outlays, and real growth of about 4 per cent. During the course of the year the Government will be assessing Australia's strategic environment as a basis for reviewing our forward plans for defence. The Ministers for Defence and Defence Support will provide further details. OVERSEAS AID A total of $822m is provided for overseas aid expenditure, including administrative costs, an increase of about 13 per cent on 1982-83 expenditure. Budgetary assistance to Papua New Guinea will increase by 10 per cent to $288m, reflecting recent special aid and the revision of the five-year aid agreement with that country. We will continue to give priority to assisting countries in Australia's own region. CULTURE AND RECREATION The Budget provides $599m for culture and recreation in 1983-84, an increase of 14.6 per cent on 1982-83 outlays. Of this amount, the ABC will receive a total of $289m in 1983-84; this will enable initial planning for the proposed introduction of a second regional radio network and eventual use by the ABC of the domestic satellite system to be introduced in Australia in 1985-86. The $37.9m provided for the Australia Council-an increase of 13 per cent over 1982-83-is the first step towards restoring arts funding to its 1975-76 real level. The Government has agreed in principle to the establishment of the Museum of Australia in Canberra; a Director will be appointed and initial design work on the museum will be undertaken. In line with certain changes in the basis of the present taxation arrangements to assist the film industry, which I shall announce later, an additional amount of $5m is provided in 1983-84 for direct investment by the Australian Film Commission in the production of films of high quality with potential for commercial viability. Earlier this year we established the Ministry of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. An amount of $40m, an increase of 48 per cent, is included in the Budget for assistance to sport and recreation. ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY Total direct outlays on industry assistance are estimated to decline marginally in 1983-84 to $1104m. This mainly reflects the breaking of the drought over much of Australia together with certain decisions already announced by the Government. Rural Assistance In recognition of the effects of the drought, expenditure under the general provisions of the Rural Adjustment Scheme is to be doubled to $35m in 1983-84. A further $11m is to be provided under the scheme's carry-on finance arrangements to assist the sugar industry in New South Wales and Queensland. The Government will provide further assistance to the Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign. The Government's contribution for tuberculosis infected cattle destroyed under the campaign will be increased from 50 per cent to 75 per cent, the same as for brucellosis infected cattle; an additional $4m will be made available for a range of new measures designed to accelerate the eradication campaign in central and northern Australia. Water Resources The Government has decided to provide $46m for the National Water Resources Program in 1983-84, an increase of 19 per cent on 1982-83 expenditure. Industrial Development The Government attaches a high priority to the development of high technology industries with growth prospects. As outlined in our election policy we envisage a greater role for the Australian Industry Development Corporation in fostering industrial development. To this end, a capital instalment of $12.5m has been provided to AIDC in the Budget and the Government has decided to increase AIDC's gearing ratio and to guarantee its borrowings. Funds for expenditure under the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Scheme have been increased by 36 per cent to $71.6m. An additional $4m has been provided to the CSIRO as part of the package of increased support for key technology areas. The Ministers for Industry and Commerce and Science and Technology will announce further details. Steel Industry The Government is committed to the maintenance of an efficient and viable steel industry. Reflecting that commitment, the Minister for Industry and Commerce has recently announced details of the Steel Industry Plan. Tourist Industry To assist the development of Australia's tourist industry, funding for the Australian Tourist Commission will be increased by 75 per cent to $17.5m in 1983 -84. In addition, the Government will provide a grant of $1m in 1983-84 to the Queensland Government to subsidise the costs of diesel fuel to Barrier Reef island tourist resorts. Trade Promotion The Budget provides an additional $4.2m for expanded trade promotion activities , including the upgrading of trade promotion programs in Australia's major export markets and the establishment of a Market Research Fund. Further details will be announced by the Minister for Trade. Petroleum Products Freight Subsidy The Government will be amending the Petroleum Products Freight Subsidy Scheme to improve administration and reduce costs. This will involve removing from eligibility for subsidy, power kerosene and those locations where there is no retail site; in the latter case, subsidy rates will be based on the rate at the nearest location with a retail site or, for locations at sea, at the port of loading. These changes will save an estimated $2m in 1983-84. Banking As part of a continuing commitment to the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, and in the context of a general review of its financial operations including its profitability, the Government has decided to provide a capital injection of $15m in 1983-84 to the Commonwealth Trading Bank. This will be the first such capital subscription to the Bank since its inception. LAW, ORDER AND PUBLIC SAFETY Total expenditure on Legal Aid is estimated to increase by 23 per cent to $71. 4m. Recognising the importance of adequate capability for criminal investigations, the Government is providing $4m in 1983-84 to allow for an increase in the manpower resources of the Australian Federal Police. PAYMENTS TO THE STATES, NORTHERN TERRITORY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT Total net payments to the States, the Northern Territory and local government, including all specific purpose payments, are estimated to increase by 14 per cent to $18 710m in 1983-84. The major decisions affecting these payments have already been announced. In addition to providing for a once-only special revenue assistance grant of $ 155.5m to the States in 1983-84, the Budget includes $30m for payments for Tasmania in 1983-83 under the assistance arrangements arising from termination of the Gordon-below-Franklin dam; details are being announced as agreement is reached on individual projects. RECEIPTS I turn now to revenue proposals. Budget revenues show only moderate growth in 1983-84. This reflects among other influences the 1982-83 recession, the full year effects of the previous Government's tax cuts and a projected drop in crude oil levy receipts. This subdued revenue outlook, together with our expenditure initiatives, necessitates some increase in taxation for 1983-84. In deciding on the measures involved, we have been guided by the principles we adopted in our May Economic Statement-namely, that they should be equitable, make a durable contribution to the budget and improve the operation of the taxation system. As I noted earlier, the substantially increased weight of taxation overall makes the need for efficiency in tax arrangements all the more pressing. It also makes even more urgent the drive against tax evasion and avoidance. Durable tax reform cannot, of course, be achieved overnight. The measures already taken, and those I am about to announce, are a start to, rather than fulfilment of, our tax reform objectives. Traditional Excises The traditional excises-on beer, potable spirits, tobacco products and certain petroleum products-are set at specific rates, that is, at so many dollars or cents per unit of the exisable commodity. In the past, discretionary increases in these specific excise rates have not been sufficiently frequent or, in aggregate, large enough to counteract the eroding effects of inflation. Real rates of excise have consequently tended to fall. Between 1973-74 and 1982-83, revenue from the traditional excises, measured in constant 1982-83 dollars, fell from $4.3 billion to $3.3 billion. Over the same period, the share of traditional excise collections in total budget receipts fell from 13 per cent to a little over 7 per cent. The Government is taking two steps towards countering this trend. First, we are making some discretionary increases in certain nominal excise rates. With effect from tonight, there will be a rise of 1.5 cents per litre in the excise on motor spirit and distillate. There will be an increase of 0.5 cents per litre in the excise on aviation turbine fuel and aviation gasoline. The rebate of excise on diesel fuel used off-road by the mining, forestry, farming and fishing industries and by households, hospitals, nursing and aged persons' homes will not be increased. These discretionary rate increases are expected to yield about $295m in 1983-84 . They will assist our energy independence by maintaining the real price of petroleum products, thus continuing the incentive to consumers to restrain their reliance on these fuels. There will also be some additions to the base of excise taxation, with effect from tonight. The excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine will be reintroduced at the rate of $2.50 per litre of alcohol. In order both to increase revenue and to control possible substitution and blending of certain petroleum products, fuel oil, heating oil and power and lighting kerosenes will become subject to excise at the new rate of excise on motor spirit and diesel fuel. However, for excise and customs purposes, heating oil will be treated on a par with diesel fuel and will therefore be subject to the 7.155 cents per litre excise rebate for eligible off-road uses such as home heating. The net revenue gain from these extensions to the excise base is estimated at $ 122m in 1983-84. Certain minor items will be deleted from the excise base with effect from tonight. Fusel oil, amylic alcohol, cigarette papers and tubes, and matches will no longer be excisable. Although this will cost some $1.5m in revenue in 1983-84, it will permit more cost-effective allocation of administrative resources in the customs and excise area. From tonight, following recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission , there will be a single excise rate for each of the three major tobacco groups- cigarettes, manufactured tobacco and cigars. Additionally, the rate for cigars will rise to the rate on cigarettes; the rate on manufactured tobacco will rise immediately by $5.00 per kilo to $20.10 per kilo, with similar increases in future Budgets until such time as the rate reaches that which then applies for cigarettes and cigars. The revenue gain is estimated at $4m in 1983-84. As a second step towards countering the declining trend in real excise revenues , the Government is introducing from tonight a system of six-monthly indexation of traditional excise rates (that is, excluding the excises on crude oil and LPG ) and of the excise-equivalent component of customs duties on imports of comparable products. This measure will allow for the maintenance of the real value of excise rates in a non-destablising fashion. Previous erratic reactions to the declining trend in collections, most notably in 1978, have destabilised the sales patterns of the industries concerned, imposed sudden and large increases on consumers, as well as providing problems for the overall economic management. The new system will afford a greater degree of stability for consumers and industry alike. These traditional excises will rise gradually in line with inflation and as wages and other incomes themselves increase. The effect of the new arrangements will be simply to place excisable products on much the same basis as those products subject to sales tax. The first six-monthly indexed increase in excise rates will take effect from tonight and will reflect the 4.3 per cent increase in the CPI during the March and June quarters of this year. That 4.3 per cent increase will be applied to the new excise rates announced tonight in all cases except manufactured tobacco, on which the new excise rate has been set with specific industry considerations in mind. Other traditionally excisable products, whose rates have not been subject to discretionary increases tonight, will of course also be subject to the indexation increase tonight and subsequently. As examples of the effects of these changes (including the discretionary excise increases) on the retail prices of excisable products, the price of petrol might be expected to increase by about 2 cents per litre, of cigarettes by about 3 cents per packet and a bottle of beer by about 3 cents. The second of the six-monthly indexation increases in nominal excise rates under the arrangements now announced will occur on 1 February 1984, based on the CPI increases for the September and December quarters of 1983. Subsequent indexation of excises will occur on 1 August and 1 February each financial year. The combined revenue gain from the two indexation adjustments in 1983-84 is expected to be about $236m. For each of the excise increases announced tonight, there will be commensurate increases in the excise-equivalent components of the corresponding customs duties on imports. These are estimated to add a further $13m to 1983-84 revenue. Crude Oil Levy The Government has taken action to encourage the maximum absorption by refiners of domestically produced crude oil with particular emphasis on excisable 'old' oil. Legislation will be prepared to provide authority for the imposition of a duty on petroleum imports, should that prove necessary to discourage underlifting of indigenous crude oil. Esso/BHP have been advised that the Government wishes that in 1983-84 not more than 18 million barrels of crude oil be produced for domestic consumption from the excise-free Fortescue field. However, approval will be given for the export, for spot sale, of production from that field in 1983-84 in excess of that level. Approval will also be forthcoming for spot sales of excisable 'old' oil in certain circumstances. These measures should ensure that the maximum available level of domestic crude oil production is taken up and that a balance is maintained between the production of 'old' and 'new' oil. It is estimated that crude oil levy receipts in 1983-84 will be $245m higher as a result of these measures. Sales Tax In reviewing the sales tax law for anomalies and inconsistencies, the Government has decided to change the classification for sales tax purposes of a wide range of goods. The changes, which do not involve any general increase in sales tax rates, are estimated to yield $29m in 1983-84 and $44m in a full year. Details are given at Appendix III of Statement No. 4. These changes will variously mean that, of the goods concerned that pass the taxing point after tonight, some now exempt will be subject to tax, others now taxed will become exempt, while others again will be taxed at a different rate. Under these arrangements, certain vessels used for tourist purposes that were subjected to tax in the 1981-82 Budget will become exempt. To assist the boat-building and tourist industries, these vessels will also retrospectively be made exempt back to the 1981-82 Budget, at an additional cost to revenue of $5m in 1983-84. Income Tax Measures Section 26 (a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act imposes tax on profits made on the sale of property acquired for the purpose of resale at a profit. With effect from tomorrow, that section is to be strengthened, in three ways. The first will address situations where tax would have applied if property had been resold by the purchaser, but it was instead transferred, say by gift, to a passive recipient. Under present law an intention to resell at a profit could not necessarily be attributed to the donee. The law will be amended so that the donee will be regarded as having acquired the property with the same intention as the transferor had at the time of acquisition of the property, and for the same price. The second will remove doubts about the effectiveness of section 26 (a) in situations such as that where it was arranged for a company to purchase property , and when it appreciated in value the shares in the company were sold. It will also be made clear that other situations where there is not a strict identity between the property acquired with a profit-making purpose and the property subsequently disposed of are not beyond the reach of the section. Thirdly, profits on the sale of bonus shares or rights derived as a consequence of ownership of other shares will be made taxable if profits on disposal of the original shares would attract tax. At present the bonus shares and rights are treated as separate from the original shares, and the purpose in acquiring the latter is not attributed to the bonus shares or rights. 'Bottom of the Harbour' Legislation The Government has given careful consideration to the views expressed by honourable members and senators on the Bill which was considered by Parliament earlier this year. In the light of those views, it has decided to resubmit to the Parliament a modified Bill which excludes two elements of the earlier Bill to which objections were raised-levying of personal tax on capital profits and on other accumulated profits from past years when there was no pre-company tax stripping. Removal of those elements leaves two principal areas of the earlier Bill. The first is recovery of escaped personal tax relating to those years where there was pre-tax profit stripping. The second is some strengthening of the recoupment tax law as it applies to company tax, and in certain other respects. The modified Bill will permit the personal tax recouped to be paid over a period of 12 months, free of interest. This measure is estimated to yield $60m in 1983-84 and a total of $270m ultimately. Taxation Expenditures Tax expenditures impact on the budget just as do direct outlays but from a base that is less readily controlled and accountable to the Parliament. After a review of tax expenditures, the Government has decided to make the following changes. Expenditure on Land Clearing and Swamp Drainage, etc. The write-off in equal instalments over 10 years of capital expenditure deductible under section 75A of the Income Tax Assessment Act (such as expenditure on land clearing and swamp drainage) is to be abolished in respect of expenditure incurred (other than under an existing contract) after tonight. The estimated saving to revenue is $3m in a full year. This measure will meet the concerns of those who believe that the earlier tax treatment encouraged these activities to an environmentally unsound and economically unnecessary degree. Expenditure on Home Insulation The deduction of certain expenditure on the thermal insulation of a first home will be abolished in respect of expenditure incurred after tonight (other than under a contract entered into by today). The concession was unnecessary, discriminatory and inequitable. The first revenue savings, estimated at $6m, will come in 1984-85. Part-time Members of the Reserve Defence Forces The present exemption from income tax of the pay and allowances of part-time members of the Reserve Defence Forces is to be phased out. Concurrently, there will be a review of those emoluments. Payments on or after 1 December 1983 and before 1 December 1984 will be exempt only as to 50 per cent while those in respect of service on or after the latter date will be fully assessable. There will be estimated savings to revenue of $5m in 1983-84 and $20m in a full year. Incentives to Invest in Australian Films The extraordinarily generous taxation incentives for investment in Australian films have proved a boon for accountants, lawyers and their well-heeled clients. In the process, control of Australian film making has moved out of the hands of the film makers and Film Commissions to the detriment of the industry as a whole . Accordingly, assistance to the film industry is to be restructured. In relation to investment expenditure incurred under a contract entered into after tonight, the tax deduction now available at 150 per cent of the investment will be reduced to 133 per cent. Similarly, the amount of net revenue from a film that is exempt from income tax will be reduced from 50 per cent to 33 per cent of the investment in the film. The resultant saving to revenue in 1983-84 is estimated at $1m, and $4m in a full year. As an offset to that and indeed as a generous expansion of assistance, as I noted earlier, additional funds amounting to $5m are to be made available this year to the Australian film industry through the Australian Film Commission. BUDGET OVERVIEW Total Budget outlays in 1983-84 are estimated to increase by 15.8 per cent to $ 56 703m. Total Budget receipts are estimated to increase by 8.6 per cent in 1983-84 to $ 48 342m. The Budget deficit is therefore estimated at $8 361m, an increase of $3 888m on the outcome for 1982-83. Abstracting from the overseas component, the domestic Budget deficit is estimated to be $5 744m, an increase of $3 262m over last year. We have therefore kept our commitment, developed in extensive consultants, to keep the Budget deficit to no more than $8.5 billion. The Government believes that this outcome represents the right balance between the immediate need for a fiscal stimulus and the on-going requirement for fiscal responsibility. There can be no doubt that this Budget, with a deficit increasing to an estimated 4.7 per cent of GDP from 2.8 per cent last year, will prove to be highly expansionary. That deficit, however, is well below that which we inherited after our predecessors' period of pork-barrelling. The Government recognises that recovery in the private sector is fundamental to the restoration of Australia's economic health. We intend to assist that recuperation. Unless the structural deficit were to be reduced, strong recovery in the private sector would ultimately bring on a clash for funds between the two sectors, and thus put at risk the durability of recovery. Our revenue measures, including those announced in the May Statement, have therefore been designed with an eye to the contribution they will make to financing future budgets when the private sector is enjoying more vitality than at present. MONETARY POLICY The performance of the economy over 1983-84 and beyond will be heavily influenced by our economic policy approach. The essential elements of that approach are by now well known: an expansionary fiscal policy, with the Prices and Incomes Accord as a major anti-inflation instrument, supported by non-inflationary monetary policy. The task of financing the 1983-84 Budget deficit responsibly will be considerable, coming as it does on top of a monetary situation which our predecessors had for some years allowed to drift. The Fraser Government overshot its monetary projections for each of the five years since 1978-79-contrary to their rhetoric, there was no effective monetary restraint. While in 1982-83 the overrun was small, monetary growth accelerated as the year progressed and as liquidity was boosted by the burgeoning budget deficit. In the twelve months to June 1983, M3 increased by 12.5 per cent; preliminary estimates suggest that in the twelve months to July that figure has increased further, to around 13 per cent. It is central to the success of our overall policy approach that monetary conditions during 1983-84 be such as to promote an environment of sustainably lower inflation while allowing the expected pick-up in real activity to proceed. Given that expected pick-up, there will be a sharp increase in nominal output through the course of 1983-84-probably of the order of 14 per cent or so. Setting a monetary projection consistent with that growth requires allowance to be made for the expected change in the velocity of circulation of money-that is, the relationship between monetary growth and nominal GDP growth. During the recent recession, as in past economic downturns, velocity fell sharply. This meant, in effect, that the banks were accounting for a greater share of financing, at the expense of non-banks. As the economy picks up, this development can be expected to be reversed, at least in part, and velocity can be expected to rebound. It is therefore appropriate to set the M3 projection below the expected growth in nominal GDP. Accordingly, the Government will contain the growth in financial aggregates to a degree consistent with M3 growth in the rate of 9 to 11 per cent over the twelve months to the June quarter 1984. The June-quarter basis of measurement is an attempt to avoid, on the one hand, the excessive amount of irrelevant history contained in year-average measures such as were employed by the previous Government in 1982-83 and, on the other hand, the possibility of undue influence from random events involved in measurement to the single month of June. The monetary projection will continue to be presented in terms of M3, the aggregate which focuses on transactions of the banking system. For the reasons I have mentioned, however, policy cannot focus solely on M3 and in the year ahead we shall be monitoring the progress of a range of financial aggregates with coverage both narrower and broader than M3. The projection is a conditional one. There will be a review of the projection during the year in the light of trends in activity and other relevant developments. Policy will aim at gradually moving the excessive present growth in M3 to within the recommended range. In line with the monetary policy just proposed, and on the timetable previously foreshadowed, the Treasury is announcing this evening details of the next bond tender, for an amount of $1500m. THE ECONOMIC OUTLOOK I turn now to the economic outlook for 1983-84. In doing so, I stress the very great uncertainties involved. The fact is that, in several major respects, the Australian economy is today operating outside the domain of our post-war experience. That said, there will clearly be very strong growth in total public spending during 1983-84, probably of the order of 4 1/2 per cent in real terms. Private consumption expenditure should grow by around 1 1/2 per cent, a litle faster than in 1982-83. Until the upturn in the economy is more firmly established, however, there, will be little prospect of an improvement in business fixed investment; in 1983- 84, there may be a decline similar to that recorded in 1982-83. Reflecting measures already announced, the outlook for private dwelling investment is much brighter; with a very sharp rebound of the order of 20 per cent through the course of the year, real growth of around 3 per cent is projected for 1983-84 as a whole. The sharp decumulation of non-farm stocks which occurred in 1982-83 is expected to slow in 1983-84, making a positive contribution to output growth; and farm stocks should rise with the projected strong increase in farm product. Exports should show some improvement in 1983-84, as a result of improving world demand and increased productive capacity in some parts of the resource sector; as the year progresses, recovery in the rural sector should also make its contribution. With improved competitiveness as a result of the depreciation of the Australian dollar over the course of 1982-83, and private business investment continuing to fall, imports seem set for another decline. As a result of those trade movements, the deficit on the current account of the balance of payments should narrow further this year. In aggregate, real non-farm product could increase by 2 per cent or so for 1983 -84 as a whole, with significantly faster growth-of the order of 5 per cent-over the course of the year. With real farm product recovering by around 20 per cent, total gross domestic product could grow by 3 per cent or so in 1983-84. No one can be certain how much of this projected pick-up in activity will be reflected in the labour market in the year ahead. The slump in employment in this recession has been unprecedented for the post- war period. Employers may require firm evidence that improved profitability and demand are likely to be sustained before reversing the labour shedding that took place in 1982-83. Meanwhile, increased output may come mainly from unwinding shorter working week arrangements and increasing overtime working. That notwithstanding, and partly reflecting the Government's specific employment-generating intiatives, employment should grow by around 1 1/2 per cent over the course of 1983-84. However, employment is currently below its average level in 1982-83 and the average level of employment this year may therefore not be very different from last. With growth in the working age population continuing, it will take time for the upward trend in unemployment to be reversed. On the basis of a centralised wage system applying half-yearly indexation, an assumption of strictly limited sectional claims and a significant increase in hours worked, average weekly earnings could increase by 7 per cent in 1983-84. The Consumer Price Index could rise by about 7 1/2 per cent in year-on-year terms, and rather less over the course of 1983-84. Both estimates take account of the direct price effects of the introduction of Medicare, increases in State taxes and charges and the revenue measures announced tonight. Those Budget measures effective immediately are estimated to contribute directly about 0.4 per cent to the CPI, with a smaller impact from the February 1984 adjustments. Over the course of 1983-84 average weekly earnings should increase markedly in real terms, primarily reflecting the usual pattern under indexation in times of declining inflation, and the expected growth in hours worked. THE WAY AHEAD Employment has now grown by more than 47 000 from its trough early in April. On the basis of the economic forecasts outlined earlier, the employment gain should exceed 130 000 by the end of this current financial year, with the rate of growth of jobs accelerating further ahead. This is a heartening start to the task set during the election campaign of creating 500 000 jobs over our first three years. But the employment growth is even more welcome because it is expected to occur in a context of a clear decline in the inflation rate. Moreover, provided that the Prices and Income Accord is adhered to, the resulting subdued growth in money incomes during calendar 1984 holds prospects that a declining inflation trend can be sustained. Continued declines in inflation would transform Australia's economic outlook. Lower inflation would mean lower interest rates, which in turn would help to create jobs in credit-sensitive areas like housing and business investment. Lower inflation would assist the maintenance of our international competitiveness, thus preserving Australian jobs against the inroads of foreign competition and allowing new jobs to be created as domestic firms are enabled to exploit their opportunities to the full. Continued lower inflation would lessen fears of a renewed outbreak of economic conflict that would represent a major obstacle to the successful implementation of our expansionary fiscal policies. Throughout my speech tonight I have indicated in tangible ways the Government's concern for the plight of the disadvantaged, whether they be people in poor health, victims of the recession, or those who are finding it difficult to purchase a home. Assistance in all of these areas is expensive. Some of the necessary finance has come from the improved growth prospects that our economic policies of consensus with controlled expansion have fostered. But costs still have to be met. The increased taxes I have announced tonight are in a direct sense the means we have adopted to finance the improved treatment of many disadvantaged Australians . We have sought to share the burden of extra taxation fairly through the community so that nobody, other than blatant tax avoiders, is expected to make major sacrifices. For the most part the imposts amount to a few cents on beer, cigarettes, petrol and the like and a levy on income tax to replace private costs of providing medical care. I believe that Australians generally will regard this as a small price to pay for helping the very many in our midst who have been badly disadvantaged by the events of recent years. In this Budget we have provided a substantial macroeconomic stimulus within an acceptable balance of risks. We have embarked on major direct employment-creating programs. We have begun to improve the lot of those most in need. We have kept tax increases to a minimum and attempted to spread rather than heighten the burden that taxation imposes. In extraordinarily difficult cirumstances, the Government has tonight pursued its major commitments within the mandate given to us last March. I commend this Budget to the Senate. Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion. Leave granted. Senator WALSH —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers and the statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Senator Walters —Mr President, I seek leave to ask a question for clarification of the Budget. Leave not granted. Ministerial Statement Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-In the Budget Speech the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced the Government's intention to re- introduce a means test that takes account of both income and assets for assessing entitlement for pension. This will replace the current test which only takes account of income, including income from assets. It will apply to social security pensions including age, invalid and widows pensions, sheltered employment and rehabilitation allowances, and supporting parents benefits and repatriation service pensions. The test will follow in broad terms that which applied prior to November 1976. The final details of how the new test will work in practice will be settled after I have consulted with pensioner organisations. The existing arrangements are intended to concentrate assistance on those more in need, but this has not been achieved. A particular problem is the prevalence of contrived arrangements designed to exploit the pension income test by people who in fact are well able to support themselves. There has been increasing circumvention of the test by such mechanisms as converting income to capital gains. The growth in these income test avoidance schemes in recent years has been such that they now jeopardise the Government's ability to direct scarce funds to the pressing welfare needs of the disadvantaged in our society. Attempts by the previous government to devise legislation addressing these loopholes failed. After considering similar options the Government has decided that nothing short of re-imposition of an assets component will redress this serious drain on the welfare purse. In designing the new assets test, particular attention will be given to protecting the position of the great majority of pensioners who have only small assets, and those who are not attempting to circumvent existing rules. In addition, the new test will be structured to ensure that there is no undue disruption of or intrusion into pensioners' affairs. Accordingly, specific types of assets that we envisage would be exempt include: The pensioner's home or principal residence; a car for personal use; personal effects, including furniture, household effects, and a caravan, a boat, jewellery, and the like; and other assets to the value of $1,500 for a single pensioner and $2,500 for a pensioner couple. After the exemption of assets of this type, the test would operate by taking a uniform 10 per cent of the value of other assets into account and deeming that amount to be income for pension assessment purposes. This will then be added to non-asset income, such as earnings, to arrive at a total figure of 'means'. Pensioners' means will then determine pension entitlement in the same way that income determines it at present. Although these arrangements will be broadly the same as those which existed in 1976, employing a notional return rate of 10 per cent is relatively more generous than was the case in 1976 when prevailing interest rates were generally lower. The great bulk of pensioners will, as at present, fall below the pension 'free areas', so that they will continue to receive the full rate of pension. Some could be moderately better off than under current arrangements. For example, a single pensioner without other income could have up to $17,100 in a savings account and still receive the maximum rate of pension. A married pensioner couple could jointly hold $28,500 without reduction in pension. As a result, pensioners with a modest level of assets, or who have not been avoiding the income test would not be affected to any significant degree. But those with substantial assets who have been circumventing the income test to obtain or increase their pension entitlement will experience a reduction in that entitlement. We intend that the new arrangements will include provisions which will ensure that the test is not circumvented by pensioners depriving themselves of assets. An effect of these provisions will be to take into account assets which have been gifted or otherwise disposed of without receiving adequate financial consideration in return. From tonight, a person who disposes of assets in this way will be deemed to continue to have that property for the purpose of determining entitlement to pension or fringe benefits. The treatment of modest gifts or allowances made by pensioners to their families will be a matter for discussion with pensioner organisations. We expect that the new arrangements will be in place about 12 months after the passage of the necessary amending legislation. This will allow for the major changes to administrative systems and arrangements that will be required. I would emphasise that this change is part of the Government's ongoing examination and rationalisation of the retirement income system. It will further reduce the attraction of lump-sum superannuation payments and thereby encourage take up of superannuation pensions or annuities to secure a regular retirement income. It is therefore consistent with the Government's recent measures in relation to lump-sum superannuation, although it does not in any way lessen the need for these measures which are also designed to promote greater equity in taxation arrangements. Nor will an assets test interfere with further reforms and modifications to superannuation arrangements or preclude the examination of the feasibility of a national superannuation scheme that is to be undertaken. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.23) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I would like to say a few words. First of all, I note that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) has brought down a statement which touches only one matter affecting the very wide range of changes that have been brought about in the Budget presented by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) earlier tonight. One of the issues which Senator Grimes focused on in his statement touches the assets testing of pensions and consequently is of great concern to the community generally. This, of course, is an admission of failure on the part of the Government because in its statement of 19 May it addressed the question of the taxing of lump sums and superannuation payments and claimed that it was going to solve the problems of double dipping in this area. Senator Grimes —There were no such claims. Senator MESSNER —I am sorry, the Minister should read the Treasurer's statement. Quite clearly this is another attempt to try to solve that problem. However, the attempt obviously is going to be doomed to failure again simply because the Government refuses to acknowledge the fundamental points at issue in this area. I think that one other matter which clearly comes through in the Minister's statement deserves some comment, and that is the new provision to deny people the opportunity of making gifts to their families which, of course, under present taxation law would be exempt from gift duty and consequently will be caught by this kind of arrangement. So again more inconsistency is introduced into the Government's approach to the taxation and welfare systems. Rather than seeking to integrate the systems, the Government seems to be driving the two systems further apart. One other matter, with which I will not bore the Senate for long, concerns the Government's promise in the child care area. The Government made a statement in its policy speech that it would seek to build 400 child care centres. It announced in its policy speech that $20m would be allocated in its first Budget to get the program under way. This Budget contains an acknowledgement of $21m for that purpose but not, I make the point, specifically for new child care centres. Rather, there is a fuzzy statement incorporated in the Budget which seems to indicate that that amount will cover present schemes as well. Senator Primmer —What did you ever do? Senator MESSNER —I am talking about the Government's promises. No doubt other questions will need to be examined at closer range before we are able to debate more fully this matter. However, the two issues I have raised tonight indicate either a degree of lack of attention to detail, an obvious concern in respect of fuzz issues to crease more confusion- Senator Crowley —In South Australia-- Senator MESSNER —'Fuzz' is a favourite word on the Government side. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(9.26) —Before this debate was interrupted by the presentation of the Budget I was in the process of making an important submission to this chamber. I hope to be able to continue the serious note on which I was presenting the case for this Bill which I believe is long overdue and the passage of which is most urgently needed not only by the Parliament but also by many people who for years have seen a number of perhaps minor defects in the operations of the court and the family law system. We have for many years awaited the chance to repair these matters. I have mentioned already that I spoke last year during the second reading debate on what was basically the same Bill as the one now before us although the present Bill is now expanded and improved. I would like to repeat what I said then in regard to the operations of the Family Law Act over the last eight years. I said: It is an important debate on a very important subject, because, in my view, the Family Law Act 1975 was the single most significant and valuable social reform of the 1970s. It managed to make a very dramatic difference to family law arrangements in Australia. It updated them to a degree which had long been thought impossible. We have really started leading the world-truly we can say that we have done that-in the way in which the Family Court of Australia has operated and in the various other machinery provisions which have been provided in that legislation. I include amongst that, of course, the extent to which there has been the ability of counsellors and conferences and the whole ability of that court, that new institution, to carry a new field whereby we had a helping court. One can hear criticisms which, of course, come to us quite constantly. Very often they come from parties who are distressed or who have lost out in litigation. But basically, over the period, the hundreds of thousands of people who have been served by that court I think have been well served and have seen a difference in the more helpful attitude adopted. In my speech last year I discussed what the Senate Select Committee on the Family Law Act had done and the report it had presented, which the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) praised in his second reading speech. I pointed out that the Committee did not have the benefit of advice from the Institute of Family Studies because the Institute had only just commenced its long overdue operation. I went on to say: But with those limitations, I think that there was sufficient evidence for the great majority of the Committee to come down solidly in favour of the operation of the Court and, while making a number of useful proposals and suggested amendments, to come to a conclusion that the ground of divorce based on irretrievable breakdown proved by one year's separation was indeed adequate. Unquestionably, when one looks at this report one realises that after all the evidence has been called there is a basic acceptance of the fact that the law has worked generally well and there was no need for changes in the grounds of divorce. But matters were found in the process of the workings of the court to need improvement and they are very largely brought up in this Bill. The Attorney-General, in his second reading speech, after paying some tribute to the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act and its recommendations, the majority of which have been adopted either in this Bill or administratively, pointed out that he was introducing in the current Bill some 37 recommendations of the Joint Select Committee. They are not all of the Committee's recommendations-a number of others have been administratively implemented. But a great deal of the proposals are covered. A number of others are still under examination. Still more are in recommended amendments which either I or other members of this chamber propose to move. The Attorney-General in his second reading speech made this useful classification of the amendments which are to be found in this Bill: The amendments contained in the Bill fall broadly into three classes: Those which expand the jurisdiction of the Family Court; those which relate to the structure and procedures of the Family Court; and those which affect the substantive law applied in courts exercising jurisdiction under the Act. The amendments are important in each of those three fields. Over a number of years we have tried through this Parliament and in negotiations with the States to obtain from the States a reference of powers that would have brought all children, including ex-nuptial children, into the jurisdiction and enjoying the facilities of the Family Court. It is to the discredit of the States I believe- perhaps to some extent it is due to our lack of initiative and push-that we do not have that reference of power. Consequently, what has been done in this Bill is to take as far as constitutionally possible-we may have gone too far-the powers which ought to be exercised. But that is not a substitution for what would be a desirable thing, namely, the reference of powers. I have made the effort over the years to persuade the States to take up this reference of powers not only in relation to ex-nuptial children but also in regard to matrimonial property so that before any litigation commences people can settle their own disputes and resolve their problems with regard to property . Once again, this is something lacking in the Bill. On 1 November 1982 I wrote to the Premier of my State, the Hon. John Cain, about the reference of powers. In that letter I suggested that it was highly necessary that there be a reference of those powers by at least a number of States. I pointed out that I regretted that it had not been done to that date by Victoria and other States. I received a reply dated 24 November 1982 from the Hon. John Cain, who is the Attorney-General as well as the Premier, in which he said: The Victorian Government shares your concerns for those persons who suffer as a result of the existing limitations upon the jurisdiction of the Family Court. You will be interested to learn, therefore, that it is the intention of the Victorian Government to take steps in the near future to alleviate the plight of those children, who should, but at the present do not, fall within the ambit of the Family Law Act. He did not refer to the question of property powers in that letter. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard my letter to the Premier and his reply to me because I think it might be of interest to honourable senators. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- 221 Queen Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000 24 November 1982 Senator Alan Missen, Commonwealth Parliament Offices, 400 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3000. Dear Senator, Re: Family Law Act 1975-Reference of Powers I acknowledge your letter of 1 November, 1982 concerning the Family Law Act 1975 and negotiations in relation to the reference of powers to the Commonwealth . The Victorian Government shares your concerns for those persons who suffer as a result of the existing limitations upon the jurisdiction of the Family Court. You will be interested to learn, therefore, that it is the intention of the Victorian Government to take steps in the near future to alleviate the plight of those children who should, but at the present do not, fall within the ambit of the Family Law Act. Yours sincerely, JOHN CAIN Attorney-General PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA The Senate Commonwealth Parliament Offices 400 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3000. Telegraphic Address: 'COMMEMROOM', Melbourne Telephone: 62 2521 1 November 1982 The Hon. John Cain, MP Premier of Victoria, Parliament House, Melbourne, Vic. 3002 My dear Premier, Re: Family Law Act-Reference of Power I have meant to write to you for some little time about the long-standing issue of the reference by State parliament of power to the Commonwealth to supplement the existing powers given to the Family Court. As you are, of course, aware, the decisions of the High Court have revealed the inadequacies of power of the Commonwealth, particularly in regard to ex-nuptial children and in respect to property settlements where divorce proceedings are not yet commenced. I am aware that, for a number of years, there have been negotiations through the Committee of Attorneys-General to seek agreement on such a reference, and that at least four of the States have indicated, at one time or another, their willingness to transfer power. I am also aware that Queensland and Western Australia are not willing to do so, but it does not seem to me that this should, in any way, inhibit the rest of Australia, where most of the family law litigation, in any event is conducted, from overcoming existing problems, and securing a reference of power. I have been urging this course on my Commonwealth colleagues and my Liberal State colleagues for many years, and indeed since 1975, and am disappointed at the lack of progress that has occurred. I was aware that your predecessor in Victoria, as Attorney-General, had given consideration to the matter, and I understand that it was merely the concern that Victoria might take initiatives, which apparently it had in the past and found that it was not followed by any other State, that had stopped the reference from proceeding in Victoria. As you are, of course, aware, a great deal of hardship is caused to litigants because of the present division of power. It is highly unjust to ex-nuptial children that they cannot be dealt with in the Family Court with the enjoyment of the facilities that it has, and the extra litigation which occurs in respect to property matters adds to the hardship which families suffer already because of family breakdown. Thousands of dollars are needlessly spent in the duplication of litigation, and I believe that it is an indictment on us all that we have not yet been able to find a solution to these problems. I was a member of the Joint Committee on the Family Law Act, set up by the Federal Parliament and, as you are aware, it strongly urged the Commonwealth and the States to reach agreement on the reference of power, which it felt was the only real solution to this problem although the amending Bill, of course, is endeavouring to exercise as much Commonwealth power as it can. This is, however, the less preferred solution, and I hope that you will provide an initiative by the Victorian Government to press on with the reference of power to the Commonwealth. I do not believe that this, in any way, takes away a power which is essential to the State and, indeed, I believe, if federalism is to be seen as a sensible and workable system, then it must overcome the lacunae of powers which were the defects of the system. I am happy at all times to discuss these matters with you, but I hope that there will be an early initiative by the Victorian Government in this area. Yours sincerely, ALAN MISSEN Senator for Victoria Copy to: The Hon. Haddon Storey, Q.C., M.L.C. Senator Gareth Evans. Senator MISSEN —The provision, as I said, does not deal with the question of property. Unfortunately, that undertaking does not go that far. But it certainly does extend to ex-nuptial children. I regret that I do not know of any move in Victoria since that time to implement the undertakings given. I hope the States will do that because even if all we are attempting to achieve in this Bill holds up we will not succeed in overcoming that lack of power, which is essentially a constitutional power. It is a problem which the States could cure. They do not want the use of the power. They do not want to deal separately with these children. I cannot understand that. Senator Macklin —They opposed it at the Convention. Senator MISSEN —I regret to say that at the Australian Constitutional Convention in April the attitude taken by some of my colleagues in this chamber with respect to this matter was not satisfactory either. For years when in government honourable senators now on this side of the chamber pressed for the reference of powers but apparently some honourable senators lost interest in this matter at the Constitutional Convention and did not press on with it. Senator Macklin —I moved it. Senator MISSEN —I accept that, but the fact is that we did not show that continuing desire which we urged on the States for years. Honourable senators on both sides of the chamber should be urging that the reference of powers be given . I say that in passing because I believe that whatever we do in this Bill we do not cover that altogether. I do not propose to speak at any length on this matter. I will move a number of amendments to the Bill which is before us. When the previous Bill was debated in the Senate I provided a list of amendments which were a mixture. The amendments came from the recommendations of the Joint Select Commitee on the Family Law Act , the Law Council of Australia and the Family Law Council. They were identified in that list. I am pleased to say that the Attorney-General and the Government have accepted a considerable number of those amendments. There were 32 in all. The Government has either accepted them or put them into different phraseology. For example, a report was prepared by Mr Justice Watson and his Committee on the question of wardship and what powers should be given to the Court in that respect. It has been done in a different way. I think that the proposals of Mr Justice Watson are preferable to what the Joint Select Committee proposed. Consequently, that list of 32 amendments is now reduced to 12 amendments. A further list of amendments was prepared by Mr Phillip Ruddock, the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee. He and I proposed to support this list in the two Houses of Parliament. These were solely recommendations of the Joint Select Committee. Because of the Government's acceptance of a number of those 13 amendments they are now reduced to six amendments. The two lists called list A and list B have been circulated to members of this chamber tonight. I hope it will not confuse honourable senators if I point out that the lists are being consolidated at the moment. Another list will be issued tomorrow which will contain all the amendments in one list. The list will be basically the same with corrections to one or two clauses where the wrong number is given. Consequently, we have in this Bill an opportunity to bring in still more amendments recommended by the Joint Select Committee after 15 months of study. The Attorney-General has also included in the Bill a number of amendments which the former Attorney-General, Senator Durack, proposed to include in the Bill early last year. The Attorney-General has also included a further group of minor , nonetheless useful, amendments that have come to light in discussions with various groups since that time. Although the delay in the passage of this Bill has been unfortunate I believe the Bill has been strengthened and improved as time has gone on. I do not propose to go into the provisions of the Bill in detail, except to say something about two things that I think have been subject to some criticism. Senator Durack referred to one proposal, divorce on the papers or what some propagandists like to call 'divorce by post'. Once again, I do not intend to go into that in great detail. In the last day or so the Attorney-General circulated a statement which I think it would be useful to have incorporated in Hansard at this stage for the information of honourable senators. The Attorney-General's statement is dated 17 August and is headed 'Divorce by Post'. In it he sets out the salient features of those provisions. He says that it does not really add to the rights. It does not, of course, mean that people will not have to prove what they have to prove at the present time. It will lead to convenience and a saving of costs. It will mean that the Court can concentrate on other matters where there is nothing in issue left for the parties and where in fact they have satisfied the Court by the presentation of documents and other means that the children of the marriage are being properly cared for. For the sake of convenience, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the Attorney-General's statement dated 17 August 1983 headed 'Divorce by Post'. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Senator the Hon. Gareth Evans Attorney-General, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C. T. 2600 17 August 1983 TO ALL SENATORS AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESFAMILY LAW AMENDMENT BILL 1983 'Divorce by Post' The following notes may be of assistance in your consideration of, and your answering of representations in relation to, the proposed amendment to the Family Law Act allowing undefended divorce proceedings to be determined by the Family Court in the absence of the parties or their legal representatives. The proposed amendment is contained in clause 47 of the Family Law Amendment Bill 1983 which I introduced in the Senate on 1 June 1983. I have attached a copy of clause 47 to these notes. Clause 47 is only one of many amendments proposed by the Bill and will insert a new section 98A in the Family Law Act. It has been suggested that the proposed amendment will introduce a 'divorce by post' procedure. The description 'divorce by post' is somewhat misleading. New section 98A will in fact enable regulations to be made giving the Family Court a discretion, in certain circumstances, to determine undefended divorce proceedings (whether commenced by one party or jointly by both parties) without the necessity for the parties or their legal representatives to attend a court hearing. The circumstances in which the Family Court is to be able to exercise the discretion will be where- (i) the proceedings are undefended, i.e. not contested; (ii) one party has requested the court to determine the proceedings in the absence of the parties; and (iii) the other party has not requested the court not to so determine the proceedings. The precise procedure in such cases, dealing with such matters as service and the giving of appropriate notices, is to be the subject of regulations to be made pursuant to new section 98A, although another provision of the Family Law Amendment Bill will make the procedure ultimately the subject of Rules of Court to be made by the Judges of the Family Court themselves. The proposed amendment will provide benefits to parties to Family Court proceedings in two ways. First there will be significant cost savings for those parties who do not wish to be present or to be represented at undefended divorce hearings. Secondly, there should be a considerable saving of court time which will enable the more difficult contested proceedings relating to children and property to be heard and determined more speedily. There has been some criticism of the proposed amendment since it was first recommended by the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act in 1980. It has been said that, given the seriousness attaching to the termination of marriage, both parties should be present in court when the decree is pronounced. At present, however, parties are not required to be present in court but need only be represented by a solicitor. In fact, in undefended divorce proceedings this is only required of one party-the applicant. Moreover, in my view the requirement of 12 months separation necessary to establish irretrievable breakdown of marriage is of far greater importance than a brief court appearance in bringing home the consequences of divorce to intending divorcees. It has also been said that divorces will be easier to obtain under the proposed procedure. Whatever the precise procedure under the proposed amendment, the Family Court will still have to be satisfied on the basis of evidence before it that the ground for granting a divorce has been established and that there is no reasonable likelihood that cohabitation will be resumed. At present, the evidence upon which the Family Court grants the great majority of undefended divorce applications is mainly in documentary form, consisting of application forms and supporting affidavits. It will, of course, remain open to the Family Court to decline to grant a decree if the evidence before it is insufficient. Further, there have been claims that divorces will be granted under the new procedure after parties have been reconciled. I do not consider that this will occur. New section 98A will only enable the Family Court to determine the proceedings without a hearing where one party has requested it to do so and the other party has not objected. It can be expected that the precise procedure to be specified will require the giving of appropriate notices by one party to the other, to minimise any chance of error. In the unlikely event that a decree nisi of dissolution of marriage is made in error, the decree does not normally become absolute until the expiration of one month from the making of the decree and it would be open to the parties to apply to the court to rescind the decree nisi on the ground that the parties have been reconciled. Finally, the proposed amendment will not affect the present duty of the Family Court in relation to the welfare of children. In this regard, a decree nisi of dissolution of marriage under the Family Law Act does not become absolute unless the Family Court has declared that it is satisfied that proper arrangements have been made for the welfare of any children of the marriage under the age of 18 years of that special circumstances justify the decree becoming absolute notwithstanding that the court is not so satisfied. The Family Court will still be required to make such a declaration and, of course, should the evidence relating to the arrangements made for the children be insufficient it will be open to the court to require either further and better evidence or the attendance of the parties before it. In summary, the proposed amendment will not bring about a dramatic change in the way an undefended divorce application is determined by the Family Court. The Government is convinced of the value of the amendment as an important development towards streamlining the procedures of the Family Court and reducing costs to litigants. GARETH EVANS Senator MISSEN —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I agree with the arguments raised by the Attorney-General. I believe they are soundly set out in that document and I do not propose to expand further on them. There is another matter in this Bill with which I find myself in some disagreement. I refer to the provision in regard to closed courts and publicity. I do not intend to delay the Senate at any length on that matter because it will be raised in my later amendments. When the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs recommended against open courts in 1974 it was of the belief that people's private rights should be protected and that it was not necessary for courts to be open. But one now comes to the conclusion that even the judges say that they feel they might do better under public scrutiny. I do not propose to continue the forlorn fight to protect people if judges think in that way about closed courts. I do not think it matters very much that persons can come into the courts. But the question of publicity is a different matter. Having studied this matter and having seen what the Family Law Council has said at times about the provisions for publicity, it is my belief that the unscrupulous purveyors of rubbish in this community-I mean some of the newspapers that thrive on the ordeals of people-will have no trouble riding roughshod over the restrictions imposed on them. Restrictions will be imposed on the identification of people but they will not cover witnesses or the circumstances of what has happened. Those details can still be broadcast on television and so forth. I have no doubt that the provisions are quite inadequate and I am therefore certainly, in default of any very considerable amendment, desirous of trying to take that provision out of the Bill. I will come to that in the course of the Committee stage. It is my belief that we have here a Bill which is long overdue for passage because it contains in it a great number of very useful amendments, if one takes them quite en masse. I have no doubt other amendments will be adopted in the course of the debate. It is more important that as soon as possible we get into the Committee stage of the debate rather than my speaking at length, as I do not intend to do, about my belief in our system of family law. I recognise that every system is fallible. It is administered by fallible people and the people who come before it are fallible. Very often they have found themselves in difficulty and therefore cannot believe that they received justice. Overwhelmingly I believe that the system which we have created since 1974 has been a good one. These amendments will sharpen it up still further and will improve it in the eyes of the public. They will lead further to Australia being seen as the country which has the leading and best system of family law in the civilised world. I support the Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.43) —The Australian Democrats normally have speakers on various Bills who put a party viewpoint. That is not the case with those Bills over which there are substantial disagreements amongst us on the major provisions. The Family Law Amendment Bill is one such Bill and therefore the comments that I make will be personal comments directed at this stage to general issues. In the Committee stage I will direct specific comments to particular matters as they come up. A very large number of amendments will be proposed. I make the comment that in regard to legislation such as this members of the Australian Democrats will not cast what is traditionally called in this place a conscience vote. Personally, I believe that is a rather odd enunciation. Presumably all other votes are not matters of conscience. I regret that the Australian Labor Party has not seen fit to follow that rather quaint procedure, simply because the debate to date on this issue had been rather interesting. I was looking forward to some unpredictable divisions on various Bills but presumably that is not to be. I wish to raise only general issues now, the first being that I have always thought it very odd that when we are discussing a marriage Bill, particularly the elements dealing with divorce, somehow or other it is felt that if we make it more difficult for the people involved when a marriage is coming to an end then we are somehow enhancing the status of marriage or the operation of family life. Indeed, if one takes the analogy of companies, presumably when companies were at a bankrupt stage we would make it very difficult for them to liquidate, thereby enhancing company law or the operation of companies. That seems to me to be patently absurd. Companies need help in their operations and certainly at their beginnings. I believe families and marriages need help at the beginning, and far more assistance of both a counselling and financial kind ought to be given to people coming into marriage, particularly people with young families. If a marriage breaks down we ought not in any way seek to make that operation difficult. Consequently, I will be supporting the various controversial procedures in relation to the divorce measures that are contained in the amending Bill. However, I also make a point in regard to maintenance. I believe that that area is an utter blot on the entire system. In most cases, at least up to relatively recent times, we have had extraordinary amounts of evasion in this area. I believe that where there is a responsibility, particularly where there are children of the family, it ought not be constantly the responsibility of the State to pick up the tab. I have thought for a long time that a simpler system would be that no spouse who has care of children ought to be put in the very demeaning, often frustrating and degrading situation of trying to get money out of his or her spouse. I believe that the spouse ought to be automatically entitled to payment from the State but that the State in turn ought to recover in full from the other person, through the taxation system-this would not involve the confidentiality of tax returns-the amount of money that the person ought to be paying for the maintenance and support of his or her own children. I have no idea why this has never been done and I welcome the statement made a couple of months ago by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that he at last would move on it. I hope that in this session some diligent moves will be made so that people who have the care and custody of children where a marriage has broken down are freed from what I believe is in most cases a very trying and disturbing aspect of their lives which are difficult enough as it is. Senator Coleman —That would apply to both parents, then? Senator MACKLIN —Yes, both. The current situation is that the majority of people looking after children are women but increasingly family laws have given custody with the interests of the children as the main prerogative, so whether the husband or the wife has custody is not at issue; the spouse who no longer has the care of the children has to provide the sustenance. I turn now to a matter which will not come up in the debate on this legislation in the Committee stage but it is an important aspect of the current operation of the Family Court of Australia. This is to do with the removal of the no fault clause but the substitution in many judges' judgments of a phrase which is often called 'gross and obvious misconduct'. The reason I raise this is that it is an element which, if one looks at the way the courts have been operating, discriminates against women in particular. I will come to that point a little later. To outline what I am talking about, the adoption of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as the ground for divorce has removed that fault component . That seems to me to be a major advance which presents us with a totally different picture of what we are about in regard to the Family Law Amendment Bill. The secular divorce operation was built on some fairly basic rules-at least the fault operation was built on some basic rules-which were devised in the ecclesiastical courts which felt it was entirely appropriate to inquire into the obligations that married people had one to the other. When the 'no fault' clause was removed the fundamental operation of the Act had to be revised, but from what has gone on in the courts that does not necessarily seem to have occurred. Basically, what we are talking about here are financial proceedings, property settlements, where the major problems arise. If indeed we are not to follow the ecclesiastical tradition, we must make some fairly radical changes in our thought patterns. While the law has changed, I do not believe that the thinking of many people has changed. This presents difficulties in regard to some of the judgments that must be made. For example, it follows that married people might now legitimately establish a relationship which is mutually satisfactory to them but which formerly would have included matrimonial offences . An example of this might very well be that a couple may encourage each other to have sexual relationships with people outside the marriage. That is something which I believe has not been grasped but really ought to be grasped. In Australia a considerable diversity of values now exists in regard to practices relating to family life. This ought to be accepted, including by judges in the family law courts. Basically, as I see it, the problem with the misconduct notion is that it relates to conduct of which the judges themselves disapprove. Married people are bound, as are others in the community, by ordinary laws regarding crime, contract, torts and so on. For instance, if there is an assault in marriage it may attract a criminal or civil sanction. No such guide is currently provided in relation to financial adjustments. If one looks at some of the ways in which the notion of misconduct is applied one notes the following examples: One judge was not prepared to characterise as gross and obvious misconduct the behaviour of a wife who had an affair with a youth who was half her age while her husband was recovering from an operation. However, another judge was quite happy to see a husband's adultery with his daughter-in-law as obvious misconduct. The conduct of a wife in taking a half share in a house acquired while she was having relationships with other people was felt to be misconduct. The conduct of a wife who fired a shotgun through a keyhole at her husband was not so regarded. We are getting some very odd results from the operation of this notion. In one case, the court paid no attention to the fact that a husband had been callously unkind and brutal towards his wife but, in another case, a wife's bad temper was considered to be something which had to be taken into account in the property distribution. Senator Coleman —She was female and the judge was male. Senator MACKLIN —That was the point I raised previously, Senator. The judge was male. Senator Coleman —And such types of judge have to be removed. Senator MACKLIN —One judge went so far as actually to define such conduct as conduct which would cause an ordinary male to throw up his hands and say: ' Surely that woman is not going to get away with any money'. I think that these types of judgments in property settlements are trying to re-introduce through the back door- Senator Coleman —Male judges. Senator MACKLIN —A male judge, definitely. One gets the feeling that we may very well be going back to notions such as that of the guilty wife who should be fed with the bread of affliction and the water of adversity. Senator Haines —Is that a direct quote? Senator MACKLIN —No, Senator, except from the Bible. The conjuring up of images of outraged ordinary mortals seems not to be a suitable basis upon which analyses for property settlements can or ought to be made. I believe that we need to be careful. The Joint Committee on the Family Law Act actually advocated that we look at this notion further. Luckily the proposal was not accepted, and in combing through the myriads of proposed amendments I have not encountered any such proposal. However, I would not say that one of that kind will not arise. Given the fact that new amendments are placed on my desk every hour, doubtless it will be amongst them. If it is we might have to re-open this whole debate. It would be extremely detrimental if we allowed that fault notion to continue in a different guise. Senator Haines —It would be even more discriminatory than usual. Senator MACKLIN —Yes. We probably need-I do not perceive this to be the appropriate time-having removed that notion entirely, to move forward and try to seek a modern family law Bill geared specifically to achieving future harmony, the reduction of bitterness and humiliation when marriages break down, and the removal of the notion of misconduct as having no general relevance to modern financial arrangements. In a modern world we are faced with an agreement or partnership arrived at between a couple when they enter into marriage. I do not believe it is any longer appropriate to look at a distribution. Problems have occurred in regard to notional distribution which I do not believe should any longer be inquired into by law. The way in which people go about their division of labour is something to be contained entirely within the marriage and property settlements ought not be based on whatever arrangements they may have come to. If that were taken into account I think that for a long time to come it would be to the disadvantage of women, not men, in the marriage situation. One hopes that at some future time that may not be the case, but I perceive that for a considerable time to come it would be. I turn to an item raised by Senator Missen, one which is extremely important to me, concerning ex-nuptial children. At the Australian Constitutional Convention, Mr Landa moved: That this Convention recommends that the Constitution be amended to enable the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate with respect to: (a) the custody and guardianship of children, but not so as to detract from the powers of the States to legislate with respect to the protection and welfare of children; (b) the maintenance of children, and the payment of expenses in relation to children and child bearing; and (c) rights and liabilities in relation to property, being rights and liabilities of husbands and wives arising out of the marital relationship. This has been a long standing issue. I was bitterly disappointed that during the debate at the Constitutional Convention political divisions were allowed to rise yet again to destroy something that most people believed would have been acceptable. We have lost another opportunity to do something about a matter- Senator Missen —Temporarily? Senator MACKLIN —Temporarily-which judge after judge, in all sorts of jurisdictions, has commented on as representing an utter blot and a disgrace on the community. Indeed, cases were raised during speeches at the Convention illustrating that judges did not even know under which jurisdiction they fell. Some judges have suggested that probably they do not fall under any. At least no judge wants to take on the issue. Other instances were cited in which cases had to go to at least two jurisdictions with all the ensuing costs and problems involved in moving between courts. That seems to me to be an absurdity that ought not to be allowed. The Convention was derailed on a very sensible proposal , one which most people thought was non-contentious. In relation to that I moved an additional amendment as follows: the definition of the relationship between parents and children, and the determination of issues concerning the parentage of any person; I said that that also should fall under Commonwealth jurisdiction. I believe we have already had sufficient warning on this but I suppose we will allow ourselves to get into diabolical trouble over, for example, the problems with in vitro fertilisation and surrogate mothers. There are so many problems in those areas and we know they are there. Members of the Law Reform Commission have spoken time and again about them on public platforms and in conferences. We know that we will be faced with absolutely horrendous legal problems; not only us, the oldies, as it were, but also, and more importantly, the children. They will be faced with enormous difficulties. I can see that cases will end up in the divorce courts with these problems not settled, in many cases to the detriment of the children. Unfortunately that amendment was also not acceptable. We in this country have not moved one whit forward in the last few years towards taking a sensible attitude with marriage. Problems associated with the breakdown of marriage and the children of such marriages must be solved in a legal sense. The legalities must be simplified. We must have a coherent body of law that can be applied in a single jurisdiction. I would have thought that we would have reached that stage by 1983 yet we have found that the whole problem has again been derailed. I must admit that I cannot share Senator Missen's optimism that it is only for a short period. I hope it will be, but I do not believe that to be the case. If anything, we had our best chance this year to do something about it. If the proposed amendments, including the reference of powers, are carried that certainly will make this job a lot easier. But then again, we are still confronted with the intransigence of a number of States. I do not know how one overcomes that. I do not really care whether it is dealt with at a Federal or State level. I believe it would be much simpler at a Federal level, for a whole host of reasons. However, now I think I would even settle for it to be done at a State level. That might be regarded as heresy, but I wish it were all in one place and I wish we could heed the problems that have been raised in regard to many children. This Bill cannot address those problems; it is unable to do so in a constitutional way. We do know that we will face some fairly substantial problems-many of them have already arisen-with children who are born as a result of new medical procedures of one kind or another or new forms of relationships that previously have not been available. Their availability now means that we must take a much more open and sympathetic view. I believe-again, this may be heresy to many people's ears here-that we must finally rid ourselves of the ecclesiastical approach to marriage. This chamber, this Parliament, is not an ecclesiastical institution any longer. We must seek, finally, to establish a marriage law based on modern legal principles. The morality of people's lives in this regard must be left to themselves. That might also be argued on theological grounds if anyone were interested to do so. As legislators our concern ought to be legal principles only. We should not try to introduce by the back door method various other moral principles that we may abide by. We should not seek to impose them on the rest of the community. I believe we have moved a long way but I was extremely disappointed with some of the amendments that were proposed to be moved in the previous Parliament. However, some of the proponents of those amendments are not in this Parliament and therefore we probably will not see many of the more extreme versions which were suggested by certain former senators. When we reach the Committee stage I believe we will probably move back into many of those moral arguments. I hope that the majority of senators will not seek to delay these genuine and much needed reforms by harkening back to those old debates. Rather, let us move ahead and make sure that the marriage laws, as they apply, can be applied fairly and equitably and without discrimination. Above all, they should provide for the maintainance and sustenance of the unfortunate children of broken marriages. Those children should be cared for in the best way that we can manage from the legal point of view. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(10.06) —I rise to add my comments in support of the Family Law Amendment Bill 1983. I appreciate the great advantage of the Family Law Act and the contribution it has made to the whole process of family law, divorce and so on in this country since it was introduced. I am also very appreciative of the fact that laws, particularly those dealing with human activities, need to be re-appraised from time to time. That is exactly what has happened. The Bill addresses the amendments that were proposed in large part by the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. My only comment initially is that while I appreciate the amendments that are before us I feel that in some areas they fail to go far enough. I hope there will be a continuing review of this most important area. I would like to add a few comments on behalf of people who are affected by family law as distinct from the judges or the people involved in the court process. I presume that is the emphasis that most people in this debate are presenting. From my own work and from my time as a senator, although that is short to date, I have taken a lot of account of people's reports of what happens to them when they go to the Family Court. It is not always a satisfactory tale. Evidence brought before me in my work as a counsellor before I became a senator indicated that for some people the Family Court was a place of terror or fear; certainly one associated very often with an unhappy outcome. I allude to a couple of points those people raised on a number of occasions. The most important and recurring example relates to court injunctions. I am very pleased to see an amendment in this Bill addressing itself to the provision of the power of arrest in association with injunctions. However, I wonder who will implement the provision. That is a problem. The Australian Federal Police addresses itself to the requirements of the Family Law Act very effectively in the States but police officers are spread very thinly. In our State there is any amount of evidence that the Commonwealth police are required to take a supervisory role over people attending court. They also have to take a supervisory role in respect of people attending counselling in the Family Court area. Very often they are involved in problems associated with access arrangements for people who have separated or divorced unhappily. If we now add the power of arrest to injunctions-an amendment I thoroughly approve of-do we have sufficient Commonwealth police to cope with the result? As far as I know there is no satisfactory referral of power from the Federal Government to allow the State police to pick up this matter. I make the comment that, while I thoroughly approve of this provision, I hope that sufficient thought will be given to who is going to effect it and that it will be effected adequately. It is no comfort to people to know that they can now attach arrest to injunction if , as before, it does not happen. While it may be written in the law books, that is not very convincing to the people in the electorate if it does not happen. Another point to which I particularly wish to draw attention is the emphasis in the amendments to due regard being given to the welfare of children. That is quite right and proper, of course, but in reading through the amendments I note a considerable absence of the word 'parent'. I suppose that if I were to argue the best care for children, it would be a case of optimal outcome for parents, whether those parents lived together or apart. I think that parents are of prime importance in the provision of welfare arrangements for children and that any arrangements, and many of the amendments in the Bill address themselves to this matter, should lead to a more harmonious outcome. A less unhappy outcome for the parents therefore would be of advantage to the children. I cannot stress enough that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in his second reading speech made the point that the arrangements and proposals for the Family Court on the occasion of marriage breakdown depend on equitable distribution of property, the proper level of maintenance and, of overwhelming importance, the best arrangements for the welfare of any children of the marriage. Again I ask: Do we give due consideration to the parents and to the welfare of the parents? Perhaps it is unnecessary to say it, but because of my dealings with children I return again and again to the point of the welfare of parents being paramount to the welfare of children. This leads to another consideration that is addressed in part in these amendments, and I refer to the provision of adequate counselling for parents and children in the course of custody considerations. I think that not enough has been said about this matter. Counselling is extraordinarily important, and it needs to be of adequate quality. Some consideration should be given to the fact that, while we have counselling provisions, we do not have adeqaute counsellors. Secondly, we do not have counselling over a sufficient length of time. It is important to note that the arrangements at the time of divorce or marriage breakdown may not be the same in 12 months time, and perhaps provision needs to be made for the ability to return to counselling in association with the Family Court at times subsequent to the initial contact. However, the amendments in the Bill do address themselves to provisions for custody arrangements to be considered under the Family Court jurisdiction, and the Family Court does provide counselling. That is vastly better than the situation in the State courts, where there is no such counselling. In passing, I make the comment that many people who come to the Family Court do not have English as their first language. Particularly in the case of divorce and custody, where people are clearly upset or tense or anxious and are often very puzzled, there is a great need for adequate interpreters, both in matters of law and in the counselling area. Counselling in such cases too needs to be available over a longer period than that required for appearances in court. In summary, my reason for talking to these amendments is to congratulate the Government for introducing them in this way. The amendments certainly meet the needs of many of the people who have spoken to me about the changes they have found necessary or have wanted in the Family Court and family law area. However, I say again that one of the things that becomes apparent when one focuses on the welfare of children-it is a point that I do not think I can stress enough-is that maybe the welfare of parents is forgotten. I refer to much more than the financial welfare involved in money and property considerations. Very often the greatest need of the parent is counselling for support, reassurance, information and care, thus ensuring the prospect of reasonably contented adults, which is the best guarantee for the welfare of children. I wish to make a short comment about proceedings being open. A number of people who have spoken to me about the prospect of court proceedings being open have taken great heart from this proposed amendment. They have no fear of finding out what goes on in the Family Court. In fact they have a great need to know what goes on. I think this provision will serve two purposes. Firstly, it will demystify what happens in the Family Court and make it more a matter of common or popular discussion. I think that is very important. The Family Court is still a source of great fear to many people. Secondly, I think a number of people feel that they are not adequately represented in the Family Court and they would like the comfort of knowing that allies, friends or supporters are in the court listening and and can support them, if not in fact then, at least psychologically. I wonder a little about the absence of a clear definition of de facto arrangements being treated in the same way as legal marriages. Many people one meets in the community have not necessarily gone through the legal marriage arrangements but to all intents and purposes have a marriage. An anomaly exists in that our welfare system acknowledges de facto relationships for the payment of benefits but the Family Law Act does not address itself to this matter in the same way. I commend the amendments, particularly those dealing with changes in the law associated with injunctions and those that reduce the amount of legal difficulty and therefore make more likely an optimal outcome for parents. Of course that will have great benefit for children. I am happy to support the amendments. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Resignation of Mr Guy Smith Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. The PRESIDENT —During the winter recess Mr Guy Smith, the Clerk Assistant ( Committees), left the service of the Senate to accept the position of Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. Mr Smith has a record of dedicated and loyal service to the Senate and its committees, commencing with his appointment in March 1958 and spanning a quarter of a century. Among the highlights of his career in the Senate I list his service as Black Rod, when he was responsible for the organisation and conduct of six openings of Parliament, including two by Her Majesty the Queen, and when he accompanied two Governors- General during the ceremony of their swearing in. During the period of his service with the Senate Mr Smith served the Senate, senators and fellow staff members well and will always be remembered with affection for his cheery personality as well as his great depth of knowledge. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all senators, as well as expressing my own feelings, when I thank Guy Smith for his service to the Senate and wish him well in his new career in the Northern Territory. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.19) —I note the statement made by the President in regard to the retirement of Mr Guy Smith from the Senate. I take this opportunity to speak on behalf of many senators on this side of the House in commending Mr Guy Smith for the work he has carried out here over many years. As you have said, Mr President, Guy Smith came to the Senate as a clerk, as one of the lowly officers of the Senate, perhaps, in 1958. Like so many of the staff and Clerks of the Senate, over 25 years he has given very dedicated service and risen through the ranks, which is the role of many who give their dedication to the Senate. He became a senior Clerk at the table of the Senate. He will be remembered for his cheerful manner and for the way in which he has assisted so many senators over the years. But Mr Guy Smith's life in the parliamentary field is not over. If one says that one is the meat in the sandwich it is because one feels that one is in a difficult situation. In this situation I feel that I am like the meat in the sandwich but in a most pleasant way because Mr Guy Smith came to me and asked: 'What is the Territory like? What is the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly like?' Senator Robertson —I hope that you did not tell him. Senator KILGARIFF —Well, I must admit that having had 16 years in the Legislative Council and the Assembly of the Northern Territory, I do have some very kindly feelings towards that body which is going through an interesting stage. I was able to assure him that I thought that the step that he was taking while being a loss to the Senate in Canberra was certainly the Territory's gain. Of course, on the other aspect of this meat in the sandwich, the people in the Northern Territory, in relation to the position, asked me: 'Do you know this Guy Smith?' I said: 'Of course I know Guy Smith'. They asked: 'How would he fit into the role as Clerk of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly?' I was able to assure them that, if they obtained the services of Mr Guy Smith as the Clerk of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, they would be doing extremely well. I support you, Mr President, in your remarks and in doing so I commend Mr Guy Smith for the work he has done here in the Senate and I look forward with extreme interest to seeing the work and the role that he will carry out in the Northern Territory in the years to come as the Territory progresses in self- government. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(10.23) —I join with my colleague Senator Kilgariff, not as the meat in the sandwich but in some kind of dual role. We want to commend Guy Smith for the contribution he has made to the Senate in the past few years and to wish him well in the role which he is going to fill in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Like my colleague Senator Kilgariff, I feel divided in this. I feel we have lost a very competent officer of the Senate but it will be a gain for the Northern Territory. Mr President, you have just plotted his path through the Senate and no doubt just as most privates feel that they have a field marshal's baton in their knapsack so most officers in the Senate would want to go through the ranks to have their own chamber, preferably the Senate chamber. Guy has chosen a different path in moving to his chamber in the Legislative Assembly in the Northern Territory. We commend him for this choice. As you will appreciate from your visits to the Northern Territory, Mr President, there is no doubt that the Northern Territory Government, the Parliament and the whole of the Assembly, is a very exciting area because it is the latest area of growth in Australia. The Assembly gained its independence only in 1978 or, if we can use this word, its autonomous self-government. But, as Senator Kilgariff has indicated, for some years we have had in the Northern Territory an Assembly in which he served with some distinction. It is interesting that we can join with him in commending Guy Smith for taking this decision. I want to mention one other point and that is the fact that the last position that Mr Guy Smith held here was in charge of the Senate Committee Secretariat. We are very proud in the Senate of our committee system and, I think, with some justification. It is interesting that Mr Clerk and I attended in Alice Springs a conference or seminar called 'Small is Beautiful' where he and I talked about the Senate structure and the need for a committee system. We pressed upon the members for the Northern Territory the need for a committee system in their structure. They indicated that at that stage they thought they were too small. Now that they have increased their numbers to 25 and, at the moment, as they have an experienced man in this field, I hope we will see a growth in the Northern Territory of the committee structure starting, we hope, with public accounts and then moving on to other areas where the committee system can be of so much assistance. I do not want to detain the Senate. I want just to commend Mr Guy Smith for the contribution he has made to the Senate, and to me personally in the time that I have been here, and to wish him well in the Northern Territory. I think that both the Northern Territory Assembly and Mr Smith have made an excellent decision. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.25) —I join my colleagues in commending Guy Smith for the work he has accomplished in this place and wish him well in his further career. There is very little I can add to what has been said already and so I thought I would speak on a slightly different aspect of his going. I refer to the promotion of Anne Lynch as Acting Clerk Assistant (Procedures). She is the first woman to enter this highly lauded position as a Clerk at the table. I am absolutely delighted on her behalf. She is one of the most competent persons I know. She has already proved her expertise in the first day of this parliamentary period. She has done work for several of the senators in this place already and I am sure my colleague Senator Lewis will be able to tell us a little more about her experience on the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and her assistance to him as Chairman of that Committee, a position he held for some time. I was a member of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee for only a short time but I certainly learned to appreciate her experience and the co-operation that she gave to the Committee. She is a delightful person. I wish her well and I am so delighted that she is the first woman to sit at the table in the Senate. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.27) —I join those in the Senate who have spoken, firstly, about Mr Smith. I, too, have found him to be of great assistance to me from time to time and a worthy officer of the Senate. I wish him well. But I rise in particular to support the remarks of my colleague Senator Walters in relation to Miss Anne Lynch. I too congratulate her on her appointment as an Acting Clerk Assistant. I recognise what Senator Walters has said about Miss Lynch as a woman but I know that Miss Lynch does not wish her promotion to be seen in any way in regard to her sex. She seeks to be recognised simply as an officer of the Senate and she has proven over the years to be a very worthwhile officer of the Senate. The Senate is very well served by its officers, ranging from the Clerk, through the Deputy Clerk and the Clerk-Assistants, to the lower levels. The high standard of our officers is one of the great things about the Senate. As a former Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances I wish particularly to speak of her work on that Committee. I know that I speak on behalf of every member of the Committee who has worked with Miss Lynch over the years and I am sure I speak on behalf of the current members when I say that she has served the Committee extraordinarily well. She has shown her competence in so many ways that we are all proud of our association with her. Although we welcome the appointment of the new Secretary to the Committee, Dr Uhr, we certainly regard her moving away from us as a loss. I am sure all the other members of the Senate agree with me that we wish Miss Lynch great success in her future career in the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.29) —in reply-On behalf of the Government I wish to thank Mr Guy Smith for his services to this place and to congratulate him on his new appointment. On behalf of the Government I also congratulate, as have other senators, Miss Anne Lynch on her consequential elevation. Whilst I am not sure that Anne Lynch would regard her appointment as striking a blow for progressive feminism, her appointment is, nonetheless, a unique one in the history of this place and represents a great credit to her. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following papers were presented: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 124. Audit Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 96, 105. Australian Capital Territory Representation (House of Representatives) Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 115. Australian Citizenship Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 68. Australian National University Act-Statutes- No. 165-Enrolment, Courses and Degrees Amendment Statute No. 17. No. 166-Enrolment, Courses and Degrees Amendment Statute No. 18. No. 167-University House Amendment-Statute No. 9. Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 80. Bounty (Books) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 81. Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 107. Bounty (Penicillin) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 73. Canned Fruits Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 82. Christmas Island Act-Ordinance 1983-No. 1-Small Claims. Commonwealth Electoral Act and Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act- Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 114. Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 71. Commonwealth Teaching Service Act- Determination 1983-Nos 4, 5, 6. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 131. Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 94, 104. Copyright Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 125, 126, 127, 128. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 92, 93. Dairy Industry Stabilization Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 90. Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 89. Defence Act- Determinations 1983- No. 11-Special Action Forces Allowance and another. No. 12-Recreation Leave. No. 13-Chaplain's (Reserves) Equipment Allowance. No. 14-Allowances for Applicants for Entry into the Defence Force and others. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 129. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 85, 86. Defence (Visiting Forces) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 130. Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 100. Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 97. Economic Planning Advisory Council Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 99. Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 117. Freedom of Information Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 84, 123. Health Insurance Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 106. Health Insurance Commission Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 88. Home Deposit Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 134. Income Tax Assessment Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 79, 87, 111. International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act-Regulations- Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 132, 133. Lands Acquisition Act- Land, etc., acquired for- The purpose of extensions to Perth Airport-Newburn, Western Australia. Telecommunications Services Purposes, Mogo Hill, New South Wales. Statements (12) of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 ( 1). National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 102, 116. National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No . 135. Navigation Act- Marine Orders-1983- No. 1-Part 30-Prevention of Collisions No. 2-Part 43-Cargo and Cargo Handling-Livestock No. 3-Part 3-Marine Qualifications-Issue and Procedure No. 4-Part 6-Marine Qualifications-Radio No. 5-Part 7-Marine Qualifications-Ratings No. 6-Part 9-Health-Medical Fitness No. 7-Part 2-Fees Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 95, 120, 121, 122. Northern Territory Representation Act and the Commonwealth Electoral Act- Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 113. Public Service Act- Determinations 1983-Nos 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 91, 98, 109, 110, 112, 119. Public Service Arbitration Act-Determinations by the Arbitrator, accompanied by statements regarding possible inconsistency with the law-1983- Nos 156 to 179- External Plant Officers Association and others. Nos 180 to 189-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) and others. No. 190-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers). Nos 191 and 192-Hospital Employees Federation of Australia. No. 193-Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights' Union and others.* No. 194-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers). No. 195-Australian Journalists' Association. No. 196-Royal Australian Nursing Federation.* No. 197-Printing and Kindred Industries Union.* No. 198-Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia.* No. 199-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers).* No. 200-Association of Draughting, Supervisory and Technical Employees. No. 201-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers).* No. 202-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Australian Government Employment.* No. 203-Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service. No. 204-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers).* No. 205-Professional Musicians' Union of Australia. No. 206-Association of Professional Engineers, Australia.* No. 207-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Australian Government Employment. No. 208-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others. No. 209-Commonwealth Foremen's Association of Australia, Australian Public Service. Nos 210 and 211-Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association. No. 212-Hospital Employees Federation of Australia. Nos 213 to 225-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others. No. 226-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others.* Nos 227 and 228-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others. No. 229-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others.* No. 230-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others. No. 231-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others.* Nos 232 to 238-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others. No. 239-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others.* Nos 240 and 241-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others. Nos 242 and 243-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others.* No. 244 to 258-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others. No. 259-Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia.* (*Not accompanied by a statement) Quarantine Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 70. Remuneration and Allowances Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 118. Repatriation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 83. Salaries and Wages Pause Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 69, 72, 101. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1983- No. 9-Rates ( Amendment). No. 10-Parole Orders (Transfer). No. 11-Criminal Injuries Compensation. No. 12-Rates (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 13-Motor Omnibus Services (Amendment). No. 14-Motor Traffic (Amendment). No. 15-Roads and Public Places (Amendment). Regulations 1983- No. 3-(Motor Omnibus Services Ordinance). No. 4-(Motor Omnibus Services Ordinance). No. 5-(Roads and Public Places Ordinance). Roads and Public Places Ordinance-Determination of Fees and Charges, dated 25 July 1983. Securities Industry Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 108. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the Schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States of- Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia, dated 30 May 1983. Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania, dated 30 May 1983. Western Australia, dated 21 June 1983. Queensland and Western Australia, dated 18 July 1983. Queensland, dated 31 July 1983. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 74, 75, 76, 77, 78. Telecommunications Act-By-Laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment Nos 34, 35. Telecommunications (Community Calls) Amendment Nos 27, 28. Telecommunications (Staff) Amendment No. 41. Wool Industry Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 103. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 18 Senator Bolkus asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) What is the normal manner in which Federal Court judges and judges of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission are paid their salaries. (2) Are one or more Federal Court judges or judges of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission paid their judicial salaries as a gross figure, without any tax being deducted, or in any manner different from the normal manner in which persons on the Government payroll receive their salaries; if so, who are the persons involved and what is the manner of payment involved. (3) What are the special circumstances involved in each case in which deductions have been varied pursuant to section 221D (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Senator Gareth Evans —The answers to the honourable senator's questions are as follows: (1) Federal Court judges are paid their salaries monthly as are presidential members of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. (2) and (3) Except at the request of the person concerned, deductions for income tax are not made from the salaries of Federal Court judges as they are not considered to be 'employees' within the meaning of section 221A (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. I understand that a similar practice is followed in relation to presidential members of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I believe that it is not appropriate for me to answer that part of the honourable senator's question relating to the manner of taxation payments of individuals. Those arrangements are properly a matter between the person concerned and the Commissioner of Taxation. Question No. 23 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) What was the date of commencement of work by Telecom to lay a telephone cable to the holiday home of Mr Peter Nixon M.P., at Cape Conrad in South East Gippsland, Victoria. (2) What was the date of completion of the work and the telephone connection. (3) What was the total cost of the work carried out. (4) Did Mr Nixon pay for this work; if not, who did. (5) Who authorised the work to be carried out. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) 13 February 1980. (2) 6 March 1980 and 3 April 1980 respectively. (3) $2,330.56. (4) The project provided for four telephone services to be connected to the Marlo exchange. Mr Nixon and the other three subscribers were each charged the standard connection fee at the time of $120. The cost of the project was borne by Telecom as part of its capital works program. (5) The officer responsible for such minor works in the area. Question No. 27 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) How many telephone lines have been available for: (a) interstate; and (b) intrastate calls from each capital city in Australia in each financial year since 1974-75. (2) How many operators have there been employed on the trunk call service in each capital city in each financial year since 1974-75. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) (a) Interstate Lines- At 30 June 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Sydney 1,566 1,752 1,795 1,932 2,069 2,302 2,611 3,044 Melbourne 1,361 1,287 1 ,645 1,767 1,889 2,038 2,409 2,706 Brisbane 576 675 822 848 875 939 1,144 1,335 Adelaide 346 438 547 587 627 642 765 925 Perth 213 313 357 382 440 482 573 651 Hobart n.a. n.a. 93 103 103 120 126 146 (b) Intrastate Lines- At 30 June 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Sydney *3,759 *4,057 4,534 4,602 4,913 5,333 5,655 5,906 Melbourne n.a. n.a. 1 ,741 1,908 2,000 2,189 2,579 2,917 Brisbane 800 950 1,160 1,290 1,370 1,630 1, 870 1,990 Adelaide 1,044 1,103 1,242 1,325 1,447 1,604 1,705 1,909 Perth 600 630 670 690 725 770 820 905 Hobart n.a. n.a. 111 111 116 116 116 144 n.a. Not available. * Estimated. (2) At 30 June 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Sydney n.a. 474 486 460 470 442 434 349 Melbourne n.a. 417 414 409 383 379 296 246 Brisbane n.a. 205 200 197 203 192 183 131 Adelaide n.a. 302 303 295 288 216 178 175 Perth n.a. 263 252 244 223 197 207 145 Hobart n.a. 36 33 33 32 30 31 30 (Includes part-time staff and supervisors). n.a. Not available. * Estimated. Question No. 31 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) What are the brand names of the official cars of the Governor-General of Australia and of each State Governor. (2) Have Australian-made cars been chosen; if not, why not. (3) Will the Government adopt a policy of ensuring that cars used for vice- regal functions are made in Australia. Senator Button —The Acting Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (3) The brand names of cars used by the Governor-General are Rolls Royce , Daimler and Ford LTD. The Commonwealth does not hold information on the cars used by State Governors. The Ford LTD is manufactured in Australia. The Rolls Royce and Daimler vehicles are not locally manufactured. They are particularly suited for ceremonial occasions and no similar type of locally manufactured car was available when they were purchased many years ago. When these are replaced, consideration will be given to purchasing suitable Australian-made vehicles which may then be available. The Government's current policy is to give a measure of preference to goods of Australian origin. Question No. 35 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) What moneys have been expended since 1 January 1976 in the Minister's area of responsibility and what moneys are being planned to be expended in the following areas: (a) computer hardware and software; and (b) repairs and servicing of computers. (2) When was expenditure incurred in each of the above categories. (3) Which items purchased above are now obsolete or will be so in the next five years. Senator Button —The Acting Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND CABINET $ (1) (a) Expenditure to 30 April 1983 160 232 Planned to 1985-86 40 000 (b) Expenditure to 30 April 1983 99 439 Planned to 1985-86 130 000 (2) Actual Expenditure Hardware & Repairs & Year Software Servicing $ $ January 1976-June 1978 Nil Nil July 1978-June 1979 56 061 Nil July 1979- June 1980 31 608 13 556 July 1980-June 1981 42 268 33 431 July 1981-June 1982 14 052 31 507 July 1982-April 1983 16 243 20 945 (3) No items purchased are obsolete or are forecast as becoming obsolete in the next five years. PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD $ (1) (a) Expenditure to 15 April 1983 9 162 175 Planned to 1985-86 614 000 (b) Expenditure to 15 April 1983 3 405 940 Planned to 1985-86 169 500 (2) Actual Expenditure Hardware & Repairs & Year Software Servicing $ $ January 1976-June 1976 1 133 176 37 632 July 1976-June 1977 5 620 644 257 525 July 1977-June 1978 1 014 254 364 540 July 1978-June 1979 665 152 780 963 July 1979-June 1980 390 445 732 076 July 1980-June 1981 281 780 941 674 July 1981-June 1982 56 724 260 253 July 1982-15 April 1983 Nil 31 277 (3) No items purchased are obsolete or are forecast as being obsolete in the next five years. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S OFFICE $ (1) (a) Expenditure to 30 April 1983 100 792 Planned to 1985-86 1 097 000 (b) Expenditure to 30 April 1983 13 186 Planned to 1985-86 68 000 (2) Actual Expenditure Hardware & Repairs & Year Software Servicing $ $ January 1976-June 1978 Nil Nil July 1978-June 1979 23 000 Nil July 1979- June 1980 30 797 Nil July 1980-June 1981 34 625 1 793 July 1981-June 1982 3 970 3 393 July 1982-April 1983 7 400 8 000 (3) It is expected that peripheral items totalling $7 314 will require replacement during the next 5 years. Note: Planned expenditure is based on current prices to maintain on-going activities for which government approval has been given. It does not include amounts incorporated into forward estimates for new activities which would be subject to normal budgetary processes, and in consequence, may be subject to revision. Question No. 37 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) What moneys have been expended since 1 January 1976 in the Minister's areas of responsibility and what moneys are being planned to be expended in the following areas: (a) computer hardware and software, and (b) repairs and servicing of computers. (2) When was expenditure incurred in each of the above categories. (3) Which items purchased above are now obsolete or will be so in the next five years. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1, 2 and 3) (a) Because the Department of Industry and Commerce has undergone a number of complex administrative changes over the last few years, it would be extremely difficult and time consuming to extract the data required for this period. If the honourable senator would like to refine his question, I shall consider what further assistance can be given. (b) Moneys expended since the Department of Industry and Commerce was 're- arranged' in May 1982. May-June 1982 Hardware 551,500 Services 945,000 July 1982-June 1983 (Budget Allocations) Hardware 5,322,000 Services 4,276,000 Approved Obligations Outstanding at 30 June 1983 Hardware 1983-84 1,280,010 1984-85 100,000 1985-86 1,180,000 Question No. 38 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) What moneys have been expended since 1 January 1976 in the Minister's areas of responsibility and what moneys are being planned to be expended in the following areas: (a) computer hardware and software, and (b) repairs and servicing of computers. (2) When was expenditure incurred in each of the above categories. (3) Which items purchased above are now obsolete or will be so in the next five years. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) See Table 1. (3) Major acquisitions now obsolete 3 x IBM 3135 Central Processing Units 2 x IBM 3705 Communications Controllers Major acquisitions to become obsolete in the next five years 44 x NCR 2408 Data Entry mini computers 10 x Honeywell H716 Mini computers 2 x Natsemi Central Processing Units 3 x IBM 158 Central Processing Units 3 x IBM 145 Central Processing Units 26 x Memorex 3675 disc drives Table 1 EXPENDITURE ON COMPUTER HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE AND REPAIRS AND SERVICING OF COMPUTERS Computer Repairs and hardware servicing Period and software of computers $ $ 1.7.75-30.6.76 2,051,596 357,965 1.7.76-30.6.77 1,343,839 139,242 1.7.77- 30.6.78 1,343,748 478,532 1.7.78-30.6.79 277,604 648,420 1.7.79-30.6.80 286, 408 621,551 1.7.80-30.6.81 1,681,324 1,020,693 1.7.81-30.6.82 654,920 1,039, 249 1.7.82-30.6.83 1,437,300 1,369,300 1.7.83-30.6.84 37,772,000 2,734,000 1.7 .84-30.6.85 40,948,500 7,230,370 1.7.85-30.6.86 9,621,000 9,773,000 TOTAL 97,418,239 25,412,322 Question No. 42 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 April 1983 as follows: (1) What moneys have been expended since 1 January 1976 in the Minister's areas of responsibility and what moneys are being planned to be expended in the following areas: (a) computer hardware and software; and (b) repairs and servicing of computers. (2) When was expenditure incurred in each of the above categories. (3) Which items purchased above are now obsolete or will be so in the next five years. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1a and b) (2 and 3) EXPENDITURE ON COMPUTER HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE Year Amount Item $ 1.1-30.6.76 4 858 Maintenance of computer equipment 1976-77 11 030 Maintenance of computer equipment 1977-78 12 743 Maintenance of computer equipment 1978-79 3 595 Purchase of computer equipment 16 612 Maintenance of computer equipment 1979-80 11 186 Purchase of computer equipment 15 186 Maintenance of computer equipment 1980-81 5 681 Purchase of computer equipment 17 275 Maintenance of computer equipment 1981-82 934 798 Purchase/Lease of computer equipment and software 69 845 Maintenance of computer equipment 1982-83 (to January) 290 790 Purchase/Lease of computer equipment and software 96 020 Maintenance of computer equipment PLANNED EXPENDITURE ON COMPUTER HARDWARE SOFTWARE AND MAINTENANCE Item 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) Purchase/Lease of Computer Hardware and Software 683 1 026 2 901 641 Maintenance of computer equipment 174.5 270 270 270 CURRENT OBSOLETE EQUIPMENT Nil EQUIPMENT BECOMING OBSOLETE IN NEXT FIVE YEARS 1 x IBM Model 3031 CPU and Memory 1 x IBM Model 3017 Power Unit 1 x IBM Model 3036 Console 3 x IBM Model 3830 Storage Control Units 12 x IBM Model 3350 Disk Storage Modules 1 x IBM Model 3705 Communication Controller 1 x GCS Model 2100 Data Entry Mini Computer System including 29 Terminals Question No. 43 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) What moneys have been expended since 1 January 1976 in the Minister's areas of responsibility and what moneys are being planned to be expended in the following areas: (a) computer hardware and software; and (b) repairs and servicing of computers. (2) When was expenditure incurred in each of the above categories. (3) Which items purchased above are now obsolete or will be so in the next five years. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) Expenditure incurred on computer hardware and software from 1 January 1976 to 31 December 1982 was $6 517 000; and (b) Expenditure for repairs and servicing of computers was $1 309 000. (2) Expenditure incurred and planned for computer hardware and software and for computer repairs and servicing: Hardware and Repairs and Software Servicing $'000 $'000 1975-76 360 42 1976-77 749 151 1977-78 575 133 1978-79 736 167 1979-80 908 197 1980-81 1 286 219 1981-82 1 141 256 1982-83 2 047 298 1983-84 3 121 347 1984-85 1 643 334 1985-86 1 492 334 (3) 6 VDU terminals 1 digitiser 2 printers 1 microcomputer 1 cassette reader 1 acoustic coupler. Question No. 47 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) What moneys have been expended since 1 January 1976 in the Minister's areas of responsibility and what moneys are being planned to be expended in the following areas: (a) computer hardware and software; and (b) repairs and servicing of computers. (2) When was expenditure incurred in each of the above categories. (3) Which items purchased above are now obsolete or will be so in the next five years. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Expenditure on Defence computers occurs under two categories, operational computers and administrative computing systems. Operational computers are in the main integral parts of weapons systems and are not separately costed from project costs of the weapons systems. It is not therefore possible to provide details sought by Senator Bolkus in respect of operational computers. For administrative computers, expenditure from 1 July 1975 to 30 June 1982 was $ million (a) computer hardware and software 76.606 (b) repair and servicing of computers 27.683 Expenditure for 1975-76 relates to the full financial year rather than the six months from 1 January 1976 as the latter would require considerable research into monthly expenditure records. The figures include expenditure on word processors, micro-computers and programmable calculators since 1 July 1981. Details of expenditure on these items cannot be separated readily. (2) Actual expenditure from 1975-76 to 1981-82 was: Financial Year 75-76 76-77 77-78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 $m $m $m $m $m $m $m (a) Hardware and software 7.334 5.889 12.220 10.764 11.627 13.030 15.742 (b) Repair and servicing 1.515 1.971 2.751 3.690 4.228 5.466 8.062 The planned expenditures in 1982-83 are $13.906m on Hardware and Software (with a carry over commitment of $4.061m in 1983-84) and $9.628 on Repair and Servicing. Planned expenditure in later years will be subject to determination in the context of the Five Year Defence Program and Government decisions in the annual budget. (3) A refurbished Honeywell computer purchased in 1977-76 at a cost of $2.278m will be withdrawn from service in 1984 together with other Honeywell computing systems purchased between 1962-63 and 1973-74. This equipment will be declared surplus to requirements and offered for disposal. Within the next five years, the Department is likely to dispose of a DEC System 10 computer which was purchased for the Aeronautical Research Laboratories in 1968 and upgraded in 1975. The Central processing unit of the main computer installation at the Defence Research Centre, Salisbury is also likely to be disposed of within the next five years. Items of peripheral computing equipment in this system which are currently hired are exchanged or dehired from time to time as they become superseded by new technology or as requirements change. Question No. 48 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) What moneys have been expended since 1 January 1976 in the Minister's areas of responsibility and what moneys are being planned to be expended in the following areas: (a) computer hardware and software; and (b) repairs and servicing of computers. (2) When was expenditure incurred in each of the above categories. (3) Which items purchased above are now obsolete or will be so in the next five years. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Includes expenditure on word processing ($'000) 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 (a) 291.8 498.3 642.3 1,055 1,244.9 400.9 1,948.4 2,759.6 *2,524 *3,143 *3,062 (b) nil nil 3.2 106.5 110.7 258.6 293.2 527.7 *659.5 *728.3 *822.4 Above figures relate to Australian National Railways, Australian Shipping Commission and the Bureau of Transport Economics. * From 1983-84 includes expenditure of $12,000 for the Department of Transport. * The Department of Transport was created in March 1983. No figures are available for Department of Transport for computer hardware and software for 1983-84 onwards pending approval of the ADP Strategic Plan. (3) Details of items of computer equipment to be disposed of in the next five years are set out in the table below. These will be deployed by Department of Administrative Services. Release Date of Original Item date purchase value $ Central processor- Perkin-Elmer 7/32 CII 1983-84 1979 98,430 Disc drive 1984-85 1979 Included in price of central processor Tape drive- PE 9 track 800 bpi 75 ips unit 1984-85 1979 9,200 CSIRO node- PDP11/10SD processor 1983-84 1976 28,680 Question No. 50 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) What monies have been expended since 1 January 1976 in the Minister's areas of responsibility and what monies are being planned to be expended in the following areas: (a) computer hardware and software and (b) repairs and servicing of computers. (2) When was expenditure incurred in each of the above categories. (3) Which items purchased above are now obsolete or will be so in the next five years. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) With respect to my area of responsibility I am able to advise you that since the Aviation portfolio was established on 7 May 1982, my Department has expended, and as at April 1983 planned to expend, money on computing services as follows: (a) computer hardware and software FINANCIAL YEAR Actual Forecast 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 $ $ $ $ $ 1,093,174 517,000 378,000 464,000 358,000 (b) repairs and servicing of computers FINANCIAL YEAR Actual Forecast 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 $ $ $ $ $ 35,267 257,000 393,000 415,000 434,000 (2) Expenditure in 1981-82 was incurred as indicated in the above table. (3) The Department's ICL 2960 and a number of small microcomputers are expected to become obsolete within the next five years. Question No. 56 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) What moneys have been expended since 1 January 1976 in the Minister's areas of responsibility and what moneys are being planned to be expended in the following areas: (a) computer hardware and software; and (b) repairs and servicing of computers. (2) When was expenditure incurred in each of the above categories. (3) Which items purchased above are now obsolete or will be so in the next five years. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Science and Technology has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2)- Computer Repairs and hardware servicing of and software computers $m $m From 1.1.76 to 1.445 1.067 30.6.77 2.830 1.369 1977-78 3.482 1.352 1978 -79 3.019 1.593 1979-80 3.888 2.007 1980-81 4.975 2.343 1981-82 6.598 3.430 1982-83 (1) 11.906 (1) 3.898 38.143 17.059 (1) Estimate Planned expenditure is yet to be determined as it is subject to the normal budgetary process. (3)- Quantity Description 1 Digital Equipment PDP 11/70 Processor 52 Digital Equipment PDP 11/10 Nodal Systems 5 Digital Equipment PDP 11/34 Nodal Systems 1 Digital Equipment PDP 11/04 Nodal System 1 Hewlett Packard M/20 System 1 Hewlett Packard HP2100 System 1 Hewlett Packard 9830A Desk Top System 1 Hewlett Packard HP1000 System 1 Vax 11/750 System Question No. 58 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) What moneys have been expended since 1 January 1976 in the Minister's areas of responsibility and what moneys are being planned to be expended in the following areas: (a) computer hardware and software; and (b) repairs and servicing of computers. (2) When was expenditure incurred in each of the above categories. (3) Which items purchased above are now obsolete or will be so in the next five years. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) $9,941,000 (b) $1,362,000 (2) See table below (3) No major acquisitions will become obsolete in the next five years. TOTAL COMPUTER EXPENDITURE ($'000s) 75-76 76-77 77-78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 Total Hardware and software 63 388 731 842 896 1,125 1,191 1,368 1,162 1,107 1,068 9, 941 Maintenance . . 2 10 14 20 87 189 240 250 266 284 1,362 Total: 63 390 741 856 916 1,212 1,380 1,608 1,412 1,373 1,352 11,303 Question No. 59 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) What moneys have been expended since 1 January 1976 in the Minister's areas of responsibility and what moneys are being planned to be expended in the following areas: (a) computer hardware and software; and (b) repairs and servicing of computers. (2) When was expenditure incurred in each of the above categories. (3) Which items purchased above are now obsolete or will be so in the next five years. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2)- Hardware Repairs and and Year software maintenance $ $ 1977-78 350 . . 1978-79 . . . . 1979-80 45,153 . . 1980-81 . . 3,020 1981-82 43,820 3,020 1982-83 19,901 859 (3) Items which are expected to become obsolete are: Software purchased for mortgage processing by the Aboriginal Loans Commission and now used by the Aboriginal Development Commission-1977-78, $350: 1979-80, $ 470. An IBM mini computer and program package for the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies- 1979-80, $23,683. Question No. 63 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: What was the total cost to the Australian taxpayer of the recent visit of Prince Charles and his family. Senator Button —The Acting Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: All charges have not yet been brought to account, but costs are expected to be of the following order: $ External air travel (RAAF B707 Canberra-London-Alice Springs-Canberra) 381,500 Domestic air travel (RAAF BAC 1-11 Mystere and HS 748) 146,500 Road transport (including Commonwealth cars and Press buses) 248,000 Accommodation and living expenses in Albury 40,000 Printing (Australian Government Printing Office) 10 ,000 Communications 3,500 Advance visit by officials 26,000 Miscellaneous 5 ,500 861,000 Figures quoted above relate to direct costs. Salaries of departmental staff involved with a Visit, as part of their normal duties and their travel costs, are not separately costed and have not been included. Similarly costs incurred by other departments in carrying out their normal functions in relation to a Visit are borne by those departments and not separately costed to the Visit. Question No. 76 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) How many different versions of rubber stamps of the pharmaceutical benefits declaration were issued to pharmacists and other persons or organisations. (2) What was the wording of each of the different versions. (3) How many rubber stamps of the pharmaceutical benefits declaration were issued to pharmacists and other persons or organisations for each State and Territory, and for Australia as a whole. (4) What was the cost of each stamp and what was the average distribution cost of each stamp. (5) Where, and by whom were the stamps manufactured. (6) Were tenders called for the supply of the stamps; if so, what were the details and if not, how was the manufacturer selected. (7) What was the total cost of: (a) the stamps produced; and (b) distribution costs. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Two issues of patient declaration stamps have been made. (2) See attachment. (3) The number of rubber stamps in each issue was as follows- No. to No. to No. to approved approved State pharmacists doctors hospitals N.S.W. 1,986 32 9 Vic. 1,468 1 2 Qld 1,031 21 1 S.A. 467 8 3 W.A. 452 9 1 Tas. 145 13 . . 5,549 84 16 Total-5,649 In addition, in regard to the first stamp a reserve supply of 1,351 stamps was also obtained for use in the Divisional Offices of my Department and as replacements (Total-7,000). In regard to the second stamp a reserve supply of 751 stamps was also obtained for use in the Divisional Offices of my Department and as replacements (Total-6,400). (4) First stamp-The cost of each stamp was $3.00. The distribution cost is not known, because the stamps were sent by mail packaged with other items. Second stamp-The cost of each stamp was $3.60. The distribution cost averaged approximately 71 cents per stamp, about $4,000 total. (5) First stamp-Manufactured by Canberra Rubber Stamps, 3 Pirie Street, Fyshwick, Australian Capital Territory. Second stamp-Half the quantity required was manufactured by Canberra Rubber Stamps and half by Federal Rubber Stamps Pty Ltd, 2 Sydenham Road, Marrickville, New South Wales. (6) Yes. Manufacturers of rubber stamps contracted to supply Federal Government departments were invited to submit tenders. First stamp-Tenders apart from Canberra Rubber Stamps were offered by: Federal Rubber Stamps Pty Ltd, 2 Sydenham Road, Marrickville, New South Wales 2204 N. Solomon Pty Ltd, 750 George Street, Sydney, New South Wales 2000 Second stamp-Apart from Canberra Rubber Stamps and Federal Rubber Stamps Pty Ltd, a tender was also offered by: Better Marking, 102-104 Franklin Street, Adelaide, South Australia 5000 N. Solomon Pty Ltd declined to submit a tender. (7) (a) Cost of stamps produced was- $ First stamp 21,000 Second stamp 23,040 44,040 (b) See answer to question 4. FIRST STAMPPHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS: DECLARATIONTo be completed ONLY if the patient is eligible for pharmaceutical benefits free of charge or at concessional patient contribution rate. Please complete BEFORE handing to the chemist. I DECLARE that to the best of my knowledge and belief the patient named overleaf is, or is a dependant of, a pensioner or a concessional beneficiary WHO HOLDS * a valid Health Care card, valid to...../...../..... C* * Entitlement No. . . * . . . * . . . * . . Cross one * box * and complete details against the box C P P* a valid Pharmaceutical Benefits * Concession card, year 19...... * Entitlement No. . . * . . . * . . . * . . * a valid Pensioner Health Benefits card, year 19...... * * Entitlement No. . . * . . . * . . . * . . * a valid Health Benefits card, valid to...../...../..... * * Entitlement No. . . * . . . * . . . * . . - AND THAT I AM Cross one circle *X * the patient; * the patient's agent and have sighted the relevant card as indicated above by me. Signed Date....../....../...... Agent's address PENALTY for false or misleading Declaration $1,000 and/or imprisonment for 6 months. SECOND STAMPIf patient is entitled to FREE OR CONCESSIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS please complete this form and hand to the pharmacist. I DECLARE that to the best of my knowledge and belief the patient named overleaf is, or is a dependant of, a pensioner or a concessional beneficiary with the ENTITLEMENT NUMBER** - *** - *** - **WHO HOLDS A CURRENTLY VALID (Please tick relevant box *) $2 * Health Care Card $2 * Pharmaceutical Benefits Concession Card Free * Pensioner Health Benefits Card Free * Health Benefits Card AND THAT I AM (Please tick relevant circle *) * the patient * the patient's agent and have sighted the relevant card as indicated above by me. Signed Date....../....../...... Agent's address Legal penalties apply to false or misleading declarations. Question No. 82 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) Is the Minister for Defence familiar with a Press report broadcast on Australian Broadcasting Commission radio news on 25 January 1983, in which the introduction stated that the former Government was to make a determined effort to enter the multi-billion arms sales industry and would concentrate its efforts on countries in the south east Asian region; if so, (a) has that marketing drive begun, (b) what countries are being canvassed and (c) will the Government be continuing these efforts to sell arms to South East Asian countries. (2) Did the previous Government sell $12 million worth of small arms, spares and clothing to the Indonesian military forces last year; if so, what types of small arms were involved in the sales and what was their source of supply and/or manufacture. (3) Does Australia export military small arms to any other countries overseas; if so, (a) what are those recipient countries, (b) what types of weapons are involved and (c) what are their sources of supply and/or manufacture. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Australia is not a large scale exporter of arms or defence equipment. The Government maintains stringent control over such exports. Each individual sales request is examined on its merits, and Ministerial decisions are taken after careful evaluation of whether the proposal is in the national interest. There has been no change in this policy, and no significant increase in marketing or sales activity in the period in question. (2) No sale of small arms, spares and clothing was made to the Indonesian military forces last year. (3) In the period from January 1982 to date, military small arms exports have consisted of 7.62 mm rifles and spares manufactured by the Government Small Arms Factory at Lithgow to Barbados, Brunei, Canada, Fiji, Hong Kong, Jamaica, New Zealand, Trinidad, United Kingdom and United States. Question No. 90 Senator MacGibbon asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Were extra Commonwealth cars and drivers required to transport participants at the Economic Summit Conference; if so, how many were required and from what cities were they drawn. (2) Were the drivers accommodated in Canberra at Government expense; if so, what was the cost of accommodating them. (3) Were the drivers and cars transported to Canberra or were they driven. (4) Were extra security personnel required in Canberra for the Summit; if so, ( a) how many were needed; (b) were they accommodated at Government expense; and ( c) what was the cost of accommodation. (5) What was the cost of transporting the security personnel to and from Canberra. (6) How many participants in the Summit and their assistants and staff were transported to and from Canberra at Government expense and what carrier or carriers were used. (7) What was the total transport cost involved. (8) How many participants and their assistants and staff were accommodated in Canberra at Government expense, and what was the cost of that accommodation. (9) Were any extra staff required in Parliament House aside from security and transport personnel; if so, how many and in what areas were they required. (10) What were the total catering costs involved in caring for participants of the Summit, during the session in Parliament House. (11) Has there been any overall estimation of the costs involved in putting on the Summit; if so, what is the estimated cost. Senator Button —The Acting Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes; 27 cars from Sydney; 33 drivers, 27 from Sydney and 6 from Melbourne. (2) Yes; My Department has not yet received accounts. (3) The cars were driven from Sydney by the Sydney based drivers. The drivers from Melbourne were flown to Canberra. (4) No. (5) See answer to (4). (6) and (7) Claims totalling $9,278.84 have been received for reimbursement of transport costs of 44 people. Forty-two travelled by commercial aircraft and two by car. These claims are being processed. (8) None. (9) Yes; the number varied day to day but on average 53 additional catering staff were engaged. (10) $45,770. (11) Yes; $165,000. Question No. 96 Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Was one year's funding supplied to the Central Gippsland Aboriginal Advancement (CGAA) Co-opertive under a departmental grant known as a Special Works Project (SWP), for an Aboriginal alcohol counsellor, and was an extension of six months granted under another SWP. (2) Was the Aboriginal alcohol counsellor a Mr Edgar Day. (3) Will the CGAA Co-operative be able to continue to employ an Aboriginal alcohol counsellor. (4) Did the CGAA Co-operative, which had been trying for some time to get its own Health Service and eventually achieved this on 1 March, 1982, apply for sufficient funding to employ Mr Day as their Aboriginal alcohol counsellor. (5) Did the Department of Aboriginal Affairs refuse this application and advise the CGAA Co-operative to apply instead for a further 6 months SWP grant. (6) Will Mr Day be allowed to continue the work which began under a SWP scheme and which has already had good results. (7) Will the CGAA Co-operative have to abandon its own Health Service because the SWP grant has expired and extra funding has not been granted. (8) Will the necessary funds be made available to CGAA Co-operative to enable them to employ Mr Day as their Aboriginal alcohol counsellor. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) Yes. (5) No. (6) Yes. (7) No. (8) Yes. Funds are presently provided for this purpose and are sought for Mr Day's employment as alcohol counsellor in financial year 1983-84. Question No. 100 Senator Colston asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) How many people in 1982 lodged an appeal to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal in each State and Territory and for Australia as a whole and of that number how many appeals were: (a) withdrawn by the appellant; (b) reconsidered and allowed by the Department of Social Security; (c) rejected by the Tribunal; and (d) upheld by the Tribunal. (2) How may of the appellants, whose appeals were rejected by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, lodged applications for review of decision with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and of those lodged how many were: (a) withdrawn of their own accord; (b) allowed by the Department of Social Security; (c) heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and (d) of those heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, how many were successful. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1)- Table 1 NUMBER OF APPEALS LODGED WITH SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS TRIBUNALS (SSATs) IN 1982 New South Wales 3 768 Victoria 3 209 Queensland 2 182 South Australia 1 218 Western Australia 973 Tasmania 468 Northern Territory 87 Australian Capital Territory 92 Total 11 997 Statistics are not maintained on the number of appeals lodged in one year that are dealt with in that year. Table 2 indicates the results of appeals finalised in 1982 i.e., some appeals finalised in 1982 would have been lodged earlier than 1982 and some appeals lodged in 1982 would not have been finalised by the end of 1982. Table 2 SSAT APPEALS FINALISED AND MANNER IN WHICH DEALT WITH IN 1982 Appeals finalised in 1982 11 370 Appeals lapsed or withdrawn before determined by SSAT 1 462 Appeals conceded by the Department of Social Security without reference to SSAT 3 982 Appeals recommended for rejection by SSAT and rejected 3 403 Appeals upheld in accordance with SSAT recommendations 2 171 Appeals rejected contrary to SSAT recom- mendation 352 (2) Statistics cross referencing SSAT appeals and Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) applications are not maintained; Table 3 indicates the number of applications for review lodged with the AAT in relation to decisions of the Department of Social Security in 1982. Most of these applications would relate to appeals recommended by SSATs to be dismissed, but a limited number would relate to appeals in which an SSAT recommendation favourable to the appellant was not accepted by the Department of Social Security. Table 3 NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW LODGED WITH AAT in 1982 New South Wales 265 Victoria 295 Queensland 184 South Australia 66 Western Australia 45 Tasmania 42 Northern Territory 1 Australian Capital Territory 7 Total 905 Statistics are not maintained on the number of applications lodged in one year that are resolved in that year. Table 4 indicates the number of cases resolved in 1982. A proportion of the cases resolved in this period would have arisen from applications for review lodged prior to 1982. Table 4 NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW RESOLVED IN 1982 BY STATE AND BY OUTCOME Applicant Dept Heard State withdrew conceded by AATS Total NSW 19 19 22 60 Vic. 63 125 55 243 Qld 60 62 19 141 SA 10 7 4 21 WA 11 6 4 21 Tas. 7 5 2 14 NT 0 0 0 0 ACT 4 2 5 11 Total 174 226 111 511 Of the 111 applications heard by the AAT in 1982 the applicant was successful in 52 instances. Question No. 110 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Has the attention of the Minister for Science and Technology been drawn to an article in the May 1983 edition of 'Australian Penthouse' entitled 'I Spy' by Dr Geoffrey Smith, which raised many important questions about the Pine Gap Space Base; if so: (a) have extremely high atmospheric fluoride readings other than those reported by Dr Smith been recorded in the Alice Springs area, what are those readings, and what is the cause of those high readings; and (b) when were the samples taken and by whom. (2) Was there ever a road accident in the Alice Springs area as has been suggested, where a load of fertiliser caught fire and could this accident have been responsible for Dr Smith's high fluoride readings; if so, (a) where did the accident take place; (b) on what date; (c) who was driving the vehicle; and (d) who owned the truck. (3) Has a report been called for on the magazine article claim that there could be a massive leakage in a faulty nuclear reactor at Pine Gap. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has supplied the following answers to the honourable senator's questions: (1) I have read the article. To my knowledge only Dr Smith has claimed to have recorded high atmospheric fluoride readings in the Alice Springs area. I note that in the article it is reported that an analytical chemist from the University of New South Wales was taken to Pine Gap for the express purpose of confirming Dr Smith's findings but was unable to do so. (2) I have no knowledge of the alleged road accident to which Dr Smith refers other than his own account of it. (3) The only nuclear reactor on Australian soil is located at Lucas Heights, New South Wales. Question No. 123 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) What will be the effect of ratification of the Australian-Papua New Guinea Border Agreement on the employment opportunities of Torres Strait Islanders in fishing and other industries. (2) Will the Department of Aboriginal Affairs take whatever steps are necessary to enable Torres Strait Islanders to participate in the more competitive fishing activity in their own waters which will follow ratification of that agreement. (3) When will the Australian-Papua New Guinea Border Agreement be ratified. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Ratification of the Australian-Papua New Guinea Border Agreement, usually referred to as the Torres Strait Treaty, is not expected to have a substantial impact, of itself, on employment opportunities for Torres Strait Islanders in fishing or other industries. The Treaty, however, places emphasis on protecting the livelihood of Torres Strait Islanders. (2) The Department of Aboriginal Affairs in consultation with other authorities will continue to monitor opportunities for Islanders to participate in commercial fishing activities. The draft fisheries legislation currently being considered by the Government creates a special category of commercial fishing designed to encourage and facilitate participation by Australian traditional inhabitants. The Aborginal Development Commission, through its purchase of Keriba Lagau Pty Ltd and the mother ship 'Paluma' has already taken an active role in fostering Islander interest and involvement in the commercial exploitation of the Strait's fisheries. (3) The Government is conscious of the need to ratify the Torres Strait Treaty as quickly as possible and is actively examining the steps that should now be taken to enable Australia to do so. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and his Papua New Guinea counterpart recently foreshadowed ratification once all implementing legislation was in place in both countries. Papua New Guinea has indicated that it expects to have draft legislation ready for the August sitting of its Parliament. We expect that Commonwealth legislation will be introduced to Parliament in the Budget sittings. Question No. 130 Senator Townley asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 May 1983: (1) What was the purpose of 707 VIP Aircraft A20-624 being in Melbourne on Saturday 30 April 1983. (2) Where did it arrive from and with how many passengers. (3) Where did it depart to and with how many passengers. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Operating in its primary role as a strategic transport aircraft, B707 aircraft A20-624 was required in Melbourne on 30 April 1983 for the purpose of transporting members of the Army Reserve (No. 1 Royal Victorian Regiment) from Melbourne to Amberley to attend training at the Land Warfare Centre, Canungra. (2) The aircraft arrived from Richmond with one passenger en route to Amberley. (3) The aircraft departed with 135 passengers of which 120 were Army Reserve personnel, with the remainder being eligible Defence personnel or dependants travelling on an Opportunity Space Available Travel basis. Question No. 131 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 May 1983: Was a Commonwealth Ford Falcon station wagon, number plate ZDE 693, on official business at Rosehill Racecourse in Sydney between 3.00 pm and 4.00 pm on Monday, 2 May; if so (a) what was the nature of the business, (b) what was the name of the driver, and (c) who authorised him to be at the racecourse that day. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question based on advice from the Australian Broadcasting Commission: A Commonwealth vehicle, registration ZDE 693 was present at Rosehill Racecourse between 3.00 pm and 4.00 pm on Monday, 2 May. The vehicle belongs to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It was driven by a Commission driver and was on assignment, at the time, for the Public Affairs Radio Department. A reporter from that department was covering a meeting of members of the United Permanent Building Society, who were voting on the question of amalgamation with the St George Building Society. Because of the number of members voting, the organisers of the meeting had earlier in the day transferred the meeting from a theatre in Parramatta to the grandstand of Rosehill Racecourse. It is not the ABC's policy to disclose the names of individual staff members. However, the reporter concerned had requested transport to cover the story and the ABC Transport Co- ordinator had supplied the nominated ABC vehicle and driver for the assignment. Question No. 135 Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 11 May 1983: (1) What measures are to be undertaken by the Department of Social Security to recover the overpayments detailed in the report of the Auditor-General dated May 1983. (2) What instructions will the Minister for Social Security issue to prevent further overpayments. (3) How much overpayment is classified as 'incorrect payments'. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) In accordance with the requirements of the Audit Act, there is an ongoing process of recovery of overpayments, that is, any payment in excess of entitlement which is deemed to be an incorrect payment. The incorrect payments shown in the Auditor-General's Report are a measure of the consolidated outstanding debit at the time of reporting. Many of the aspects mentioned in the report had already been detected and action to correct them was already underway. Although pension and benefit payments total some $11.5 billion annually, the amount the Department of Social Security has outstanding for recovery is less than one half of one percent of the total amount, despite the fact that the Department deals with over 4 million clients and issues over 60 million cheques every year. In addition to the continual surveillance of pension and benefit payments the Department has recently moved to strengthen its advice in this area through the creation of a Performance Monitoring Branch with responsibility for examining areas of concern such as those referred to in the Auditor-General's Report. Many instances of increased payments arise because the Department becomes aware of the pensioner or beneficiary's changed circumstances, and this necessitates a recalculation of earlier entitlement. The nature of these occurrences is such that they cannot be prevented by issuing instructious. Question No. 141 Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice , on 5 May 1983: (1) Has there recently been a number of delays, some up to three months, in the assessment of students applying to the Commonwealth Department of Education and Youth Affairs' Brisbane Office for TEAS allowances; (2) Are many students disadvantaged by this delay and do some face financial hardship; if so what steps, if any, does the Government intend to implement to reduce this delay in payment. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The majority of students who applied for a TEAS allowance through the Queensland office this year received their first payment within five to seven weeks of lodging their applications. Where an incomplete application has been lodged and it has been necessary to seek additional information from the student before payment of allowance could commence, processing time has been extended. Delays of up to three months have occurred only in exceptional cases where the assessment was unusually complex or the applicant experienced difficulty in providing the additional information requested. (2) I appreciate that delays in processing applications for TEAS allowances have caused hardship for some students. Applications for student assistance schemes for 1983 have been greater than was expected which has placed a strain on the staffing and ADP resources of my Department. Where a student who is eligible for assistance has been experiencing hardship because of processing delays and the situation has been brought to the attention of the Queensland Office, arrangements have been made to expedite the first allowance payment. I have asked that the situation overall be reviewed with the object of reducing processing times in the longer term. Question No. 146 Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 18 May 1983: (1) Do water shortages exist at Mount Morgan because of the Queensland Government's refusals to allocate a greater percentage of funds available under the Water Support Resources Scheme. (2) Have several approaches been made to the Queensland Government to make Mount Morgan a 'high priority' area. (3) Is the local council forced to transport water from Rockhampton at a weekly cost of $1200 of which it must pay 25 per cent of the cost. (4) What action will the Federal Government take to rectify this situation such as declaring Mount Morgan a disaster area. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Mount Morgan has suffered water problems in recent times, but these have resulted from the lengthy drought conditions prevailing in the area and in fact throughout most of the State. A return to normal weather patterns should overcome many of the recent water supply problems. (2) Until quite recently the Shire of Mount Morgan had not approached the Queensland Government to include a Mount Morgan Water Supply proposal in its National Water Resources Program submissions. (3) During the recent drought period, the Council found it necessary to transport water to the town for a period. Under the Disaster Relief Arrangements , the Council was required to contribute 25 per cent of the cost of this transport. (4) Declaration of disaster areas is a matter for the various State Governments . Mount Morgan was declared a disaster area and consequently received Commonwealth assistance. Commonwealth assistance for natural disaster relief is provided under long standing natural disaster relief arrangements which provide for Commonwealth financial assistance to help the States and the Northern Territory meet the unpredictable and sometimes large costs of providing natural disaster relief. The arrangements recognise the State's primary responsibility for the administration, provision and funding of relief measures, in line with their constitutional responsibilities in this area. The Commonwealth's role is confined to providing assistance on a $3 Commonwealth to $1 State basis for expenditures by each State on approved relief and restoration measures in cases of 'major' disasters where such expenditures exceed a State's assessed financial capacity as represented by an annual base amount of expenditure. Such relief is a temporary measure to alleviate the considerable hardship experienced during disasters such as the recent drought and does not address the long term problems involved. The government has recently announced a Community Employment Program within which funds will be available for a Country Towns Water Supply Improvement Program aimed at improving water infrastructure in small towns and at the same time increasing much needed employment opportunities in these areas. Question No. 148 Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: (1) Are community information and advice centres which provide valuable community services well funded in all States, by State and local governments, except in Queensland where only four centres presently receive funds from Commonwealth and State governments. (2) Do these centres in Queensland rely heavily on voluntary services and are they forced to engage in fund raising exercises to cover operating costs which greatly hinders their successful operation. (3) How much money does the Commonwealth Government presently contribute to the funding of these centres in Queensland and will the Government introduce a co- ordinated funding system to aid these centres. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I am not aware of the detailed funding arrangements for all community information and advice centres on a State by State basis, or of the extent to which some Queensland centres are involved in using voluntary services or are engaged in fund raising activities. (3) In recognition of the services provided by community information services in meeting the information needs of children and families, the Commonwealth, under the Childrens Services Program, contributes towards the support of nine centres, four of which are in Queensland. The Commonwealth contributes a total of $12,116 annually towards the ongoing expenses of the four Queensland centres. There are no plans for the Commonwealth to adopt a co-ordinating role in funding arrangements for the four centres in Queensland. Question No. 152 Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: Has the Minister for Social Security said that fees will be income-related for child care services; if so: (a) to whose income will the fee be related, (b) what will be classed as income and (c) will the fee be calculated by an income, means or assets test. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (a) to (c) The maximum fee for care in Commonwealth assisted day care services will be set by service operators having regard to the full cost of providing care less operational support subsidies provided by the Commonwealth together with other factors. Services will be able to offer fee rebates on their maximum fees for economically needy families and the Commonwealth will provide separate assistance for this purpose. These fee rebates will be income related and the Commonwealth has issued income testing and fee rebating guidelines to services. Under the income test guidelines the relevant income for the purpose of fee rebating is the gross income of the responsible parent and his or her spouse including de facto spouse. Income includes gross salary, maintenance payments, bank interest, dividends, business allowances and pension or benefit payments but does not include family allowance or handicapped child's allowance. The guidelines allow deductions for actual housing costs of up to $100 per week and for each dependent child of up to $30 per week. This procedure gives an assessed family income. Services may offer a total fee rebate i.e. free care for families with assessed family incomes below $65 per week, and rebates on a sliding scale for families with assessed family incomes between $65 per week and $250 per week. The test to be applied is an income test. No account will be taken of means or assets. Question No. 154 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: (1) Did the Board of the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) decide, in November 1982, to subordinate the directors of radio and television news to the managers of the radio and television branches of the SBS. (2) Is such a decision contrary to journalistic practice in Australia and the United Kingdom, where it is an accepted principle that journalists perform their duties under the direction of an editor, and that the editor is answerable to the publisher or chief executive of the media authority only. (3) Does the decision put in jeopardy the independence of the news services: if so, will the Minister for Communications intervene to ensure that this decision is not implemented, at least until discussions have been held with the Australian Journalists' Association. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Special Broadcasting Service: (1) The Special Broadcasting Service has introduced new administrative arrangements with regard to news services but the directors of radio and television news continue to report directly to the Executive Director on matters of editorial policy. They will report to the Head of Television and the head of Radio in operational and functional matters only. (2) The Board of the SBS does not consider that its decision is contrary to journalistic practice in Australia and the U.K. There are a variety of practices in both countries; for example, it is not uncommon for news editors to work to station managers. (3) The SBS does not believe that independence of the news services is in jeopardy, since the editorial link between News Executives and the Executive Director has been maintained. Discussions between the SBS and the Australian Journalists' Association are proceeding. Question No. 157 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 May 1983: (1) Did Australia grant $6,033,000 in foreign aid to Ethiopia last year. (2) Has the Government of Ethiopia just ordered two Boeing 767, 210-seat jet aircraft from the United States at an all-up cost of $128 million, for delivery by mid-1984. (3) Are there any satisfactory means of monitoring the actual uses that recipients of Australian foreign aid put these grants to, and whether the people of these countries are receiving any direct benefit. (4) Is there any requirement for recipient countries to purchase materials and equipment from Australia with Australian financial aid or are they free to purchase from our competitors if they wish. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Australia did provide goods and services to the value of $6,033,000 to Ethiopia in 1981-82. (2) I am unaware if this is true. (3) With the exception of aid to Papua New Guinea, all Australian bilateral aid is given for specific developmental purposes. For example, in the case of aid to Ethiopia in 1981-82, we provided food aid totalling $5,486,000. This consisted of 24,400 tonnes of Australian grain, the bulk of which was channelled through the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to feed refugees and displaced persons. A further 900 tonnes of wheat and 100 tonnes of high protein biscuits was channelled through World Vision. Australia met the freight costs amounting to $1 ,300,000 associated with these consignments. In addition, grain storage facilities were provided at a cost of $489,000 and assistance totalling $55,000 allowed some 9 Ethiopians to study in Australia. Requests for assistance are assessed to ensure that our aid corresponds with recipients' development needs. The impact of Australia's aid on our recipients is continuously appraised, monitored and evaluated. (4) Apart from aid to Papua New Guinea, which is given in the form of an untied grant for budgetary support, almost all of Australia's bilateral overseas aid is given in the form of goods and services from Australia. As with all Government purchasing, public tenders must be invited where the estimated cost of the goods exceeds $10,000. Contracts are awarded to the lowest tender which meets the specifications after adjustment of the tender price to accord with preference for Australian content. Question No. 158 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 18 May 1983: (1) Has the Queensland Government awarded a tender for the construction of stage one of the African Nile perch research and quarantine project at Walkamin Research Station on the Atherton Tableland. (2) What guarantees exist, or will exist, that breeding ponds will be sufficiently secure to prevent the accidental discharge of fish, larvae or eggs into the environment during the quarantine period of this research program. (3) Will measures be undertaken to ensure that the proposed introduction of African Nile perch into Queensland waterways will not result in a similar environmental disaster to that which was caused by the introduction of the European carp, and what would be the advantages of introducing Nile perch at all . Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Stage 2 of the project will incorporate a water treatment plant, including the installation of stainless steel micro-screens to filter waters discharged from the ponds and the pond surrounds to prevent the escape of fish or eggs of fish from the ponds. The intention is to test the whole system using indigenous species of fish during the 1983-84 wet season and if any modifications are found to be necessary these will be carried out before the introduction of Nile perch, proposed for July 1984. All quarantine requirements of the Commonwealth Department of Health will be met before such introduction is permitted. (3) The Queensland Government has not proposed the release of Nile perch into Queensland waterways at this stage. Any such proposal would only be made after an extensive period of research and investigation into potential impacts on the natural environment and this work may take four or five years. Any proposal to release Nile perch would then be subject to consideration by Commonwealth Government authorities and the Australian Fisheries Council. The advantage seen by the Queensland Government in introducing a species such as Nile perch is the provision of edible sporting fish suitable for stocking the growing number of freshwater impoundments in the State. Question No. 159 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: Was the recommendation contained in the 'Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Chiropractic, Osteopathy, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy' brought down in April 1977, that-'all products distributed by natural therapists or health food stores should be subjected to quality control in the same manner as pharmaceutical products generally distributed through the pharmacist' accepted by the former government; if not, will the Government be adopting that recommendation and will the same products have their ingredients listed on labels and packages. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The former government recognised that in fact many of the recommendations arising out of the 'Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Chiropractic, Osteopathy, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy' were very much the province of the State health authorities. This comment applies to the recommendation referred to by the honourable senator since many of the products sold by natural therapists or health food stores are locally manufactured. The State governments were made aware of this recommendation through the National Therapeutic Goods Committee. In respect of those products imported into Australia for which therapeutic claims are made the Department of Health examines the labels to ensure compliance with standard labelling requirements prior to granting approval to import. This includes a requirement that the ingredients be listed on the labels and packages. Question No. 161 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: Will the Minister for Health consider legislation to ensure that food manufacturers indicate the levels of sodium or salt in their products' packages and labels as a large section of the community is concerned about health hazards associated with the consumption of excessive quantities of these substances. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: My Department in its publication 'Dietary Guidelines for Australians' includes in its eight dietary guidelines to improve the health of Australians the following: Avoid eating too much sugar Use less salt (sodium chloride) Food legislation in Australia including the labelling requirements for packaged foods is the responsibility of the States and Territories. However, one of the functions of the National Health and Medical Research Council is to inquire into , to advise and make recommendations to the Commonwealth and the States on matters of public health legislation. A working party of the Council has recently completed a review of all available data on sodium in the Australian diet and its report will be considered at the next session of the Council in June 1983. The working party has recommended that although the adverse effects of excess sodium intake cannot be stated conclusively, pending further research, the community should be encouraged to reduce consumption of sodium. It also recommends that the sodium content of packaged foods should be indicated in the label in a way the consumer can understand. The National Health and Medical Research Council at its Ninety-fourth Session in October 1982 noted the need for a review of the content of sugars and related substances in packaged foods and recommended that a working party be established to inquire into the compositional aspects and declaration of nutritional information in the labels of packaged foods including the declaration of the content of sugar and salt. It will develop a report on these aspects, in consultation with other specialist committees of the NH & MRC. After consideration of this report the Council will make recommendations to the States and Territories on these labelling aspects for adoption into their respective food legislations. Question No. 162 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: Has the Comonwealth Government ever published comprehensive material on nutrition on a wide basis to the Australian public; if so, is it made available to schools, clinics, health insurance agencies, surgeries, etc; if not will the Minister consider the preparation and distribution of such material, perhaps in conjunction with, and promoted with, the introduction of the Medicare program. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Commonwealth Department of Health publishes a comprehensive range of nutrition material, which is available to the Australian public, either from the Nutrition Section of the Department or from the Australian Government Publishing Service. A number of these publications are widely distributed in the community, especially through schools, tertiary institutions and health centres. The publications, for which there is most demand, include 'Dietary guidelines for Australians' (a 20-page booklet, discussing a healthy diet and fat, sugar, salt and alcohol consumption); 'Eat better for less' (a 52-page booklet on the selection of a nutritious diet at moderate cost); 'Your health and your figure' (a 72-page book on weight control); and 'A food guide for good health' (a full- colour poster, illustrating a nutritious food group plan). The honourable senator's suggestion that appropriate nutrition material be distributed in conjunction with the introduction of the Medicare program is worthy of consideration and I will ask officers in my Department to investigate this matter. Question No. 164 Senator Scott asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 18 May 1983: When will the Minister for Veterans' Affairs table the report of the inquiry instituted by the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs into the manufacture and supply of artificial limbs. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Copies of the report have been made available to the honourable senator and to Senator Messner. Copies have been placed in the Parliamentary Library and have been made available to commercial manufacturers of artificial limbs. Question No. 169 Senator Jack Evans asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: Will the Government introduce a Constitution amendment which would provide such electoral justice as envisaged by the Premier of Western Australia in his proposal to the recent Constitutional Convention, namely: (a) that every Australian citizen over the age of 18 years who is of sound mind and who complies with reasonable residence conditions imposed by law, shall have the right to vote at elections for the House of the Commonwealth Parliament and the Houses of Parliament of States and Territories, and (b) that unless otherwise required by the Constitution, no law of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory shall discriminate between the voting rights of people so entitled to vote or deny equal value to all votes cast, except in the case of a Division of the whole electorate into electoral divisions returning equal numbers of members. In such cases the number of electors in a Division shall not depart from a quota ascertained by dividing the total number of electors by the number of electoral divisions to be chosen to a greater extent than one-tenth more or one-tenth less. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Government strongly supports the substance of the proposed Constitution amendment envisaged by the Premier of Western Australia, to which the honourable senator has referred. At the Adelaide meeting of the Australian Constitutional Convention the Deputy Prime Minister seconded and spoke in favour of the motion by the Premier of Western Australia. Due to the disproportionate numbers of non- Labor delegates in the delegations of Queensland and Tasmania and the block vote against the proposal by all Liberal and National Party delegates, the motion was defeated. The Government does not at present propose to introduce a Bill embodying the proposal of the Premier of Western Australia. The Government is, however, committed to ensuring by appropriate amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act, electoral justice to all voters in respect of elections to the Commonwealth Parliament, and to this end has established the Joint Select Committee of Parliament on Electoral Reform to investigate and report by 31 August 1983 on a range of electoral questions which encompass, in relation to the Commonwealth Parliament, the matters on which the Premier's motion focuses. When that Committee's report has been received it will be carefully considered by the Government and the question of introducing a Bill to give effect to the Western Australian Premier's motion will be further examined. Question No. 172 Senator Jessop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: (1) Has there been some discussion on the possible relaxation of plant quarantine restrictions on traffic between New Zealand and Australia as part of the Closer Economic Relations agreement which is of grave concern to the Australian horticultural industry. (2) Can the Minister for Health give any assurance that the level of safety in the New Zealand horticultural industry has not been affected by at least two factors: (a) the influx of South Pacific Islanders into New Zealand, many of whom bring with them meat, dairy products and vegetables; and (b) increased horticultural trade between New Zealand and Japan, much of it in various South American plants, including cacti, shipped via Japan where quarantine restrictions may not conform to Australian standards. (3) Is the Minister aware that a group of Australian nurserymen who recently visited New Zealand found several plant diseases, including some seven diseases of roses, common in New Zealand but as yet unknown in Australia. (4) What safeguards exist to ensure that New Zealand plants which are exported to Australia as tissue culture specimens have in fact been completely grown in the medium in which they are shipped and not grown as seedlings, washed and shipped in a tissue culture medium. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In discussions with New Zealand on closer economic relations it has been made quite clear that there will be no relaxation of Australian quarantine standards. (2) The Australian Government can give no assurances on the effect of trade on the levels of safety in the horticultural industry of another country, but the New Zealand Agricultural Quarantine Service operates to a similar high standard as does Australia, and I am confident that a high level of safety will be maintained. There are no special concessions for imports of plants from New Zealand. These are subject to the same quarantine procedures that apply to imports from any other country. (3) No. However, as stated above, imports of plants from New Zealand are treated in the same manner as imports from other countries. (4) Simple inspection will show whether the cultures have been growing in the sterile medium or if they have been recently transferred. If the plants can be seen to be growing in the medium, and the cultures are sterile, they are released. If there is evidence that the plants have been recently transferred, or the cultures are contaminated then entry is refused. This is the same procedure required for imports from all countries. Question No. 174 Senator Reynolds asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: Does the Government intend to reintroduce the Criminal Investigation Bill 1981 which lapsed with the dissolution of the previous Parliament; if so, when. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: I am presently undertaking a review of the Criminal Investigation Bill 1981 and expect to be in a position to introduce a revised version of the Bill into the Senate later this year. Question No. 177 Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: (1) How many passengers passed through the domestic terminal at Adelaide Airport: (a) since 30 June 1982 and (b) in 1981-82. (2) What was the annual percentage air traffic growth at Adelaide Airport in each year from 1979-80 to 1981-82. (3) What was the annual percentage air traffic growth in each year from 1979-80 to 1981-82 for the following capital cities: (a) Perth, (b) Melbourne, (c) Sydney and (d) Brisbane. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Department of Aviation does not collect statistics on capital city domestic terminals in the form envisaged by the question. The statistics collected by the Department: (a) relate to revenue passengers, for example, statistics are not kept on aircrew being positioned or children in arms; (b) relate to scheduled domestic and commuter airline services. Statistics are not kept on non-scheduled services; (c) relate to embarkations and disembarkations, for example, statistics on disembarking passengers would include Perth/Melbourne passengers who transit Adelaide and therefore do not pass through the domestic terminal; (d) include embarking and disembarking passengers of those commuter airlines which use other than domestic terminals at capital city airports. In summary, the statistics collected are those for domestic and commuter airlines revenue passenger movements on scheduled services. For Adelaide Airport these are: 1 July 1982 to 1981-82 31 March 1983 Domestic 1,852,906 1,253,900(a) Commuter 93,200 (a) (not yet available) Total 1,946,106 (a) (not yet available) (a) These statistics are provisional and subject to later revision. (2) and (3) The expression 'air traffic' is defined within the Department of Aviation as total aircraft movements, i.e. all scheduled and non-scheduled international, domestic and commuter airline movements, general aviation movements, military aircraft movements and helicopter movements. An aircraft movement is a take-off or a landing. On this assumption, the information sought is as follows: Annual Percentage Growth Rates: Total Aircraft Movements 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 per cent per cent per cent Adelaide 7.0 11.3 0.1 Perth -6.5 -1.4 1.8 Melbourne -1.6 -1.1 -3.0 Sydney 3.2 -1.9 3.0 Brisbane 13.7 2.1 -6.7 If, however, the question relates only to growth in domestic passenger movements, then subject to the definitional qualifications outlined in the answer to (1) above the information sought is as follows: Annual Percentage Growth Rates: Domestic Airline Revenue Passenger Movements on Scheduled Services 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 per cent per cent per cent Adelaide 7.2 -0.1 -4.0 Perth 9.7 2.1 9.4 Melbourne 7.6 -1.1 -0.1 Sydney 7.6 -1.7 1.0 Brisbane 10.4 4.6 4.6 Annual Percentage Growth Rates: Commuter Airline Revenue Passenger Movements on Scheduled Services 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 (a) per cent per cent per cent Adelaide 69.2 22.3 16.4 Perth 26.8 39.5 18.8 Melbourne 9.2 32.1 23.6 Sydney 17.8 0.2 17.7 Brisbane 38.3 20.6 15.4 (a) These figures are provisional and subject to later revision. Annual Percentage Growth Rates: Combined Domestic and Commuter Airline Revenue Passenger Movements on Scheduled Services 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 (a) per cent per cent per cent Adelaide 8.5 0.7 -3.2 Perth 10.3 3.6 9.9 Melbourne 7.6 -0.9 0.1 Sydney 8.0 - 1.7 1.7 Brisbane 11.2 5.2 5.1 (a) These figures are provisional and subject to later revision. Question No. 179 Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: (1) Have the Defence facilities at Woomera been examined for longer-term use by the Commonwealth Government; if so, what form of Commonwealth Government presence is planned at Woomera. (2) Is it feasible for Defence facilities at Woomera to be used as an operating or training base for the Royal Australian Air Force. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. Future Australian Defence Force and other requirements for the Defence Support Centre Woomera were reviewed in a Defence study of the future management and control arrangements for the Centre which was concluded recently. The future Commonwealth Government presence at Woomera will depend on departmental and subsequent Government reaction to the recommendations arising from that study. (2) RAAF currently uses Woomera facilities for trials associated with Aircraft Research and Development Unit activities and will continue to do so in the future. To meet this commitment RAAF has identified certain facilities ( including the airfield runway) which it plans to maintain in an operational state. Whilst it is feasible to use Woomera as an operating and training base for the RAAF, significant expenditure would be involved in upgrading facilities to increase RAAF activity levels above those which are currently conducted there . Question No. 180 Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: (1) In which months from January 1980 to April 1983 did Tasmania have the highest unemployment rate of any State according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics 'Unemployment' series. (2) In which months in the same period did South Australia have the highest unemployment rate. (3) In which months in the same period did Tasmania or South Australia have either the highest or second highest unemployment rates in Australia. Senator Button —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics labour force survey, Tasmania had the highest monthly unemployment rate of any State from December 1981 to February 1983 inclusive. (2) South Australia had the highest monthly unemployment rate of any State from January 1980 to November 1981, excluding February 1981. (3) Tasmania or South Australia had the highest or second highest unemployment rates in Australia from January 1980 to April 1983. Question No. 182 Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: (1) How many passengers have passed through the international terminal at Adelaide Airport since 30 June 1982. (2) How many passengers since 30 June 1982 using the terminal have been: (a) inbound, and (b) outbound. (3) What were the immediate countries of origin for inbound passengers since 30 June 1982. (4) What were the immediate destinations of outbound passengers since 30 June 1982. (5) How many international passengers have passed through the following airports since 30 June 1982: (a) Brisbane, (b) Townsville, (c) Perth and (d) Darwin. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Department of Aviation does not collect statistics on non-revenue international passenger movements into and out of Australian international airports (for example, aircrew being positioned) nor on passengers on non- scheduled international flights. The following information on revenue passengers on scheduled international flights is provided in respect of questions (1) to (4) for the period 30 October 1982, when international services to-from Adelaide commenced, to 31 March 1983, the latest date for which information is available. (1) and (2) Passengers disembarking 13 701 Passengers embarking 14 752 Total 28 453 (3)- Number of Country of origin passengers Bahrain 35 German Federal Republic 49 Great Britain 6 164 India 74 Italy 13 Malaysia 258 Netherlands 4 New Zealand 4 445 Oman 13 Singapore 2 646 Total 13 701 (4)- Number of Country of destination passengers Bahrain 35 German Federal Republic 21 Great Britain 6 765 India 117 Italy 76 Malaysia 245 Netherlands 29 New Zealand 4 766 Singapore 2 686 United Arab Emirates 12 Total 14 752 (5) Over the period 1 July 1982 to 31 March 1983 the numbers of revenue passengers travelling on scheduled international services embarking and disembarking at Brisbane, Townsville, Perth and Darwin were as follows: Number of passengers Brisbane 325 626 (a) Townsville 23 303 Perth 313 517 (a) Darwin 28 115 (a) These figures are provisional and subject to later revision. Question No. 186 Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the levels of informal voting for the last two elections in: (a) the United Kingdom; (b) Canada; and (c) the United States of America. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: At the last two United Kingdom general elections, the informal votes were: Informal Total Percentage Votes Votes Informal 1974(Oct) 37,706 29,226,810 0.13 1979 117,848 31,339,210 0.38 Of the 117,848 ballot papers spoilt in 1979, 72,515 showed a vote for more than one candidate, 36,250 were either blank or uncertain, 5,801 bore a mark which could have identified the voter, and 3,282 lacked an official mark. At the last two Canadian elections, the informal votes were: Informal Total Percentage Votes Votes Informal 1979 85,298 11,541,000 0.74 1980 67,600 11,015,514 0.61 Because federal elections in the United States are conducted under the laws of the various States, using a wide variety of voting methods (including mechanical and computerised devices on which it is physically impossible to record an informal vote), a single comparable figure for the informal vote is not readily available. However, inquiries are being made in the United States and if meaningful data comes to light, they will be made available to the Senate. Question No. 190 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: (1) Did a member of the Government party on radio this morning indicate that he had knowledge of a Government decision to be announced tonight in the Treasurer' s economic statement. (2) Does the Government intend to give prior selective briefings to members of Parliament rather than informing all members of both chambers on important budget matters. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) It has been a long-standing practice of successive governments to advise Government party members of the contents of important statements before they are made in the Parliament. By convention such information is considered at all times to be of a confidential nature until the announcement is made. Question No. 192 Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: (1) What are the estimates of 'poverty lines' in real and 1981-82 prices. (2) What are the estimated 'poverty lines' as a percentage of average weekly earnings. (3) How many people, and what percentage, are estimated to live below the estimated 'poverty lines', for the 1971-72 to 1981-82 financial years. (4) What are the above estimates for 1982-83. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The poverty lines to which the question refers are presumably those developed by Professor Ronald Henderson and used as a basis for his estimates of the extent of poverty in the first main report of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. A 'simplified' version of those lines is updated quarterly by the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne . The following table shows the latest set of lines released by the Institute and the lines as percentages of average weekly earnings in the corresponding quarter. Henderson poverty lines as a percentage of average weekly earnings-March quarter 1983. Henderson Poverty Lines as a per- Henderson Poverty Line centage of AWE(a) Head Head not Head Head not working working working working Income unit $ a week $ a week per cent percent Single Person with No children 106.40 86.20 30.8 25.0 1 child 136.50 116.40 39.6 33.7 2 children 165.30 145.20 47.9 42.1 3 children 194.00 173.90 56.2 50.4 Married Couple with No children 142.30 122.20 41.2 35.4 1 child 171.00 150.90 49.6 43.7 2 children 199.80 179.70 57.9 52.1 3 children 228.50 208.40 66.2 60.4 4 children 257.30 237.20 74.6 68.8 (a) Average weekly total earnings of all male employees. (3) and (4) The information sought is available for the 1972-73 income year ( from the first main report of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty-see in particular table 3.4, page 15). Information is also available for 1973-74 and 1978-79 income years (from the Report on Poverty Measurement by the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat-see in particular, table 5.6, page 176). These calculations go beyond the simplified poverty lines shown above by allowing for differences in costs due to age, sex, or whether the single person or family lives alone or with other adults. Question No. 194 Senator Townley asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: (1) How many flight deck crew does Qantas have and how many are in each category, i.e. captains, first-officer etc. (2) What is the salary range of each category. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The total technical aircrew of Qantas currently equals 663. The numbers in each category are as follows: captains 161; first-officers 154; second-officers 182; flight engineers 166. (2) The salary range of each category is as follows: Captains-from $71 746 p.a. to $100 290 p.a. First-officers-from $39 588 p.a. to $65 869 p.a. Second-officers-from $21 554 p.a. to $51 084 p.a. Flight Engineers-from $38 044 p.a. to $63 305 p.a. Question No. 196 Senator Primmer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1983: (1) Was Mr K. C. Henne, an officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs, questioned last October by security officers of that Department. (2) Was the interview recorded; if so, will the Minister for Foreign Affairs supply a copy of the interview. (3) How did the security officers obtain the private document addressed to Senator McIntosh about which Mr Henne was questioned. (4) Were Mr Henderson and Mr Bowden also questioned and why did Mr Henderson fail to supply Mr Henne with an explanation for what happened. (5) What are the proper duties of the security staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs. (6) What are the names and ranks of the officers who interrogated Mr Henne. (7) Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs support an inquiry by the Ombudsman into the Tehran embezzlement and cover up as suggested by Messrs Witheford and Henne in their letter to Senator McIntosh; if not, why not. (8) Will the Minister suspend both Messrs Henderson and Bowden pending such an inquiry; if not, will the Minister direct Mr Henderson to stop providing inaccurate material to the Parliament on pain of dismissal. (9) Will the Minister provide details of all contacts between Mr Henderson and the former Permanent Head of the Department of Administrative Services, Sir Peter Lawler, concerning the police investigation of the Tehran affair. (10) Has Sir Peter Lawler been offered an ambassadorial posting; if so, is Sir Peter not already beyond the age limit for diplomatic appointments. (11) What effect has Mr Henderson's handling of the Tehran affair had on the Department of Foreign Affairs' morale and efficiency and does Mr Henderson enjoy the respect of his staff and their unions. (12) How many official visits did Mr Bowden make last year, what countries were visited and what were the costs to Australian taxpayers in each case. (13) Why was a proposed official visit by Mr Bowden to Adelaide last year cancelled at short notice, and can the Minister provide a full program of activities proposed to be undertaken during that visit and an estimated cost of the proposed visit. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: (1)-(9), (11) This part of Senator Primmer's question relates to the handling within the Department of Foreign Affairs of Mr Witheford's allegations of financial impropriety in the Australian Embassy in Tehran and matters arising out of those allegations including conspiracy to cover up the matters alleged involving senior officials of the Department. I refer the honourable senator to my statement in the House of Representatives on 26 May 1983 and to my answer to part (1) of Senate Question No. 195 in which I replied to these allegations. (10) Sir Peter Lawler has been appointed Australian ambassador to Ireland and Australian ambassador to the Holy See. There is no mandatory age limit set for appointments of Australian ambassadors. (12) In the calendar year 1982 Mr Bowden made three overseas visits: to Port Moresby from 15 to 19 February to chair the regional information and cultural relations conference for South Pacific posts-total cost $1633.42; to Nairobi and New Delhi from 11-26 September to chair regional information and cultural relations conferences for posts in Africa and South Asia and to lead the Australian delegation at bilateral cultural relations talks with Indian officials-total cost $4828.94; to London, Paris, Ottawa and Washington from 16-31 October to lead the Australian delegation to the meeting of the Mixed Commission under our Cultural Agreement with France (Paris); to lead the Australian delegation for discussions with Canada on cultural relations (Ottawa); and to discuss consular policy issues and passport matters relevant to the Stewart Royal Commission report and passport policy (London, Ottawa and Washington)-total cost $13061.03. (13) Mr Bowden's responsibilities included supervision of the Department's State Offices. In accordance with these responsibilities, he had planned an official visit to inspect the Adelaide and Perth offices and had proposed to take two days leave in Adelaide for personal reasons following the Adelaide inspection. I am advised that in order, however, to avoid any possibility that any inference be drawn that he would derive personal benefit from his official travel to Adelaide, he revised the planned arrangements. He travelled to Adelaide and back to Canberra at his own expense on 5 and 6 May and made the planned official inspection visit to Adelaide and Perth from 12-14 May. There was no effect on costs to the Commonwealth as a result of this change in plans. Question No. 195 Senator Primmer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1983: (1) By whom, on what date and by what means was the former Minister for Foreign Affairs advised that Mr R. J. Smith had not made any threat against Mr D. W. Witheford, and has this matter been adequately investigated. (See answer to Question No. 3140, Hansard, 28 October 1982, p. 2028). (2) Will the Minister provide details of all relevant departmental files and documentation that are missing, together with an indication of what efforts have been made by the Department of Foreign Affairs to locate these, and does the Minister believe that Mr Witheford or any other ex-Tehran staff hold the mission documents of files, if so, on what grounds. (3) How many people have complained about the police mishandling of the Tehran investigations. (4) Will the Minister outline the nature of the complaint made to the Ombudsman . (5) What has been the role of the Department of Foreign Affairs on this matter. (6) Why did the former Minister for Foreign Affairs seek to have the Senate believe that Mr Bowden had arrived in Hong Kong after the fraudulent conversion of a cheque for $8,700. (7) Did the Department of Foreign Affairs mislead the former Minister in this respect and has Mr Bowden been questioned recently about the matter. (8) Does the Minister believe that Mr Henderson's evidence to Senate Estimates Committee D on 10 September 1982 was full and truthful; if not, what action has been taken to correct the situation and prevent any recurrences. (9) Are the officers withdrawn from the Tehran Embassy by Mr Henderson at Mr Bowden's request satisfied that their careers are no longer damaged on that account, and what information can the Minister provide about the attitude of the Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association and the Foreign Affairs Association on this question. (10) Will the Minister table documents concerning the payment (or non-payment) of Mr Bowden's servants which the former Minister said on 26 August 1982, were left in a metal box. (11) Will the Minister establish suitable channels of communication for use by staff with serious allegations against senior officers. (12) Why were documents such as the submissions of 22 March and 8 April 1982 omitted from the Finance report and why did the Department of Finance not have access to Mr Bowden's personal files. (13) On whose recommendation did the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Street, sign his totally misleading letter of 5 March 1982 to Senator Primmer. (14) What, if any, legal action has been taken or threatened against the Canberra Times be senior Foreign Affairs officers involved in the Tehran allegations. (15) Does the Minister believe that the allegations concerning Mr Bowden's expenditure claims relating to liquor and servants were thoroughly investigated. (16) Does the Minister condone the submission of false accounting certificates by ambassadors overseas, as in the Bowden case in Tehran. (17) Will the Minister join a number of honourable senators in seeking early consideration of the Tehran affair by the Public Accounts Committee, and can the Minister ensure that witnesses from the Department of Foreign Affairs are not influenced or intimidated in any way. (18) Has the Minister been informed of the malicious rumours spread around Canberra with the aim of discrediting those people who provided evidence against Mr Bowden, and is the Minister aware of any evidence that these rumours are the work of senior officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2), (6)-(8), (10), (12)-(18) The subject of this part of the question is one of the matters which Senator Primmer has raised in previous questions and statements in the Senate relating to allegations of financial and other wrongful actions in the Australian Embassy in Tehran and elsewhere. I refer the honourable senator to my statement in the House of Representatives on 26 May 1983 Hansard pp 1043-1046). In that statement I informed the House of the conclusions of a report by the Australian Federal Police into these allegations and of the conclusion of that investigation. I referred the House also to the conclusions of an investigation conducted by the Department of Finance into these allegations, and quoted that report's conclusion. I went on to say- For my part, I know nothing personally of any of the matters which have been raised. I have relied entirely on the investigations conducted properly by the established and experienced bodies to conduct those investigations. I find myself persuaded on the face of the material which has been produced by those reports that the complaints of Mr Witheford, and those of Senator Primmer on behalf of Mr Witheford, are without foundation. (3)-(5) In the statement referred to in (1) above, I informed the House that the Commonwealth Ombudsman was conducting an investigation into complaints made by Mr Witheford as to the conduct of police in their interviews of Mr and Mrs Witheford arising from Mr Witheford's other complaints about officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs. That investigation is not yet complete and it would not be proper for me to comment on matters raised in that complaint until it is complete. (9) In the statement referred to in (1) above, I informed the House that the Public Service Board had appointed a very senior officer to investigate whether Mr Witheford, who was withdrawn from the Embassy in Tehran, had been unfairly disadvantaged in his career by officers of the Department. That investigation is in progress at present. (11) Such channels already exist. Question No. 197 Senator Primmer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1983: (1) On what dates did Mr Ivor Bowden, Mr Peter Henderson and Mr (later Sir) Nicholas Parkinson join the Department of Foreign Affairs. (2) When was Mr Parkinson appointed Secretary of the Department. (3) Was action taken in 1979 by Mr Peter Henderson and management services staff working under him to prepare and process an invalidity retirement by Mr Parkinson. (4) Was Mr Parkinson examined by Commonwealth Medical Officers, and if so, with what results. (5) Do Commonwealth superannuation regulations contain provision for continued employment at a lower salary supplemented by a partial invalidity provision and was consideration given to employing these with respect to Mr Parkinson. (6) What would have been the difference at that time in terms of annual pension and other benefits payable to Mr Parkinson as between invalidity and normal age retirement. (7) Did the position of Ambassador in Washington become unexpectedly vacant in July 1979 owing to the retirement of ex-Secretary Mr Alan Renouf; if so, did Mr Renouf retire on an invalidity or age basis. (8) Do all Foreign Affairs staff have to undergo a medical examination before long term overseas postings. (9) Did Mr Parkinson undergo such an examination in 1979 and was he judged fit to serve at the Washington post. (10) On what date did Mr Parkinson retire from the position of Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and was he replaced by Mr Henderson. (11) Did Sir Nicholas Parkinson serve as Ambassador in Washington from November 1979 to early 1982. (12) What salary and allowances did Sir Nicholas receive whilst in Washington. (13) How much sick leave did Sir Nicholas take during his stay in Washington. (14) Was action recommended by Mr Henderson on Sir Nicholas' return to Canberra to process him for invalidity retirement; if so, was he examined by Commonwealth Medical Officers and (a) what was the result, and (b) what were the names of the medical officers concerned. (15) Did Mr Henderson approve Sir Nicholas going on indefinite sick leave following his return from Washington at a weekly payment of approximately $1,400 . (16) Did Sir Nicholas retire on an invalidity basis on 11 March 1983. (17) What annual pension and benefits applied to Sir Nicholas as at the date of his retirement. (18) What annual pension and benefits would have applied to him had he retired on the same date on the normal age retirement basis. (19) What is the actuarily calculated total potential extra cost to the taxpayer of Sir Nicholas' retirement on an invalidity basis. (20) Is the Minister aware of reports that the former Minister for Social Security, had withdrawn the invalid pension from a Wollongong man who had lost both legs in an accident. (21) Will the Minister support an investigation by an impartial body into the circumstances surrounding Sir Nicholas' various retirement proposals and Mr Henderson's involvement in these; if so, will the Minister table the results of such an investigation at the earliest possible date. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (21) On 14 December 1982 the honourable senator in a statement in the Senate alleged that there had been impropriety committed in connection with the retirement of Sir Nicholas Parkinson on invalidity grounds and that Mr Henderson had been implicated in this impropriety. This allegation was immediately referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation by my predecessor. As I informed the House on 26 May 1983, I have now received a letter dated 15 April 1983 from the Special Minister of State which states: On 1 and 20 December 1982, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs asked that certain allegations by Senator Primmer in the Parliament be investigated by the Australian Federal Police (AFP). These allegations principally involved the former Australian Ambassador to Tehran, Mr I. G. Bowden, the former Australian Ambassador to Bonn, Mr H. M. Loveday, the former Australian Ambassador to Washington, Sir Nicholas Parkinson and the Permanent Head of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr P. G. F. Henderson. I am informed that the AFP has now completed its investigation and has found no evidence that would substantiate any criminal offence against any person named in the allegations. I am satisfied with this advice from the responsible Minister. Question No. 198 Senator Primmer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1983: (1) When will the Minister for Foreign Affairs provide details of the latest police investigations into the questionable activities by the ex-ambassadors in Tehran and elsewhere, and have all relevant officers been questioned. (2) Can the Minister advise what previous knowledge the Department of Administrative Services had of these matters and how it was involved in these matters. (3) Can the Minister advise whether documentation has been provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs to Mr Bowden to enable him to reduce his tax liability; if so, (a) did any of that documentation purport to certify that Mr Bowden had overspent his representation allowance; (b) was any of that documentation provided by Mr Peter Henderson or staff working under his supervision and (c) will the Minister provide full details. (4) Can the Minister provide full details including costs concerning a piano and other furniture transported for Mr Bowden from the Tehran Embassy to Australia. (5) Was the file on the above matter sent by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Street, to the ombudsman for investigation; if so, why was there a three weeks delay in sending the file to the Ombudsman and who had custody of the file during those three weeks. (6) Why was the file taken away from the Ombudsman and on what date and on whose approval was this done. (7) Which officer advised the former Minister to retrieve the files. (8) Where is the file now held and what guarantee is there that it has not been tampered with. (9) Will the Minister make the file available to honest ex-Tehran Embassy staff to enable them to verify that it is intact. (10) Will the Minister make the file available to the Joint Committee on Public Accounts or some other impartial body. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: (1) See answer to Senate Question No. 197. (2) See answer to part (9) of Senate Question No. 195. (3) See answer to part (1) of Senate Question No. 195. (4)-(10) The police investigation referred to in the answer to Senate Question No. 197 included investigation into an allegation of impropriety concerning the transportation of a piano owned by Mr Bowden from Tehran to Australia. The police found no evidence that would substantiate any criminal offence in this regard. I see no justification for further investigation of this allegation. Question No. 199 Senator Primmer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1983: (1) Is the Minister aware of reports that one of the main figures in the Tehran Embassy embezzlement affair, Mr Ivor Bowden, is to be given an important ambassadorial posting as Australian Ambassador to the Netherlands. (2) Does the Minister agree that such an appointment would constitute an insult to a friendly, democratic country with high standards of behaviour in public life and be an insult to the many fine Australian citizens of Dutch origin. (3) Will the Minister move to scotch rumours concerning the above appointment and will he instruct his Department to freeze all such postings pending full and fair investigation possible by the Ombudsman or the Joint Committee on Public Accounts. (4) Will the Minister give careful consideration to the allegations already made against his senior officers, in particular Mr Henderson, Mr Bowden and Mr R . J. Smith and in the light of further evidence which will shortly be brought forward, consider suspending forthwith those officers who no longer enjoy his confidence. (5) What salary and allowances are payable to the Australian Ambassador to the Netherlands. (6) What salary and allowances are payable to the officers listed in (4) above. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: (1)-(3), (5) No. (4) See my answer to part (1) of Senate Question No. 195. (6) Mr Henderson receives an annual salary of $65,250 plus an annual permanent head allowance of $3,500 p.a.; Mr Bowden receives an annual salary of $48,400 plus an annual office expense allowance of $1,250. Mr R. J. Smith receives an annual salary of $48,400, plus an annual higher duties allowance of $3,950 plus an annual office expense allowances of $1,250. Question No. 200 Senator Primmer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1983: (1) Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs advise how many staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs were interviewed by departmental security staff or by police officers between January 1981 and 3 May 1983. (2) How many of those staff were questioned about non-security matters. (3) Were the houses of any of these staff searched by police; if so, was this done at Mr Henderson's request. (4) How many of those staff have complained about the attention paid to them by departmental security officers and police and does the Minister regard this situation as normal and under control. (5) Have any complaints been lodged since 5 March 1983. (6) What action, if any, has been taken against Mr Henderson as the result of what he told Senate Estimates Committee D on 10 September 1982. (7) What action has been taken to examine the serious allegations made against Mr Henderson by Messrs Witheford and Henne, which include conspiracy to defeat justice. (8) Will the Minister provide all details of the visit last year by Mr and Mrs P. Henderson to Africa and can he provide details of all appointments undertaken by Mr Henderson whilst in South Africa. (9) Did Mr Henderson have any contact with non-whites. (10) Is the Minister aware of reports that Mr Henderson is to be appointed High Commissioner to London; if so, will Mr Henderson be a fitting successor to Sir Victor Garland. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: (1)-(7) See my answer to part (1) of Senate Question No. 195. (8) Mr Henderson's itinerary for his visit to Africa was as follows: 28-29 November Travel Canberra-Sydney-Harare-Nairobi-Arusha. 1-3 December Commonwealth Senior Officials' Meeting, Arusha, Tanzania. 6-7 December Meeting of Australian Heads of Mission in Africa, Nairobi. 8-9 December Post Liaison Visit, Australian High Commission, Nairobi. 10-13 December Post Liaison Visit, Australian Embassy, Pretoria. 14 December Post Liaison Visit, Australian High Commission, Lusaka. 15-16 December Post Liaison Visit, Australian High Commission, Dar es Salaam. 17-18 December Post Liaison Visit, Australian High Commission, Harare. 19-20 December Travel Harare-Sydney-Canberra. Appointments undertaken by Mr Henderson in South Africa were as follows: Friday 10 December 1150 Arrive Johannesburg from Nairobi 1300 Arrive at hotel in Pretoria 1430-1730 Visit to Australian Embassy Chancery in Pretoria 1745-1900 Informal meeting with staff and other Australians at Ambassador's Residence. 1915 Return to hotel. Saturday 11 December 0840-1100 Inspection of Embassy houses. 1100-1250 Informal meeting with members of the diplomatic corps in Pretoria. 1300-1500 Luncheon with Councellor, Australian Embassy. 1815-2130 Inspection of Ambassador's Residence (dinner with Ambassador at Residence). Sunday 12 December 1000-1130 Visit to Atteridgeville, black residential township near Pretoria, including meeting with Mr Tshabalala, Chairman of Atteridgeville / Saulsville Community Council. Monday 13 December 0830-1030 Meeting with Embassy officers at Embassy Chancery and inspection of Chancery. 1030-1100 Inspection of Visa Section. 1120-1215 Visit to CSIRO Dung Beetle Research Unit. 1230-1400 Working lunch with Ambassador and staff. 1400-1500 Further meeting at Embassy with Embassy officers. 1500-1700 Visit to Soweto including meeting with Chairman, Soweto Local Authority Interim Committee, Dr Motlana. Tuesday 14 December 0830 Depart for Harare, Zimbabwe. (9) Yes. See answer to part (8). (10) I am not aware of any with substance. Question No. 201 Senator Primmer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1983: (1) Is the Minister aware of the recent 'Kiddigate' scandal in the United States, whereby children of high ranking officials and politicians were given lucrative jobs for which they had no obvious qualifications. (2) Will the Minister table full details of the snow clearing payments Mr Bowden made to his sons in Tehran between 1974 and 1980. (3) Was an officer named Adam Smith appointed to the Third Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs on 24 February 1983. (4) What qualifications does Mr Adam Smith possess and what is his age, his annual salary, and is he engaged in financial work. (5) Is the Minister aware that the unemployment rate amongst 15 to 19 year-olds in Canberra is the highest in Australia. (6) Is Mr Adam Smith related to Mr R. J. Smith, First Assistant Secretary, Management and Foreign Service Division in the Department; if so, what is the precise relationship between the two men and in which division of the Department does Mr Adam Smith work. (7) Which Division of the Department handled the recruitment and apparent processes in respect of Mr Adam Smith. (8) Will the Minister take any action over this matter and does it warrant an impartial inquiry. (9) Will the Minister supply details of the involvement of Mr P. G. F. Henderson in the recruitment process of the Australian Diplomatic Service since he became Head of the Staffing Branch in 1963. (10) Are recruits for the Diplomatic Service chosen following an exhaustive series of tests and are there established procedures for selecting the best qualified applicants. (11) Did the Melbourne Herald report on 18 April 1983 that 1,000 applications were expected for 25-30 positions in 1984. (12) Did Mr Henderson hold any conversations with outsiders seeking preferences for particular applicants for entry to the Diplomatic Service in 1983; if so, what are the particulars. (13) How many successful candidates for selection were in fact included in the eventually approved intake as a result of conversations referred to above. (14) Was the son of Sir Robert Sparkes, President of the Queensland Branch of the National Party, included in the 1983 Diplomatic Service intake. (15) Will the Minister suspend Mr Henderson forthwith so that this matter can be properly investigated. (16) Will the Minister introduce measures designed to ensure honest recruitment practices in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) See my answer to part (1) of Senate Question No. 195. (3)-(9), (12)-(13), (15)-(16) In my statement to the House of Representatives on 26 May 1983 (Hansard pages 1042-1046) I responded to questions asked by the honourable senator about the appointment of Mr Adam Smith and Mr Douglas Sparkes . I informed the House of the procedures for recruitment of these two officers and made it clear that I had no reason to doubt that each had been properly appointed. I rejected the innuendo that merely because these officers had been appointed to the Department of Foreign Affairs some privilege or unfair advantage had been brought to bear. I do not consider any further investigation warranted. (10) Yes: The selection arrangements for appointment, promotion or transfer as Foreign Affairs Trainee are set out in the Australian Public Service Conditions of Entry and Advancement, Gazette of 31 January 1983. The section of the Gazette entry relating to selection arrangements reads as follows: (Section 3 page 25) 3. Selection arrangements-The suitability of applicants is determined according to the following process: (a) Academic achievement-the result of tertiary studies will be evaluated and the most highly rated applicants will be invited to sit for a selection test. (b) Aptitude test-applicants selected on the basis of academic achievement will sit for a selection test which measures general ability, aptitude for administrative work and general knowledge of international affairs. (c) Interview-Applicants will be selected for interview on the basis of selection test performance, together with an assessment of academic achievement and the statement of claims in the application. Following interviews, shortlisted applicants may be required to attend further assessment sessions in Canberra. (d) Final selection-In making final selections the Committee will consider all information gained during the selection process together with references which may be sought from people nominated by the applicants. (11) Yes. (14) Yes. Question No. 204 Senator Primmer asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice , on 26 May 1983: (1) Does the Chairman of the Official Establishments Trust receive $230 per sitting and do Trust members receive $170 per sitting. (2) Is Lady Parkinson, wife of Sir Nicholas Parkinson, former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, a member of the Trust. (3) When was Lady Parkinson appointed to the Trust and what qualifications does she possess for the position. (4) Will the Minister critically examine the need for the Trust's existence and the appropriateness of the present membership. Senator Button —The Acting Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Lady Parkinson was appointed to the Trust on 20 September 1982. As the wife of a former diplomat Lady Parkinson has excellent qualifications because of her extensive practical experience in the day to day management and operations of official residences. (4) It is the Government's practice to review on a regular basis the need for and the membership of government advisory bodies. Question No. 207 Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice , on 26 May 1983: (1) What recommendations of the 1981 Review of Commonwealth Functions have been substantially carried into effect. (2) What ongoing and once-off savings have been made in respect of each recommendation substantially carried out. (3) How does this ongoing or once-off saving for each recommendation compare with the Government's estimates at the time of the Review. (4) What was the approximate administrative cost of arriving at the recommendations. (5) What recommendations of the Review have not been substantially carried into effect. (6) What were the reasons for not substantially carrying out the various recommendations of the Review. (7) What has been the extra expenditure incurred or the revenue lost in each case by not carrying out the recommendations. (8) What were the administrative costs involved in each case in arriving at the decisions not to implement recommendations of the Review. (9) What ongoing and once-off savings have been made as a result of the entire Review and how does this compare with the Government's estimates at the time. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1-9) The Government is naturally concerned to achieve the maximum level of efficiency and economic responsibility in the administration of those programs and functions which are properly the concern of the Commonwealth Government. To this end, as the honourable senator would be aware, we have already moved to vary or overturn a number of decisions made by the Fraser Government following its Review of Commonwealth Functions (RCF). For instance, we have announced that the Government clothing factory at Coburg will continue to be operated as a Government-owned factory and that the contract for the sale of the Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Service (CACS) has been cancelled and further disposal action halted pending a review of the situation. We have also announced that we will stand by our commitment to retain public ownership of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. There are a number of other RCF decisions which have given rise to concern in the community. With a view to identifying any other decisions which are not cost -effective or which might be poorly-based, I have asked all Ministers to examine those RCF decisions affecting their portfolio responsibilities and provide me with a report of implementation or any proposals for alternative action. When I have received reports from all Ministers I shall be happy to provide the honourable senator with further information. Question No. 223 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 31 May 1983: (1) Which ports were used to load polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) waste materials onto the incinerator vessel Vulcanus during its voyage to Australia last December/January. (2) What other industrial waste material, if any, was disposed of in this manner. (3) What quantities of PCB's and other wastes were disposed of by Vulcanus from each port and how was the material transported to the vessel. (4) What quantities of PCB's and other industrial wastes were transported from the States and/or Territories not visited by the Vulcanus to those ports that were visited and what methods of transport were used. (5) How were these materials transferred from shore to ship. (6) Was the incineration of these substances monitored by the Federal Government; if so, has a report been prepared and published. (7) Where did the burns take place. (8) What was the percentage of waste material successfully destroyed in each burn and what happened to any undestroyed residue. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The port of Brisbane. (2) Vinyl chloride manufacturing wastes were also disposed of in two separate incineration operations. (3) (i) 215 tonnes of PCB wastes were loaded on the Vulcanus at Brisbane. The PCB wastes were transported in Brisbane by road. (ii) 3177.7 tonnes of vinyl chloride manufacturing wastes were loaded on the Vulcanus at Sydney. These wastes were transported by road tanker to the bulk storage tanks at the terminal. (iii) 1481.6 tonnes of vinyl chloride manufacturing wastes were loaded on the Vulcanus at Melbourne. These wastes were stored in bulk tanks at the terminal. (4) 41 tonnes of PCB wastes from Victoria and Tasmania were transported by road and air to Brisbane. (5) Wastes at each port were loaded onto the Vulcanus through a pipeline. (6) The three incineration operations were monitored by officials or delegates of the Commonwealth Government and a report has been published. (7) The wastes were incinerated at sea in an area more than 200 nautical miles off the south east coast of Australia, bounded by a circle centred at 39*00'S, 154*30'E with a 25 nautical mile radius. (8) The combustion efficiences achieved during the three incineration operations averaged 99.975 per cent, 99.988 per cent and 99.983 per cent all of which met the requirements under the London Dumping Convention of 99.95* 0.05 per cent. It is normal practice that any remaining residues in the vessels tanks are incinerated with the next load of waste. Following the Australian operations the Vulcanus proceeded to Singapore for a refit. En route the tanks were washed and gasfreed and the resulting liquid was incinerated on board. Question No. 225 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 June 1983: (1) To which section of the Stuart Highway does the Government's announcement on 19 May apply; that is, that if the Alice Springs to Darwin rail link is to be built, then $60m originally allocated to the sealing of the Stuart Highway will be diverted to help fund the proposed Commonwealth contribution to the railway. (2) Is the Minister for Transport aware that all of the Stuart Highway in the Northern Territory is already sealed, though not all to national standard. (3) Was the $60m to have been spent on the South Australian section of the highway north of Kingoonya, where several hundred kilometres of the road had yet to be sealed and which has been incorporated in the bicentennial road program. (4) Is the Minister aware that this South Australian section yet to be sealed, services the mining, pastoral and tourist industry of the region which are not serviced by the rail link. (5) What is the timetable for the completion of this project. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The section of the Stuart Highway within the Northern Territory. (2) Yes. (3) No. The $60m relates to savings which would be achieved by not proceeding with substantial works to upgrade the existing highway within the Northern Territory. These include, for instance, bridges, reconstruction and pavement widening. Apart from this, the Government will continue to provide funds to maintain the road to its existing standard. (4) Yes. (5) It is expected that the sealing of the Stuart Highway in South Australia to the Northern Territory border will be completed by 1986-87. Question No. 231 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 2 June 1983: (1) Do the following government authorities: (a) Australian Manufacturing Council, (b) Project Australia Committee, extend below-market interest loans to members of their executive, boards or staff. (2) Have any loans at below-market rates been extended to the Western Australian businessman, Mr Denis Byrne Horgan. (3) Is Mr Horgan associated with the authorities mentioned. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) No. (b) No. (2) See answer (1). (3) Mr Horgan ceased to be a member of the Australian Manufacturing Council in November 1981 having served on the Council since its inception in July 1977. Mr Horgan was a member of the Project Australia Committee, established in August 1979 to oversight the Advance Australia campaign until June 1981 when the Committee was disbanded. The conduct of the campaign was passed on to a non-profit, public interest company, Advance Australia. Mr Horgan served as a director of Advance Australia until his resignation on 30 March 1983. Question No. 232 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 2 June 1983: (1) Does the Australia-Japan Foundation extend below-market interest loans to members of its executive, board or staff. (2) Has any loan of below-market rates been extended to the Western Australian businessman, Mr Denis Byrne Horgan. (3) Is Mr Horgan associated with the above government authority. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) The Australia-Japan Foundation has not extended any loan to Mr Horgan. (3) No. Mr Horgan is not now associated with the Australia-Japan Foundation. Mr Horgan was appointed as a member of the Australia-Japan Foundation in November 1979 and resigned in April 1983. Question No. 233 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 2 June 1983: (1) Does the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization extend below-market interest loans to members of its executive, board or staff. (2) Has any loan at below-market rates been extended to the Western Australian businessman, Mr Denis Byrne Horgan. (3) Is Mr Horgan associated with the above government authority. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Science and Technology has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) No. (3) No. Mr Horgan resigned on 4 May 1983 from the positions he had held since 1 September 1981 as chairman of the Western Australia State Committee and ex- officio member of the CSIRO Advisory Council. Question No. 234 Senator Childs asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 1 June 1983: (1) Is there a current industrial dispute between Telecom Australia and the Union of Postal Clerks and Telegraphists over the staff required on the 12 midnight to 6 a.m. shift at the Canberra Provincial Telegraph Office. (2) Did citizens protesting the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill 1983 send over 200 telegrams on the night of 31 May 1983 and were they received at the Canberra Provincial Telegraph Office between 12 midnight and 6 a.m. (3) Would Telecom's proposal to reduce the staff on the night shift from two people to one person, if implemented, have resulted in the 200 telegrams not having been processed. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) The industrial dispute referred to was settled on Tuesday, 7 June 1983. (2) Yes. (3) No. Question No. 240 Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 June 1983: (1) Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs ensure that the Australian Government facilitates the reunification of East Timorese families where some members of those families are already in Australia, given that the Indonesian Government continues to deny the right of self-determination to the people of East Timor and continues to harass and intimidate the people of East Timor. (2) Will the Minister ask the Indonesian Government to allow a free flow of migration of East Timorese people, including refugees, between Australia and East Timor. (3) Will the Minister undertake the organisation of an Australian Parliamentary delegation to visit East Timor as soon as possible. (4) Will the Minister undertake that the report of such a delegation will be widely circulated and discussed throughout the Australian community. (5) Will the Minister direct the suspension of all military aid to Indonesia until the matters of reunification of families and self-determination of East Timor have been satisfactorily resolved. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government's primary concern has been the finalisation of the list cases agreed to in 1978 and immediate family reunion involving particularly compassionate circumstances. When Mr Hayden visited Indonesia in April, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr Mochtar, assured him that the program would proceed at a rate of 20 to 30 each month until the list was cleared. It is estimated that about 50 to 60 persons with their dependants still have to come to Australia to complete this program. Some have yet to confirm whether they wish to proceed with their applications. In the two months since Mr Hayden visited Indonesia, 53 persons have arrived in Australia under the program. (2) The Government's ultimate objective is to reach a situation where people wishing to come to Australia from East Timor can be processed under normal entry criteria in the same way as other applicants from Indonesia. (3) The Indonesian Parliament has extended an invitation for an Australian parliamentary delegation to visit Indonesia. It is understood the visit will take place in July and that the delegation's itinerary will include East Timor. (4) The question of the distribution of the parliamentary delegation's report will be for the delegation itself to decide. However, the Government hopes that the delegation's visit to Indonesia and East Timor will contribute towards informed debate in Australia on East Timor and Australia's relations with Indonesia. (5) The Government has the question of Australia's relations with Indonesia under continuing review. In the meantime existing programs, projects and exchanges with Indonesia will be maintained. Senator Grimes —On 3 May 1983 (Hansard, page 112), Senator Elstob asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, a question relating to a statement made at the recent Housing Conference by the President of the Real Estate Institute of Australia, Mr Malcolm Gray, concerning the means testing of Federal Government assistance to home buyers. I undertook to obtain further information from the Minister for Housing and Construction. The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following information in respect of the honourable senator's question: On 19 May the Treasurer, as part of his economic statement, announced that: (i) A new First Home Owners Assistance Scheme (FHOAS) will be introduced from 1 October 1983 to assist low to moderate income earners into home ownership. This new Scheme will be means tested to direct assistance to the most needy in the community. This Scheme will replace the current Home Deposit Assistance Scheme (HDAS) which will continue to provide grants on a means tested basis to eligible first home buyers purchasing before 1 October. The maximum grant under both FHOAS and HDAS will be available to home purchasers with family income of up to 135 per cent of average weekly earnings with assistance tapering to zero at 155 per cent of average weekly earnings. The test applies to taxable income in the year prior to purchase. (ii) The special tax rebate for first home buyers introduced in March 1982 would be retained for lower income earners currently receiving assistance and those who enter the Scheme before 30 September 1983. No new entrants will be admitted to the Scheme after 30 September 1983. Those people who are currently receiving benefits and satisfy an income test with income limits set at the same level as the new FHOAS, will continue to receive benefits. This will ensure that the low to moderate income first home buyers, who entered home ownership at a time of high interest rates, will continue to receive assistance for the first five years of home ownership. (iii) Consistent with the Government's policy of directing scarce resources to the needy, it would terminate from 30 June 1983 the general tax rebate introduced in August 1982. These changes reflect the Government's desire to ensure that assistance measures are directed to those most in need. Senator Gietzelt —On 3 May 1983 (Hansard, page 114), Senator Robertson asked me as Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services the following question without notice: The Minister will be aware that the Darwin office of the Australian Information Service was closed by the former Government in its so-called efficiency drive. The closing of the office was keenly felt by both the Service and the people of the Northern Territory. Will the Minister undertake to consider the re-opening of the office, possibly by the reallocation of resources from one of the other capital city offices of the Service, and so provide the Northern Territory with a most needed facility. The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The re-establishment of an Australian Information Service (AIS) office in the Northern Territory is being considered as part of a general review of the location of AIS resources in Australia. However, any decision to re-open an AIS office in the Northern Territory will have to be related to the funds available to AIS in 1983-84. Senator Ryan —On 11 May 1983 (Hansard, page 331), Senator Coates asked me as Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology a question, without notice, concerning debris on Heard Island. The Minister for Science and Technology has porvided the following response to the honourable senator's question: Permanent occupation of Heard Island ceased in 1955 to enable logistic resources to be directed towards establishing Mawson station on the Antarctic mainland. At the time every precaution was taken to ensure that the huts were adequately secure. The scattered debris and the condition of the huts is mainly attributable to the severe climatic conditions which prevail on the island. Elephant seals also cause damage to the buildings. The debris, although aesthetically unattractive, is not considered to be environmentally harmful. The Antarctic Division is aware of the condition of the huts on Heard Island but is restricted in the effort that can be applied in tidying up the station area. The Division's heavy committment to the rebuilding program means that only short visits can be made to the island. However, it is intended that activity on Heard Island will be resumed when resources permit. Senator Button —On 11 May 1983 (Hansard, page 338), Senator Elstob asked Senator Walsh as the Minister representing the Minister for Trade the following question without notice: Will the Minister representing the Minister for Trade take steps to correct the current trade practice whereby some goods produced overseas are labelled 'Made in Australia'? Will the Minister also inquire into the common practice whereby packaged goods are labelled in small print with the country of origin, but the labelling of the packaging itself, which is made in Australia, is prominently displayed, thus deceiving members of the public into thinking that they are buying locally made products? The Minister for Trade referred the question to me as the Minister responsible for the legislation relating to the origin marking of imported goods. The answer to the honourable senator's question is: A wide range of imported goods is required to be legibly marked with their country of origin in accordance with the Commerce (Imports) Regulations, prescribed under the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905. In addition, the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, prescribed under the Customs Act 1901, require that imported goods to which are applied wordings in a language other than that used by the people of the country of origin must have a qualifying statement in English indicating the country in which the goods were made or produced. Imported cargo is selectively examined to ensure compliance with these requirements. Where infringements are detected the goods are not released from Customs control until they are correctly marked. It has previously been brought to my attention that consumers are not always able to establish from the labels of locally packaged goods whether the contents are solely of Australian origin. There are certain State controls regulating the marking of locally packaged goods such as food-stuffs. In my view it is a matter for States to consider what action they might wish to take to combat any misleading or inadequate labelling that might be attached to goods after they have been released from Customs control. Senator Gareth Evans —On 11 May 1983 (Hansard, page 333), Senator Macklin asked me as Minister representing the Special Minister of State the following question without notice: The Special Minister of State has in recent days declared the Government's intention of legislating for public funding of elections. Obviously one of the main concerns of the public will be the cost of such a scheme. Can the Minister inform the Senate, firstly, of the approximate cost to the public of elections under the present arrangements, particularly the current unlimited claims that can be made via the taxation system and, secondly, the prospective cost of the Government's contemplated scheme and whether it will cost more than the current scheme. The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The cost to the Australian Electoral Office for the conduct of the election held on 5 March 1983 was $17.9m (excluding the salaries of permanent Australian Electoral Office Staff). The details, including the cost, of a public funding scheme for federal election campaigns are not yet finalised. Amongst other considerations, the Government would wish to take into account the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. On the matter of the cost to the revenue arising from the tax deductibility of election expenses, this falls within the portfolio responsibility of the Minister for Finance, and I have therefore referred that aspect of the question to him. Senator Button —On 18 May 1983 (Hansard, page 520), Senator Lajovic asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, a question without notice concerning the lengthy strike at Drayton mine in New South Wales. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Following months of negotiations between coal owners, the Australian Coal and Shale Employees Federation (Miners' Federation) and the New South Wales Government, I noted with pleasure that the hiring of employees for the operation of the Drayton coal mine commenced on 30 May 1983. The negotiations also led to agreement with the R. W. Miller coal company on the re-opening of the Preston extended mine at Gunnedah with the employment of 53 men. Further, the New South Wales Government announced there will be continuing consultation between all of the parties in the coal mining industry involved in the negotiations with a view to minimising industrial disputation in the near future. The Federal Government also convened a National Coal Conference which was held on 30 March 1983 to review the situation in the Australian black coal industry. As a result of the 30 March meeting the Australian Coal Consultative Council was formed and held its first meeting on 29 April 1983. The Federal Government indicated at this meeting of its intentions to review taxes and related charges as they applied to the industry and to undertake missions to assess certain overseas market prospects. Senator Walsh —On 18 May 1983 (Hansard, page 515), Senator Coleman asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Trade, the following question without notice: I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Trade to an article in the Melbourne Age on 21 April, headed 'Australian sugar technology costs Filipinos their jobs'. this article points out that the new equipment supplied to the Philippines sugar industry has cost sugar workers 50,000 jobs over the last three years. The Article quoted a study as having shown a reduction of between 50 per cent and 90 per cent in labour in the sugar farms. Changes of this magnitude obviously cause immense social problems. As this is just one example among many of the effects of foreign commercial activity on a local community and as private enterprise does not have a good record of exercising responsibility in such matters, can the Minister tell me what studies concerning the activities of Australian firms and their effects on underdeveloped communities? The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The international sugar industry is a highly competitive one, and Australia's strong position in world markets is largely due to our efficient production techniques, which are characterised by a high level of mechanisation. I am concerned that the Philippines sugar industry, in contrast, is generally less efficient. It is striving to improve its level of efficiency to maintain its viability as an important export earner for the Philippines and a continuing source of domestic employment. Australia is not the only source of sugar technology. In fact, our manufacturing industry, which is geared to the Australian sugar industry, finds itself facing keen competition in exporting to world markets and is itself facing difficulties in the light of currently depressed sugar markets in maintaining employment in Australia, particularly in Queensland. The Australian sugar machinery industry supplies equipment to many parts of the world. In supplying equipment to the Philippines, it is simply responding to a commercial demand which would be satisfied from elsewhere if Australia was not in the market. The social impact of new technology, while significant, is a question for the Government of the importing country concerned. Senator Walsh —On 25 May 1983 (Hansard, page 781), Senator Tate asked me a question, without notice, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Minister for Primary Industry in the Senate. His question concerned allegations by the Tasmanian onion industry that New Zealand onions were being dumped on the Australian market. The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied me with the following additional information: Under the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement the normal anti-dumping procedures are available to industries suffering or threatened with injury as a result of dumped imports. An Anti-Dumping Liaison Monitoring Committee was established in the context of the Trade Agreement to monitor imports of certain sensitive horticultural products from New Zealand to facilitate early anti-dumping action when appropriate. The Committee examined the current concerns of sectors of the Australian onion industry over imports from New Zealand and concluded that there is a possibility of a threat of dumping. Officials also alerted the New Zealand authorities to Australia's concerns in regard to the low cost imports. The Committee advised the original complainant that to pursue a formal anti-dumping case it would be necessary to lodge a complaint with the Dumping Branch in the Department of Industry and Commerce and that it had passed the information collected in relation to its examination of the situation to the dumping authorities for their use in the aim of expediting action in the event of lodgement. The Government is most concerned to ensure that Australian industries, including primary industries, are not subject to injury from predatory practices and dumped or subsidised imports and indeed an urgent review of Australia's Anti -Dumping and Countervailing Legislation and procedures is currently underway. However, the conduct of fair trade is fundamental to our future development and well being and it is essential that the interests of all parties involved be properly protected by adherence to the procedures laid down in compliance with our international obligations. Senator Button —On 25 May 1983 (Hansard, page 756), Senator Bjelke-Petersen asked me, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, a question without notice concerning the number of people covered by private health insurance funds. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: The latest complete information on the number of persons covered for basic medical and basic hospital benefits throughout Australia is: Number Percent- age of ('000) Population Medical 9 732 63.9 Hospital 10 427 68.5 If the position that existed under the original Medibank scheme can be used as a guide, it could be expected that the majority of people now insured for hospital benefits would maintain that insurance for the purposes of treatment as a private patient under the Medicare Program. Medicare will be introduced on 1 February 1984 and by the time the rebate would have become payable most Australians will have had the benefit of reduced health costs for several months. For the 1 per cent health levy on taxable incomes, all Australians will be automatically entitled to medical benefits representing at least 85 per cent of doctors' Schedule fees (where doctors agree to bulk-bill, there will be no charge to patients), medical services without charge at community health centres , and access to inpatient and outpatient treatment at public hospitals by hospital employed doctors without charge. There will be a ceiling for high income earners and minimum income levels below which the levy will not be payable. There will be no need for anyone to take out private health insurance if they are prepared to accept the benefits and treatment that will be available under Medicare. For those that wish to have further cover, private health insurance funds will be able to offer benefits for treatment as private patients (i.e. doctor of choice) in public hospitals, accommodation in private hospitals and for ancillary services (e.g. physiotherapy and dental services). Given the proposed reduction in public hospital charges that will apply under the Medicare arrangements, the cost of private health insurance for those electing to be treated as private patients should be considerably less than applies under the present system. Senator Walsh —On 31 May 1983 (Hansard, page 979), Senator Hearn asked me a question, without notice, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Minister for Primary Industry in the Senate. Her question concerned the level of potato imports in 1980-81. Further to the honourable senator's question I have obtained the following information: Imports of potato products into Australia amounted to approximately 2,800 tonnes in 1981-82, a relatively high level in comparison to the 320 tonnes imported in 1980-81 and the 177 tonnes imported in the first nine months of 1982 -83. However, imports over this period have accounted for only a very small share of Australian consumption which is met predominantly by local production of some 900,000 tonnes (fresh weight) per annum. The imports in 1981-82 comprised mainly frozen potatoes from Canada and were imported by a major Australian processor to overcome what he perceived as a short term difficulty in securing local supplies of processing potatoes of the required quality. The Australian potato growing industry was advised of the background relating to these imports through the National Potato Panel (an industry/government consultative and advisory body to the Minister for Primary Industry) by the processor's representative on the Panel. Senator Grimes —On 3 June 1983 (Hansard, page 1279), Senator Boswell asked me a question, without notice, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry in the Senate. His question concerned the financial difficulties facing the sugar industry in Queensland. The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government is deeply concerned with the problems of the sugar industry which are largely attributable to low world prices and adverse seasonal conditions. Since coming to office I have had a number of meetings with sugar industry leaders in an endeavour to more clearly identify assistance needs. In addition the Government has had for consideration a specific request by the Queensland Government for assistance for canegrowers as well as the recommendation contained in the Industries Assistance Commission interim report into the short term assistance needs of the sugar industry. Following this consideration the Commonwealth announced on 7 June that it would provide $11m to New South Wales and Queensland to extend the carry-on provisions of Part B of the Rural Adjustment Scheme (RAS) to canegrowers. Under this arrangement, $20m will be available for concessional loans to eligible canegrowers in Queensland and $2m to eligible canegrowers in New South Wales on the basis of dollar for dollar funding between the Commonwealth and the participating States. In reaching its decision the Government gave full consideration to the sugar industry's proposal for general loan assistance by way of an injection of funds through the No. 1 Pool mechanism. However, given the need for financial stringency by the Government in the light of the current budget deficit situation, it has become a matter of ordering priorities strictly on a needs basis. Extensions to the sugar industry of the Part B carry-on provisions of the RAS will meet this requirement and will enable carry-on assistance to be provided to some 600-700 canegrowers in need. It also directly meets the Queensland Government's request for such assistance. An additional $5.5m will be provided to Queensland and $8.6m to New South Wales to assist rural industries including the cane growing industry, under the general industry rural provisions of the Rural Adjustment Scheme. Question No. 9 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) Has the Australian Government received any information that Albertino Neto has been in custody since February 1978; if so, when did the Government first obtain such information. (2) What action has the Government taken to protest at the continued detention of the abovenamed. (3) Has the Government taken any action; if not, why not. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Australian Government is aware from the Amnesty International report for 1982 that Mr Albertino Neto is serving a sentence of 21 years' imprisonment, having been convicted in March 1979 of conspiracy against the Government of Sao Tome and Principe. The Government has no previous information on this case. (2) Enquiries have been made of the Embassy of Sao Tome and Principe in Lisbon concerning Mr Neto's imprisonment. The information provided indicated that Mr Neto was implicated in a coup attempt shortly after Sao Tome and Principe achieved independence in 1975 and that he and another alleged conspirator Mr Alcindo de Lima were tried and convicted under the due process of local law. It was stated that both were still imprisoned but were in good health. The Embassy undertook to convey Australia's interest in the case to the Government of Sao Tome and Principe. (3) See above. Question No. 17 Senator Bolkus asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) Has the Attorney-General seen the annual report of the Director of Consumer Affairs in Victoria, Mr John Miller, calling for a 'crack down on companies with a paid up capital of only $2'. (2) Did Mr Miller state that the present system, which allows people to 'enjoy the luxury of limited liability behind a $2.00 corporate veil is open to abuse'. (3) Did Mr Miller also state that linking a $2.00 company with a discretionary trust is 'a further complication . . . such that the consumer, in effect, has no idea with whom one is dealing, nor is it feasible to so discover easily'. (4) Have the above problems been brought to the Federal Government's attention. (5) What action will the Federal Government take to rectify these problems. (6) Does legislation in the United Kingdom provide for a compulsory minimum paid up capital for companies which trade with the public, and what is the amount. (7) Do any similar provisions exist in other countries. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) to (3) Yes. (4) and (5) The Government is aware of the matters referred to in the honourable senator's question and is concerned about the abuse of the privilege of limited liability. The linking of a proprietary company having minimal paid up capital with a discretionary trust gives considerable scope for frustrating creditors. The suggestion that companies trading with the public be subject to minimum paid up capital requirements as a means of overcoming these abuses is one that needs to be considered along with other suggestions for improving protection for creditors and enployees of companies. Whether or not provision for minimum paid up capital requirements is the most appropriate course may depend on satisfactory resolution of issues such as the effect on existing small businesses and, in particular, the employment consequences for any existing companies that may not be able to meet any new capital requirements. I will be recommending to the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities at the next meeting that these issues should be considered by the proposed Companies and Securities Law Review Committee in the context of a general examination of the legitimate use of the corporate form. The next Ministerial Council meeting will also be considering proposals for amendment of legislation concerning the operation of trading trusts. (6) and (7) Yes. The Company Law Act 1980 of the United Kingdom imposes a requirement that public companies have a minimum paid up capital of #50,000 sterling. There is no minimum paid up capital requirement for private companies. It is understood that other members of the European Economic Community have progressively introduced legislation in accordance with the Second Directive on Company Law Harmonization to require companies to have a subscribed minimum capital of not less than 25,000 'units of account', the monetary value of which is defined by the European Economic Commission from time to time. Question No. 20 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) Has the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to a report in the National Times dated June 6-12 1982 that a Mr Gehring assisted a Mr Hand's departure from Australia in June 1980 by getting him a false passport. (2) Will the Minister take action to investigate this supply of a false passport. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) The matter was investigated by a joint task force comprising officers of the Australian Federal Police and the New South Wales Police Force, and the papers have been referred to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group. Question No. 24 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) Has the Adelaide Telegraph Office been closed between the hours of 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. since 7 February 1983. (2) Has this closure also applied on weekends. (3) What arrangements, if any, were made for telegrams to be delivered in South Australia during the period that the Adelaide Telegraph Office has been closed. (4) What arrangements, if any, were made for members of the public wishing to use the public telex facility located in the Adelaide Telegraph Office. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) to (4) No. A full 24-hour lodgement and delivery service for both telegrams and public telex is currently available at the Adelaide Chief Telegraph Office. Question No. 32 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: Does the Australian Bureau of Statistics, under its methods of settlement section in the explanatory notes which accompany statistics on industrial disputes, list the following-'Intervention, assistance or advice of Federal Government officials or inspectors'; if so- (a) does the Government possess statistics which give an answer to part 5 of Question No. 1799, using the criterion in the methods of settlement notes in the ABS Industrial Disputes publications; if not, does the Government only collect statistics for using whatever means of Federal intervention when such intervention is successful; (b) is any information about Federal intervention, using whatever means fits with the ABS notes but is not successful, not kept on record anywhere within the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations or the ABS; and (c) what is the Government's role in the area of settlements of industrial disputes if it does not keep accurate records of what participation it has had in the past. (See Hansard, answer to Question on Notice No. 1799, 18 August 1982 page 175.) Senator Button —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Yes. (a) No. The official industrial dispute statistics collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics concerning intervention, assistance or advice of Federal Government officials or inspectors cover only those instances where parties to disputes involving stoppage of work of ten man-days or more report such intervention, assistance or advice as the method directly responsible for ending the stoppage. (b) The Australian Bureau of Statistics does not collect information concerning instances in which intervention, assistance or advice of Federal Government officials or inspectors was considered by the parties to each relevant stoppage to have been unsuccessful, or not directly responsible for ending the stoppage. (c) The Government's role in the area of settlements of industrial disputes is undertaken in a wide variety of ways both of a formal and informal character. A succinct expression of this Government's approach is to be found in the statement of accord by the Australian Labour Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions regarding economic policy. Question No. 73 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) How many motor vehicle accidents involved officers of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations whilst on duty, in the financial year 1981- 82. (2) How many of these accidents were in: (a) Commonwealth cars used by the Department; (b) officers' private vehicles; (c) rental vehicles; (d) chauffeur- driven vehicles or taxis; and (e) other forms of vehicle transport. (3) How many officers were injured and what was the breakdown for each mode of transport listed in (2). (4) Were any of the accidents fatal; if so, how many and in what mode of transport listed in (2). Senator Button —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 170. (2) All these accidents were in group (a). (3) Six officers were injured. (4) No. Question No. 94 Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Has the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry been drawn to an article published in an American beekeeping magazine in December 1982 stating that scientists at an Australian Government analytical laboratory have discovered previously undetected levels of glucose syrup in Australian pure honey designed for export markets. (2) Is the further statement in this article that 'some honey in Australia is sold with up to 30 per cent glucose content, but this is clearly marked on the jar' correct or does honey and glucose sold and labelled as such have to be 50 per cent honey and 50 per cent glucose. (3) Would the analysis referred to have detected glucose being added to honey in excess of the natural glucose which always shows in honey and is of acceptable levels. (4) Was one sample taken of honey for export which actually came from the Honey Corporation of Australia Limited, wrongly accredited to having been found in the Western Australian Honey Pool, which has never had glucose in their packing plant. (5) Has it been verified that some exporters have been adulterating honey by adding glucose yet labelling the product as honey; if so, what action has been taken against them and what measures are necessary to ensure that this is not still occurring. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) It is understood that product sold as honey and glucose mixtures in Australia can contain varying percentages of up to 50 per cent of added glucose. Labelling requirements for such products marketed domestically are the responsibility of State health departments, but they are generally guided in this regard by the recommendations of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH and MRC). The NH and MRC model food standards include a recommendation that ingredients in the product be listed on the product label in the descending order of their proportion by weight, but do not require a percentage declaration; (3) The method used to test honey for adulteration detects the presence of higher saccharides which are not commonly found in honey. It cannot be used to conclusively prove adulteration because certain types of honeys exhibit a gradual build up of higher saccharides when stored for extended periods of time. These higher saccharides cannot be distinguished from those of glucose syrup by the HPLC test. The terms glucose, which in this content refers to natural glucose of honey, and glucose honey, which refers to the product obtained by the hydrolysis of starch, are often confused. Glucose syrup contains glucose, maltose and higher polysaccharides. Glucose and maltose are natural constituents of honey, however the higher polysaccharides are not commonly found. While the text cannot conclusively provide adulteration by glucose syrup, it does detect higher saccharides which point to adulteration, thereby enabling further investigations to be undertaken. (4) Information on the results of initial analysis and companies implicated is not publicly disseminated, given the need for follow up action. I am not in a position to comment on whether or not the Western Australian Honey Pool has ever had glucose syrup on its premises. (5) Follow-up investigation into the causes of the adulteration indicated by analysis have generally been inconclusive. In all cases, once analytical results were to hand the exporters in question were advised accordingly. Further shipments from them were subject to individual sampling and analysis, as opposed to routine random sampling procedures, and withheld from export until cleared by analysis. Normal inspection procedures in such cases are not reverted to until satisfactory results have been obtained for at least ten consecutive shipments. Question No. 99 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Did Telecom Australia remove a telephone from the Commonwealth Government Centre, 232 Adelaide Street, Brisbane, on 24 September 1981; if so, why. (2) Did the Department of Administrative Services opppose the removal of the telephone on the grounds that it served elderly or incapacitated members of the public availing themselves of the hearing aid service. (3) Did Telecom Australia suggest to the Department of Administrative Services that if it had wanted a telephone in that location it should install a red telephone; if so, has Telecom Australia suggested to other Government departments that a red telephone should be installed where a telephone is required to service that department's clients. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) Yes. Detailed studies into usage levels over the preceding three years revealed that patronage of this particular facility had been consistently poor and far below the level normally required to justify retaining the public telephone in service. The unit was located in the ground floor foyer where it was available for use by all visitors to the Commonwealth Offices including those persons using ther services of the National Acoustic Laboratories Hearing Centre located on the second floor. The public telephone had not been specially modified to accommodate users with hearing aids. The Department of Administrative Services was advised in writing on 28 May 1981 of the imminent removal of this telephone as well as a similar facility installed in the foyer of the Taxation Building located at the corner of Adelaide and Wharf Streets, Brisbane. (2) Yes. A reply was sent on 28 July 1981 explaining the reasons for the withdrawal of this telephone. In the letter Telecom supplied details of other public telephones located nearby and made specific reference to those units which had been modified to enable use by disabled persons as well as people with hearing difficulties. There are a number of such services in close proximity to the Commonwealth Government Centre at 232 Adelaide Street. (3) The suggestion was put to the Department of Administrative Services that, in full knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of the public telephone, if it still considered a telephone service should be available, then the Department should consider leasing a Redphone. The action taken in this instance is consistent with Telecom's policy of allocating public telephone equipment to those areas where significant public usage of the facilities will occur. In those situations where the installation or retention of public telephones cannot be justified, leased coin telephones are often recommended as a viable and realistic alternative. Question No. 102 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Which post offices have opened in Queensland since 30 April 1981, and on what date did each office commence operations. (2) Which post offices have permanently closed in Queensland since 30 April 1981 and when did each closure occur. (3) Which post offices in Queensland have been renamed since 30 April 1981; and (a) what was the original name of each office; (b) when was each office renamed; and (c) what was its new name. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Postal Commission: (1) The following post offices have opened in Queensland during the period 1 May 1981 to 3 May 1983: Date operations Post offices opened commenced Redbank Plains 3 August 1981 Loganholme 1 September 1981 The Monument 2 November 1981 Chevron Island 25 January 1982 Algester 1 July 1982 Bellbowrie 1 July 1982 Gununa 1 October 1982 Marsden 15 November 1982 Pacific Fair 15 November 1982 Alexandra Hills 1 December 1982 Tieri 21 March 1983 Kirwan 5 April 1983 Glenden 11 April 1983 (2) The following post offices have been closed permanently in Queensland during the period 1 May 1981 to 3 May 1983: Post offices closed Date of effect Bilwon 15 May 1981 Tarampa 1 June 1981 Sharon 30 June 1981 Dartmouth 1 July 1981 Pindi Pindi 1 July 1981 Wagoora 1 July 1981 Glenore Grove 24 July 1981 Goomburra 31 August 1981 Newell 30 September 1981 Woondum 30 September 1981 Traveston 30 September 1981 Daintree 30 October 1981 Bernaraby 30 October 1981 Eton North 30 November 1981 Maryvale 31 December 1981 Jimna 2 January 1982 Orkabie 29 January 1982 Baddow 29 January 1982 Keperra 8 March 1982 Cloyna 31 March 1982 Evelyn Central 31 March 1982 Tannymorel 31 March 1982 Marmor 1 April 1982 Saltern 1 May 1982 Andersonville 31 May 1982 Weipa South 31 May 1982 Deeral 30 June 1982 Kolan South 1 July 1982 Horseshoe Bay 31 August 1982 2 September 1982 Queens Beech 1 October 1982 Nelly Bay 15 October 1982 Tingoora 15 October 1982 Evans Landing 29 October 1982 Bogantungan 22 December 1982 Mary Kathleen 31 December 1982 Daradgee 28 January 1983 Durong South 31 January 1983 Bapaume 31 March 1983 Kalinga 15 April 1983 Moonie 29 April 1983 (3) The following post offices have been renamed in Queensland during the period 1 May 1981 to 3 May 1983: (a) (b) (c) Original name of post office Date renamed New name Rocklea 1 July 1981 Archerfield Carina Heights 1 July 1982 Carindale Molloy 1 December 1982 Mount Molloy Question No. 103 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Which post offices have opened in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory since 30 April 1981, and on what date did each office commence operations. (2) Which post offices have permanently closed in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory since 30 April 1981 and when did each closure occur . (3) Which post offices in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory have been renamed since 30 April 1981; and (a) what was the original name of each office; (b) when was each office renamed; and (c) what was its new name. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question based on advice from the Australian Postal Commission: (1) The following post offices have opened in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory during the period 1 May 1981 to 3 May 1983: Date operations Post offices opened commenced *Toormina 3 November 1980 Callala Bay 1 July 1981 Callala Beach 1 July 1981 Hornsby Northgate 16 September 1981 Macquarie Centre 17 November 1981 North Sydney Shopping World 25 November 1981 Wanniassa 29 March 1982 Shellharbour Square 3 November 1982 Coffs Harbour Plaza 1 December 1982 Carlingford Shopping Square 1 December 1982 Penrith Shopping Square 7 December 1982 * Toormina Post Office was omitted inadvertently from the answer, published in Hansard on 19 August 1981, to Senator Colston's Question No. 686. (2) The following post offices have been closed permanently in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory during the period 1 May 1981 to 3 May 1983. Post offices closed Date of effect *Blacktown North 5 March 1981 Yalbraith 6 May 1981 Spencer 29 May 1981 Fern Bay 29 May 1981 Terry Hie Hie 11 June 1981 Mooney Mooney 19 June 1981 Turrawan 30 June 1981 Kotara 30 June 1981 Fifield 30 June 1981 Weetaliba 30 June 1981 Mount St Thomas 1 July 1981 Nerriga 8 July 1981 Gubbata 31 July 1981 Punchbowl South 26 August 1981 Kanwal 28 August 1981 Duckmaloi 31 August 1981 Quorrobolong 4 September 1981 Leichhardt Hill 21 September 1981 Tabourie Lake 30 September 1981 Eglinton 30 September 1981 Grahamstown 30 September 1981 Jerseyville 7 October 1981 Patonga Beach 13 October 1981 Daroobalgie 30 October 1981 Bugaldie 30 October 1981 Uriarra Forrest 30 October 1981 South Bathurst 2 November 1981 Sylvania Centre 4 November 1981 East Lynne 30 November 1981 Mount View 30 November 1981 Turondale 2 December 1981 Old Guildford 14 December 1981 Trungley Hall 15 December 1981 Stratford 16 December 1981 Waratah 15 January 1982 Casino South 29 January 1982 Tichborne 2 February 1982 Brickfield Hill 19 February 1982 Mount David 24 February 1982 Judds Creek 24 February 1982 Goulburn South 26 February 1982 Wyrallah 26 February 1982 Towamba 1 March 1982 Albert 1 March 1982 Auburn South 5 March 1982 Dunbogan 16 March 1982 Tuggerah 22 March 1982 Mirrool 29 March 1982 Nelligen 31 March 1982 *Kitchener 31 March 1982 Bray Park 1 April 1982 Cabramatta Heights 1 April 1982 Cooks Gap 22 April 1982 Guildford East 24 April 1982 Orange North 27 April 1982 Neurea 28 April 1982 Bakers Swamp 28 April 1982 Moombooldool 30 April 1982 Old Koreelah 1 May 1982 Fine Flower Creek 26 May 1982 Mudgee South 27 May 1982 Clandulla 28 May 1982 Morundah 31 May 1982 Hartley 31 May 1982 Tuggerawong 29 June 1982 The Lagoon 30 June 1982 Lithgow North 30 June 1982 Ando 30 June 1982 Numeralla 30 June 1982 Yantabulla 30 June 1982 Mount White 2 July 1982 Cremorne Point 31 July 1982 Bostobrick 13 August 1982 Guildford North 1 September 1982 Carrow Brook 3 September 1982 Georges Plains 30 September 1982 Lower Creek 30 September 1982 Collingullie 15 October 1982 Jones Island 29 October 1982 Ashbury 17 November 1982 Kenebri 3 December 1982 Roto 31 December 1982 Murga 4 January 1983 Toogong 4 January 1983 Cookamidgera 14 January 1983 Fernmount 11 March 1983 Fassifern 31 March 1983 * Blacktown North Post Office was omitted inadvertently from the answer published in Hansard on 19 August 1981 to Senator Colston's Question No. 686. * Kitchener Post Office was included in the answer, published in Hansard on 19 August 1981, to Senator Colston's Question No. 686 as having closed on 31 March 1981. The office actually closed on 31 March 1982. (3) The following post offices have been renamed in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory during the period 1 May 1981 to 3 May 1983: (a) (b) (c) Original name of post office Date renamed New name Sydney Mail 7 December 1981 Strawberry Exchange Hills Bardouroka 3 May 1982 Fingal Bay Canberra 1 February 1983 Queen Victoria Terrace Canberra City 12 April 1983 Canberra GPO Question No. 104 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Which post offices have opened in Victoria since 30 April 1981, and on what date did each office commence operations. (2) Which post offices have permantly closed in Victoria since 30 April 1981 and when did each closure occur. (3) Which post offices in Victoria have been renamed since 30 April 1981; and ( a) what was the original name of each office; (b) when was each office renamed; and (c) what was its new name. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Postal Commission: (1) The following post offices have opened in Victoria during the period 1 May 1981 to 3 May 1983: Date operations Post offices opened commenced Portland South 5 October 1981 Glengala 5 July 1982 *Spring Gully 2 August 1982 Airport West 22 November 1982 Mid Valley 17 January 1983 Milpo Bonegilla 1 March 1983 * Spring Gully Post Office closed on 26 February 1982 but reopened on 2 August 1982. (2) The following post offices have been closed permanently in Victoria during the period 1 May 1981 to 3 May 1983: Date of effect Post offices closed commenced *Rokeby 27 April 1981 Hillend 30 May 1981 Areegra 1 July 1981 Barkly 1 July 1981 Sheep Hills 1 July 1981 Woodfield 1 July 1981 Gaffneys Creek 1 July 1981 Boneo Road 28 August 1981 Woodleigh Vale 29 August 1981 Cumberland Park 1 September 1981 Moe Heights 1 September 1981 Mt Pleasant 11 September 1981 Port Melbourne West 19 October 1981 Puckapunyal Town 2 November 1981 Dederang 2 November 1981 Ormond East 26 November 1981 Lake Rowan 30 November 1981 Bowenvale 24 December 1981 Middle Park West 13 January 1982 Calivil 5 February 1982 Clyde North 26 February 1982 *Spring Gully 26 February 1982 Clarkefield 19 March 1982 Heidelberg Heights 1 April 1982 Breakwater 22 June 1982 Bellbrae 30 June 1982 Bemm River 30 June 1982 Dooen 30 June 1982 Red Hill 30 June 1982 Prairie 1 July 1982 Pomberneit 30 July 1982 Ravenswood 5 November 1982 Upfield 9 November 1982 Portland South 30 November 1982 Milpo Balcombe 7 December 1982 Wannon 31 December 1982 *Rokeby Post Office was omitted inadvertently from the answer, published in Hansard on 19 August 1981, to Senator Colston's Question No. 688. *Spring Gully Post Office closed on 26 February 1982 but re-opended on 2 August 1982. (3) The following post offices have been renamed in Victoria during the period 1 May 1981 to 3 May 1983: (a) (b) (c) Original name of post office Date renamed New name Airport West 22 November 1982 Niddrie North Heidelberg 2 May 1983 Heidelberg North Heights Question No. 105 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Which post offices have opened in Tasmania since 30 April 1981, and when did each office commence operations. (2) Which post offices have permanently closed in Tasmania since 30 April 1981 and when did each closure occur. (3) Which post offices in Tasmania have been renamed since 30 April 1981; and ( a) what was the original name of each office; (b) when was each office renamed; and (c) what was its new name. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Postal Commission: (1) The following post offices have opened in Tasmania during the period 1 May 1981 to 3 May 1983: Date operations Post offices opened commenced Stringer Creek 7 September 1981 University of Tasmania 2 August 1982 Rosny Park 18 October 1982 (2) The following post offices have been closed permanently in Tasmania during the period 1 May 1981 to 3 May 1983: Post offices closed Date of effect Premaydena 30 June 1981 Boat Harbour Beach 3 August 1981 Youngtown 31 August 1981 Moriarty 30 October 1981 Preston 30 October 1981 Sisters Creek 30 November 1981 Sandfly 14 December 1981 Montagu 8 April 1982 Roger River 3 June 1982 Bridgenorth 12 November 1982 (3) No post offices have been renamed in Tasmania during the period 1 May 1981 to 3 May 1983. Question No. 106 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Which post offices have opened in South Australia and Northern Territory since 30 April 1981, and on what date did each office commence operations. (2) Which post offices have permanently closed in South Australia and Northern Territory since 30 April 1981 and when did each closure occur. (3) Which post offices in South Australia and Northern Territory have been renamed since 30 April 1981; and (a) what was the original name of each office; (b) when was each office renamed; and (c) what was its new name. Senator Button — The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Postal Commission: (1) The following post offices have opened in South Australia and the Northern Territory during the period 1 May 1981 to 3 May 1983: Date operations Post offices opened commenced Aberfoyle Park 16 November 1981 Firle 1 April 1982 Leigh Creek South 5 April 1982 Pasadena 3 May 1982 Humpty Doo 15 June 1982 (2) The following post offices have been closed permanently in South Australia and the Northern Territory during the period 1 May 1981 to 3 May 1983: Post offices closed Date of effect Greenacres West 25 June 1981 Cockatoo Valley 1 July 1981 Glenalta 1 July 1981 Hartley 1 July 1981 Norwood North 1 July 1981 Julia 1 August 1981 The Point 1 September 1981 Tungkillo 1 October 1981 Whyalla Stuart 1 October 1981 Jabiru East 26 October 1981 Port Lincoln South 2 November 1981 Beltana 24 November 1981 Devon Park 1 December 1981 Second Valley 1 December 1981 Elizabeth North 2 January 1982 Avon 5 January 1982 Coulta 5 January 1982 Mt Gambier North 5 January 1982 Point Pass 2 February 1982 Glanville 19 February 1982 West Beach 1 April 1982 Payneham South 1 April 1982 Kingston Gardens North 1 April 1982 Moculta 1 April 1982 Leigh Creek Coalfield 5 April 1982 Tarnma 29 April 1982 Panorama 3 May 1982 Rosewater 3 May 1982 Adelaide Pulteney Street 3 May 1982 Black Springs 13 May 1982 Taplan 18 May 1982 Edwardstown West 28 June 1982 Dulwich 1 July 1982 Kingoonya 1 July 1982 Kulkami 1 July 1982 Kybunga 1 July 1982 Nantawarra 1 July 1982 Waterloo 1 July 1982 Windsor 9 August 1982 Eurelia 16 August 1982 Alma 1 September 1982 Galiwinku 1 September 1982 Angle Vale 6 September 1982 Willowie 21 December 1982 Hermannsburg 4 January 1983 Gurrai 5 January 1983 Halbury 5 January 1983 Veitch 24 January 1983 Lake View 1 February 1983 Daly River 21 February 1983 Corny Point 1 March 1983 Bower 5 April 1983 New Well 5 April 1983 Mercunda 5 April 1983 Buckleboo 2 May 1983 (3) No post offices have been renamed in South Australia or the Northern Territory during the period 1 May 1981 to 3 May 1983. Question No. 107 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Which post offices have opened in Western Australia since 30 April 1981, and on what date did each office commence operations. (2) Which post offices have permanently closed in Western Australia since 30 April 1981 and when did each closure occur. (3) Which post offices in Western Australia have been renamed since 30 April 1981; and (a) what was the original name of each office; (b) when was each office renamed; and (c) what was its new name. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Postal Commission: (1) The following post offices have opened in Western Australia during the period 1 May 1981 to 3 May 1983: Date operations Post offices opened commenced Hearson 21 September 1981 Swan View 1 November 1982 Australind 15 December 1982 Mandurah East 28 February 1983 (2) The following post offices have been closed permanently in Western Australia during the period 1 May 1981 to 3 May 1983: Post offices closed Date of effect Bedford East 30 June 1981 Caversham 30 June 1981 Allanson 31 July 1981 Meltham 31 August 1981 Attadale 1 September 1981 Gillingarra 30 October 1981 Mahogany Creek 2 November 1981 Forrestdale 2 November 1981 Como South 2 November 1981 Arrino 20 November 1981 Viveash 30 November 1981 Youngs Siding 1 December 1981 Emu Point 1 December 1981 Nedlands West 24 December 1981 Fairbridge 31 December 1981 Harrismith 29 January 1982 Ejanding 30 January 1982 Carbunup River 28 February 1982 Perth Lord Street 28 February 1982 Nornalup 15 April 1982 Porungurup 23 April 1982 Wembley Grantham Street 30 April 1982 Highgate 30 April 1982 Hamilton Hill West 1 May 1982 Fremantle Victoria Quay 1 May 1982 Barraghup 30 June 1982 Koongamia 30 June 1982 Balcatta 30 June 1982 Jarrahwood 27 August 1982 Koojan 31 August 1982 Kondut 31 August 1982 Kensington South 27 September 1982 Varley 1 November 1982 Gutha 30 December 1982 Pantapin 28 February 1983 Palgarup 8 April 1983 (3) The following post offices have been renamed in Western Australia during the period 1 May 1981 to 3 May 1983: (a) (b) (c) Original name of post office Date renamed New name Rockingham 20 July 1981 Rockingham South Bullsbrook 1 September 1981 Bullsbrook East Mends St 5 July 1982 South Perth Perth South Perth 5 July 1982 South Perth Angelo St Subiaco 1 October 1982 Subiaco East Coghlan Rd Maniana 1 January 1983 Queens Park East Question No. 121 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) What, if any, remote area telecommunications projects in the Northern Territory are now being considered by the Government. (2) Where are these to be located. (3) What is the Government's reaction to the recommendation contained in the report of the Davidson Committee inquiry that a wholly government-owned company should be established to finance remote-area projects to achieve better communications. (4) What action is the Government taking to remedy the established spur line policy to finance remote-area projects in a more equitable manner. (5) Is Telecom Australia unable to finance these projects at present. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) and (2) Projects programmed for the next 3 years include:- (i) Major Trunk Developments Groote Eylandt-Nhulunbuy 120 circuit radio Mt Isa-Darwin Microwave system improvement Darwin-Jabiru 140 Mbit/s Digital Radio system (Replacing existing troposcatter system and increasing capacity (1,920 circuits ) Kununurra-Katherine 960 circuit radio-increased capacity in area and security to Darwin and intercapital network Darwin-Tennant Creek-Mt Isa Additional microwave bearer Yulara-Alice Springs 960 circuit radio (ii) Exchange Developments Yulara (New Exchange) (Spur Line Policy-see reply to (4) ) Milingimbi Groote Eylandt Katherine (Gorge) Katherine (Farms Area) (iii) Customer Networks Alice Springs HF Network Fountain Head Expand Concentrator Jabiru Install Concentrator Katherine HF Network Katherine (Farm Hill) Install Concentrator Berry Springs Digital Radio Concentrator System (DRCS) Batchelor Expand Concentrator Daly River DRCS Daly River-Wadeye Extend DRCS Auguruga-Alyangula Radio System Installation Bamyili Radio System Installation Daly Waters Radio System Installation Galiwinku-Milingimbi Radio System Installation Hermansburg Radio System Installation Katherine-Kunnunurra Radio System Installation Katherine Gorge- Katherine Radio System Installation Maningrida-Milingimbi Radio System Installation Milikapiti-Mission Hill Radio System Installation Napperby Radio System Installation Pularumpi-Mission Hill Radio System Installation Renner Springs Radio System Installation Three Ways Radio System Installation Yirrkala-Nhulunbuy Radio System Installation Katherine/Tennant Creek/Alice Springs Corridor Individual Customer Radio Installations Yulara Corridor Individual Customer Radio Installations (3) The Davidson Committee recommended that the Australian Telecommunications Commission should be abolished and replaced by an incorporated company-Telecom Australia Limited-owned 100 per cent by the Commonwealth Government. I do not believe that the establishment of Telecom as an incorporated company would necessarily improve the provision of telecommunications services in Australia, particularly for those in remote areas. (4) Telecom's Spur Line Policy applies where the provision of telecommunication services for industrial and other undertakings located in remote areas of Australia is required ahead of that which would normally apply under Telecom's planning for an area. Telecom considers it equitable that those requiring the provision of facilities with special priority requirements should contribute part of the necessary capital so that funds are not diverted from planned programmes, including the general extension and upgrading of services in rural and remote areas. (5) Telecom is working steadily towards providing telecommunication services for remote areas within current funding and resourcing constraints. Using new technologies now undergoing development testing, Telecom plans to commence a Remote Area Program in 1984-85 designed to bring telecommunication facilities to most remote areas by 1990. Question No. 165 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: (1) Will the proposed Arbitration Inspectorate, which is to replace the Industrial Relations Bureau, be independent and autonomous as foreshadowed in the prices and incomes accord and in the Australian Labor Party's platform. (2) Have officers of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association expressed their concern to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations that the Inspectorate may be entirely absorbed into the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. (3) Will the Government be making a statement in the near future to outline its intentions with respect to the proposed Arbitration Inspectorate. Senator Button —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act 1983 amends the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 by abolishing the Industrial Relations Bureau and establishing an Arbitration Inspectorate within the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. The provisions of the Act relating to the Arbitration Inspectorate give effect to the Australian Labor Party 1982 Platform, Constitution and Rules which provide inter alia, for 'the restoration of the Arbitration Inspectorate function within a Department of Employment and Industrial Relations on an adequately resourced basis . . . '. The Statement of Accord reflects the ALP Platform in providing that an independent Arbitration Inspectorate should be re-established. The provisions of the Act meet the requirements of the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 81 on Labour Inspection for the independence of the Inspectorate staff. They will be public officials whose status and conditions of service are such that they are ensured of stability of employment and are independent of changes of Government and of improper external influences. In this respect, the Act provides for inspectors to be appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922 for the purposes of carrying out their functions under the Act. Inspectors have now been formally appointed by my delegate for the purposes of the Act. They will exercise their powers and perform their duties under the Act in accordance with guidelines which I have determined and which were promulgated in the Special Gazette No. S 139 of 4 July 1983. The duties of inspectors and their powers and functions as promulgated are based upon those duties and functions for the Inspectorate published by the coalition Government when that Inspectorate operated within the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations prior to the establishment of the Industrial Relations Bureau. The provisions of the Act and the duties of inspectors have been fully endorsed by the ACTU and employers through the National Labour Consultative Council. (2) Officers of the ACOA did express their concern about the independence of the Inspectorate but their attention has been drawn to the provisions of the Act and the Australian Labor Party 1982 Platform Constitution and Rules. (3) My second reading speech in relation to the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1983 covered the Government's intentions with respect to the Arbitration Inspectorate (House of Representatives, (Hansard,) 11 May 1983, pp. 397-400). Question No. 173 Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: Does the Government have any plans to ban alcohol advertising on television considering that the World Health Assembly declared that 'problems related to alcohol rank among the world's major health problems'. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal: The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is currently undertaking a review of its television program and advertising standards, including that relating to the advertising of alcohol. The Tribunal has issued a discussion paper on the subject which among other things canvasses the possibility of a total ban on alcohol advertising on television. The discussion paper has drawn a total of 214 submissions from organisations and private individuals. Many of these submissions discuss the dimensions of the health problems associated with excessive alcohol consumption. These submissions, together with evidence of other community attitudes, will be taken into account by the Tribunal in its review of the standard. Question No. 178 Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: (1) On what occasions did a Federal Minister or members of a Federal Minister's staff travel abroad between 1 January 1982 and 1 March 1983. (2) What places and organisations were visited during the travel abroad. (3) On what dates did each Minister depart from Australia and arrive and depart at each of the places visited during travel abroad, and on what date did each Minister and associated staff members return to Australia. (4) What were the names and classifications of persons associated with the Minister's travel abroad referred to in parts (1), (2) and (3). (5) What sum was spent for each individual in respect of each visit abroad for (a) travel, (b) accommodation, (c) other associated and incidental expenditure; and (d) total expenditure. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The answer is provided in the table below. The costs shown are based on accounts received in my Department as at 27 June 1983. Costs are not separately identifiable for individuals. MINISTERS' OVERSEAS VISITS 1 January 1982-1 March 1983 Cost $Itinerary Organisations Accompanying Minister/ Depart Arrive visited/purpose personal staff Spouse staff Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) 1982- 15.5 Canberra (Intern. date line) 16.5 Nadi 15.5 Honolulu 18.5 Washington 19.5 New York 19.5 Ottawa 19.5 Anchorage 23.5 Tokyo 25.5 Seoul 16.5 Nadi 15.5 Honolulu (Intern. date line) 16.5 Washington 18.5 New York 19.5 Ottawa 19.5 Anchorage 20.5 Tokyo (Intern. date line) 23.5 Seoul 26.5 Brisbane Discussions with the United States President, Canadian Prime Minister, Prime Minister of Japan and the President of the Republic of Korea Dr D. White (Consultant) Prof. C. Walsh (Ministerial Officer, Grade 6) Dr D. Rosalky (Ministerial Officer, Grade 4) Mr J. Bonner (Journalist, Grade A2) Miss A. Cleverly (Ministerial Officer, Grade 1) (a)256,940 (b)49 (c)25,014 (d)282,003 * 3,206 . . 3,206 * included in cost for Minister and spouse Miss H. McDonald (Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2) Miss V. Bond (Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1) Mrs L. Drake (Secretary/Typist) Dr J. Ray (Consultant Physician) Visit 2 N.B. Includes costs for the visit by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the South Pacific Forum. 1.8 Sydney 4.8 Kaula Lumpur 6.8 Peking 8.8 Manila 10.8 Auckland 1.8 Kuala Lumpur 4.8 Peking 6.8 Manila 8.8 Auckland 10.8 Canberra Discussions with the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Premier of China and President of the Philippines; South Pacific Forum meeting in New Zealand Dr D. White (Consultant) Prof. C. Walsh (Ministerial Officer, Grade 6) Mr K. Witney (Ministerial Officer, Grade 6) Mr E. Dean (Journalist, Grade A4) (a)201,594 (b)3,217 (c)45,567 (d)250,378 * 10,552 . . 10,552 * included in cost for Minister and spouse Mr A. Downer (Ministerial Officer, Grade 3) Miss A. Cleverly (Ministerial Officer, Grade 1) Mrs C. Sande (Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2) Miss V. Bond (Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1) Miss S. Clatworthy (Secretary/Typist) Miss M. Reis (Secretary/Typist) Dr J. Ray (Consultant Physician) Visit 3 13.10 Canberra 18.10 Suva 13.10 Suva 18.10 Canberra Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting Mr A. Griffith (Consultant) Mr R. Harvey (Ministerial Officer, Grade 6) (a)56,747 (b)92 (c)14,860 (d)71,699 * 1,322 6,313 . . 7,635 Prof. C. Walsh (Ministerial Officer, Grade 6) Mr E. Dean (Journalist, Grade A4) Mrs C. Sande (Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2) Miss K. O'Connor (Secretary/Typist) Miss R. Moore (Secretary/Typist) Miss J. Kelly (Electorate/ Secretary) Dr J. Ray (Consultant Physician) MINISTER FOR TRADE AND RESOURCES (Mr Anthony) 1982- 19.3 Darwin 23.3 Kuala Lumpur 26.3 Rangoon 27.3 Singapore 28.3 Christmas Is. 19.3 Kuala Lumpur 23.3 Rangoon 26.3 Singapore 27.3 Christmas Is. 28.3 Canberra Ministerial discussions, Malaysia; talks with the Government on trade and economic matters, Burma Mr L. Bathgate (Journalist Grade A2) Miss A. Chitakis (Acting Assistant Private Secretary) (a)473 (b)235 (c)5,151 (d)5,859 591 262 . . 853 Visit 2 19.4 Sydney 21.4 Wellington 19.4 Wellington 21.4 Sydney Ministerial discussions concerning closer economic relations between Australia and New Zealand Mr B. Virtue (Ministerial Officer Grade 5) (a)2,071 (b). . (c)91 (d)2,162 795 . . . . 795 Visit 3 2.6 Melbourne 3.6 Bangkok 4.6 Copenhagen 8.6 London 10.6 New York 12.6 Washington 13.6 New Orleans 15.6 Houston 17.6 Knoxville 18.6 Ottawa 21.6 Vancouver 21.6 San Francisco 2.6 Bangkok 4.6 Copenhagen 4.6 London 8.6 New York 10.6 Washington 12.6 New Orleans 13.6 Houston 15.6 Knoxville 17.6 Ottawa 18.6 Vancouver 21.6 San Francisco 23.6 Sydney Ministerial discussions, officially open Houston office, attend Expo '82 Mr B. Virtue (Ministerial Office Grade 5) Mrs J. Wein (Electorate Secretary) (a)20,192 (b)5,600 (c)2,457 (d)28,249 13,901 5,033 . . 18,934 Visit 4 30.8 Sydney 30.8 Singapore 1.9 Bombay 5.9 London 7.9 Colombo 7.9 Singapore 30.8 Singapore 31.8 Bombay 1.9 London 6.9 Colombo 7.9 Singapore 8.9 Sydney Ministerial discussions Mr K. Barker (Ministerial Officer Grade 3A) (a)7,281 (b)2,665 (c)416 (d)10,362 6,185 1,546 . . 7,731 Visit 5 27.10 Canberra 29.10 Wellington 27.10 Wellington 29.10 Brisbane Ministerial discussions on economic relations Mr L. Bathgate (Journalist Grade A2) Miss J. McKain (Assistant Private Secretary Grade 1) (a)20 (b)31 (c)105 (d)156 40 146 . . 186 Visit 6 20.11 Sydney 22.11 Copenhagen 27.11 Geneva 28.11 Singapore 21.11 Copenhagen 22.11 Geneva 28.11 Singapore 29.11 Sydney GATT Ministerial Meeting Miss A. Daly (Ministerial Officer Grade 2) Mr L. Bathgate (Journalist Grade A2) (a)6,305 (b)3,049 (c)2,047 (d)11,401 12,610 1,947 . . 14,557 INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE (Sir Phillip Lynch) 1982- 8.5 Melbourne 9.5 Rome 12.5 Paris 12.5 London 15.5 Singapore 9.5 Rome 9.5 Paris 12.5 London 13.5 Singapore 16.5 Sydney OECD Ministerial Council Meeting Mr J. Harris (Ministerial Officer Grade 3) Miss C. Price (Assistant Private Secretary Grade 1) (a)7,903 (b)2,644 (c)220 (d)10,767 12,674 2,604 . . 15,278 Visit 2 15.6 Melbourne 17.6 Singapore 21.6 Manila 26.6 Tokyo 29.6 Athens 29.6 Zurich 1.7 Stuttgart 1.7 Frankfurt 2.7 Paris 7.7 Singapore 15.6 Singapore 17.6 Manila 21.6 Tokyo 27.6 Athens 29.6 Zurich 29.6 Stuttgart 1.7 Frankfurt 1.7 Paris 4.7 Singapore 8.7 Melbourne Ministerial discussions, PDU and EDU Meetings Mr S. J. McGregor (Ministerial Officer Grade 4A) Miss E. Clarke (Personal Secretary Grade 2) (a)17,227 (b)10,353 (c)2,783 (d)30,363 13,868 9,588 . . 23,456 TREASURER (Mr Howard) 1982- 25.4 Sydney 27.4 Jakarta 27.4 Singapore 29.4 Manila 30.4 Singapore 25.4 Jakarta 27.4 Singapore 27.4 Manila 29.4 Singapore 1.5 Sydney Asian Development Bank Meeting, Manila; discussions in the Phillippines and Indonesia Prof. J. Hewson (Consultant) Miss B. Williams (Assistant Private Secretary Grade 2) (a)3,392 (b)956 (c)114 (d)4,462 6,687 962 . . 7,649 Visit 2 28.8 Sydney 3.9 London 9.9 Toronto/San Francisco 29.8 London 3.9 Toronto 11.9 Sydney Commonwealth Finance Ministers' Meeting, London; International Monetary Fund Meeting, Toronto Prof. J. Hewson (Consultant) Miss B. Williams (Assistant Private Secretary Grade 2) (a)10,179 (b)1,429 (c)4,679 (d)16,287 13,177 5,232 . . 18,409 DEFENCE (Mr Sinclair) 1982- 15.6 Sydney 16.6 Bahrain 17.6 Jeddah 18.6 Sinai 18.6 Bahrain 16.6 Bahrain 16.6 Jeddah 17.6 Sinai 18.6 Bahrain 19.6 Sydney Present the condolences of the Australian Government on the death of King Khaled Mr G. Hole (Journalist Grade A2) (a)15,017 (b)568 (c)1,210 (d)16,795 4,191 108 . . 4,299 Visit 2 7.7 Sydney 13.7 London 8.7 London 15.7 Sydney Discussion on a possible replacement aircraft carrier Dr G. Starr (Ministerial Officer Grade 4A) Miss C. Corbiere (Assistant Private Secretary Grade 2) (a)6,587 (b)988 (c)251 (d)7,826 13,145 242 . . 13,387 Visit 3 29.7 Sydney 31.7 Singapore 4.8 Manila 7.8 Bangkok 12.8 Kuala Lumpur 29.7 Singapore 31.7 Manila 4.8 Bangkok 7.8 Kuala Lumpur 12.8 Canberra Ministerial discussions Miss S. Hodgkinson (Ministerial Officer Grade 3) (a)8,490 (b)2,577 (c)2,555 (d)13,622 20 1,692 . . 1,712 Visit 4 1983- 23.1 Sydney 26.1 Jakarta 27.1 Jogyakarta 28.1 Denpassar 29.1 Biak 23.1 Jakarta 26.1 Jogyakarta 27.1 Denpassar 28.1 Biak 29.1 Darwin Ministerial discussions Miss R. Rutherford (Steno-Secretary Grade 1) (a)20 (b)378 (c)143 (d)541 20 64 . . 84 NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND ENERGY (Senator Carrick) 1982- 3.1 Sydney 4.1 Bahrain 6.1 Kuwait 9.1 Riyadh 11.1 Dhyahran 14.1 Rome 18.1 Bangkok 20.1 Singapore 4.1 Bahrain 5.1 Kuwait 6.1 Riyadh 9.1 Dhahran 11.1 Rome 15.1 Bangkok 18.1 Singapore 21.1 Sydney Response to official invitation for discussions with oil producers and inspection of facilities, Middle East; discussions on energy policy and energy R &D particularly areas of joint research and development, Rome, Bangkok and Singapore Mr G. Cadogan- Cowper (Ministerial Officer Grade 4A) Miss H. Hughan (Personal Secretary Grade 2) (a)12,610 (b)2,899 (c)982 (d)16,491 11,595 1,859 . . 13,454 Visit 2 20.5 Sydney 21.5 London 25.5 Paris 27.5 Vienna 1.6 London 21.5 London 21.5 Paris 25.5 Vienna 27.5 London 3.6 Sydney Annual ministerial meeting of the International Energy Agency governing board, Pais; discussions on energy matters, United Kingdom and Vienna Mr G. Cadogan- Cowper (Ministerial Officer Grade 4A) Miss H. Hughan (Personal Secretary Grade 2) (a)18,993 (b)4,604 (c)900 (d)24,497 14,002 3,607 . . 17,609 FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr Street) 1982- 11.1 Melbourne 12.1 Singapore 12.1 Singapore 12.1 Melbourne Proposed visit to Malaysia following report of the death of the Foreign Minister . The visit was aborted when the report proved to be incorrect Mr J. Okely (Ministerial Officer Grade 3) (a)2,282 (b). . (c)49 (d)2,331 2,285 . . . . 2,285 Visit 2 25.3 Sydney 26.3 Athens 30.3 Tel Aviv 2.4 Cairo 3.4 Luxor 4.4 Cairo 26.3 Athens 26.3 Tel Aviv 30.3 Cairo 2.4 Luxor 3.4 Cairo 5.4 Sydney Related to Australia's participation in Sinai peace keeping force Mr R. Gordon (Ministerial Officer Grade 4A) Miss L. Sciberras (Steno-Secretary Grade 1) (a)186,437 (b)1,432 (c)4,832 (d)192,701 540 332 . . 872 Visit 3 15.5 Canberra 18.5 Washington 22.5 New York 25.5 London 27.5 Singapore 16.5 Washington 18.5 New York 22.5 London 26.5 Singapore 28.5 Melbourne Accompanied the Prime Minister Mr R. Gordon (Ministerial Officer Grade 4A) Miss L. Sciberras (Steno-Secretary Grade 1) (a)9,672 (b)6,136 (c)384 (d)16,192 7,492 5,997 . . 13,489 Visit 4 15.6 Melbourne 19.6 Singapore 15.6 Singapore 19.6 Melbourne ASEAN-plus Foreign Ministers' Meeting Mr J. Okely (Ministerial Officer Grade 3) Miss S. Stone (Assistant Private Secretary Grade 2) (a)1,404 (b)974 (c)168 (d)2,546 4,145 1,380 . . 5,525 Visit 5 22.6 Sydney 23.6 San Francisco 25.6 New York 27.6 Los Angeles 22.6 San Francisco 23.6 New York 25.6 Los Angeles 27.6 Melbourne United Nations Special Session on Disarmament Mr J. Okely (Ministerial Officer Grade 3) (a)5,958 (b)1,565 (c)85 (d)7,608 4,889 539 . . 5,428 Visit 6 7.8 Brisbane 11.8 Auckland 7.8 Auckland 11.8 Sydney South Pacific Forum Mrs S. Kellock (Ministerial Officer Grade 2) Mrs N. Ward (Electorate Secretary) Included in costs shown for the visit by the Prime Minister to the South Pacific Forum Visit 7 25.9 Sydney 7.10 New York 8.10 Honolulu 11.10 Apia 13.10 Nadi 18.10 Suva 25.9 New York 7.10 Honolulu 8.10 Apia 12.10 Nadi 13.10 Suva 18.10 Sydney UNGA, New York; discussions, western Samoa; CHOGRM, Fiji Mr R. Gordon (Ministerial Officer Grade 4A) Miss S. Stone (Assistant Private Secretary Grade 2) (a)12,715 (b)9,436 (c)1,490 (d)23,641 8,705 8,393 . . 17,098 Visit 8 1983- 8.1 Melbourne 8.1 Los Angeles 13.1 Washington 15.1 San Francisco 8.1 Los Angeles 8.1 Washington 13.1 San Francisco 17.1 Melbourne Discussions with United States Secretary of State Mr A. T. Griffith (Consultant) Mr R. Gordon (Ministerial Officer Grade 4A) (a)13,641 (b)5,154 (c)132 (d)18,927 11,317 5,191 . . 16,508 PRIMARY INDUSTRY (Mr Nixon) 1982- 4.6 Sydney 9.6 Jakarta 10.6 Singapore 11.6 Los Angeles 15.6 Caracas 17.6 Rio De Janeiro 18.6 Iguassu 20.6 Rio De Janeiro 29.6 La Paz 30.6 Los Angeles 3.7 Papeete 4.6 Jakarta 9.6 Singapore 10.6 Los Angeles 11.6 Caracas 17.6 Rio De Janeiro 17.6 Iguassu 18.6 Rio De Janeiro 20.6 Mexico City 29.6 Los Angeles 1.7 Papeete 3.7 Sydney FAO Regional Conference, Bi-lateral trade discussions, world food meeting, agricultural discussions with Mexican officials Miss J. McDonald (Assistant Private Secretary Grade 2) (a)21,809 (b)3,722 (c)7,563 (d)33,094 9,052 2,625 . . 11,677 Visit 2 23.7 Sydney 26.7 Auckland 23.7 Wellington 26.7 Canberra Australian Agricultural Council Meetings Mr P. Davey (Ministerial Officer, Grade 4A) Mrs R. Ryan (Ministerial Officer, Grade 1) (a)721 (b). . (c)97 (d)818 872 30 . . 902 Visit 3 18.11 Sydney 20.11 Bahrain 21.11 Qatar 22.11 Abu Dhabi 23.11 Riyadh 25.11 Kuwait 28.11 London 29.11 Brussels 3.12 Paris 6.12 Malaga 7.12 Washington 8.12 Washington 10.12 Phoenix 12.12 Honolulu 19.11 Bahrain 21.11 Qatar 21.11 Abu Dhabi 22.11 Riyadh 23.11 Kuwait 25.11 London 28.11 Brussels 29.11 Paris 3.12 Malaga 6.12 Madrid/ Washington 7.12 Greensboro/ Washington 10.12 Phoenix 10.12 San Francisco/ Honolulu 13.12 Sydney Agricultural discussions (particularly meat); Middle East; OECD Agriculture Committee; Agricultural discussions with United States Ministers and officials Mr P. Dave (Ministerial Officer, Grade 4A) Mrs R. Ryan (Ministerial Officer, Grade 1) (a)23,195 (b)9,987 (c)1,325 (d)34,507 13,959 8,647 . . 22,242 FINANCE (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) 1982- 26.3 Melbourne 28.3 Los Angeles 31.3 Washington 31.3 Toronta 4.4 Ottawa 4.4 Toronto 4.4 Los Angeles 26.3 Los Angelas 28.3 Washington 31.3 Toronto 31.3 Ottawa 4.4 Toronto 4.4 Los Angeles 6.4 Sydney Ministerial discussions Mr C. Kemp (Ministerial Officer, Grade 4A) (a)13,226 (b)3,057 (c)474 (d)16,757 5,066 1,460 . . 6,526 ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Senator Durack) 1982- 10.2 Sydney 10.2 Christchurch 16.2 Wellington 10.2 Christchurch 10.2 Wellington 16.2 Melbourne Attend Standing Committee of Attorneys-General Miss E. Bearse (Assistant Private Secretary Grade 2) (a)906 (b)169 (c)200 (d)1,275 983 159 . . 1,142 Visit 2 25.6 Sydney 27.6 San Francisco 30.6 Washington 1.7 New York 2.7 Philadelphia 4.7 New York 7.7 London 25.6 San Francisco 27.6 Washington 30.6 New York 1.7 Philadelphia 2.7 New York 4.7 London 8.7 Perth Sign Bilateral Agreement relating to United States Antitrust Enforcement and discussions with United States authorities on developments in relation to Crimes Commissions to improving law enforcement Mr P. Keogh (Ministerial Officer, Grade 4A) (a)9,060 (b)4,353 (c)91 (d)13,504 6,236 2,022 . . 8,258 SOCIAL SECURITY ( Senator Chaney) 1982- 11.2 Sydney 12.2 Wellington 14.2 Rotorua 14.2 Auckland 11.2 Wellington 12.2 Rotorua 14.2 Auckland 14.2 Sydney Social Welfare Ministers' Conference Mrs D. Mansfield (Electorate Secretary) (a)1,644 (b). . (c)174 (d)1,818 804 . . . . 804 Visit 2 29.2 Sydney 31.3 San Francisco 1.4 Los Angeles 4.4 New York 4.4 San Francisco 8.4 Melbourne 29.3 San Francisco 31.3 Los Angeles 1.4 New York 4.4 San Francisco 6.4 Sydney 9.4 Rome Visits to rehabilitation facilities; Ministerial discussions; Conference on Regional Development Mr D. Band (Ministerial Officer, Grade 3) Mrs D. Mansfield (Electorate Secretary) (a)23,792 (b)6,787 (c)946 (d)31,525 12,008 5,362 . . 17,370 9.4 Rome 12.4 Venice 12.4 Rome 10.4 London 22.4 Stockholm 24.4 London 9.4 Venice 12.4 Rome 12.4 London 18.4 Stockholm 22.4 London 24.4 Perth AVIATION (Mr Fife) 1982- 24.7 Sydney 25.7 Singapore 29.7 London 29.7 Paris 30.7 Toulouse 1.8 Paris 4.8 Washington 4.8 Miami 6.8 Seattle 8.8 Honolulu 24.7 Singapore 26.7 London 29.7 Paris 29.7 Toulouse 30.7 Paris 1.8 Washington 4.8 Miami 4.8 Seattle 6.8 Honolulu 9.8 Sydney Ministerial discussions Mr M. Hazell (Ministerial Officer Grade 4A) (a)15,852 (b)5,563 (c)262 (d)21,677 6,259 2,656 . . 8,915 Visit 2 1.12 Sydney 5.12 Port Moresby 1.12 Port Moresby 5.12 Sydney Represent Australia at Ceremony to mark the end of the Civil Aviation Assistant Unit Mr M. Hazell (Ministerial Officer, Grade 4A) (a)4,786 (b)1,902 (c)2,001 (d)8,689 1,126 98 . . 1,224 Visit 3 1983- 14.1 Sydney 20.1 Tokyo 22.1 Osaka 22.1 Tokyo 15.1 Tokyo 20.1 Osaka 22.1 Tokyo 23.1 Sydney Asian and Pacific Labor Ministers' Meeting Miss L. M. Lowes (Personal Secretary, Grade 2) (a)3,471 (b)739 (c)615 (d)5,825 3,226 1,024 . . 4,250 TRANSPORT (Mr Hunt) 1982- 19.4 Sydney 20.4 Auckland 21.4 Niue 24.4 Rarotonga 25.4 Auckland 19.4 Auckland 20.4 Niue 20.4 Rarotonga 25.4 Auckland 25.4 Sydney Meeting of the South Pacific Regional Civil Aviation and Shipping Council Mr C. North (Ministerial Officer, Grade 3) (a)1,340 (b)635 (c)417 (d)2,392 1,526 462 . . 1,988 TRANSPORT AND CONSTRUCTION (Mr Hunt) 1982- 20.5 Sydney 24.5 London 25.5 Dublin 29.5 London 31.5 Goteborg 1.6 Oslo 8.6 Geneva 10.6 Hong Kong 21.5 London 24.5 Dublin 25.5 London 29.5 Goteborg 31.5 Oslo 1.6 Geneva 9.6 Hong Kong 11.6 Sydney Attend International Labour Conference Meeting, Geneva (on behalf of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations); discussions on transport matters, United Kingdom Miss M. Girle (Personal Secretary Grade 2) (a)18,821 (b)7,844 (c)4,715 (d)31,380 7,187 2,378 . . 9,565 HEALTH (Mr MacKellar) 1982- 9.1 Sydney 10.1 Bahrain 12.1 Riyadh 15.1 Jeddah 15.1 Bahrain 16.1 Abu Dhabi 18.1 Dubai 22.1 Muscat 27.1 London 28.1 Cologne 30.1 Singapore 10.1 Bahrain 10.1 Riyadh 12.1 Jeddah 15.1 Bahrain 15.1 Abu Dhabi 16.1 Dubai 18.1 Muscat 22.1 London 27.1 Cologne 29.1 Singapore 31.1 Sydney Lead Parliamentary Delegation to the Middle East Mr D. Cumming (Ministerial Officer Grade 2) (a)14,503 (b)1,096 (c)36 (d)15,635 6,432 831 . . 7,263 DEFENCE SUPPORT (Mr Viner) 1982- 23.10 Canberra 23.10 Noumea 29.10 Pago Pago 31.10 Noumea 31.10 Sydney 3.11 Singapore 9.11 Jakarta 9.11 Singapore 12.11 Manila 17.11 Bangkok 23.10 Noumea 23.10 Pago Pago 30.10 Noumea 31.10 Sydney 31.10 Singapore 3.11 Jakarta 9.11 Singapore 9.11 Manila 12.11 Bangkok 17.11 Perth 22nd South Pacific Conference, Western Samoa Mr R. Hogan (Ministerial Officer Grade 4) (a)7,940 (b)9,603 (c)2,899 (d)20,442 3,557 3,570 . . 7,127 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES (Mr Newman) 1982- 20.3 Melbourne 22.3 Singapore 27.3 Bangkok 31.3 Hong Kong 4.4 Los Angeles 5.4 San Francisco 20.3 Singapore 22.3 Bangkok 27.3 Hong Kong 31.3 Los Angeles 4.4 San Francisco 7.4 Sydney Attend the Economic and Social Commission for Asia, Pacific Conference, Bangkok; discussions in Thailand, Hong Kong and USA. Miss M. McFadden (Personal Secretary Grade 2) (a)16,631 (b)3,812 (c)1,230 (d)21,673 5,928 2,344 . . 8,272 EMPLOYMENT AND YOUTH AFFAIRS (Mr Brown) 1982-26.2 Melbourne 27.2 Hong Kong 2.3 Geneva 6.3 Paris 7.3 Vienna 7.3 Frankfurt 8.3 Nuremburg 9.3 Cologne 11.3 Frankfurt 11.3 Dusseldorf 13.3 West Berlin 18.3 London 20.3 Singapore 21.3 Jakarta 21.3 Singapore 26.2 Hong Kong 28.2 Geneva 2.3 Paris 6.3 Vienna 7.3 Frankfurt 7.3 Nuremburg 8.3 Cologne 9.3 Frankfurt 11.3 Dusseldorf 11.3 West Berlin 13.3 London 19.3 Singapore 20.3 Jakarta 21.3 Singapore 22.3 Sydney Meeting of the Manpower and Social Affairs Committee of the OECD, Paris; Ministerial talks West Germany, UK and Indonesia. Mr G. Gourlay (Ministerial Officer Grade 4) (a)10,170 (b)1,867 (c)2,231 (d)14,268 7,576 2,472 . . 10,048 COMMUNICATIONS (Mr Brown) 1982- 31.5 Sydney 1.6 Nadi 2.6 Apia 4.6 Suva 5.6 Auckland 31.5 Nadi 31.5 Apia (Intern. date line) 3.6 Suva 4.6 Auckland 5.6 Sydney Represent Australia at the celebrations marking Western Samoa's 20th anniversary of independence. Mr P. Miller (Ministerial Officer Grade 3) (a)1,545 (b)447 (c)479 (d)2,471 1,537 418 . . 1,955 CAPITAL TERRITORY (Mr Hodgman) 1982- 10.2 Hobart 13.2 Christchurch 10.2 Christchurch 13.2 Hobart Social Welfare Conference Mr R. Rayner (Ministerial Officer Grade 3) (a)1,053 (b)264 (c)49 (d)1,366 908 237 . . 1,145 Visit 2 20.6 Melbourne 23.6 Singapore 25.6 San Francisco 26.6 Los Angeles 28.6 Washington 30.6 Ottawa 30.6 Montreal 6.7 London 6.7 Paris 7.7 Venice 10.7 Rome 13.7 Hong Kong 20.6 Singapore 23.6 San Francisco 25.6 Los Angeles 26.6 Washington 28.6 Ottowa 30.6 Montreal 1.7 London 6.7 Paris 7.7 Venice 7.7 Rome 11.7 Hong Kong 14.7 Sydney Ministerial discussions Mr J. Chilcott (Ministerial Officer Grade 4) (a)13,922 (b)7,919 (c)109 (d)21,950 7,344 3,119 . . 10,463 HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION (Mr McVeigh) 1982- 24.2 Brisbane 25.2 Singapore 27.2 Bahrain 2.3 Riyadh 2.3 Amman 6.3 Baghdad 7.3 Amman 8.3 Bahrain 24.2 Singapore 26.2 Bahrain 27.2 Riyadh 2.3 Amman 2.3 Baghdad 7.3 Amman 8.3 Bahrain 9.3 Sydney Lead Australian delegation at the inaugural meeting of the Australia-Iraq Joint Commission, Iraq; attend opening of the Australian trade display in Saudi Arabia Mr D. Maxwell Wright (Ministerial Officer Grade 3) (a)10,110 (b)2,607 (c)2,877 (d)15,594 4,197 1,858 . . 6,055 HOME AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENT (Mr McVeigh) 1982-17.11 Sydney 19.11 Port Moresby 17.11 Port Moresby 19.11 Brisbane Attend meeting of Papua/New Guinea-Australia Business Co-operation Committee, deliver address and represent Australian Government (in capacity as Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Resources) Miss J. Farquhar (Steno-secretary Grade 1) (a)2,173 (b)1,046 (c)97 (d)3,316 1,025 72 . . 1,097 ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS (Mr Wilson) 1982- 22.7 Sydney 25.7 London 6.8 Vienna 7.8 London 23.7 London 25.7 Vienna 6.8 London 9.8 Sydney United Nations World Assembly on Aging (in capacity as Minister Assisting the Minister for Social Security) Mr M. Weeks (Ministerial Officer Grade 2) (a)16,534 (b)6,403 (c)239 (d)23,176 6,372 2,156 . . 8,528 (a) Travel (includes vehicle hire, etc.) (b) Accommodation and meals (c) Other associated and incidental expenditure (d) Total expenditure Question No. 187 Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , upon notice, on 24 May 1983: (1) How many Australia Post public letterboxes were located in the Adelaide metropolitan area in: (a) 1981-82, (b) 1978-79, (c) 1975-76 and (d) 1972-73. (2) How many Australia Post public letterboxes were available in the total inner metropolitan area (covering the Local Government areas of Adelaide, Brighton, Burnside, Campbelltown, Enfield, Glenelg, Henley and Grange, Hindmarsh , Kensington and Norwood, Marion, Mitcham, Payneham, Port Adelaide, Prospect, St . Peters, Thebarton, Unley, Walkerville, West Torrens and Woodville) for the years: (a) 1981-82, (b) 1978-79, (c) 1975-76 and (d) 1972-73. (3) How is the location of letterboxes determined. (4) What are the guidelines determining the distance apart letterboxes are to be located. (5) Has the distance apart that letterboxes have to be located been increased in the past ten years; if so, by how much has the distance been increased. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question based on advice from the Australian Postal Commission: (1) In addition to built-in posting facilities provided at post offices and the Central Mail Exchange, the number of street posting boxes in use at 30 June in each of the financial years specified is as follows: (a) 1981-82-1283 (b) 1978-79-1316 (c) 1975-76-1275 (d) 1972-73-1251 (2) Australia Post does not keep statistics of posting facilities by inner metropolitan area. It estimates that in addition to built-in facilities provided , the number of street posting boxes in use in the inner metropolitan area (as covered by the Local Government areas listed in the question) at 30 June in each of the financial years specified is as follows: (a) 1981-82-890 (b) 1978-79-920 (c) 1975-76-900 (d) 1972-73-Estimate not available. (3) and (4)- The basic criteria for assessing the need for a street posting box in a particular location are convenience to the public, expected level of usage and the clearance costs. The provision of a street posting box may be considered where all of the following criteria are met: postings of at least 30 articles a day could be expected from the outset; no alternative posting facility is available within 800 metres road distance from the proposed site; the facility can be sited on, or in close proximity to, existing Australia Post transport routes in order to minimise clearance costs. Preferred sites would include shopping centres, well-used transport points, hospitals, universities and similar institutions. Provision of a street posting box may also be considered, even if some of the specific criteria are not met where it: will cater for the needs of the aged or disabled (e.g. located near a hospital or elderly peoples' home); is expected to receive extremely heavy use (e.g. located in the central business district areas of capital cities). (5) No. Question No. 188 Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , upon notice, on 24 May 1983: (1) Are television and radio election commercials on behalf of political parties and candidates permitted in Canada and the United Kingdon during election campaigns; if not, what system operates to enable political parties and candidates to reach the electorates through the electronic media. (2) Is broadcast time on commercial radio and television stations in Canada and the United Kingdom allocated to political parties and candidates on a strict formula; if so, what are the formulas and do they provide equal time for the major parties. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question based on advice from the Australian Broadcasting Tirbunal: (1) In Canada, advertisements for political parties and candidates are permitted on radio and television during election campaigns. In the United Kingdom, advertisements on behalf of a political body are not permitted on radio or television. During a general election, in that country, however, broadcasting time is made available to the political parties for election broadcasts. (2) In regard to the formula for allocation of time in these countries the following practices apply: In Canada political programs, advertisements or announcements are broadcast by stations in accordance with the directions of the Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission. These directions refer to the proportion of time devoted to these items and to the assignment of this time to political parties and candidates. In the United Kingdom a committee, comprising representatives of political parties and the two broadcasting authorities (the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Broadcasting Authority), agree annually on the detailed arrangements for party political broadcasts, the number of broadcasts, allocated to each party being determined by a formula based on the number of votes cast for the party at the previous general election. Other parties not included in these arrangements, may qualify for a broadcast if they have 50 or more candidates. Question No. 210 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) Are difficulties being faced by Darwin's only commercial television station NTD-8. (2) Has Telecom Australia told the station that it cannot award a special rate for the use of the microwave bearer because it is a policy decision and therefore can only be made by the Minister for Communications. (3) Has the Minister for Communications told the station that he cannot make such a decision to grant a special rate because Telecom is an independent statutory authority. (4) Has the station suggested a formula for restricting the granting of a special rate for stations in isolated areas with small markets-so as to avoid creating precedents. (5) Did the rate offered by Telecom to Channel 8 increase as a result of an advertisement placed by the station in the Australian Financial Review seeking advertising for the station. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) It is assumed that the honourable senator is referring to the negotiations which have been taking place between NTD-8 and Telecom for the use of relay facilities from Mt. Isa to Darwin. It might be noted that, at NTD-8's request, a news relay service was re-established on 7 June 1983 under the same terms and conditions as Telecom had previously offered. (2) Telecom's position is, and always has been since the commencement of negotiations, that NTD-8's relay requirement must be satisfied within the parameters of its standard relay pricing options. As part of these negotiations, Telecom has not given any indication that the matter is one for decision by the Minister. (3) The Minister indicated to the station's manager that this was a commercial matter for the station and Telecom to resolve. (4) Yes; however, Telecom's position is as outlined in (2) above. (5) No. Information passed on to Telecom by NTD-8 prior to the placement of the advertisement in the press led Telecom to the conclusion that there was no justification for special consideration in Telecom's policy approach for television relay services. Question No. 212 Senator Childs asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) Is it the case that of the two types of telegraph office (7 days a week Chief Telegraph Office (CTO) and weekday only Provincial Telegraph Office (PTO)) , Canberra has only a provincial telegraph office. (2) Is the after-hours staffing of Canberra PTO different to what it would be if it were a CTO. (3) Does Canberra PTO handle more traffic than Hobart CTO. (4) Why has Telecom Australia not given Canberra Telegraph Office the status of a Chief Telegraph Office. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) Yes. However, the use of the titles 'Chief Telegraph Office' (CTO) and ' Provincial Telegraph Office' (PTO) are internal Telecom descriptions which have been in use for many years and do not reflect the hours of service, size of the office or traffic handled. For example, the Canberra and Darwin PTO's provide the same 24-hour, 7 days a week service as the capital citys CTO's. (2) No. (3) Yes. (4) For Telecom administrative purposes, Canberra is part of the New South Wales organisation and, traditionally, the telegraph office in each State capital city has been regarded as the CTO. Question No. 230 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 1 June 1983: (1) Do the following Government authorities: (a) AUSSAT Pty Ltd; and (b) the Australian Broadcasting Commission, extend below-market interest loans to members of their executive, boards or staff. (2) Have any loans at below-market rate been extended to the Western Australian businessman, Mr Denis Byrne Horgan. (3) Is Mr Horgan associated with the authorities mentioned. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following to the honourable senator's questions based on information provided respectively by AUSSAT and the ABC: (1) (a) No. (b) No. (2) No. (3) No. Senator Gareth Evans —On 17 May 1983 (Hansard, page 505), Senator Mason asked me as the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, without notice, a question in relation to improper behaviour at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, and sought an undertaking from the Government that it keep a close eye on the matter. The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: As the honourable senator is aware, I made a statement on this matter in the House of Representatives on 11 May. In that statement, I noted that while a number of steps had been taken to improve behaviour, I had also asked for a further report on what future action needed to be taken. I have now received this report, and I am satisfied that the Chief of the General Staff and the Commandant of the Royal Military College agree that the kind of improper behaviour that has occurred is quite unacceptable and must be stopped. To this end, new procedures have been and are being introduced to ensure that effect is given to four fundamental principles: (a) Harassment is not a necessary adjunct to Army training (b) Harassment and unacceptable behaviour cannot survive in a properly regulated military environment (c) Physical and mental violence have no place in the training of tough professional Army officers (d) It is not sufficient to issue orders on these or any other matters. It is always up to the officer issuing an order to see it is continually obeyed, both in spirit and the letter. I have asked the Chief of the General Staff to report to me periodically on the effectiveness of the new arrangements. Senator Grimes —On May 4 1983 (Hansard, page 154) Senator Zakharov asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning electronic monitoring devices for elderly and handicapped people. I undertook to seek further details from the Minister. The Minister for Health has provided the following additional information: The Department of Health is currently examining the feasibility of the use of electronic monitoring devices for elderly and handicapped people living alone, and whether such devices might enable a partial reduction of the need for continuous care of aged or handicapped relatives at home. This has particular relevance to the Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefit. This does of course, depend on the level of care required for, and the particular needs of, particular patients. These devices are expensive both to install and operate continuously; their efficacy in reducing the need for nursing home admission has not yet been demonstrated. It is likely that the need to summon help in an emergency is only one of a large number of factors which lead to people being admitted to residential care. In the development of a comprehensive policy of care for the frail aged, including expanded domiciliary care, the Government will be considering a range of community based alternatives to institutional care, from the perspective of both patient needs and cost-effectiveness. Electronic monitoring devices and other applications of modern technology will be examined in this context. Senator Walsh —On 2 June 1983 (Hansard, page 1165) Senator Jack Evans asked me a question, without notice, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry in the Senate. His question concerned the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia allegedly preparing to support, co-ordinate or fund a public campaign against a group called Animal Liberation. The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Minister for Primary Industry is aware that the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia has published a booklet containing statements designed to counter comments on the egg industry by some animal welfare groups. CEMAA is a non-statutory body composed entirely of representatives of all State egg marketing authorities, and its operations are funded by the State Egg Boards . CEMAA makes recommendations to the Minister for Primary Industry on a wide range of egg industry matters, including on the operation of the Poultry Industry Trust Fund, which is a co-operative arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States. The source of PITF funds is a hen levy paid by egg producers. It is considered that PITF moneys could not be used legally for a CEMAA publicity campaign designed to counter comments by animal welfare groups. No moneys have been paid to CEMAA by the Commonwealth from the PITF, or any other source, for this purpose. Senator Grimes —On 25 May 1983 (Hansard, page 755) Senator Coates asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning a possible ban on the advertising of tobacco products in areas under direct Commonwealth control, such as at airports and in the Australian Capital Territory The Minister for Health has provided the following information: I share the honourable senator's concern for the harmful effects of tobacco consumption on health, as do my fellow Health Ministers. At the April 1983 Australian Health Ministers' Conference, Ministers agreed to a series of anti- smoking measures aimed at reducing tobacco consumption, based on a paper ' Recommendations for a National Policy on Smoking' prepared by the Tobacco Products Subcommittee of the Standing Committee of the Health Ministers' Conference. The matter of tobacco advertising has been closely examined by that sub-committee since it was established in March 1981. Following the April conference, I wrote to the Minister for Aviation seeking to have tobacco advertising banned at airports. He has advised that a condition of all new airport concessions will be that there be no new sub-contracts for advertisements for tobacco products. Therefore, this form of advertising at airports will be phased out as existing sub-contracts expire (1986). In addition, my Department has sought information from other relevant departments concerning restrictions on tobacco advertising in areas under Commonwealth control, including within the Australian Capital Territory. I can inform the honourable senator that the Capital Territory Health Commission, in co-operation with its advisory body, the Health Services Council, is currently seeking the views of the Australian Capital Territory community on whether there is a need for more anti-smoking legislation. Information received is to be considered in relation to the development of the Australian Capital Territory Tobacco Ordinance. Control of the advertising of tobacco products is one of the main issues to be considered.