Tuesday, 13 September 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Marriage To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned citizens of Australia Concerned about the high and increasing rate of divorce and family breakdown, Convinced that the Family Law Act has weakened marriage by making divorce a trivial matter, the present Act paying scant regard to its own definition of marriage as a life-long union; and Believing that the legal bond of marriage should be strengthened Humbly petition for the Family Law Act and the Marriage Act to be amended in order to (1) Reject any moves towards divorce by post (2) Restore the former prohibition of marriages between close relatives by blood or by marriage (3) Protect the rights and welfare of aggrieved partners of a marriage who are threatened with being divorced against their will (4) Ensure that in divorce judgments paramount attention be given to whatever course will best serve the welfare of dependent children of the marriage (5) Encourage counselling towards reconciliation (6) Restore objective tests of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in terms of: i. intolerable behaviour; ii. desertion for two years; iii. separation for three years. We pray that you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Hill (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable the President and 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 Childs (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the 1983 Budget imposition of the excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine places at risk the future of the fortified wine industry in Australia. That the requirement to pay the excise within 7 days of the fortification occurring is inequitable. That the excise will be reflected in increased costs to the consumers of fortified wines of up to 100 per cent and consumer choice will be restricted. That this will cause reduced fortified wine sales which will result in reduced intake of grapes from grapegrowers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider their previous decision and either withdraw this tax or modify its method of application and collection. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bolkus (from 167 citizens), Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 39 citizens) and Maguire (from 115 citizens). Petitions received. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing and Sessional Orders, and unless otherwise ordered, on Thursday, 15 September 1983, the Senate shall proceed with questions after the giving of notices. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the speech which the Prime Minister gave to the Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress yesterday and in which he stressed the need for wage restraint within the bounds of the wages accord and opposed sectional wage rises. Does not the Budget indicate and does not Mr Willis confirm that even if the unions accept Mr Hawke's plea-of course, settlements in the building, food processing and oil industries make that prospect unlikely-and even if the accord holds, unemployment will continue to rise during the rest of this financial year and indeed in calendar year 1984? Does he agree that if the unions do not stick to the accord there will be an even higher rise in the amount of unemployment in Australia? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the last part of the question is, in my view, yes. I am not sure that I can give an unqualified answer to the second last part of the question-I think there were two parts-that is, whether it is explicit in the Budget statements that unemployment will continue to rise. The scenarios which were posited both at the National Economic Summit Conference and in the Budget are subject to a number of variables, including any government action positively to stimulate employment in particular areas. Having made those qualifications, I think it is at least implicit in those statements that very high levels of unemployment will continue. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. What factors were involved in the Government's decision not to compensate Victoria for the revenue lost to the State because of the decision of the High Court of Australia on the pipeline duty? Secondly, as consumers will be affected by this in the forthcoming Cain Budget, can they expect a reduction in prices now that the duty has been ruled illegal? Senator BUTTON —I was not involved in the discussions between the Treasurer, I think the Prime Minister, and the Victorian Government in relation to this matter. But I understand the importance of the question for the State of Victoria and I will seek to obtain an early answer from the Treasurer. Senator MARTIN —My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. Is it the Government's intention to abolish or downgrade the National Women's Advisory Council? Senator RYAN —It has been the intention of the Government since our days in opposition to replace the Advisory Council with a more broadly based consultative mechanism. We are now consulting with national women's organisations that will be meeting with the Office of the Status of Women this month and with other bodies, including the National Women's Advisory Council, to see how we can develop a mechanism whereby women, whatever their circumstances and whatever part of Australia they live in, have an opportunity to put their views to government. In implementing this decision of developing a more broadly based consultative mechanism, the Government acknowledges the excellent work which has been done by the Council or various councils over the years, particularly in some of the research projects they have funded. It also acknowledges the individual efforts of women who have been members of that Council. However, it has been very clear to us and, I believe, to most other people who have taken an interest in these matters that a council of 12 or 14 women is not extensive enough to provide to government the diversity of views which exist among Australian women today. We are open to suggestions as to how to develop and implement a new broadly based consultative mechanism. That invitation can be extended to the Opposition if it has any constructive suggestions it would like to make. Senator BOLKUS —Mr President, my question is directed to you. I refer you to the statement made by Senator Chipp on 31 May this year, and reported in the Press the next day, that several people had attempted to bribe Australian Democrat senators to influence their votes on the unpaid company tax legislation which was then before the Senate. Senator Chipp made it clear at the time that he had rejected outright these attempted bribes and that they had not influenced either his vote or the votes of other Australian Democrat senators on the legislation in question. I ask you, Mr President, whether you will investigate these unsuccessful attempts to bribe senators in order to determine whether they might constitute a breach of privilege. The PRESIDENT —It is not my responsibility-it is that of the Senate-to determine whether any matter of the nature referred to in the honourable senator's question should be investigated. Should the honourable senator wish to raise it as a matter of privilege, procedures are laid down within the Standing Orders of the Senate for him, or indeed for any other honourable senator, to do so. But in saying that, I point out-I think my recollection is correct-that at the time of those newspaper reports Senator Chipp said that he did not know the indentity of the people who might have been involved. I would assume, therefore, that that sort of statement by Senator Chipp would be taken into account by the Senate in determining whether any breach of privilege did or did not take place. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer a question concerning the current welcome decline in interest rates. While one can commend this development, is not one of the reasons for it that savings banks are presently awash with money, their deposits having increased by over 20 per cent in the past 12 months? As this clearly represents a lack of confidence on the part of people in the future, inducing a desire to save money rather than spend it, will the Minister agree that it should be government and opposition policy to create a feeling of confidence in the community so that a consumer-led recovery might become feasible? To encourage such an upward movement in consumer spending, will the Government contemplate some mildly expansionary policies such as the abolition of payroll tax and the provision of real tax cuts for low and middle income earners? Senator WALSH —Certainly the Government welcomes the significant decline in interest rates which has been announced over the last week or so. I think it is fair to acknowledge simultaneously that the factor to which Senator Chipp drew attention-that is, savings banks and some other institutions being awash with money-is one of the reasons for that decline. It is, of course, also highly desirable that confidence be maintained at the highest level which can be reasonably expected. It would be helpful if the Opposition were to put the welfare of the Australian people and the health of the economy ahead of politicking. Helpful though that would be, experience suggests that it is not likely to occur. As to the final part of Senator Chipp's question, the factor of confidence is also relevant. He suggested the abolition of payroll tax as one possibility. I think total payroll tax collections are now in excess of $2 billion. It is an extremely large item. Payroll tax, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory, of course, is imposed by the States. While various States have expressed the desire to abolish payroll tax they have usually added to that expression of desire the qualification 'provided the Commonwealth provides commensurate revenue'. Ultimately, that would require a $2 billion increase in Commonwealth expenditure via grants to the States. That is a very significant change to Commonwealth Government finances. Real tax cuts for low and middle income earners also would have some stimulatory effects; they would also, of course, have effects on government revenue. Both of the propositions which Senator Chipp has suggested would have the effect of increasing the deficit, perhaps by a very large amount. Senator Chipp —So what? Senator WALSH —I was about to come to the question of the deficit and to deal with the point of confidence. Statistical tables presented by institutions like the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research and also by some economic journalists have analysed the components of demand and the likely effect of that on growth rates and, therefore, employment in the current financial year. They have argued that there is a case for a larger Budget deficit. These matters are, of course, in the end matters of judgment. Although the evidence to support the belief that there is a direct linkage between the size of the deficit and interest rates, inflationary expectations and business confidence might be indecisive, in the judgment of the Government there is a widely held perception, in the business community in particular, that that is so and that business confidence and consumer confidence are of equal importance. The judgment made by the Government between the conflicting arguments put forward by the Melbourne Institute, for example, and the business community on the potentially damaging effect on business confidence of a larger deficit was that the deficit originally suggested at the April National Economic Summit Conference of $8.5 billion was the appropriate one to choose. Senator COLSTON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I ask: How often is it necessary for the Department of Health form NH5 to be submitted to the Commonwealth Department of Health in relation to a person whose admission to a nursing home has been approved? Has any investigation been made to see whether the period between reports may be extended? If so, what has been the result of those investigations? Finally, would it be possible to revise form NH5 to make it necessary to provide information only if the patient's condition or circumstances have changed? Senator GRIMES —Senator Colston has asked about the form NH5, which is the form required by the Department of Health to be completed prior to someone being admitted to a nursing home. The form contains certification from the patient's doctor outlining the reasons why such a person requires nursing home accommodation. In some cases of emergency, interim admission can be approved but the form certainly has to be filled out later. Currently, this form remains in effect for 56 days, in which time the person or his family must try to find suitable nursing home accommodation. If it is not possible within that time to find a place for the person, a new form must be submitted. While in most cases the submission of such a new form would not be necessary, I can certainly see that there would be annoyance where a family had been seeking placement, say for an elderly relative, for something like two months and then had to go through that admission procedure again. I assume that that is Senator Colston's concern. However, under the current system, where we rely on the production of certificates like this for approving nursing home admission, it is appropriate after a reasonable length of time for the Government or the Department to require a new certification that the person seeking such accommodation still requires it. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure investigated accommodation and home care for the aged and discovered that some 20 to 25 per cent of the people in nursing home accommodation in fact should not be there. The simple fact is that we will not be able to do much about improving that situation unless we have some means of assessing whether people should be in a nursing home, this being the most expensive form of accommodation. So we would hope in the future to introduce a better and more reasonable form of assessment for people in this area. The Department has been running an evaluation study in recent years which has involved a nurse seeing people just prior to their admission to nursing homes. The study resulted in something like 5 per cent of applications being rejected and more suitable accommodation being found. This year the Government has allocated some $2m for the development of community based geriatric assessment centres both in Dr Blewett's Department of Health and in the Department of Veterans' Affairs, under Senator Gietzelt. We have a real commitment to providing a better system of assessment in the future and I certainly hope that that system of assessment will do away with the problem of having local doctors filling out NH5 bits of paper to give people the right, one way or another, to receive the assistance they need in nursing home accommodation. So, as the new system replaces the old system, I think we will find that the situation is more satisfactory. We will certainly find that more accommodation of this type is available for those who need it, which is the important thing, and, therefore, minor annoyances like having to fill out a new NH5 form every 56 days or so will disappear from the system. Senator MISSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I draw the Minister's attention to a report given by the Anti-Slavery Society for the Protection of Human Rights to a United Nations body in Geneva on 10 August 1983, claiming that up to 200,000 West Papuans have been killed since Indonesia invaded West Papua in 1962 and created the state of Indonesian New Guinea, or Irian Jaya, and that an estimated one million Indonesians, principally from the over-populated island of Java, are being resettled in West Papua on the traditional lands of the natives who are being forced out. In the light of this disturbing report and the concern expressed by Ministers of the Vanuatuan Government to me during my recent visit there that the Papua New Guinea Government is not sufficiently standing up to Indonesia in the protection of the indigenous Melanesian population of West Papua, I ask the Minister: Firstly, will the Government make available to the Parliament any information that it may have on the alleged involvement of Indonesian troops in the many disappearances and executions of native Melanesians; secondly, has the Australian Government raised with the Indonesian Government complaints that the indigenous inhabitants have been deprived of their traditional lands in favour of Indonesian colonists; and, thirdly, will Australia work in co-operation with other Pacific nations to defend the human rights and traditional lands of the indigenous Melanesians? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have some information on the subject to which Senator Missen referred. I am not sure that I will be in a position to answer all of his questions. But those of them that I do not answer I will follow up in due course . The Government is aware of allegations by the London-based Anti-Slavery Society concerning human rights abuses of the Melanesian population in Irian Jaya. The Government has no information from its own sources on these allegations. The Government is aware that the Indonesian Government has, for some years, of course, been relocating people from densely populated Java to its more sparsely populated outer islands and territories including Irian Jaya. The recently announced five-year plan for 1984-89 involves a total of some five million transmigrants of whom one million are to settle in Irian Jaya. The Australian Government believes that the rights of indigenous populations deserve greater international attention. Australia was instrumental in the establishment of the United Nations working group on indigenous populations in 1982 and has participated, as an active observer, in the group's first two annual sessions. The 1983 meeting took place in Geneva last month, as the honourable senator indicated. The Government considers that the working group referred to offers the best prospects for effective multilateral consideration of the complex issues involved in Irian Jaya. It goes without saying that indigenous populations in many countries have historically been subject to disposition and dispersal. The drafting of an internationally accepted set of standards to protect indigenous rights, which is the principal task of this working group, should make a major contribution to promoting indigenous welfare on a global basis. In view of the reports which the Government has seen through the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Melanesian inhabitants of Irian Jaya experiencing difficulties as a result of the cultural and legal problems created by transmigration and, perhaps, some other kind of problems as well, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has advised me that he has asked Australian diplomatic missions in Geneva, Jakarta and London to seek further information on the matters in issue. We will keep Parliament advised as appropriate. I certainly will produce any further information that I can in response to the specific matters that have been raised by Senator Missen when that further information is received. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister for Social Security aware that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Social Security have made statements promising to reverse the assets test which the Government foreshadowed in the Budget? What is the Minister's view of their opposition to the Australian Labor Party Government's assets test while refusing to commit themselves to a promise that they would not introduce an assets test of their own? Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order. The question is not related to a matter which is within the administration of this Minister. The question is aimed at the attitudes of the Opposition. The then Opposition frequently took points of order when similar questions were asked of Liberal Ministers in this place. I submit that the question is not in order. Senator Grimes —I wish to speak to the point of order. It seemed to me, as I heard Senator Zakharov's question, that she was asking what my attitude and therefore, what the Government's attitude, was to the Opposition's stated policy of opposing an assets test proposed by the Government but wanting to introduce its own. I think that is well within the purview of Question Time as similar questions have been accepted in the past and certainly in my time. Senator Messner —I wish to speak on the point of order and answer Senator Grimes . He is obviously trying to pull the wool over everybody's eyes by stating quite clearly the Government's opinion. That is the very point to which Senator Chaney drew your attention, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —I think the question could have been a little better expressed. As it related to the Government's attitude I shall allow Senator Grimes to respond. Senator GRIMES —Last week during Question Time I was asked about the policy of the Opposition in announcing that it would repeal the assets test legislation passed by this Government which the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Social Security have not seen and the policy that the Opposition would repeal legislation providing for a change in the taxation of superannuation benefits which those gentlemen have also not seen in detail. I thought at the time that the policy as espoused by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Social Security was in fact a firm policy. I pointed out at the time that I was severely critical of people who, claiming they still had to develop their own policy, closed off their options in this way by opposing any such moves by the Government to introduce an assets test or to change the superannuation means test. We now find, of course, as was predicted in this place last week, that one could not take that comment seriously. I will take the unusual step, perhaps the unique step in this Parliament for someone on this side of the House, of quoting that political commentator and broadcaster, John Laws. I will do so to demonstrate what someone who certainly could not be considered a Labor supporter in this country says about this matter . In the weekend Press he said: Take one political 'con', couch it in much ballyhoo, with a dash of social conscience, and you have the Liberal Party's announcement that, if returned to office, it would toss out Labor's assets tests on pensions. The reason Mr Laws used those words, as he went on to describe later in his article, was that he questioned both the shadow Minister for Social Security, Senator Messner, and Senator Walsh's friend, the former Treasurer, Mr Howard, both of whom said that, although they may oppose Labor's assets test, it did not mean that they would not introduce one themselves. In fact, Mr Howard implied that they would certainly so do. When asked by Mr Laws, Senator Messner refused to give a firm public promise not to introduce an assets test. He replied that he was unable to make such a commitment. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order. This answer in no way meets the indication that the Minister gave when he was responding to the previous point of order. All he is doing is proceeding to quote other people's comments on the Opposition. It is not an answer to the question and it is not in accordance with the line of answer which he indicated to you and which you ruled was in order. The PRESIDENT —I draw the Minister's attention to standing order 100, which says that in responding to questions a senator shall not debate the matter to which the question refers. I would ask the Minister to relate his answer to the administration of his Department. Senator GRIMES —The fact is, Mr President, that having reported the facts as they are, I merely wish to demonstrate to this House that the announcement by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for Social Security of their opposition to the Government moves was in fact a phoney announcement. In fact, they have no intention of getting away from this sort of policy. I think the reaction, twice during this question, of the Leader of the Opposition demonstrates what I have been talking about during previous Question Times and now. Senator PETER RAE —My question, which is not a dorothy dixer, is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Does the Minister agree with the statement reported in today's Australian Financial Review and elsewhere as having been made yesterday by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, that the forms of protection existing in Australia 'are in fact, embalming geriatric industries in the formaldehyde of protection'? If the Minister does not agree with the statement by the former Leader of the Australian Labor Party, in what way does he disagree and would he express his own view in relation to that matter? Senator BUTTON —I did see the remarks made by the former Leader of the Labor Party, Mr Hayden. Senator Lajovic —We will send you a copy. Senator BUTTON —There is no need, thank you. If the honourable senator had been listening he would know that I said I did see the remarks made by Mr Hayden. In fact, it was very difficult not to. I simply take the view that Mr Hayden was expressing a long term view of this matter; in fact a long term view which is held by both political parties. The Government has clearly indicated its shorter term view in relation to these matters. If Senator Rae wishes me to reiterate it , I shall. The Government came to office undertaking that there would be no general reductions in protection in the period of the current economic downturn, that schemes in relation to particular industries which provided for phased reductions of protection would be kept in place, and that in the longer term the Government would look to a more general reduction in protection at the same time as, or subsequent to, setting in place a number of more positive industry assistance measures, which the Government is in the process of doing. I do not think I can take the answer any further than that. I note Mr Hayden's views and, couched as they are in colourful language, I think they must be regarded as views which may be appropriate for some future time and views which are coloured by the Minister's frequent visits to South East Asia. Senator Watson —How long is 'long term'? Senator BUTTON —I shall not respond at Question Time to every idiotic interjection that I receive, Mr President. However, in the context of the remarks made by Mr Hayden, the Government is continuing a policy which has been announced and repeated on a number of occasions. Senator PETER RAE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Since the Minister so obviously disagrees with the Minister for Foreign Affairs in relation to protection and the short term interests of Australia and says that the views expressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs could be applicable only in the long term, will the Minister indicate what he means by 'short term' and ' long term'? Senator BUTTON —In the answer to the original question I indicated that the Government had given a commitment at the time of the election, which it was maintaining, that apart from systems providing for phased reductions in protection, there would be no general reduction in protection in the current economic circumstances which we inherited. I am not putting on my seer's hat in order to define, in the Senate or anywhere else, what 'long term' means having regard to those circumstances; but as soon as practicable, the Government will pursue the policies which I have announced. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer the Minister to recent claims by adult unemployed groups in South Australia that funding arrangements for self-help and support programs for the adult unemployed are totally inadequate. Is the Minister of the opinion that the existing programs administered by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations are totally inadequate to meet the needs of unemployed adults? Will the Minister consider increasing the level of assistance to self-help projects for the adult unemployed as a means of overcoming the difficulties now being experienced by these groups? Senator BUTTON —In a general sense, I suppose that one must say that all schemes of assistance for the unemployed are inadequate. But having said that, I am aware that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has received representations from the State of South Australia about the question of mature age unemployed and the support schemes which are available to them. I understand that some funding is provided by the South Australian Government specifically for these groups. One suggestion from South Australia was that the community youth employment program should be extended to cover mature age unemployed persons. The Government is not persuaded to that view because the needs of unemployed persons of mature age are likely, I think, to be different from those of much younger age groups. A number of proposals from South Australia have been forwarded to the Minister and I am advised that the Minister has asked his Department to consider those representations. I remind the honourable senator that at present a number of programs are administered by the Commonwealth to provide assistance to the unemployed, including the community employment program and the labour adjustment training programs. There are a number of other similar measures which I cannot identify or enumerate at this time but I will be happy to do so if the honourable senator wishes. The representations are receiving consideration. Senator WATSON —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether it is a fact that in the nine months to March 1983, 3,272 kilograms of lamb and sheep meat were imported into Australia. Since then there have been dramatic increases. For example, for the month of March alone imports were more than four-fold those of the previous nine-month period and the preliminary figure of 566,099 kilograms for the month of July was twice the figure for June. I ask: What impact have these increases had on declining saleyard prices in Australia? Can we expect these dramatic increases under the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand to continue at such alarming rates? Senator WALSH —Off the top of my head I am not able to verify those figures which Senator Watson has quoted. If there has been an increase in imports of sheep meat that could well be attributable to the effects of the drought in Australia. I will refer that aspect to the Minister for Primary Industry for his comment. As to the final part of Senator Watson's question, I am not able to say what effect the imports have had on saleyard prices but, whatever effect they have had, one would expect that they would have had the same effect on retail prices. In other words, if imports have brought down the saleyard prices of livestock they have also brought down meat prices at the retail level. I will refer the other matters to the Minister and supply an answer as quickly as possible. Senator COOK —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, arises out of the announcement yesterday by the Government of an inquiry into the national road freight industry. Will this inquiry be able to compare the advantages of drivers employed on wages over owner-drivers? Will the effect of tight scheduling of freight services which often requires drivers to exceed the speed limit in order to keep their jobs be considered? Will the unfortunate but extensive use of drugs by drivers to stay awake on long haul routes be examined? What other things does the Government hope to achieve from the inquiry? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Cook asked me a question about the announcement made yesterday by the Hon. Peter Morris, the Minister for Transport, of the establishment of a national road freight industry inquiry which will comprise Mr Thomas May, Professor Gordon Mills and Mr Scully, three persons capable of carrying out a fundamental review of the facts relating to the road and freight transport industry generally. This will probably emerge as an extremely important inquiry which will look into both road and rail services in Australia. The purpose of the inquiry is to look at all the matters which affect the industry, including those that have been raised in the question from Senator Cook. It will look at the ability of the industry to provide an efficient, economic service, the impact of regulations as they exist at both Federal and State levels and the competition between road and rail. It will certainly look at the increased involvement of heavy vehicles in motor crashes and what that means to the industry as well as to the community generally. It will look at the problems of competition in the industry and its effects upon the prices structure in the whole freight transport industry. Of course that will involve looking also at the pricing structures so far as trucks in the heavy industry area are concerned. It is interesting that the Minister has been able to get the support of all the State governments, including the Northern Territory. When the inquiry has completed its investigations, I think we will have a much better understanding of what has been a very big growth factor in Australia in the post war years, particularly in the last 20 years. We will be able to have the facts, the figures and the ideas necessary so that governments generally will be able to apply themselves to a more efficient transport industry in Australia and perhaps overcome some of the losses that exist in the private sector and the effects that they have upon the economy. As well governments will be able to examine the cost problems that face many of our public transport systems, particularly rail transport. I am assuring the honourable senator that what the Minister and the Government have in mind is a cost effective inquiry which will considerably assist this industry by properly examining costs and potential savings. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It was reported today that, whilst the Prime Minister was addressing the Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress yesterday, 18 unions distributed a document calling for further changes to be made to the superannuation tax proposals. Is the Minister in a position to advise what the central point of those changes is and whether the Government has yet responded to it? Senator BUTTON —I am not in a position to say what the burden of those representations is. I am not surprised that 18 unions distributed a document and I do not know what the implication of the honourable senator's question is on that point. We certainly could not stop them doing that if we wanted to. There is concern amongst some unions about the superannuation lump sum proposals, and that concern is presumably being expressed in that way. If I do find out what is in the document, I will let the honourable senator know. Senator JONES —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Communications whether the 0-10 television network has exclusive rights to cover the America's Cup race that begins on Wednesday, 14 September 1983. Have any arrangements been made to feed this telecast beyond the transmission range of the purely metropolitan 0-10 network via the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to allow remote areas and provincial city areas throughout Australia to see Australia II win the America's Cup? Senator BUTTON —I understand that the 0-10 network has the exclusive rights to transmission of the America's Cup. By the time it ultimately comes on I think the average Australian viewer will be so bored he probably will not want to watch it. Senator Messner —You must be joking. Senator BUTTON —I refer only to the fact that it has received enormous coverage on all channels, Senator. The important point of Senator Jones's question is whether the ABC has negotiated with the 0-10 network to obtain the coverage of the America's Cup for those living in remote areas where the ABC provides the only television transmission. I am not able to answer that question, but I hope and believe that the ABC has sought negotiations with the 0-10 network. I will provide the honourable senator with a more comprehensive answer from the Minister as soon as possible. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As the world is casting round to seek some method of underlining the horrendous action of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the murder of the 269 passengers and crew of the Korean airliner, and because the USSR has issued a warning to the world that any aircraft flying over its territory can expect the same sort of action, I ask the Leader of the Government: Will he ask the Prime Minister to consider putting to the Government of the United States of America that that country prohibit the entry of the Russian athletes to the Olympic Games which are to be held next year in America? This is the only way we have of bringing to the Russian people the truth about and the enormity of the crime against civilisation committed by their Government. In no way is this similar to our boycott of the Olympic Games in Moscow. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to ask her question. Senator WALTERS —I have asked the question. I will ask that as a supplementary question. Senator BUTTON —The question relates first to the shooting down by a Soviet aircraft of a Korean airliner, a matter in respect of which the Government brought down a statement in the Senate last week. That statement, subject to one or two matters, remains the Government's position in relation to that incident. I am asked particularly by Senator Walters whether I will ask the Prime Minister to put to the United States that it ban Soviet athletes from the Olympic Games in Los Angeles. As Senator Walters has asked me to do that, I am certainly prepared as a matter of courtesy to put it to the Prime Minister. At the same time, I will certainly tender my views on the matter, which would simply be that we do not want to go down that track again, thank you, and that it is not in the best interests of international understanding that that sort of quasi-disciplinary action be taken in respect of an incident which was tragic and disastrous but which was, in the view of the Government, a mistake by the Soviet Union and not something in relation to which we can persist in these sorts of absurd sanctions. Senator WALTERS —I ask a supplementary question. Senator Button has expressed the view that it was a mistake. My understanding was that the USSR had already stated that it will do the same thing again if another passenger aircraft does indeed fly over its territory, which hardly indicates that it was a mistake. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask a supplementary question? Senator WALTERS —In anticipation of the answer by the Leader of the Government, I did say that it would not be-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to ask her supplementary question or to resume her seat. Senator WALTERS —The second part of the question said that this suggestion of mine would be in no way similar to the action previously adopted by the nations of the world over the Moscow Olympic Games. That is why I wanted to put it in my original question. It would be totally different. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator for the last time to ask her supplementary question. Senator WALTERS —That is what I am attempting to do. The PRESIDENT —The honourable senator is not framing a question. Senator WALTERS —Will the Minister make it clear to the Prime Minister that the prohibition would not be the same as the previous one, in that the world would be refusing to socialise with the USSR because of this matter? Senator BUTTON —I can add only that the Government, in relation to any action taken by the Soviet Union, will make what it believes to be the appropriate response at the appropriate time. I indicated in my answer to Senator Walters's earlier question that it is not conducive to international peace for the Senate to determine at Question Time what punishment will be inflicted on the Soviet Union in repect of all these matters. For that reason, I cannot take the matter any further. Senator ELSTOB —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy, refers to the reported discovery of oil at the Jabiru 1A oil well off Australia's north-west coast. Can the Minister advise the Senate as to the territorial jurisdiction over the area in which the oil discovery has been made? Senator WALSH —The honourable senator raised a complex matter which has quite a long history. The best starting point in explanation probably would be the 1967 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, which established, in areas which were off- shore to all the States, joint authorities which laid down both the quantity and the distribution of royalties for oil which may be found off-shore. In the case of the Northern Territory, which was not self-governing at that stage, the Commonwealth retained as Commonwealth territory the sea area adjoining the Northern Territory. The Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 asserted Commonwealth sovereignty beyond the low water mark. That legislation was taken on appeal to the High Court of Australia. In 1975 the High Court found in favour of the Commonwealth. There the situation rested until 1979, when the previous Government handed back to the States what was called the territorial sea, which was three miles off- shore. In a few instances it was somewhat more than three miles. That Government amended the 1967 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act to retain the joint authority arrangements for the management of the ocean area and ocean floor beyond three miles, whilst ensuring that ultimate control, in the event of a dispute in a joint authority, rested with the Commonwealth. Also in 1979 the Commonwealth- presumably because by then the Northern Territory had become self-governing- allocated to the joint authority of the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory almost all of the 200-mile zone which previously had been entirely Commonwealth territory. Because of the 1979 package of legislation the Northern Territory, for this purpose, acquired the status of a State. However, at that time a portion of the ocean area in question, known as the Ashmore and Cartier Islands, which had previously been Commonwealth territory, was excluded from that part of the Commonwealth territory which was transferred, for purposes of management by a joint authority, to the Northern Territory. At the end of that recital of the historical and factual background is the fact that the Ashmore and Cartier Islands area, within which the Jabiru 1A well was drilled, the results of which were announced by the Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd, I think, on 30 August, is entirely in Commonwealth territory, since constitutionally everything below the three-mile limit as adjusted is Commonwealth territory but, legislatively, all but the Ashmore and Cartier Islands ocean area is subject to the joint authority and stipulated royalty charges and royalty distribution between the States and the Commonwealth. The Ashmore and Cartier Islands area, within which this oil well was drilled, the results of which were announced by the company, is entirely within Commonwealth territory and not subject to the jurisdiction of the 1967 Act and, therefore, not subject to either the royalty charges stipulated in the 1967 Act or the distribution of those charges between the Commonwealth and any State or Territory. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister and follows the question asked by Senator Peter Rae. I preface my question by saying that I have now read what Mr Hayden is reported as having said about industry and protection policy, including the warning from Mr Hayden that the race for economic spoils was for the swift. It certainly appears to me, on a reading of Mr Hayden's statement, that he was talking about the need to reduce protection now. In the accord between the Australian Labor Party and the trade unions there is the clear statement: There is no economic sense in reducing protection levels in the midst of high unemployment. In light of those statements, I ask the Minister whether he will seek from the Prime Minister a clarification of, first, who speaks for the Government with respect to protection policy and, secondly, what is the current view of the Government? Is there a need to hold protection at present levels or should protection be reduced in accordance with the views expressed by Mr Hayden? Senator BUTTON —I have already indicated the Government's view that there should be no general reductions in protection in current economic circumstances. The Government is committed to gradual, steady and sensitive reductions in protection over a period as, we hope, the economy improves. Senator Chaney's question seeks to interpret Mr Hayden's comment as meaning that there should be a reduction in general levels of protection now. If he wishes to read that interpretation into it, I suppose that is very good from the point of view of asking a question in the Senate. But I think the comment is equally open to an alternative interpretation. It is correct that the statement read out by Senator Chaney appears in the accord and it is largely consistent with the views which have been expressed as government policy in relation to this issue. Senator Chaney asks who speaks for the Government on these matters. The Government's policy is announced from time to time. We do not have the extraordinary horror which possessed the Government of Malcolm Fraser when occasionally a Minister makes a statement about particular views on particular topics which may not necessarily be consistent with government policy at a precise time. I believe that that is what Mr Hayden was doing. I do not think it is cause for great alarm or confusion. If one looks at Mr Hayden's view over a longer time, it has much to be said for it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed either to the Leader of the Government in the Senate or to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. Now that about two weeks has elapsed since the shooting down of the Korean aircraft and the Government has had that two weeks to consider various implications, I ask: First, what steps has the Government taken to ensure that errors in navigation such as are presumed to have occurred in that disaster cannot happen again whether in aircraft flying under Australian flags or in international aircraft? Secondly, is the Government convinced that now sufficient fail-safe mechanisms are installed with adequate backup systems? Thirdly, has a procedure been enforced to ensure that only a correct course can be placed in the inertial navigation system and that the procedure entails cross -checking by other crew members? Fourthly, do Qantas Airways Ltd and major domestic airlines in Australia carry Omega navigation aids, and is there an adequate procedure established for cross-checking the course and bearings between the various aids? Fifthly, what international conferences have been held since the disaster to tighten navigational procedures, and what role has Australia played in them? Sixthly, what compensation is available to the estates of the Australian victims either from claims upon Korean Air Lines or from any other source, apart from any request to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Senator BUTTON —It is true, as Senator Sir John Carrick said, that two weeks has elapsed since the Korean airliner was shot down. The circumstances relating to that shooting down have changed considerably as further information has become available. It is certainly true that the aircraft was way off course. On the basis of the information which we now have, Senator Sir John Carrick has asked six questions of a somewhat detailed nature to which I am sure he would like detailed and comprehensive answers. Accordingly, I ask him to place them on notice. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I undertake to put the question on notice. By way of a supplementary question I say that the matter is of some urgent interest to the people of Australia. If I do place it on notice, will the Minister undertake to give me an early answer? Senator BUTTON —Yes, I will try to get the honourable senator an earlier answer than he might normally get to a question on notice. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Has the Government reached agreement with the States over the establishment of a very much watered down version of the National Crimes Commission, legislation for which was passed by the Parliament last year? Is it true that the new body will not have the wide ranging powers thought necessary by successive royal commissioners, particularly Mr Costigan, who investigated organised crime in Australia? Does it mean that the Government has now abandoned the commitment given by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives on 19 May this year, in answer to a question about the future of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, when he said that the proclamation of the Act for the National Crimes Commission at the beginning of 1984 would be the most effective way of taking over the work of the Costigan Royal Commission? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is true, as reported in some newspapers, that a ministerial meeting of Ministers with police responsibilities and Attorneys- General from around the country was held in Melbourne on Friday last week and at that meeting tentative agreement was reached, subject to reservations on the part of one State, on a particular approach to the establishment of a national crimes authority. Each participating government in those discussions was to take the tentative proposal away for discussion and, hopefully, endorsement by its Cabinet in the hope and expectation that the matter could be settled and made the subject of public announcement in the next week or two. Until that process is completed, as I am sure Senator Durack will appreciate, it is not the desire of the Government to prejudice the reaching of agreement on this sensitive and complex matter by prematurely disclosing the details of that process. I do, however, say that, to the extent that it has been suggested in some reports that the body which is the subject of this discussion is not to have any investigative power and not to be, as a result, the kind of body which could take over from the resources of the Costigan Commission, those reports are inaccurate. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I lay on the table explanatory notes from the Aboriginal Development Commission on estimates of proposed expenditure for 1983-84. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, I present a report dated September 1983 on an examination of the feasibility of a compact or Makarrata between the Commonwealth and the Aboriginal people, together with the transcript of evidence . Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- I table today a report from the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, entitled 'Two Hundred Years Later . . . ' The report is a result of a resolution of the Senate that the Committee should conduct 'an examination of the feasibility, whether by way of constitutional amendment or other legal means , of securing a compact or 'Makarrata' between the Commonwealth Government and Aboriginal Australians.' IntroductionProposals for some form of treaty or compact or, to use the word favoured by the National Aboriginal Conference, a 'Makarrata', have had currency for several years. The idea behind such proposals is that at this stage of Australia's history there is a need for a reappraisal of traditional perceptions of the historical relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people from the time of European settlement in this country. Proponents of the concept have argued that the best means of effecting a reconciliation between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities is the negotiation of a comprehensive agreement setting to rights, insofar as that is possible some two hundred years later, the dispossession and ill-treatment suffered by the original inhabitants of this continent and their descendants at the time of European settlement and subsequently. It is important to emphasise that the Committee's terms of reference did not require it to come to a conclusion as to the desirability or usefulness of the Makarrata concept. That central issue must be decided elsewhere and by other persons, the appropriate representatives of the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities. Clearly such an agreement would only succeed if it were understood and supported throughout the whole Australian community. As regards the Aboriginal community there must be a comprehensive consultative process throughout Australia, an understanding and systematic consideration of the legal issues involved and of the various legal options for implementation. As well, there must be clear accord as to the objectives which are sought to be procured by the agreement, the establishment of proper representational processes and of a timetable for implementation. The relevance to the narrower question of legal feasibility of these issues which must be dealt with if a decision is made to pursue a compact became apparent during the course of the inquiry and the Committee's report attempts to assist in consideration of them. Legal feasibilityWithin the area of legal feasibility, issues which the report considers include whether the Aboriginal people's claim to sovereignty can be upheld, whether a compact with constitutional backing is desirable and, if so, whether the full text or just a broad enabling power should be included within the Constitution. Other alternatives to be considered are whether the compact should be supported by legislation based on the Commonwealth's existing constitutional authority or should take the form of a simple agreement or contract. The claim made by some Aboriginals to sovereignty is given serious and detailed consideration in the report. The Committee looked closely at the rules of international law regarding sovereignty and at the consistent application by the courts in Australia of the 'settled colony' principle which in turn was based on the 'terra nullius' doctrine by which it was held that at the time of European settlement Australia was land belonging to no one. The effect of the application of this principle was that the Aboriginal inhabitants of the colony of Australia became immediately subject to the laws of the colonising nation which refused to acknowledge that they had a recognisable system of law and disregarded their relationship to their land. However regrettable and ill-founded the views which led to the application of the settled colony principle with its historical consequences for the Aboriginal people, the Committee has concluded that sovereignty does not now inhere in the Aboriginal people. The Committee's conclusion is expressed in the following terms: It may be that a better and more honest appreciation of the facts relating to Aboriginal occupation at the time of settlement, and of the Eurocentric view taken by the occupying power could lead to the conclusion that sovereignty inhered in the Aboriginal peoples at that time. However, the Committee concludes that, as a legal proposition, sovereignty is not now vested in the Aboriginal peoples except insofar as they share in the common sovereignty of all peoples of the Commonwealth of Australia. In particular, they are not a sovereign entity under our present law so that they can enter into a treaty with the Commonwealth . Nevertheless, the Committee is of the view that if it is recognised that sovereignty did adhere in the Aboriginal people in a way not comprehended by those who applied the terra nullius doctrine at the time of occupation and settlement, then certain consequences flow which are proper to be dealt with in a compact between the descendants of those Aboriginal peoples and other Australians. Following its consideration of the legal options available to implement a compact, the Committee concludes that the option to be preferred is the insertion within the Constitution of a provision similar to existing section 105A of the Constitution and recommends that the Goverment, in consultation with the Aboriginal people, should give consideration to this option if a compact is pursued. Under this option, a new provision in the Constitution would confer a broad power on the Commonwealth enabling it to enter into a compact with representatives of the Aboriginal people. The provision would contain a non- exclusive list of those matters which would form an important part of the terms of the compact, expressing in broad language the types of subjects to be dealt with. An important aspect of this approach is the symbolically important opportunity it would provide for the Australian people, by way of the necessary referendum to amend the Constitution, to show their commitment to the concept of a compact as a means of reconciliation between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities and as a means whereby the history of injustice and deprivation against Aboriginal people can in some measure be redressed. Inclusion of a special enabling power within the Constitution would also enhance the status of the ultimate agreement. Although the Committee's preference is for a constitutional amendment, our consideration of sections 51 (xxvi) (the power to make laws for the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws) and 51 (xxix) ( the external affairs power) have led us to conclude that there already exists sufficient power to enable the Parliament to enact the sort of legislative measures which would be likely to flow from the conclusion of a compact. These powers, recently given detailed consideration by the High Court in Koowarta's Case and the Tasmanian Dam decision, would certainly provide a useful 'fall-back ' position should it be decided not to pursue a constitutional amendment. RepresentationOne of the more significant issues which came to the Committee's attention during public hearings was that of representation. The question of who should represent the non-Aboriginal party in negotiations has never seriously been in issue and the Committee's reasons for supporting the Commonwealth Government in this role are set out in the report so I need not discuss them in this statement. However, the question of who should represent the Aboriginal community is not so straightforward and has been the subject of much deliberation by the Committee. The National Aboriginal Conference has been the major proponent of a compact on behalf of Aborigines and has generally been seen as the body most suited to negotiate on their account. In our travels among Aboriginal communities we heard a good deal of comment about the NAC's inadequate funding and structure. For example, many witnesses spoke of the inability of the NAC to adequately represent Aboriginal viewpoints because of the smallness of its membership and the consequently large electorates to be served by each member. Concern was also expressed in some quarters about what was perceived as a lack of independence from government on the NAC's part. The Committee has noted that the new Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has made it clear that the present government wishes to strengthen the NAC and enhance its role as the nationally elected body representing Aboriginal people in their dealings with the Commonwealth Government. As part of this new role the Minister has suggested that the NAC give consideration to a new structure for itself and that it consider its re-establishment under its own Act, thereby giving it the statutory autonomy it lacks at present. As well the recent Budget doubled the NAC's appropriation. In view of these developments the Committee, while recognising that the decision ultimately rests with Aborigines themselves concludes that the NAC should be considered the most suitable organisation to co-ordinate Aboriginal opinion during the negotiation process and, once negotiations are completed, to conclude the compact on behalf of the Aboriginal people. To this end, the Committee urges the NAC to take the opportunity which the government has offered it to seek re-establishment on an independent statutory basis and with an increase in membership, so as to allow it to represent the Aboriginal people more effectively. We also urge the government, following its Budget initiative, to maintain funding of the NAC at a level which will enable it to fulfil adequately its enhanced role. At the same time we emphasise that we see the NAC's role as one of co- ordination of Aboriginal opinion. There is a valuable role to be played by the many community-based Aboriginal organisations such as land councils and health, legal and housing services in educating, seeking views and relaying them to the negotiators if the compact proposal goes forward. EducationAnother vital issue which the Committee has found it necessary to address in its report is that of education-among both the Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal communities-about the compact proposal. Before any compact could be concluded considerable thought would need to be devoted to the question of how to inform both communities about the concept, its purpose and effect. The evidence available to the Committee indicated a widespread lack of information and understanding among Aboriginal communities of the idea of a compact. We also found that in some instances there was only a limited understanding even among informed non-Aboriginal witnesses, from which it could be inferred that the wider non-Aboriginal community also lacks an understanding of the idea. We wish to emphasise, however, that this lack of understanding should not be confused with hostility to the idea. Rather it indicates that the concept is a relatively recent one which requires explanation and discussion. Such discussion should include consideration of the desirability of a compact, its benefits and disadvantages, both present and future, and a consideration of alternative means to the same ends. The Committee heard valuable suggestions from witnesses as to the most effective means of promoting education and discussion among Aboriginal communities, and these are considered in Chapter 9 of our report. Although likely to be time consuming, the Committee believes that such a process is crucial if a compact is to be negotiated. Accordingly, we recommend that, in order to ensure that the negotiation process is conducted on a basis of understanding and acceptance of the concept by all Aboriginal comunities, the Commonwealth should ensure that the widest range of Aboriginal community leadership is involved in that preliminary task. The Committee also discusses the need for the development of programs under Commonwealth sponsorship to raise the consciousness of the non-Aboriginal community to a level where the compact proposal can be discussed in an informed way. The Committee recognises the political nature of this task, especially if the Committee's preferred option of a constitutional amendment is pursued. This would require widespread discussion and subsequent acceptance of the issues involved if the necessary majorities to amend the Constitution were to be attained. ConclusionIn conclusion I emphasise again that this report is not concerned to determine whether the concept of a Makarrata should be pursued. What the report seeks to do is to address in detail a number of subsidiary issues which will need to be faced if the necessarily political decision to negotiate a compact is made by Aboriginal people and the Commonwealth. It is the Committee's hope that, if that decision is made, the report will be of assistance in coming to grips with the various processes which will need to be pursued if a worthwhile compact is to come to fruition. During the course of this inquiry the Committee's membership changed considerably. When the Committee was re-constituted following the election in March, Senators Ryan, Evans and Crichton-Browne were replaced by Senators Bolkus , Cook and Lewis. I wish to record here my appreciation of the part played by the three Senators who left the Committee. They were present for almost all the public hearings and made a significant contribution to the Committee's early deliberations on this matter. I also wish to commend the staff assisting the Commitee, particularly the Secretary, Mr Chris Fogarty, for their untiring work in supporting the preparation of this report over a long period disrupted by the dissolution of Parliament earlier this year. Following the change of Government I, as a Government Senator, was elected Chairman of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee to replace Senator Alan Missen who chaired the Committee with distinction for the period 1976-1983. This of course included much of the period of this inquiry. I wish to put on record the Committee's appreciation of Senator Missen's dedication and courtesy during the period of his chairmanship. Needless to say we value his continued membership on the Committee. Mr President, I commend the report to the Senate. Senator TATE —I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria) —I present the first report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, together with the transcript of evidence. Senator ROBERT RAY —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL REFORM Statement by Chairman The report just presented represents consolidation of- well in excess of 200 submissions valuable information and suggestions from government departments and instrumentalities, especially the Chief Australian Electoral Officer, Mr Keith Pearson and his officers, Mr Andrejs Cirulis, Mr Michael Maley and Mrs Jan Woodward, and the Attorney-General's Department for prompt legal advice many hours of taking evidence and deliberating by Committee members who sat repeatedly all day and into the (sometimes late) evening I thank members for their subject expertise and their almost continuous 100 per cent attendance and cooperation as exemplified in the joint effort to design reasonable methods for public funding of elections and in reaching a voting system to reduce unintentional informal vote in Senate. In presenting its first report, the Committee has noted that the Australian Electoral Office performs its functions most efficiently and capably, particularly in the light of the number of items processed by the Office. Currently the Office has a full-time staff complement of approximately 740. During 1982 the Electoral Office added 1,250,382 electors to the Commonwealth electoral rolls; 1,012,336 names were also removed. In all the total number of transactions carried out in the year (i.e. names added, removed and alterations) was 2,813,157. At the end of the year the total Commonwealth net elector enrolment was 9,371,306. The report contains over 130 principal recommendations covered in its 13 chapters. Given the time constraint upon the preparation of the Committee's report, it has not been possible on all occasions to provide comprehensive explanations as to the reasoning which led to the Committee's recommendations, all of which were made after close examination and deliberation. Among the more significant recommendations are: the establishment of an independent Electoral Commission public funding of political parties and candidates public disclosure of income and expenditure by political parties and candidates the size of parliament should be increased the retention of the permissible departure of plus or minus 10% from quota, in an electoral division, but that the Act should clearly state that the major consideration should be the aim, where practicable, that all electoral divisions approximate equal enrolment at the median or mid point time between redistributions the voting systems should be modified to reduce voter unintentional informality , particularly in the Senate compulsory enrolment for all Australians, removing all distinctions in the treatment of Aborigines election dates should be announced by the Governor-General at least 7 days before the day of issue of the writs (and therefore the close of rolls) The Committee also recommended that it be given the power to consider certain matters in greater depth: the broadcasting and television provisions concerning elections; indirect public funding by means of the provision of 'free' radio and television time; standards governing political advertising; provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act concerning defamation of candidates; the industrial elections functions of the Australian Electoral Office, and tax deductibility of political donations. Trust that report will receive extensive debate in the House. Senator ROBERT RAY —I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Elstob) agreed to: (1) That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, and in order to enable the Standing Committee on Social Welfare to- (a) complete its inquiry into children and youth under institutional and other forms of care, commenced in the previous Paraliament and continued in this Parliament; and (b) undertake the inquiry into retirement income systems, which was referred to it on Tuesday, 6 September 1983, with the requirement that the Committee report on or before the first sitting day in August 1984; the Committee consists of eight Senators, four being members of the Government to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and four being Senators who are not members of the Government, to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (2) That nothing in the foregoing resolution affect the appointments to the Committee of Senators who are at present members of the Committee. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Government has a clear national responsibility to prepare contingency plans against a foreseeable national emergency. The fundamental objectives of a national response to a major fuel shortage should be to minimise the total impact on the community (in terms of maintaining essential services and minimising economic dislocation) and to ensure that available supplies are distributed as equitably as possible. The purpose of this Bill is to equip the Commonwealth Government with the authority needed to prepare for, and handle a national liquid fuel supply emergency. This would be done in close co-operation with the Governments of the States and the Northern Territory. In the event of a serious shortfall of fuel supplies it could be expected that fuel prices would tend to rise substantially as purchasers competed for available supplies. This would be exacerbated with panic buying and consequently normal market operations may break down. Such a situation could cause severe economic dislocation and hardship throughout the community. Government intervention to ensure a fair distribution of available fuel supplies may be required. For example, in a severe shortfall governments may need to implement quantitative allocation measures to achieve a satisfactory balance between supply and demand. Governments will require flexibility in meeting an emergency. It is important to recognise that the most appropriate response would be determined in the light of prevailing conditions. The provisions of this Bill will enable this to occur. Together with existing legislation in the States and the Northern Territory, its enactment will enable the Commonwealth to take action in a fuel supply emergency situation with the effectiveness and authority that the Australian community is entitled to expect. The passage of this Bill will represent a major step forward in the Commonwealth Government's preparations against a national liquid fuel supply emergency. This Bill is one of the outcomes of a major effort by Commonwealth and State governments to improve their preparedness against a fuel shortage. It has its antecedents in the events of 1979, when the Iranian oil crisis triggered a condition of turmoil in world oil markets that forced an accelerated recognition of the need to prepare measures for dealing with an emergency situation. It was in this climate that member countries of the International Energy Agency became acutely aware of the possibility of having to implement the IEA's emergency oil sharing system and to invoke cut-backs in the consumption of liquid fuel in accordance with their obligations as IEA members. Australia, although a member of IEA, does not have the appropriate legal basis for handling a supply cut. As a result of the concern of all Australians about the possible impact of uncertain supplies, in September 1979 Commonwealth and State Ministers with responsibility for energy matters agreed to the formation of the National Petroleum Advisory Committee to advise governments on the appropriate arrangements and priorities for the allocation of liquid fuels during any period of supply shortfall. NPAC members are drawn from the agricultural, fishing, manufacturing, mining, shipping and transport industries, the oil industry, Australian Council of Trade Unions and motorists' organisations as well as the Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory Governments. NPAC completed its report 'management of a national liquid fuels supply emergency' in October 1981 and after acceptance by Commonwealth, State and Territory governments as a basis for proceeding with emergency planning, the report was tabled in the Parliament on 16 September 1982. The proposed Bill is in accordance with the NPAC recommendations and is based closely on the powers proposed in the report. Together with current legislation in the States and the Northern Territory, it will enable all governments to work together in preparing for and managing a national liquid fuel emergency. In order to meet, as far as possible, the concern expressed by some States that the proposed Bill may inhibit the operation of their own emergency legislation, I have agreed that the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory shall work together to develop alternative Commonwealth and State legislation. To provide a specific time frame for this exercise I have also agreed to include in the proposed Bill a three year 'sunset clause'. This will enable discussions to proceed without jeopardising the Commonwealth's ability to act decisively in any emergency situation in the immediate future. I recognise that agreement with the States on alternative legislation cannot be guaranteed within the three-year period. In this event, it would be necessary to extend the Act beyond the currently proposed sunset date. It is our intention to work in conjunction with the State and Territory governments. The Bill requires that consultations occur between the Commonwealth and State and Territory energy Ministers before declaration by the Governor- General of a national liquid fuel emergency. Consultation is also required before the Commonwealth Minister may make certain determinations or issue certain directions under this Bill. These include actions under the contingency planning and the emergency control clauses of the Bill. Further, the Bill enables the Commonwealth Minister to delegate powers to the State and Territory Ministers where this is appropriate. The primary mechanism for consultation will be the establishment of a high level committee of Commonwealth, State and Territory officials as the National Fuel Emergency Consultative Committee. This was recommended by NPAC and I have taken steps to establish this Committee through an exchange of correspondence with my State and Territory colleagues. In essence, the Bill provides arrangements for nationally uniform proportionate reductions in the level of supplies of scarce liquid fuels, ensuring that the burden of a shortage is shared equitably as far as possible throughout Australia . This will be achieved by means of a 'bulk allocation' system for bulk consumers and, in extreme conditions, a rationing system for retail purchasers. It is intended that the bulk allocation system will operate with sufficient flexibility to meet special needs-such as seasonal and regional fluctuations in fuel requirements-and will take account of economic efficiency. This will ensure the maximum possible equity and efficiency in the distribution of fuel to consumers. In addition to making supplies available to all users on a uniform basis, the Bill will also provide extra supplies of fuel to users whose activities are classified as 'essential' or 'high priority'. These will be identified by State and Territory energy Ministers for users in their regions and by the Commonwealth Minister for a limited range of Commonwealth responsibilities, such as Defence. To ensure consistency in the identification of essential and high priority users, and in the calculation of their allocation quantities, guidelines will be specified by the Commonwealth Minister. The formulation of these guidelines will be a subject of consultation between the State and Territory energy Ministers, and the guidelines will be presented to the Parliament for approval. The Bill includes certain provisions for pre-emergency contingency planning, and this will be undertaken in co-operation with the appropriate State and Territory authorities, Ministers, and governments, with inputs from the oil industry and fuel users. Included in the contingency preparations are provisions for the maintenance of minimum stock levels to be held by oil industry in normal or non-emergency conditions. In order to ensure that fuel is available to supply users during an emergency, the Bill provides powers to direct the movement, production, release or retention of liquid fuels if this becomes necessary. Directions under these powers can only be made after consultation with State and Territory energy Ministers. In accordance with recent Government legislation in related areas, the Bill contains provisions for the reconsideration and review of certain ministerial decision. These include the determination of bulk customers, the identification by the Commonwealth of essential or high priority users, and directions on strategic stock levels. This protection of individuals and corporations is encompassed in provisions requiring the Minister to reconsider such decisions, and for their subsequent review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Bill also provides appropriate protection for the operation of consistent State or Territory laws. In conclusion, I will revert to an earlier theme. The Government has a clear responsibility to prepare contingency plans against a foreseeable national emergency. There can be no argument that in today's uncertain world a major oil supply crisis is a real possibility, and it is equally certain that such a crisis would have potentially serious social and economic consequences for us as Australians. This Bill, based on the recommendations of a high-level committee arrived at after two years consideration of expert advice, will provide the Commonwealth with the means of fulfilling its role as a co-operating partner with the States and the Territories to ensure that the impact of such a crisis is minimised. It recognises, and protects to an unusual extent in emergency legislation, the rights of individuals, corporations and the States and Territories, and has as its major objectives effective preparation, economic efficiency and equity. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bill being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Second Reading Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.08) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- The Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Act 1964 and the Television Stations Licence Fees Act 1964 (which are both in the nature of taxing Acts) prescribe the annual licence fees which are payable by companies operating commercial radio and television stations licensed under the Broadcasting and Television Act . A flat fee of $500 is payable on the grant of any new station licence. Thereafter, each station is required to pay, on the anniversary of the grant of its licence, a fee calculated on the basis of a rising percentage of its annual gross earnings (AGE) from radio or television transmissions during the immediately preceding financial year. When the current progressive fee scale was set in 1981, the amending Acts prescribed ceilings upon the maximum fee rates payable by television stations (7.5 per cent) and by radio stations (5 per cent) . The main purpose of imposing a fee on companies licensed to earn income from broadcasting is to contribute to overall Commonwealth revenues. Changes contained in this Bill and its counterpart, the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill, which I will introduce shortly, will raise an additional $2.4 million in 1983-84. $40,000 of this increase will result from changes to the fee schedule for broadcasting stations. The Government is concerned that due notice is taken of the ability of the broadcasting industry to pay. Accordingly, the measures contained in this Bill will affect only one station-the station with the highest turnover out of a total of 134. The proposed changes to the fee scales consist of a small increase in licence fee rates for radio stations with Average Gross Earnings in excess of $9 million and an increase in the maximum licence fee rates payable from 5 per cent to 5.5 per cent of average gross earnings. These changes will be effective from 1 September 1983. I commend the Bill to the Senate. The Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill, the companion measure to the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill, will increase revenue from licence fees by about $2.36 million in 1983-84. The Government is concerned that due notice should be taken of the ability of the television industry to pay. Accordingly, the measures contained in this Bill will affect the 16 stations, out of a total of 50 commercial television stations , with the highest turnovers. The proposed changes to the fee scales consist of a small increase in licence fee rates for television stations with average gross earnings in excess of $9 million and an increase in the maximum licence fee rates payable by television stations from 7.5 per cent to 8.0 per cent of average gross earnings. These changes will be effective from 1 September 1983. The Government is concerned to achieve the maximum possible Australian content in respect of films and television programs. The Government will be considering proposals to encourage production of Australian programs, particularly proposals which are in the nature of offsets to the licence fee increases. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The primary purpose of this Bill is to facilitate the introduction of the Government's community employment program in the Public Service. The community employment program is the Government's major job creation program which, when fully operational, is expected to create up to 70,000 new jobs nationally in a year on worthwhile community projects. Project jobs will have a duration of between three and 12 months, with an average job duration of around six months. Nationally, $300m of Federal funds is to be made available for CEP during 1983- 84. $250m of this is to be apportioned to voluntary organisations, local authorities and State government departments and authorities, with the balance of $50m being made available to Federal departments and authorities. Thus, whilst the major part of expenditure for the program will be through State, local government and voluntary agencies, it is the Government's intention that a leading role will be played by Commonwealth departments and authorities. The aim of the community employment program is to provide employment for those most in need of it preference being given to those who have been registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service for nine months or more. Particular attention is also being given to ensure that the community employment program provides employment opportunities to women, aboriginals, migrants, the disabled and other disadvantaged groups in the community. The amendments proposed in this Bill will enable the temporary employment provisions of the Public Service Act to be used for the purposes of the community employment program and will ensure that those most in need of work are able to gain employment in the public service for the purposes of this program. Similar amendments are also proposed in relation to the national employment strategy for aboriginals and the Commonwealth work experience program. The opportunity has also been taken to make a technical amendment to the Public Service Act relating to the definition of department to give full effect to amendments made to that definition by the Public Service Acts Amendment Act 1982 . Honourable senators are referred to details of this amendment included in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: That Senators McIntosh and MacGibbon be granted leave of absence for three months on the grounds of their absence overseas on parliamentary business. Joint Committee of Public Accounts-Petroleum Retail Marketing Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(3.11) —To enable Estimates committees to meet, I move: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator Georges —I seek leave to move a motion relating to a meeting of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Leave not granted. Senator Georges —I seek leave to make a statement on the matter. Leave not granted. Senator Georges —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders-- The PRESIDENT —We are on the adjournment debate. Senator Georges —Not quite. I thought I rose before the adjournment motion was moved. The PRESIDENT —No, the Leader of the Government in the Senate moved that the Senate do now adjourn to enable Estimates Committees to sit. Senator Georges —I thought I anticipated that. I tried to rise before that. Senator Robertson —Speak on the adjournment. Senator Georges —The problem with speaking on the adjournment is that I wish to table a document. Senator Chaney —You can do that in the adjournment debate. Senator Georges —If I can do that on the adjournment I will do so to get us out of this bind. May I speak on the adjournment? The PRESIDENT —We are on the adjournment now. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(3.13) —The Joint Committee of Public Accounts has been given a responsibility to carry out certain investigations relating to the Auditor-General's report. The program has been substantial and has covered a wide area of investigation. One matter for investigation related to medifraud. A subsequent one concerned the Department of Defence. A large area to be covered involved excise duties. Further responsibilities have been placed on the Committee by certain statements made by the Auditor-General in relation to social security overpayments. Last week I intended to move a motion which would have enabled the Public Accounts Committee to meet on Wednesdays for the rest of the session in order to complete its work. After some discussion it was decided to amend that motion to allow the Public Accounts Committee to sit last Wednesday. It did so. The Committee had before it the Defence Department. Tomorrow we need to hear the other side of the story which will be given by the contractors to the Defence Department, Carrington Slipways Pty Ltd. It will be impossible to conclude that meeting in the hour between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. which would be the only time available. For that reason I sought leave to move a motion, but leave was refused. I also sought leave to make a statement on the matter. Leave was not granted. I am now making that statement during the adjournment debate. The Opposition should face up to the fact that it is denying to the Public Accounts Committee the right to carry out the substantial work which has been allocated to it by an Act of Parliament. I believe that the Opposition ought to accept responsibility for that. I will not go any further than that. I do not wish to have a confrontation with the Senate. I have not been here for quite some time. I have a strong regard for the Senate , the work it does and its rights. I have had discussions on a couple of occasions concerning advice received from the Attorney-General's Department about the right of the Public Accounts Committee to sit during the sittings of the Senate. A similar right was given to the Committee by the other place. When I previously raised this matter in the Senate I had advice that was given by the then Attorney-General on 27 May 1982. Since a year has passed and there has been a change of government and a change of Attorney-General I sought advice, as Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, from the present Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans). I have before me his advice that he agrees with the previous advice. I seek leave to table that advice so that it becomes the property of the Senate. Leave granted. Senator GEORGES —I leave it at that. I merely say to honourable senators that the Public Accounts Committee will meet tomorrow. It will be up to individual senators who are members of that Committee to determine whether or not they will continue to attend that meeting beyond the time the Senate begins to sit. As far as I am concerned, on the advice I have received, I will continue to chair that Committee to enable it to carry out its work. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.18) —I took the unusual course for the Opposition of refusing leave for Senator Georges to move a motion for reasons which I hope I made plain last week when a similar request was opposed by the Opposition. At that time the motion was recommitted but there was no argument about the motion being put. The reason behind the Opposition's desire not to have the Joint Committee of Public Accounts meet during sitting hours is a reason which I would have thought would have the support of all honourable senators, namely, that it is not desirable when the parliamentary chambers are in session that committees of the Parliament should meet. Clearly, it is impossible for senators and members to meet their obligations in two places at the same time. As a matter of general principle, the Opposition takes the view that committee sittings and chamber sittings should be kept separate. One can point to exceptions to that. Quite recently the Opposition agreed to an exception in the case of the Senate Standing Commitee on Finance and Government Operations. We did so because this chamber, in a reference it gave to that Committee, put the Committee on a deadline and said: 'We want you to report back by a specific time'. The view was put that the Committee needed to sit on one occasion during a sitting to enable it to meet that deadline. That seems to me an exception which is reasonable, having regard to the practical exigencies of meeting the objectives of this place. But I think we have arrived at a quite ludicrous position when the Government lays down a set of sitting hours which makes it extremely difficult for the parliamentary committees to sit unless they sit during parliamentary sitting hours. It is the view of the Opposition that since the Government has laid down these sittings hours it is up to the Government to find hours outside the sitting times which will meet the convenience of committees. The Parliament does not sit on Mondays, although some Estimates committees met yesterday; it does not sit on Fridays. Parliamentary committees can meet at other times. We do not believe it is appropriate that they should be meeting while the Senate is sitting. For that reason the Opposition was opposed to the granting of leave in this case and is opposed to the whole idea of the Public Accounts Committee sitting while the Senate is sitting. Senator Georges now tells us that whatever the view of the Senate, he has advice that the Committee can sit in any event. If that is so, I suggest that he should not bring what appears to me to be a quite contemptuous motion before this place, since he had no intention of abiding by any decision. Senator Georges can do what he likes in accordance with the advice that he chooses to take, but it is the Opposition's view that honourable senators should be available for the Senate when it is sitting and that they should not be committed to committee hearings unless that is quite unavoidable. The Public Accounts Committee is in its present position because of the actions of the Government, not the Opposition's actions. It is just another indication of the quite unsatisfactory situation we have got into in respect of sitting hours. In that regard, I should mention that the Leader of the Government (Senator Button), the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) and I have been trying to meet for some days. It has been difficult to find times when all three of us are free but we hope to meet this afternoon to discuss the question of sitting hours. In general, the Opposition is opposed to having to make special arrangements for parliamentary committees, the need for which primarily arises because of the sitting hours which the Government has imposed. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(3.21) —Mr President, I wish to make a very brief statement in answer to a matter raised last week by Senator Chipp during the debate on the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Bill which he introduced to amend the principal Act. The information that I have is that the Queensland Government, through the responsible Minister, had contact with the Commonwealth Government, through Senator Durack, with regard to the rationalisation of retail outlets in Queensland under the then existing legislation. The last contact that the Queensland Minister had with the Commonwealth was a letter from Senator Durack received just before the March 1983 election. Since the election, despite requests by the Queensland Minister for a Federal-State meeting to discuss the matter further, nothing has happened, and it appears that the Queensland Minister, whilst endeavouring to pursue the matter, had to attempt to deal with three separate Ministers of the present Federal Government but has not achieved any particular progress. I think that is the answer which Senator Chipp sought last week as to whether there had been any contact and whether there had been any attempt by the responsible Queensland-- Senator Chipp —That proves that Mr White has misled the Queensland people. You have just proved it. Senator PETER RAE —I am giving the information provided by Mr White. Senator Chipp —Thank you. Senator PETER RAE —I do not accept that it was a misleading of the people. What happened was that there was an attempt by the Queensland Government to seek to achieve certain steps with regard to the rationalisation of retail outlets. And there had been correspondence with the former Government and there has been a request for a meeting with the present Government. Those are the steps which have been taken and that is the information provided to me. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.22) —I speak in support of Senator Chaney's remarks about the difficult situation in which members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts find themselves. I agree with Senator Chaney that this situation has arisen only because of the very unsatisfactory sitting hours which have been imposed upon the Senate by the present Government. I can hardly recall an instance under the previous Liberal-National Party Coalition Government when it was necessary to make these sorts of requests for committees to sit during Senate hours of debate because the Committee, despite its very heavy work load, was then still able to get through its normal program. I do not think there is a full appreciation by members of the Parliament of the very heavy work load undertaken by all members of the Public Accounts Committee. Under the reconstituted Public Accounts Committee, we have issued over 200 reports. All these are very detailed reports on matters of great substance and importance to the Parliament. Many of the matters referred to the Committee arise through the Auditor-General's report. It is unfortunate that the Auditor- General's matters that he brings to the attention of the Parliament are increasing at an alarming rate in dollar terms. Consequently, investigations by our Joint Committee of Public Accounts are rising not only in number, but also in complexity. It is unfortunate that the Public Accounts Committee in this debate has been the meat in the sandwich. It is the inability of the various leaders to meet and to arrive at a satisfactory situation in relation to sitting hours that has led to us not being able fully to discharge our responsibilities in a proper manner, reflecting the low level of priority given to the subject. I find myself in a much more difficult situation as I am the only Opposition Senate member on that Committee. While my major loyalty is to my Leader, Senator Chaney, I also have a responsibility to the Committee on which I have served virtually ever since I came into the Senate. I have dual loyalties but I suppose my paramount loyalty is to the party I represent in this chamber. Senator Button —Shame! This is a States' House. Senator WATSON —Well, they are not really States' rights matters that are under investigation, Senator Button. They are matters of national importance. An earlier speaker said that the committees could meet in between parliamentary sessions or on Fridays and Mondays. I wish to point out that the Public Accounts Committee does meet at these times. For example, last Friday the Committee inspected the Carrington shipyards just out of Newcastle preparatory to public hearings which will take place from 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. These inspections are a correct and proper part of our investigations. With the PAC and the Senate sitting at the same time, members of the Committee also find themselves with another dilemma in that when bells are rung in the Senate PAC members are obliged to answer them promptly inconveniencing not only other members of the Committee and also the witnesses. It is a very unsatisfactory situation. Further, the Committee has been advised that its Act overrules particular sitting regulations in the Senate; this has further added to the difficulties and the confusion. I would hope that present unsatisfactory situation should be resolved expeditiously to ensure that the Senate can function adequately and that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts can do the job that it was set up to do. I therefore ask the leaders to expedite their meeting on revised sitting hours and I appeal to the Government that, if it really wants to make the committee system of this Parliament work, it should do something about sitting hours. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.28) —I make a few brief remarks regarding the application for the Joint Committee of Public Accounts to be given permission to sit during the sittings of the Senate. One can understand the pressures on this Committee. But the point I make is that the Public Accounts Committee is not the only committee with which members of the Senate are in some difficulty. The Standing Committee on Social Welfare and the Joint Committee on Public Works have similar problems. Many committees have problems in meeting their commitments and the requirements under which they operate. The Public Works Committee has many references before it and has many reports to be completed and brought before the House of Representatives and the Senate. If one committee is given permission to meet during the sittings of the Senate, I think that all other committees which are under similar stresses and strains should be given similar permission. Of course, if this were done, it would create a chaotic situation in the sittings of the Senate. I suggest that the committees will have to work this out for themselves in some other way by sitting during hours that do not overlap sittings of the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —I have to advise honourable senators that Estimates Committees A and B will meet at approximately 3.40 p.m. Estimates Committee A will meet in the Senate chamber and Estimates Committee B will meet in the committee rooms 1 and 2. Prior to the sittings of the committees, the bells will be rung for three minutes. The Senate stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. Senate adjourned at 3.30 p.m. The following papers were presented: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals 1983-No. 11-New topics to be included in the Population Survey-October 1983. Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determination 1983-No. 7. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal- Determination 1983-No. 3-Remuneration and allowances for holders of offices in the first division of the Australian Public Service and holders of public office , together with an explanatory statement, dated 13 June 1983. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 54 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, 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 Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The amounts expended and proposed to be expended since the Department of Finance was formed in December 1976 to 1986 are: Hardware and software Maintenance $ $ 1976-77 145,763 132,254 1977-78 632,357 364,093 1978-79 568,476 463,868 1979-80 4,141,260 578,054 1980-81 744,828 601,146 1981-82 1,398,086 670,975 1982-83 1,353,317 745,763 1983-84 (estimated) 2,917,000 800,927 1984-85 ( estimated) 7,976,000 1,015,000 1985-86 (estimated) 1,259,000 1,037,000 Total 21,136,087 6,409,080 (3) In accordance with the approved ADP Strategic Plan it is proposed to replace the Department of Finance's existing Amdahl 470 V8 mainframe computer which was installed in 1979 with a more powerful unit in 1984-85; however, this proposal reflects workload growth and does not imply obsolescence of the present equipment, which will be available for redeployment for use in another suitable government organisation. All major items of equipment acquired since 1976 are still in use, although in technological terms some could be considered obsolete. It is planned to replace the PDP 11/34 and 11/04 minicomputers installed in the London and Washington offices of the department during the 1985-86 financial year. This equipment was installed in 1978. Two PDP 11/40 minicomputers in the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office may become obsolete in the next five years. In addition some low cost inquiry terminal equipment installed in departmental offices will be replaced during the next five years. Question No. 140 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 11 May 1983: What amounts have been paid in: (a) directors fees; (b) airfares; (c) accommodation expenses; or (d) any other amounts of reimbursable expenses, to directors of Mary Kathleen Uranium Limited in each of the past four years. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Mary Kathleen Uranium Limited has provided the following information concerning payments to directors in each of the past four years: DIRECTORS' FEES AND REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES 1979-82 1979 1980 1981 1982 $ $ $ $ Directors' fees 38,380 42,583 41,766 38,000 Reimbursable expenses: Airfares 5,916 8,587 5,970 6,462 Accommodation 221 613 908 339 Other 1,744 1,008 895 977 Directors' fees were fixed in February 1978 and have not been altered since then. Question No. 143 Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, on notice, on 11 May 1983: Has the Minister for Social Security's attention been drawn to the estimate ' that around 85 to 90 per cent of Australian income security expenditure goes to those below the poverty line, and less than 5 per cent to those with incomes above average weekly earnings', referred to in the published version of F. H. Gruen's Giblin Memorial Lecture delivered at the 52nd ANZAAS Congress in 1982; if so, (a) what was the source of the above estimate, and (b) what is the current estimate of income security expenditure for: (i) those above the poverty line, and (ii) those above the average weekly earnings. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Yes. (a) Professor Gruen does not indicate the source of the estimate in his lecture , other than to say that it came from 'within Government'. (b) (i) About 90 per cent of outlays on pensions and benefits flows to people whose other income is below the simplified Henderson poverty line. The proportion is about 80 to 85 per cent in respect of all social security cash payments to individuals (including family allowances, handicapped child's allowances and double orphan's pensions). I must emphasise that these figures are not comparable with those which would be derived on the basis of the detailed proverty lines used by Professor Henderson to estimate the extent of poverty in the First Main Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. To derive such figures would require, among other things, information on social security clients' incomes, housing costs and living arrangements. Statistical data held by the Department of Social Security are generally confined to that necessary for determination of a claim for pension, benefit or allowance and do not always include such information. (ii) Only about one per cent of outlays on social security pensions and benefits would represent payments to persons whose other income exceeds average weekly earnings. The figure would be of the order of five to ten per cent in respect of all social security cash payments. Question No. 150 Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: (1) What were the questions asked in the Income and Housing Study undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in 1982. (2) When will the full study's result be made available. (3) Did the study include details of superannuation lump sum payments; if so, what were: (a) the numbers; (b) the amount; (c) the percentage; and (d) any other details of the payments. (4) Where was the lump sum superannuation payments invested, if not will the Minister recommend that a survey be undertaken. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The 1982 Income and Housing Survey was designed to collect information on the following topics: amount and source of income (current and previous financial year); housing arrangements and costs; superannuation; endowment insurance cover; workers' compensation; compensation for injuries resulting from road traffic accidents; career path of tradesmen; and reasons for the falling retention rates of secondary students to year 12. (2) Results of the survey are expected to be released progressively in the latter half of 1983 and early 1984. (3) Yes. The information requested will not be available until the results are released. (4) Details of where lump sum superannuation payments have been invested were not collected. I am not aware that up to the present there would be sufficient expressed demand for such information to justify a special survey. Question No. 181 Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: (1) What was the total number of employees of the Commonwealth Government and its statutory authorities in: (a) January 1980, and (b) May 1983 or the latest available month. (2) What was the total number of employees of the Commonwealth Government and its statutory authorities in South Australia in (a) January 1980, and (b) May 1983 or the latest available month. (3) In which Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities in South Australia, and by how much, did employment fall from January 1980 to May 1983. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The total number of employees of the Commonwealth Government and its statutory authorities was 397,900 in January 1980 and 410,000 in May 1983. (2) The total number of employees of the Commonwealth Government and its statutory authorities in South Australia was 38,500 in January 1980 and 37,300 in May 1983. (3) Particulars of statutory authorities in South Australia which recorded falls in employment during the period January 1980 to May 1983, and the extent of such falls, are as follows: Health Insurance Commission, 120 Australian Postal Commission, 130 Australian Telecommunications Commission, 600 Australian National Railways, 1060 It is not possible to provide meaningful comparable figures for Commonwealth departments because of extensive departmental restructuring due to changes in the Administrative Arrangements Orders during the period under review. Question No. 202 Senator Bolkus asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 25 May 1983: Do current provisions prohibit or regulate adequately, if at all, the interception of international or internal telephone communications by satellite? Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: No internal Australian telephone communications are currently carried by satellite. If Telecom eventually uses a satellite, the Telecommunications ( Interception) Act 1979 will apply, and it prohibits, subject to limited exceptions, the interception of communications transmitted over systems operated by Telecom. Telephone communications to and from Australia, are passed over systems operated by international consortiums, which also handle much other international traffic. It would not be possible for the Australian Government ( or any other government for that matter) to legislate effectively against interception in that international sphere. Question No. 218 Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 1 June 1983: (1) What is the name, designation and salary of each member of the staff of: (a) the Prime Minister; (b) the Ministry; (c) the Caucus secretaries; (d) the Government Party committees; (e) the Leader of the Opposition; (f) the Shadow Ministry; (g) the Opposition backbench; (h) the Government backbench; (i) the Australian Democrats; (j) Senator Harradine; and (k) Opposition party committees. (2) Which staff members are permanent public servants. (3) What was the level of the permanent officers prior to appointment to Minister' offices. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The salary scales of the staff concerned are shown below. Their names and designations, as at 15 June 1983, are provided in parts (a)-(k) which follow. Salary Rates for ministerial staff as at 15 June 1983 Classification Salary range ($) p.a. *Principal Private Secretary *Principal Adviser 52,350 *Senior Adviser *Principal Private Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister 44,450 *Senior Private Secretary to a Minister in Cabinet 42,510 *Adviser *Senior Private Secretary to a Minister not in Cabinet 40,500 *Private Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister 33,720-35,130 *Private Secretary 31,280-32,470 *Personal Secretary to the 29,040-30,090 Prime Minister 26,800-27,850 24,250-24,930-25,610 22,080-22,780-23,480 19,830-20,360-20,890-21,420 *Assistant Private Secretary 22,080-22,780-23,480 *Clerk 19,830-20,360-20,890-21,420 17,630-18,160-18,690-19,220 *Press Secretary to the Prime Minister (Journalist Grade A4) 34,650 *Journalist Grade A2 30,610 Personal Secretary 19,440-19,970-20,500 Assistant Personal Secretary 17,410-17,890-18,370 Electorate Secretary 19,440-19,970-20,500 Electorate Assistant 17,350-18,060-18,770-19,480 Legislative Assistant Secretary-Typist 15,500-15,980-16,460 14,070-14,430-14,790 Clerical Assistant Grade 4 14,240-14,540-14,840 * Ministerial staff allowance of $7,044 per anum, in addition to salary, is payable to occupants of these positions but the Press Secretary to the Prime Minister and both the journalists grade A2 on the Prime Minister's staff receive ministerial staff allowance of $14,088 per annum. Ministerial staff allowance is by way of compensation for long and irregular hours and other special features of the positions. Overtime is not payable. Salary rates for office-holders' staff as at 15 June 1983 Classification Salary range ($) p.a. *Private Secretary Grade 4A 42,510 *Private Secretary Grade 3 31,280-32,470 *Private Secretary Grade 2 26,800-27850 *Journalist Grade A2 30,610 Assistant Private Secretary Grade 2 19,440-19,970-20,500 Assistant Private Secretary Grade 1 17,410-17,890-18,370 Electorate Secretary 19,440-19,970-20,500 Electorate Assistant 17,350-18,060-18,770-19,480 Steno-secretary Grade 1 14,070-14,430-14790 * An allowance of $7044 per annum, in addition to salary, is payable to occupants of these positions. The allowance is by way of compensation for long and irregular hours and other special features of the positions. Overtime is not payable. Consultancy Fees in Ministers' Offices as at 15 June 1983 Fee $ Prime Minister's Office- Mr N. G. Freudenberg (part-time position) 60,000 p.a.* Treasurer's Office- Dr D. B. Hughes (part-time position) * Special Minister of State's Office- Mr H. R. Hudson (part-time position) 183 per day* * Mr Freudenberg is Consultant to the Prime Minister and the Premier of N.S.W. He is paid an aggregate fee of $60,000 p.a., the Australian Government's share being $35,000 and the N.S.W. Government's share $25,000. * The terms of Dr Hughes' consultancy are yet to be finalised. * Mr Hudson is employed on a part-time basis on an average of two days per week for the period 1 April to 31 August 1983. (a)- Office of the Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, AC, MP, Prime Minister Designation Occupant Administrative and Secretariat Group- Principal Private Secretary Mr G. C. Evans Senior Private Secretary Mr J. V. Townsend Personal Secretary to the Prime Minister Mrs J. D. N. Sinclair Private Secretary-Cabinet Mr R. S. Mitchell Private Secretary- Administration Mr A. E. Sutton Assistant Personal Secretary Miss J. Saunders Assistant Personal Secretary to Mrs Hawke Ms E. S. Massey Secretary-Typist Ms V. Hodgson Secretary-Typist Mrs J. B. Hamon Secretary-Typist Ms G. K. Farrow Secretary-Typist Ms E. M. Bogusz Secretary-Typist Mrs T. S. Faka'osi Telephonist (C.A. Grade 4) Mrs J. Wood Advising Group- Principal Adviser Mr P. E. Barron Senior Adviser Mr R. D. Hogg Adviser-Economic Mr R. Garnaut Adviser-International Relations Mr J. Bowan Private Secretary Mr P. E. Simonds Private Secretary-Speech Writer Vacant Consultant (Part-time) Mr N. G. Freudenberg Secretary-Typist Miss J. P. O'Brien* Media Relations Group- Press Secretary Mr G. D. H. Walsh Journalist Grade A2 Mr C. M. Parks Journalist Grade A2 Vacant Assistant Personal Secretary Miss J. T. Willis Secretary-Typist Miss J. J. Nicholson Secretary-Typist Miss R. Forster Electorate Staff- Electorate Secretary Ms M. Tamburrino Electorate Assistant Miss D. Scurry * Miss O'Brien is paid at the Assistant Personal Secretary level. (b)- Office of the Hon. Lionel Bowen, MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade Designation Occupant Principal Private Secretary Mr B. E. Burdekin Private Secretary Mr G. J. Crough Assistant Private Secretary Mr J. J. Armstrong Personal Secretary Mrs P. E. Baker Secretary-Typist Vacant Electorate Secretary Vacant Electorate Assistant Mr V. McGuinness* Mrs B. Fahey* * Employed part-time Office of Senator the Hon. John Button, Minister for Industry and Commerce Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Dr G. Evans Private Secretary Mr R. F. Johns Assistant Private Secretary Mr P. A. Clark Assistant Private Secretary Mr N. J. Gruen Personal Secretary Mrs P. W. Smith Personal Secretary Ms M. R. Caruana Secretary-Typist Miss L. K. Lawson Electorate-Secretary Miss J. K. Phillips Electorate Assistant Miss L. A. Careedy Office of Senator the Hon. Don Grimes, Minister for Social Security Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Mrs N. Burns Private Secretary Mr D. J. Ingles Assistant Private Secretary Miss P. P. Warn Personal Secretary Ms S. Oldfield Secretary-Typist Ms A. T. O'Connor Electorate Secretary Ms K. Willis Electorate Assistant Mrs S. McKenzie* Mr M. Powell* * Employed part-time. Office of the Hon. Ralph Willis, MP, Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Vacant Private Secretary Mr D. J. McKenzie Private Secretary Mr P. J. Medlock Assistant Private Secretary Ms M. A. Carew-Reid Personal Secretary Miss H. M. Connors Secretary-Typist Miss D. L. C. Higginson Electorate Secretary Mrs N. I. Gardner Electorate Assistant Vacant Office of the Hon. P. J. Keating, MP, Treasurer Designation Occupant Consultant (Part-time) Dr D. B. Hughes Senior Private Secretary Mr A. S. Cole Private Secretary Mr J. Langmore Private Secretary Ms B. K. Ward Assistant Private Secretary Ms J. M. Kell Journalist, Grade A2 Vacant Personal Secretary Vacant Secretary-Typist Vacant Secretary-Typist Vacant Electorate Secretary Mrs E. G. Charchalis Electorate Assistant Vacant Office of the Hon. Michael J. Young, MP*, Special Minister of State Designation Occupant Consultant (Part-time) Mr H. R. Hudson Senior Private Secretary Mr G. R. Dodds Private Secretary Mr W. Swan Assistant Private Secretary Miss K. A. Lewis Personal Secretary Ms V. Gregory Secretary-Typist Miss M. E. Martinez Electorate Secretary Mrs P. Johnston Electorate Assistant Miss V. Argirov * Mr Young resigned as Special Minister of State on 14 July 1983. Office of the Hon. Stewart West, MP, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Vacant Private Secretary Vacant Assistant Private Secretary Ms U. I. Doyle Personal Secretary Ms K. A. Walsh Secretary-Typist Miss D. L. Baxter Electorate Secretary Mrs J. B. White Electorate Assistant Mr A. H. Hill Office of Senator the Hon. Peter Walsh, Minister for Resources and Energy Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Dr D. Shogren Private Secretary Mr I. D. Henderson Assistant Private Secretary Ms H. Swift Personal Secretary Miss P. R. Haigh Secretary-Typist Miss H. Hendry Electorate Secretary Ms N. Masel Electorate Assistant Mr M. Jones Office of the Hon. Bill Hayden, MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Mr M. J. Costello Private Secretary Vacant Assistant Private Secretary Miss L. Holgate Personal Secretary Ms D. Taunton Secretary-Typist Ms D. McKenzie Electorate Secretary Mrs Y. Tully Electorate Assistant Mr D. Hamill Office of Senator the Hon. Susan Ryan, Minister for Education and Youth Affairs Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Mr R. Costello Private Secretary Dr H. Watson Assistant Private Secretary Ms P. M. Kelly Personal Secretary Miss J. A. MacDonald Secretary-Typist Vacant Electorate Secretary Ms G. Hush Electorate Assistant Vacant Office of Senator the Hon. Gareth Evans, Attorney-General Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Mr C. Maxwell Adviser* Mr M. H. Pickering Private Secretary Mr T. Lloyd Assistant Private Secretary Miss B. P. Worrall Personal Secretary Mrs B. Powell Secretary-Typist Miss A. O'Brien Electorate Secretary Miss R. K. Sullivan Electorate Assistant Mr G. D. Gardener * This position is not part of the Attorney-General's staff establishment. Initially, Mr Pickering is on secondment from a private law firm for three months. Fares, allowances and other administrative costs, but not salary, are met by the Commonwealth Government. Office of the Hon. Gordon Scholes, MP, Minister for Defence Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Mr T. Rowe Private Secretary Vacant Assistant Private Secretary Miss C. D. Young Personal Secretary Mrs M. L. Turner Secretary-Typist Vacant Electorate Secretary Mrs S. Surdich Electorate Assistant Miss H. McGill Office of the Hon. Peter Morris, MP, Minister for Transport Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Mr C. M. North Private Secretary Mr P. J. Reece Assistant Private Secretary Mr L. M. Jacob Personal Secretary Ms S. Egan Secretary-Typist Vacant Electorate Secretary Mrs J. Moase Electorate Assistant Mr C. Boyd Office of the Hon. John Kerin, MP, Minister for Primary Industry Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Ms J. E. KcKay* Private Secretary Mr A. Gleeson Assistant Private Secretary Ms L. K. Wilks Personal Secretary Miss M. F. Conley Secretary-Typist Miss A. Murray Electorate Secretary Ms M. A. L. Green Electorate Assistant Mrs F. Necic* Mr S. M. Titmarsh* * Ms McKay is paid at the Clerk Class 11 salary level, currently $33,720 per annum. * Employed part-time. Office of the Hon. Kim C. Beazley, MP, Minister for Aviation Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Vacant Private Secretary Mr S. W. Hickman Assistant Private Secretary Vacant Personal Secretary Ms M. Anderson Personal Secretary Ms S. Grant Secretary-Typist Ms P. J. Alexander Electorate Secretary Ms V. Ferguson Electorate Assistant Ms M. Maruff Office of the Hon. Chris J. Hurford, MP, Minister for Housing and Construction Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Mr L. Early Private Secretary Mr J. W. McEwan Assistant Private Secretary Mr T. Burton Personal Secretary Ms P. T. Wright Secretary-Typist Ms M. Barry Electorate Secretary Vacant Electorate Assistant Ms J. M. O'Brien Office of the Hon. John Brown, MP, Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Mr E. Klein Private Secretary Mr W. Peel Assistant Private Secretary Miss F. Grew Personal Secretary Ms V. Mackenzie Secretary-Typist Ms L. Kerslake Electorate Secretary Mrs M. H. Bacon Electorate Assistant Miss S. M. Grusovin Office of the Hon. J. S. Dawkins, MP, Minister for Finance Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Mr M. J. Delaney Private Secretary Mr M. A. Roche Assistant Private Secretary Mr W. J. Stitt Personal Secretary Ms C. A. Jokabsen Secretary-Typist Miss L. C. Wells Electorate Secretary Ms P. Ryan Electorate Assistant Ms E. D. Lorin Office of the Hon. Neal Blewett, MP, Minister for Health Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Mr W. D. Bowtell Private Secretary Mr P. J. Baulderstone Assistant Private Secretary Ms K. Williamson Personal Secretary Ms P. C. Rowe Secretary-Typist Ms J. Smith Electorate Secretary Ms S. P. Stephens Electorate Assistant Mr A. Mack* Ms V. McCusker* * Employed part-time Office of the Hon. Barry O. Jones, MP, Minister for Science and Technology Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Dr K. R. Butler Private Secretary Mrs P. J. Kennedy Assistant Private Secretary Mrs C. C. Howland Personal Secretary Miss T. L. Etherington Secretary-Typist Mr F. S. Hainsworth Electorate Secretary Miss K. N. Murray Electorate Assistant Mrs C. McDonald Office of the Hon. Michael Duffy, MP, Minister for Communications Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Mr M. F. Fleming Private Secretary Mr R. D. Rudland Assistant Private Secretary Ms S. E. Coombs Personal Secretary Ms N. A. Head Secretary-Typist Ms A. L. B. Mears Electorate Secretary Miss M. L. Nolan Electorate Assistant Ms R. O'Ryan Office of the Hon. Barry Cohen, MP, Minister for Home Affairs and Environment Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Mr S. Sergi Private Secretary Mr P. M. Conway Assistant Private Secretary Mr M. D. Danby Personal Secretary Mrs J. Dressler Secretary-typist Miss K. N. Sellman Electorate Secretary Mrs C. Webster Electorate Assistant Mr A. N. Sansom Office of the Hon. A. C. Holding, MP, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Mr G. Menham Private Secretary Mr K. Wilson Assistant Private Secretary Ms P. Navuetaki Personal Secretary Mrs E. Howard Secretary-typist Mrs S. Hopman Electorate Secretary Miss E. Willox Electorate Assistant Mr E. McCormick Office of Senator the Hon. A. T. Geitzelt, Minister for Veterans' Affairs Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Mr P. J. Hansen Private Secretary Mr M. P. Burford Assistant Private Secretary Mr P. Du Rhone Personal Secretary Mrs P. Burns Secretary-typist Ms D. V. Mills Electorate Secretary Mr M. A. Wright Electorate Assistant Ms N. Solomon Office of the Hon. Tom Uren, MP, Minister for Territories and Local Government Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Mr M. A. Gallagher Private Secretary Mr J. R. Thwaite Assistant Private Secretary Mr F. G. Muller Personal Secretary Vacant Secretary-typist Vacant Electorate Secretary Mrs D. Miles Electorate Assistant Ms F. M. Rees Office of the Hon. Brian Howe, MP, Minister for Defence Support Designation Occupant Senior Private Secretary Mr R. Forward Private Secretary Mr P. R. Madden Assistant Private Secretary Vacant Personal Secretary Mrs E. L. Riley Secretary-typist Vacant Electorate Secretary Mrs C. Hoban* Ms J. Edwards* Electorate Assistant Mr J. Patsikatheodorou * Employed part time (c)- Office of Mrs R. J. Kelly, MP, Caucus Secretary Designation Occupant Personal Secretary Ms C. J. Mundy Government Caucus Committees Secretariat Designation Occupant Director (Private Secretary Grade 1) Mrs J. Gordon Personal Secretary Grade 1 Vacant Personal Secretary Grade 1 Vacant Legislative Assistant Mrs J. Kiermaier Legislative Assistant Mrs P. Everson (e), (f) and (k)-The Government has made available 48 positions, in addition to Electorate staff, to the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader has allocated those positions as follows: Office of the Hon. A. S. Peacock, MP, Leader of the Opposition Designation Occupant Private Secretary Grade 4A Mr B. C. Jeffriess Private Secretary Grade 3 Mr R. J. Clarke Private Secretary Grade 3 Mrs K. O. West Private Secretary Grade 3 Mr B. E. Scullin Private Secretary Grade 2 Miss G. D. Maguire Private Secretary Grade 2 Ms P. Wilkes Private Secretary Grade 2 Mr A. J. G. Downer Journalist Grade A2 Vacant Assistant Private Secretary Grade 2 Miss M. Parisi Steno-secretary Grade 1 Miss F. L. McKenna Steno-secretary Grade 1 Miss A. Ellis Steno-secretary Grade 1 Miss T. C. Lynch Steno-secretary Grade 1 Miss A. E. Gubbins Steno-secretary Grade 1 Miss C. L. Mullan Electorate Secretary Mrs J. Carter Electorate Assistant Miss A. Lee-Steere Office of the Hon. J. W. Howard, MP, Deputy Leader of the Opposition Designation Occupant Private Secretary, Grade 3 Mr M. E. Baume Journalist, Grade A2 Mr D. H. Pigott Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Miss B. A. Williams Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Miss J. M. Saunders Electorate Secretary Ms S. Blake Electorate Assistant Vacant Office of Senator the Hon. F. M. Chaney, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Designation Occupant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Vacant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Vacant Journalist, Grade A2 Mr K. M. Kessell Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Miss D. K. Brauns Electorate Secretary Mrs D. Mansfield Electorate Assistant Mr A. Rutherford Office of Senator the Hon. P. D. Durack, QC, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Designation Occupation Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr G. D. Willis Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Miss J. Griggs Electorate Secretary Miss K. J. Carr Electorate Assistant Dr J. Wardrop Office of the Rt Hon. J. D. Anthony, CH, MP, Leader of the National Party Designation Occupant Private Secretary, Grade 4A Mr B. S. Virtue Private Secretary, Grade 2 Miss A. P. Daly Journalist, Grade A2 Mr L. D. Bathgate Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Miss M. T. Pratt Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Miss C. T. Russell Electorate Secretary Mrs J. Wein Electorate Assistant Miss A. C. Chitakis SHADOW MINISTERS Office of Designation Occupant Mr I. Macphee, MP Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr R. Southey Senator P. E. Rae Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Miss R. McWilliam Mr J. C. Moore, MP Senator M. Guilfoyle Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Vacant Mr M. MacKellar, MP Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Mr A. T. Griffith Mr R. S. Hall, MP Mr W. Fife, MP Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Mr S. J. Whyment Senator P. Baume Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Miss C. MacKay Mr M. Hodgman, MP Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Vacant Senator A. Messner Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr B. O'Farrell Mr J. J. Carlton, MP Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Mr G. L. Sturgess Mr B. Lloyd, MP Mr P. S. Fisher, MP Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Mrs S. L. Carney Mr D. T. McVeigh, MP Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Mr P. Davey Mr R. A. Braithwaite, MP Mr S. A. Lusher, MP Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Miss M. G. M. Camilleri Mr I. McC. Sinclair, MP Private Secretary, Grade 2 Vacant Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Miss C. Corbiere Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Miss D. M. Lunnon Office of the Hon. J. D. M. Dobie, MP, Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives Designation Occupant Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mrs C. McVeigh Office of Senator B. F. Kilgariff, Opposition Whip in the Senate Designation Occupant Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Ms P. Hamilton Office of Mr N. J. Hicks, MP, National Party Whip Designation Occupant Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Miss G. Van Dam Office of National Party Senators Classification Occupant Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Ms M. J. Weatherstone (g) and (h)- SENATORS (Excluding Ministers, Opposition Office-holders and senators not affiliated with a Major Political Party) B. R. Archer Mrs H. M. Morse Mr B. Birrell Hon. P. Baume Mrs N. Kirkpatrick Miss C. Wallace F. I. Bjelke-Petersen Miss B. M. Hanman Miss D. T. Kent N. Bolkus Mrs A. Tantis Mr P. Simon R. L. D. Boswell Miss S. Gonano Miss M. Maloney Hon. Sir John Carrick Mrs G. Chapman Miss H. M. Hughan B. K. Childs Mrs V. Bason Mr D. Marcus J. Coates Ms L. E. Hornsey Miss P. M. Reardon R. N. Coleman Mrs S. G. Landquist Mr P. McMahon S. J. Collard Miss M. Franettovich Ms M. Mellick M. A. Colston Miss M. K. Dunning Mrs M. Hinchliffe P. F. S. Cook Mrs L. Court Mr L. Benfell N. A. Crichton-Browne Miss T. Wallace Mr J. Hynes R. A. Crowley Ms J. Taylor Vacant R. C. Elstob Ms P. Hansberry Ms M. Perna J. G. Evans Ms M. De La Harpe Mr C. Walton* Mr M. Price* D. J. Foreman Miss B. Molloy Mr N. J. O'Brien G. Georges Mr R. Whiddon Mr G. Weir P. J. Giles Ms C. Davenport Ms J. G. Pine Hon. Dame Margaret Guilfoyle Miss J. Stephen Miss A. Schlesinger J. Haines Mr A. Carter* Ms M. F. Oster Ms M. A. Williams* D. J. Hamer Miss B. King Mrs W. M. H. Brazil J. M. Hearn Mrs B. S. Cundall Mrs J. Tunney R. Hill Mr J. Griffin Mrs H. Atldorffer D. S. Jessop Ms T. D. Northridge Mr L. Faulkner G. N. Jones Mrs J. Seiffert Mr D. May B. F. Kilgariff Mrs K. Maurice Mr D. Bloom M. E. Lajovic Mrs L. Doherty Ms A. Ceferin A. W. R. Lewis Mrs J. Bosch Mr J. Hume Hon. D. McClelland Vacant Ms M. Jackman D. J. MacGibbon Miss A. Thompson Miss C. Draper G. D. McIntosh Mrs H. D. Butorac Mr S. Wakeham M. J. Macklin Mrs J. Hadley Mr J. Jacklin G. R. Maguire Ms K. Couper Ms J. Gregory K. J. Martin Mrs J. Fitzpatrick Mrs D. A. Woodward C. V. J. Mason Ms V. W. Bourne Mrs W. L. Barron A. J. Missen Mr A. J. Thomas Mrs B. Block Hon. A. J. Messner Mrs M. L. Murray Mr R. J. Fitzgerald C. G. Primmer Ms K. M. Ayres Mr A. J. Sargent P. E. Rae Mrs A. Carmichael Mrs R. Rae R. F. Ray Mrs K. Morris Mr D. Cragg M. E. Reid Mrs K. Messner Mrs J. A. Mahon M. Reynolds Miss K. Hunter Miss P. Cook G. F. Richardson Mrs M. Grace Mr D. Tierney E. A. Robertson Mrs C. A. Bourke Mr J. C. Graney Hon. D. B. Scott Mrs A. Plummer Mrs C. R. Edwards K. W. Sibraa Mrs M. Geoghegan Ms M. A. Armstrong M. C. Tate Mr S. Daley Ms L. Bellchambers* Mrs M. Daley* B. C. Teague Mrs E. Pooley Mr R. G. Reid M. Townley Mrs S. Richardson Vacant M. S. Walters Mrs B. L. Hurburgh Mrs H. J. Joske* J. O. W. Watson Ms C. M. Campbell Ms I. Dobson Rt Hon. R. G. Withers Mrs M. Taylor Mrs S. Withers A. O. Zakharov Ms J. Hoysted Ms C. Maher * Employed part-time MEMBERS (Excluding Ministers and Opposition Office-holders) Members Electorate Secretary Electorate/Legislative Assistant Hon. A. E. Adermann Miss K. Murray Mrs K. Hooper K. J. Aldred Mr A. Verbickis Mrs B. J. Richard J. N. Andrew Mrs S. R. Reeves Mr T. L. Barker P. J. Baldwin Ms C. E. Tout Mr A. Katzmann D. P. Bedall Ms K. Jitts Ms H. Hubbard G. N. Bilney Mrs F. Finley Mrs M. Lindsay C. A. Blanchard Mrs P. Tassell Miss A. Hogg C. A. Braithwaite Miss R. McIlvenna Mr R. J. Mallett R. J. Brown Mrs E. A. Boyd Miss M. Robson J. M. Brumby Ms D. Looney Ms R. MacKenzie M. A. Burr Miss K. M. Clarke Mr R. Robertson A. G. Cadman Ms J. E. Andrew Mrs V. Rosemeyer E. C. Cameron Mrs M. Deering Miss C. McGowan I. M. D. Cameron Mrs M. Seay Miss N. Pegler G. Campbell Ms T. Jarrett Mr P. McKerrow Mrs K. Lincolne Hon. J. J. Carlton Mrs C. E. Elton Mrs A. T. Holford D. E. Charles Mrs H. Young Mr R. Lindell R. I. Charlesworth Mrs A. Chantler Mrs C. Towie J. Child, Mrs Ms K. Alexiadis Mr J. Halloran R. L. Chynoweth Ms C. Clerk Ms T. Jenge W. P. Coleman Mrs I. Lees Miss S. Creer D. M. Connolly Mrs V. A. Webb Ms T. Wren D. B. Cowan Mrs W. McKeough Ms H. Grey* Mrs S. Outtrim* M. D. Cross Miss C. Allen Mrs M. Fewin B. T. Cunningham Miss J. Onger Miss T. Cunningham E. E. Darling, Mrs Mrs M. Woodgate Ms M. Wilcox Hon. J. D. M. Dobie Mrs G. Ridoutt Mr M. Pearson* Ms R. Smith* P. H. Drummond Miss S. D. Fotakis Mr J. C. G. Buxton H. R. Edwards Miss B. D. Beveridge Mrs H. Gray* Mrs C. Kelly* R. F. Edwards Mr T. Lewis Mrs L. Ethell Hon. D. N. Everingham Ms V. Laletin Mrs L. Wright* Mr A. R. Coker* W. F. Fatin Ms J. Greenwood Ms S. Talbot Hon. W. Fife Mrs J. Nugent Mrs J. A. Ross P. S. Fisher Mrs M. Schlemme Mrs F. A. Martin* Mrs J. Waldie* R. V. Free Mrs R. Peno Mr G. Hungerford K. L. Fry Mrs M. Charchalis Ms S. McGrath J. Gayler Mr S. Gray Miss B. Stewart Mrs P. Holt G. Gear Ms G. White Mr M. Woodhouse B. J. Goodluck Mrs J. B. Wilson Mrs B. I. Cusick R. N. J. Gorman Mrs J. E. Hartley Mrs S. J. Caldwell A. G. Griffiths Ms D. Hughes* Mr G. Lennocks Ms T. Saville* Hon. R. J. Groom Mr G. W. Walkley Ms H. J. Wilkinson R. S. Hall Ms M. K. McBryde Miss B. Parsons G. L. Hand Ms G. Stradijot Mr K. Healy D. P. M. Hawker Mrs L. J. Slorach Vacant N. J. Hicks Mrs R. Baldwin Mrs E. L. Hookey Hon. M. Hodgman Mrs G. P. Denniss Mr R. P. Achurch C. Hollis Mrs M. Bradford Vacant B. C. Humphreys Miss E. Reed Ms F. Mcleod Hon. R. J. Hunt Mrs S. A. Watts Mrs J. L. Doyle R. Jacobi Ms S. J. Hogben Mr P. Holloway H. A. Jenkins Miss S. J. Wilkes Mrs B. Gleeson Hon. L. R. Johnson Ms S. Penman Ms J. E. O'Connell Hon. R. C. Katter Mrs C. Ahnfeldt Mrs M. Wollaston Ms K. Black R. J. Kelly, Mrs Ms E. Ellis Mrs G. Welshe L. Kent Mrs J. Sullivan Ms E. J. Cary L. F. Keogh Mrs L. Tobin Mrs P. Cook Hon. Sir James Killen Miss M. Cohen Mrs J. Cullinan R. E. Klugman Mrs G. W. Boyce-Monaghan Mrs M. Turner E. J. Lindsay Mr I. McDougall Ms K. Carpenter B. Lloyd Ms V. G. Green Mrs B. W. Bassler* S. A. Lusher Mrs E. Price Miss M. R. Hendrie P. J. McGauran Ms P. Boothman Ms J. Harvey J. McHugh Mr E. Galtos Ms F. Gervasoni Hon. M. J. R. MacKellar Miss H. Ovens Mr D. Cumming L. B. McLeay Mrs A. Williamson Mr P. J. Solomon Hon. I. Macphee Miss J. D. Harris Miss M. Poulos Hon. D. T. McVeigh Miss L. M. Peters Mrs J. Copley M. J. Maher Ms J. O'Hare Mrs M. Donovan H. Mayer Ms N. Sparrow* Ms L. Lloyd* Mr H. Hodgens* Ms N. Wilson* M. J. Mildren Mr D. J. Miller Mrs H. J. Horrocks P. C. Millar Miss M. Olds Mr R. Donald P. Milton Ms L. D'Agostino Ms K. A. Large Hon. J. C. Moore Ms B. S. Stehn Mr R. J. Wilson A. A. Morris Miss I. Stanborough Ms J. R. Parker Hon. W. L. Morrison Ms V. M. Backvall Mr J. Hutchinson J. G. Mountford Mrs K. T. Creighton Ms M. F. Webb Hon. K. Newman Mrs J. R. Calvert Miss S. Paterson F. L. O'Keefe Miss P. Carlton Mr D. Campbell L. R. T. O'Neil Ms C. Boax Mr W. Johnson Ms C. F. Hutchison J. R. Porter Ms S. Lock Mrs R. James G. F. Punch Mrs N. McAloon Mrs M. Dodkin J. E. Reeves Ms C. McGlynn Mr M. A. Heward Ms K. Elliott Hon. I. L. Robinson Mrs H. Pullen Ms R. King A. C. Rocher Mrs Y. Brophy Mr J. Nurick P. M. Ruddock Miss R. Lee Miss J. A. Boothby J. Saunderson Ms P. Decker Miss P. Dagnall J. L. Scott Mrs C. Pickles Mrs L. Ivchenko D. W. Simmons Mrs J. Navin Miss S. West R. F. Shipton Miss A. Walsh Ms H. Farrington Rt Hon. I. McC. Sinclair Miss P. Koebel Miss R. Rutherford J. H. Snow Mr G. H. Corey* Mrs R. C. Clasper Mrs L. M. Anderpon* J. M. Spender Ms D. Jacobson Ms W. Christison P. R. Staples Ms E. Wightman Mr L. McInnes A. P. Steedman Ms M. Barr Ms G. Freeman Hon. A. A. Street Mrs N. Ward Ms B. Smith Dr A. C. Theophanous Ms S. Bozic* Mr W. Albon Mr M. Trethewey* Mr N. T. Hayward* C. W. Tuckey Mrs S. W. Goldstone Ms A. Lawler* D. M. Wells Mrs L. Storey Ms R. Walters P. N. D. White Miss M. Hartstein Miss M. Wilson Hon. I. B. C. Wilson Mrs B. J. Champion Miss F. Vorassi * Employed part-time (i)- Office of Senator the Hon. D. L. Chipp, Leader of the Australian Democrats Designation Occupant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr S. Spindler Private Secretary, Grade 1 Mr D. Campbell Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr G. Butman Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr C. Carter Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Miss L. S. Barton Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Ms J. E. McEwan Electorate Secretary Ms A. Defteros Electorate Assistant Mrs H. Jeffcoat Office of Senator M. J. Macklin, Australian Democrat Whip Designation Occupant Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mrs G. Wimmer (j)- Office of Senator B. Harradine Designation Occupant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Mr D. W. Strangman Electorate Secretary Mrs V. M. Challenger Electorate Assistant Mr J. P. Kearney (2) and (3) As at 15 June 1983, the names and classifications of permanent officers of the Australian Public Service seconded to Ministers' and office- holders' offices were: Name Classification Mr G. C. Evans Level 2, Acting Level 4 Mr J. V. Townsend Clerk, Class 11 Mr R. S. Mitchell Clerk, Class 8, Acting Clerk, Class 9 Mr A. E. Sutton Clerk, Class 10 Ms E. S. Massey Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Ms V. Hodgson Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Mrs J. B. Hamon Steno-secretary, Grade 1, Acting Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Ms G. K. Farrow Steno-secretary, Grade 2, Acting Personal Secretary, Grade 1 Ms E. M. Bogusz Word Processing Typist, Grade 1, Acting Typist, Grade 2 Mrs J. Wood Telephonist Clerical Assistant, Grade 4 Mr J. Bowan Level 1, Acting Level 2 Miss R. Forster Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Mr B. E. Burdekin FA03 Dr G. Evans Clerk, Class 11 Mr D. J. Ingles Clerk, Class 8 Ms A. T. O'Connor Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Mr D. J. McKenzie Clerk, Class 6 Ms M. A. Carew-Reid Clerk, Class 1 Miss D. L. C. Higginson Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Mr A. S. Cole Level 2 Ms V. Gregory Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Miss D. L. Baxter Steno-secretary, Grade 1, Acting Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Mr A. H. Hill Senior Research Officer (Clerk, Class 6) Dr D. Shogren Clerk, Class 11 Miss H. Hendry Typist, Grade 1 Mr M. J. Costello Clerk, Class 11 Miss L. Holgate Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Ms D. Taunton Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Ms D. McKenzie Typist, Grade 1, Acting Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Mrs Y. Tully Clerical Assistant, Grade 4 Ms G. Hush Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Mrs B. Powell Steno-secretary, Grade 2, Acting Clerk, 2/3 Mrs M. L. Turner Clerk, Class 1 Mr C. M. North Clerk, Class 9 Mr P. J. Reece Clerk, Class 11 Miss M. F. Conley Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Mr S. W. Hickman Clerk, Class 1 Ms S. Grant Steno-secretary, Grade 1, Acting Personal Secretary, Grade 1 Ms P. J. Alexander Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Mr L. Early Level 1 Ms P. T. Wright Typist, Grade 1 Mr J. W. McEwan Journalist, Grade A1, Acting Clerk, Class 11 Mr T. Burton Research Officer Mr W. Peel Clerk, Class 9, Acting Clerk, Class 11 Mr W. J. Stitt Clerk, Class 8 Miss L. C. Wells Typist, Grade 2, Acting Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Mr W. D. Bowtell FA02, Acting FA03 Mr P. J. Baulderstone Clerk, Class 5, Acting Clerk, Class 7 Ms J. Smith Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Mrs C. C. Howland Typist, Grade 2 Miss T. L. Etherington Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 Mrs C. McDonald Typist, Grade 2 Mr R. D. Rudland Clerk, Class 11 Ms N. A. Head Steno-secretary, Grade 2, Acting Clerk, Class 4 Mr S. Sergi FA04 Mr P. M. Conway Clerk, Class 10 Mr G. Menham Level 1 Mrs E. Howard Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Mrs S. Hopman Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Ms D. V. Mills Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Mr J. R. Thwaite Clerk, Class 9, Acting Clerk, Class 10 Mrs E. L. Riley Typist, Grade 2 Ms P. Wilkes Clerk, Class 9 Mr A. J. G. Downer FA02 Miss M. Parisi Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Miss F. L. McKenna Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Miss A. Ellis Communicator, Grade 3 Mr K. M. Kessell Journalist, Grade A Miss D. K. Brauns Typist, Grade 1 Mrs D. Mansfield Typist, Grade 1 Miss M. T. Pratt Personal Secretary, Grade 1 Mr B. R. O'Farrell Clerk, Class 1 Mrs C. McVeigh Typist, Grade 1 Ms P. Hamilton Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Miss G. Van Dam Typist, Grade 2 Mr D. W. Strangman Clerk, Class 7 Mr J. P. Kearney Clerical Assistant, Grade 1, Acting Clerical Assistant, Grade 3 Question No. 242 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 2 June 1983: (1) Has the Minister for Communications' attention been drawn to reports in The National Times of 22 May 1983 that the Overseas Telecommunications Commission had handed over material to the Defence Signals Directorate which encompassed private telephone and cable communication. (2) Who authorised such tapping and publication; and (a) what period did it cover; (b) what communications were so covered; and (c) who was involved in these communications. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia): (1) Yes. (2) Neither the Overseas Telecommunications Commission nor I have any record or knowledge of such tapping or publication. Question No. 243 Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 3 June 1983: (1) How many experiemnts on living animals were performed during the years 1980 , 1981 and 1982. (2) How many experiments on living animals performed in 1982 were for the following purposes: (a) the testing of cosmetics and toiletries; (b) the testing of weapons; (c) the testing of weedkillers; (d) the testing of oven cleaners; (e) the testing of pesticides; (f) the testing of detergents; (g) the testing of fertilizers; and (h) the testing of tobacco. (3) How many experiments on living animals were performed in 1982 which involved the killing of animals in the LD50 procedure. (4) What steps are taken to inspect laboratories where animals are used and to ensure compliance with the Codes of Practice issued by the funding bodies. (5) How many experiments on living animals were performed in Australia in 1982 involving the Draize test or other procedures causing damage to or destruction of skin or eye of animals. (6) How many animals of the following species died in experiments during 1982: (a) rats, (b) dogs, (c) chickens, (d) sheep, (e) cats, (f) guinea pigs, (g) monkeys, (h) mice, (j) horses. (7) What steps are taken to ensure compliance with the Codes of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals in Research in Australia issued by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. (8) What plans are there to ensure that all experiments upon living animals are performed by licensed scientists at registered and inspected laboratories as in Britain and other countries. (9) How many primates were imported into Australia for research purposes in 1982. (10) What steps are being taken to ensure that humane alternative techniques such as the use of tissue cultures or the Ames test are being used wherever practical. What funds are being channelled into collating and disseminating information about such humane techniques and developing new ones. (11) How many animals died in experiments conducted by the following commercial interests in Australia in 1980, 1981 and 1982: Upjohn, Pfizer, Wellcome, ICI and Ciba-Geigy. (12) What steps are being taken to limit animal experimentation to genuine medical purposes only. (13) What steps are being taken to control the infliction of pain and distress experienced by research animals. (14) What plans are there to increase the official statistics and information published concerning the use of living animals and in particular, are steps being taken to publish the number of animals by species, the purposes for which they are being used, the qualifications of the experimenters, and the severity of procedures being inflicted upon the animals. (15) How many experiments on animals involved the use of electric shock or other aversive stimuli. (16) How many experiments on animals in 1980, 1981 and 1982 involved the blinding or deafening of animals. (17) What proportion of experiments on living animals performed in 1980, 1981 and 1982 were carried out without anaesthetic. (18) What steps are being taken to ensure that all scientists experimenting on living animals in Australia are trained in humane animal care and the techniques of anaesthesia, euthanasia and analgesia before being allowed to experiment. (19) How many animals in experiments in 1980, 1981 and 1982 were subjected to burning, scalding, or radiation. (20) How many dogs and cats obtained from pounds were used for experimentation in 1980, 1981 and 1982. (21) How many animals have been used at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratory in the preparation of funnel-web spider serum, of what species, and what procedures have been employed. (22) What proportion of experiments on living animals performed in 1982 were affected by the guidelines laid down by the CSIRO Code of Practice, and what steps were taken to ensure that they were enforced. (23) What reports of experiments on animals are publicly available. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Science and Technology has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Legislative requirements for experiments on living animals differ from State to State and nationwide statistics are not collected. I have no responsibility for any Commonwealth legislation in this area but the Minister for Territories and Local Government is responsible for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance 1959, in the Australian Capital Territory. Under that Ordinance the Minister for Health has recently empowered the Chairman of the Capital Territory Health Commission to authorise persons to perform experiments on animals. Information concerning CSIRO's current holdings of animals is given in my answer to House of Representatives Question 236. Relevant statistical and other information has been provided by previous Ministers for Health, and Science and Technology, in response to recent Questions on Notice. The responses are to be found in the following House of Representatives' Hansards: 24 February 1981, page 56 (Question No. 75) 10 June 1981, page 3510 (Question No. 2459) 17 November 1981, page 2919 (Question No. 2455) 16 February 1982, page 86 (Question No. 703) 16 February 1982, page 91 (Question No. 1970) 16 February 1982, page 95 (Question No. 2457) 17 February 1982, page 301 (Question No. 3446) 7 September 1982, page 1152 (Question No. 4152) (2) Nationwide statistics are not collected. (3) Nationwide statistics are not collected. (4) Inspection of laboratories is undertaken in some States by officers authorized under the relevant legislation. Where compliance with a code of practice is a condition of funding such adherence is a matter for the laboratory and the research worker(s) concerned. It is mandatory for recipients of National Health and Medical Research Council grants to comply with the CSIRO 'Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals in Research in Australia'. Those receiving grants from the Australian Research Grants Scheme (ARGS) have to comply with the codes of conduct enforced at their host institutions. However , my Department recognised earlier this year that it would be desirable to bind recipients of ARGS grants to the NH&MRC CSIRO Code more formally and arrangements are in hand to write the requirement into the terms and conditions of future ARGS awards. In the past, some rural industry research fund committees had adopted the NH& MRC CSIRO Code, others had not. The Department of Primary Industry, which is responsible for oversight of these funds, has now ensured that all animal research funded through the following Committees will be subject to ethical evaluation and adherence to the NH&MRC CSIRO Code. Australian Meat Research Committee Australian Pig Industry Research Committee Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee Australian Dairy Research Committee Poultry Research Advisory Council Honey Research Committee Australian Wool Research Committee It is the policy of the CSIRO Executive that all experiments conducted by officers of the Organization involving animals must conform with the NH&MRC/ CSIRO Code. The Code has also been adopted by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the Commonwealth Institute of Health and the National Biological Standards Laboratory. (5) Nationwide statistics are not collected. (6) Nationwide statistics are not collected. (7) Apart from the cases detailed in (4) above compliance with the NH&MRC/CSIRO Code by research institutions is voluntary. (8) I am not aware of any plans. (9) In 1982-83 there were 155 non-human primates imported for scientific purposes. (10) I am advised that scientific institutions are giving increasing attention to finding alternatives to the use of animals for experimental purposes. Apart from the important humane aspects, this is occurring because the behaviour and reactions of live animals often fall short of experimental requirements and their use can be very expensive. Tissue culture, cell culture and other in vitro procedures and chemical tests are used extensively and have substantially reduced the use of animals in many situations. The Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources of the United States National Academy of Sciences reported in 1980 that there had been a 35 per cent decline in the number of laboratory animals acquired by United States research organizations between 1968 and 1978-the use of dogs and cats decreased by 32 per cent and the use of non-human primates by 47 per cent. These figures confirm that the use of alternative techniques is increasing. Such alternative approaches are being promulgated through normal scientific contacts and publications. I am not aware of specific Government funding for the development of alternative techniques or the dissemination of information about such techniques. (11) Nationwide statistics are not collected. (12) I am not aware of such steps. I would be concerned that limiting animal experimentation to human medicine would eliminate the research directed toward the control and prevention of domestic and native animal diseases. Further, it would also eliminate research aimed at improving domestic animal husbandry, and the conservation and management of native and introduced fauna. (13) The adoption of the NH&MRC/CSIRO Code by research agencies and their compliance with relevant State and Territory legislation will help to ensure that no avoidable pain or distress is experienced by research animals, and that what they do experience is minimised. (14) I am not aware of such plans or steps. (15) Nationwide statistics are not collected. However, a few years ago the Australian Veterinary Association asked CSIRO to evaluate an electronic device used to restrain large domestic animals and, more particularly, to evaluate claims that the device suppressed pain in surgery. Details of this work will be found in September 1983 issue of the CSIRO quarterly 'Rural Research'. (16) Nationwide statistics are not collected. (17) Nationwide statistics are not collected. (18) Many experiments simply involve observation of animals in captivity or in the wild without any manipulation, surgical or otherwise. Thus in many instances the question of anaesthesia, euthanasia and analgesia is irrelevant. Adoption of the NH&MRC/CSIRO Code by research agencies and their compliance with relevant State and Territory legislation will help to ensure that research workers are appropriately trained in humane animal care and that high standards of animal care are maintained at all times. (19) Nationwide statistics are not collected. (20) Nationwide statistics are not collected. (21) Eleven rabbits, 900 mice and 6 monkeys have been used in the preparation of two batches of Funnel Web Spider Antivenom. The rabbits in which the antisera are raised are maintained as blood donors, the mice are used in the biological assay in a test resembling the LD50 test, and the monkeys are used in the safety tests. In addition some 23 monkeys were used in the research studies which established the feasibility of preparation of a Funnel Web Spider Antivenom. (22) Information not available. (see (4) and (7) above). (23) The reports of Commonwealth and State research agencies which, inter alia, indicate broadly the type of animal experimentation undertaken are usually publicly available. These reports contain lists of scientific papers which describe the nature of the experiments and their results. The above issues might be more thoroughly traversed at a Senate Select Committee inquiry into animal welfare and rights as recently foreshadowed ( Senate Hansard, 19 May, 1983, pages 612-3 refer). Question No. 270 Senator MacGibbon asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Are trade certificates earned through theoretical and practical training in the armed services equal to trade certificates earned in civilian life. (2) Are the courses offered in the services, and skills gained, equivalent to those courses offered and skills gained by non-forces men and women. (3) Are the courses offered and certificates gained recognised as equal to those offered in civilian life. (4) Can an ex-serviceman or woman gain a job of equal trade status once they leave the Service. (5) If their trade is not recognised, why is this so. (6) Are Service tradesmen on a par in terms of pay with their civilian counterparts. (7) Are the teachers-instructors in the Services required to have special qualifications in the particular trade or trades in which they give instruction. (8) Do Service personnel receive any special financial increments for the certificates they hold, or the skills they have gained. (9) Upon entering the services, are the recruits informed that any certificates they gain will be of value to them when/if they return to civilian life in gaining employment in their chosen field. (10) If there is a lack of appropriate trade recognition, what is being done to address this problem. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10 of the senator's question, although of concern, go beyond the scope of the Defence portfolio which does not have responsibility for these broader civilian workforce-related matters and the associated mechanisms for consultation with State authorities. I have, nevertheless, provided answers to those questions as I understand the situation. Should more definitive answers be required, it is suggested that they be addressed to my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. (1) It is worthy of note that recognition as a tradesman by one State is accepted across the Commonwealth. Four categories of armed Service apprentices and trainees can be identified: (a) Army apprentices in Victorian proclaimed trades are registered with the Victorian Industrial Training Commission and receive the same trade certificates as civilian apprentices. (b) Navy apprentices and adult trainees in New South Wales proclaimed trades are registered with the Apprenticeship Directorate in New South Wales and receive the same trade certificates as civilian apprentices. (c) Air Force apprentices are not registered with any apprenticeship authority and consequently do not receive the same apprenticeship certificate as their civilian counterparts. Recently arrangements have been made under the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation- TRR-Act to issue tradesmen's certificates to ex-Royal Australian Air Force apprentices in certain metal and electrical trades provided that they meet established criteria. Apprentices in trades which are not TRR Act trades but which are proclaimed trades in certain States may also gain recognition. (d) Army and Air Force Adult trainees may on discharge receive civilian recognition depending on their trades: (i) In certain metal and electrical trades, an ex-serviceman who has met the criteria established under the TRR Act may be issued with a tradesman's certificate which would be recognised by employers and unions throughout Australia as equivalent to a completed apprenticeship contract. (ii) In trades outside those covered by the TRR Act, there is no national recognition machinery. However, in proclaimed apprenticeship trades in some States, ex-servicemen may be able to get some form of tradesman accreditation under recently enacted legislation. It is understood that Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland have such legislation. In trades which are specific to the armed services, no civilian equivalent to the Service certificate exists. (2) Courses offered and skills gained in the services can be compared with those for non-forces men and women only through specific investigation by a competent recognition body. For certain metal and electrical trades, such investigations have been carried out by central trades committees established under the TRR Act, and criteria for recognition have been determined. In other cases apprenticeships which are registered with State apprenticeship or industrial training authorities are deemed equivalent to civilian apprenticeships. Similarly some Service courses are recognised by individual technical and further education institutions as equivalent to their certificate courses. Some specific trade courses offered and skills developed in the Services have not yet been assessed. (3) Army and Navy apprentices and Navy adult trainees, because of registration of their indentures with State authorities, have full recognition in civilian life. The other two categories, i.e. Air Force apprentices and Army and Air Force adult trainees, can gain formal recognition through the TRR Act where the Act applies. The TRR Act provides for central and local trade committees which represent unions, government and employers. The Committees grant accreditation in the form of a tradesman's certificate which indicates acceptance for employment at trade level by virtue of the agreement of employers and unions that the tradesman's certificate is equivalent in standard to a completed apprenticeship contract or indenture. The TRR Act deals only with specified metal and electrical trades. (4) The ability of ex-servicemen or women to gain jobs of equal trade status once they leave the Service depends mainly on each individual. Employers are not obliged to restrict trade employment to recognised tradesmen. Consequently, ex-service personnel may be able to gain employment at an equal or higher status despite the non-recognition of their trades skills because of lack of civil equivalence of their Service training. However, in some trades, e.g. plumbing, special licences are required. (5) There are several reasons why a particular Service trade is not recognised formally in civilian industry; for example: (i) The Service trade may have no equivalent in civilian industry; (ii) The Service trade may not be sufficiently similar to the nearest civilian trade to enable an equivalence to be determined; or (iii) There may be no machinery at Commonwealth or State level for providing formal recognition in the trade concerned. This would apply equally to servicemen and to civilians such as newly arrived migrants or refugees. The TRR Act is concerned with certain electrical and metal trades only. In general formal recognition of trade qualifications obtained outside the apprenticeship system in Australia is the exception rather than the rule. (6) The pay level system is fundamental to the concept of the armed forces ' industry' in which the cohesion and requirements of the Defence Force are central to salary fixation. The pay level system reflects the relative worth of each Service employment in terms of its functions, skills, training and responsibilities and, in a very broad way, civilian standards of remuneration. There are currently seven pay levels to reflect the various trades skills ranging from the 'minimum skilled' to the 'highest skilled or technician' level. These pay levels are subject to regular review by a special committee. (7) Service teachers-instructors are either qualified professional teachers of the Education Branch or Corps or are tradesmen who have particular qualifications and trade skills. (8) The grant of civilian certificates is not recognised by increments in pay. However, in certain employment categories, and notably in the technical categories, the achievement of higher Service-related skills and experience is recognised by the allocation of a higher skill grade and a consequent higher pay level. However within a particular trade any increments relate to skill levels during the training phase and once qualified at the tradesman's level further increments are related to rank rather than levels of skill. Minor differences exist between the three Services. (9) In general, recruiting brochures and other aids at recruiting centres advise new recruits of the civilian trade certificates they will gain and the benefit they confer after discharge. Some unintentional exceptions to this practice may exist, but in general efforts are made to alert recruits to these matters. (10) In preliminary meetings between officers of my Department, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Public Service Board it was agreed that further joint investigation to facilitate and improve civilian recognition is warranted and that the more immediate problem was centred in the middle level-TAFE Certificate-area. Since all three Services are involved any comprehensive investigation would require considerable effort and co-ordination. Recently I wrote to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations requesting that an interdepartmental working party be set up for this purpose. Question No. 286 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Has the Australian Government, either through the Australian Consulate in Denpasar or some other means, approached the Indonesian Government requesting that the availability of hallucinogenic mushrooms to Australian tourists in Bali should cease or be restricted; if so, on what date was the approach made and by whom. (2) What was the response of the Indonesian Government to any such approach. (3) What was the reason for any such approach by the Australian Government. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) On 19 April 1983 the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, in contact with Indonesian drug enforcement authorities, drew their attention informally to the availability of hallucinogenic mushrooms in Bali. (2) I understand that the Indonesian authorities have commenced a public awareness campaign, alerting people to the dangers of human consumption of hallucinogenic mushrooms. In consequence, restaurants and other outlets serving dishes containing hallucinogenic mushrooms have deleted such dishes from their menus. (3) The Embassy's approach followed a case in which an Australian citizen, who was affected in Bali by hallucinogenic mushrooms, was medically evacuated under psychiatric escort to Australia. Question No. 294 Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) What were the names of the newspapers and journals which featured the advertisement explaining the Government's changes to superannuation. (2) What was the total cost of all the advertisements. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions: (1) The advertisement featuring the Government's provisions for taxation of lump sum superannuation payments was inserted in the following newspapers: Australian Press- The Australian Goulburn Post Financial Review Grafton Examiner Sydney Morning Herald Lismore Star Daily Telegraph Maitland Mercury Daily Sun Murwillumbah News Daily Mirror Coffs Harbour Advocate Melbourne Age Orange Daily Sun News Pictorial Tamworth Leader Melbourne Herald Wagga Advertiser Brisbane Courier Mail Ballarat Courier Brisbane Daily Sun Bendigo Advocate Brisbane Telegraph Geelong Advertiser Adelaide Advertiser Mildura Daily Adelaide News Shepparton News Perth West Australian Warrnambool Standard Perth Daily News Bundaberg News Darwin N.T. News Cairns Post Canberra Times Gladstone Observer Hobart Mercury Ipswich Times Launceston Examiner Mackay Mercury Burnie Advocate Maroochydore Daily Newcastle Herald Gympie Times Wollongong Mercury Maryborough Chronicle Mt Gambier Border Watch Mt Isa Star Geraldton Guardian Rockhampton Bulletin Albury Border Mail Toowoomba Chronicle Bathurst Advocate Townsville Bulletin Broken Hill Truth Warwick News Dubbo Daily Liberal Kalgoorlie Miner Ethnic Press- Greek Lebanese Hellenic Herald An Nahar Neos Kosmos Al Watan Hellenism El Telegraph Greek Times Sada Loubnan O Kosmos Saout et Moughtareb Turkish Yugoslavian Tercuman Nova Dova Yeni Vatan Nobosti Turk Dayansima Croatian Weekly Yeni Dunya Tel Harber Portuguese Yorum Corrieo Portuguese O Portuguese na Spanish Australia El Espanol Spanish Herald Vietnamese Extra Informativ Bell of Saigon Viet Luan Italian La Fiamma Il Globo (2) The total cost of inserting the advertisement in those newspapers was $212, 651.98. Senator Gareth Evans —On 24 August 1983 (Hansard, page 132), Senator Mason asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Defence, without notice: Will the Government make an immediate approach to the Indonesian Government for an absolute guarantee that no items included in Australian military aid to Indonesia will be used against the people of East Timor? Will the Government, while still pressing for an act of self-determination in East Timor, seek as an interim measure a full and permanent amnesty for those Timorese who have opposed the Indonesian invasion? Will the Government seek, through the good offices of the United Nations and with the concurrence of the Indonesian and other interested governments, an open door for a comprehensive pattern of aid for East Timor in the form of both money and expertise that would enable it to become a prosperous and viable society? If that last objective could be achieved, and I believe it could, can that be on the basis of normal disclosure of events in East Timor being permitted by the Indonesian Government so that world opinion can be satified as to the intentions of Indonesia in regard to East Timor? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to those parts of the honourable senator's question which fall within his area of responsibility: The Indonesian Government has been offering amnesty to Fretilin guerillas and their supporters since December 1977. The most recent offer was made in July of this year. The Indonesian authorities have emphasised that reprisals will not be taken against those who accept the amnesty offer. While precise information on the number of people who have availed themselves of the amnesty is not available , the policy has had some success in encouraging people to leave the mountains and return to a more normal way of life. The reduction in the number of Fretilin sympathisers detained on Atauro Island is similarly to be welcomed. At the end of April 1983, 2,800 detainees were still on Atauro-against an initial population of around 5,000. The bulk of these detainees have been resettled in their former villages or in other villages on the mainland. It is hoped that the remaining detainees on Atauro will be transferred to the mainland by the end of the year. The Australian Government welcomes the efforts at reconciliation that have been made in East Timor by Governor Mario Carrascalao. It is therefore with regret that the Government learned of the attack on 8 April on an Indonesian garrison near Dilor in which 12 to 15 Indonesian soldiers were killed. The Government believes that a resumption of military hostilities in East Timor would represent a step backwards in the search for a lasting peace. The Government therefore urges restraint so that the process of peaceful contact can be given a chance to succeed. As regards the establishment of an 'open door' policy for the provision of international aid to East Timor, it should be noted that the International Committee of the Red Cross, United Nations International Childrens Emergency Fund, the United States Catholic Relief Services and the Australian Government have been providing aid to East Timor for many years. For example, Australian Government assistance since September 1975 amounts to $7.7m. The most recent contribution, amounting to $1.5m, was announced by the Prime Minister in June. While the Government sees advantages in Senator Mason's suggestion, the Indonesian authorities have to date preferred to initiate their own development budget of US $83m in 1982-83, and to limit outside assistance to support for humanitarian relief programs delivered through international relief agencies and some voluntary organisations. A number of recent visitors to East Timor, including an Australian parliamentary delegation, have attested to the considerable economic and social progress that has been achieved in recent years . The Government has welcomed the fact that in recent years the Indonesian authorities have permitted an increasing number of visitors to East Timor. While wishing to see this continue, the Government recognises that the question of access is ultimately one for the Indonesian authorities to decide. In this context, the Government welcomes the recent visit to East Timor of an Australian parliamentary delegation and the excellent arrangements that were made for the delegation to enable it to travel so widely in East Timor. Senator Button —On 26 May 1983 (Hansard, page 889) Senator Robert Ray asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, without notice: Has any evidence been forwarded to the Minister's Department with regard to employees illegally assisting starting price bookmakers? When will the Minister be in a position to respond to allegations made in the Connor report to the Victorian State Government? The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The allegations made in the report of the Connor inquiry into legalising casinos in Victoria are at present being investigated by the Australian Federal Police. A response will be made as soon as the police inquiry has been completed . As a result of the report of the Connor inquiry, Commonwealth officials- including those of Telecom Australia-and officers of the Australian Federal Police and the State police forces have also met to consider the allegations of Telecom links with organised crime. A working party is trying to identify ways in which Telecom procedures and systems might be improved so as to help law- enforcement agencies. Telecom/police working arrangements are being examined, as is the possibility of amending the present legislation in such a way as to assist inquiries by law enforcement agencies.