Thursday, 15 September 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that Senator McIntosh is overseas for the remainder of the Budget sittings attending the United Nations as the Government's delegate. Senator Jones will act as Deputy Whip during Senator McIntosh's absence. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: The Honourable the Speaker and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However, extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 14 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce be renamed the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade. Senator ARCHER —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer and the Minister for Primary Industry whether his attention has been drawn to Item 36A of the Schedule of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935 whereby free admission is given to New Zealand fruit and vegetable juices. Has the Government made an assessment of the effects of this amendment on the apple and small fruits industries, particularly the black currants industry, in Tasmania at a time when those industries are making every effort to regain some of their former status? Will the Government consider an amendment in order to restore imported juices to their previous status? Senator WALSH —I am advised by the Minister for Primary Industry that he is aware of the concerns associated with the matter raised by Senator Archer. He has also told me that he will be meeting today with representatives of the Tasmanian Soft Fruit Industry Board to discuss their concerns. Senator COLEMAN —Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware of claims of the high cost to industry and Australian taxpayers brought about by State government purchasing preference schemes? Does he believe that these claims are justified? If so, will he advise what action the Federal Government can or will take to facilitate the removal of what are seen as barriers to industry efficiency and profitability? Senator BUTTON —I have not seen all the claims that have been made on this issue, but I have seen some of them. It is my view that they are justified. Since it was elected to office, the Government has maintained continuing opposition to the continuance of State preference schemes, largely on the basis of their economic efficiency, their effects in fragmenting Australian industry and the distortions which they cause to interstate trade. Since the Government was elected, this issue has become increasingly alive as a question of public debate . It was raised at the National Economic Summit Conference by the Premiers of Victoria and South Australia who expressed opposition to State preferences in purchasing. If one goes back a little further, in 1981 Victoria and, I believe, South Australia abolished systems of State preference on a trial basis. Unfortunately, the example did not flow to New South Wales and Queensland. At the June meeting of Commonwealth and State industry Ministers in Perth I raised this question of the undesirability of the continuance of State purchasing preference schemes, without apparent effect or results. The States of Queensland and, to a lesser extent, New South Wales opposed the Commonwealth's position on this question. I will illustrate some of the absurdities that it causes. One recent example was of an electrical transformer purchased by the Queensland Government. I want to make it clear that I am not singling that out as a particular example. The Queensland Government purchased the electrical transformer from a Queensland manufacturer for a price of $1.3m when there was a tender from another company in another State for about $1m. That sort of cost is being imposed on taxpayers by those policies. The Commonwealth will continue to maintain its opposition to State purchasing preference schemes. I should say that in maintaining that opposition it is supported by the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Australian Industries Development Association, the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. All those bodies are concerned to see the abolition of State government preference schemes. The Government is continuing to try to persuade State Premiers to adopt its position in relation to this matter. It will continue its efforts. I should say that the Government is also having the legal implications of those schemes examined in light of the constitutional provisions. Senator BOSWELL —Will the Minister representing the Prime Minister seek an assurance from the Prime Minister that he will be honest with the people of northern and western Queensland, when he is campaigning in the forthcoming State election, and tell the people residing in those areas specifically which State electorates will be abolished under the Australian Labor Party's proposed one vote one value system? Will he also tell the people why they should lose their State representation when his Party is advocating 36 more Federal parliamentarians? Senator BUTTON —I will draw Senator Boswell's speech to the attention of the Prime Minister. I will indicate to him that Senator Boswell desires him to be honest in the course of the Queensland election campaign. I have no doubt that he will be. I have no doubt that in answer to Senator Boswell's speech, he will say yes. If the people ask this question when the Prime Minister is campaigning in Queensland, I am sure he will give an honest answer to it, but perhaps they will not bother to ask it because there are more things of fundamental concern to the Queensland people in the coming election than the particular question that Senator Boswell has raised, such as the fact that it is the State with the highest unemployment level and the lowest per capita income. Those are the sorts of things about which the Queensland people will be most concerned. Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. When will the Government say what changes it plans to the Australian Industry Development Corporation to allow it to have a more effective role in promoting Australian industry? Senator BUTTON —The Government has already announced a number of proposals in relation to the Australian Industry Development Corporation. Those statements were made in the course of the Budget Speech and the statements which came out on the Budget allocation to the Corporation. There was an additional capital increase to the AIDC of $12.5m, the gearing ratio was eased from eight to 15 times the level of capital and reserves and there was an indication that the AIDC would be allowed to take equity in companies and that the Commonwealth would guarantee AIDC borrowings. In the near future the Government will be making further announcements in relation to the functions of the AIDC and the charter which it has in terms of its general role of assisting Australian industry. Those announcements will indicate priorities which the AIDC has to follow in its program of investment in Australian industry. Senator KILGARIFF —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport whether the Federal Government has drafted the terms of reference for the inquiry into the Northern Territory's transport needs. If so, did the Federal Government exclude from the terms of reference consideration of the defence implications of the Alice Springs-Darwin rail link? If so, why were such considerations excluded? Further, did the Government attempt to prejudice the outcome of the inquiry by excluding one of the rail link's most important functions? Finally, does the Government now recognise the significance of defence considerations to the case for the building of the rail link, and will the Minister undertake to have it inserted as one of the terms of reference? Senator GIETZELT —Several questions have been asked of me in this place about the Government's intentions in respect of the proposed rail link and transport problems generally in the Northern Territory. I reiterate that the Government has not departed from its basic belief that there ought to be improvement in communications generally, and a rail link from Darwin to Alice Springs in particular. Negotiations are currently taking place between the governments of the Northern Territory, South Australia and the Commonwealth, particularly on the initiative of the South Australian Premier, Mr Bannon. The Commonwealth Government has already agreed to conduct an independent inquiry into the transport needs of the Northern Territory. In that context it has entered into meaningful discussions with the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Everingham, and the Premier of South Australia. Surely Senator Kilgariff would not expect me to announce the terms of reference of that inquiry in this place. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Transport, whom I represent. More specifically, those matters are germane to the negotiations between the three governments. I am advised by the Minister for Transport that those negotiations are proceeding very amicably and that agreement should soon be reached on the terms of reference. I can assure Senator Kilgariff and, in fact, the people in the Northern Territory, that the Government is sympathetic to the problems of the Northern Territory. The only difference of opinion that arises concerns the method of financing a major construction cost which the Government was forced to consider in respect of the May economic statement. Because of the financial mess that we inherited from the previous Government there had to be a redirection of priorities. Whilst we still believe in the construction of a rail link, the allocation of funds is one of the matters still being discussed with the respective governments that I have mentioned. Senator ELSTOB —Does the Minister for Social Security consider that the provision of $5m in the Budget for emergency relief will eliminate hardship for the people in poverty who now line up at charitable organisations? Can the Minister tell me how many organisations will be involved in the scheme? Can he also give me a State by State breakdown? Senator GRIMES —No, I do not believe that the provision in the Budget of $5m for emergency relief will solve all the problems of hardship in this country-there are far too many problems-even though the allocation of $5m is double the allocation of last year. What the Government did in the Budget, within the economic stringencies which we faced, was to increase benefits to the single unemployed, the young, women with children and particularly single parents with children. We picked out those specific groups in the community that had been left behind by the previous Government's policy and at the same time increased the grant for emergency relief to $5m. We were aware that that certainly would not solve all the problems we face. In the future, the distribution of such emergency relief will be, as has been the case in the past, the result of negotiations between Federal and State governments, but this time the voluntary organisations will also be included. The number of bodies which will receive assistance to distribute emergency relief will be decided as a result of these negotiations. In the past in some States just two or three large organisations have had that distribution, whereas in other States there has been a broader distribution, particularly in a State such as Western Australia which has a vast area to cover. I cannot give Senator Elstob an exact breakdown of who will be involved in the distribution of emergency relief in the forthcoming year, but when that becomes available I will let him know. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs a question about the impending insanity of the United States of America in deploying 464 ground launched Cruise missiles and 108 Pershing-- Senator Watson —How about attacking the Soviet Union for once? Senator CHIPP —I will ignore the insanity of Senator Watson also when I ask a question that concerns the future of the world. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Chipp to ask his question. Senator CHIPP —I can do without the interjections of Tasmanians at a time like this. I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs a question about the impending insanity of the United States of America in deploying 464 ground launched Cruise missiles and 108 Pershing missiles in Europe, which is scheduled to begin in December of this year. Is the Government aware that because of the missiles' five- to eight-minute flight time to Soviet territory from Europe and because of their mobility, small size and accuracy, their deployment and the potential deployment of counter-missiles by the Soviets could result in a policy of launch on warning by the Soviets? Is the Minister aware that a policy of launch on warning means that the full might of a nuclear arsenal would be released on the planet on the basis of an automatic computer alert without any reference to political or military commanders? Does the Government not believe that such a policy, given a number of reported incidents where a computer error has led to a false alert of nuclear attack causing the launching of nuclear armed aircraft, would place nuclear arsenals a hair-trigger away from being used? Will the Government use every method it has at its disposal to prevent the deployment of these missiles? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is aware of the impending deployment of missiles in Europe. While I understand and share the basis for Senator Chipp's concern on the matters raised in his question, I believe its importance demands a fully considered response from the Government. Accordingly, I will refer it to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for a reply at the first possible opportunity. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. It concerns the assets test and the confusion in the community as to the effect on pensions and pensioners and the different statements which the Minister has made in relation to revenue. In the light of the statement by the Minister for Finance that Ministers of this Government will present financial impact statements because the Government believes the community has a right to know the financial effect of Government policies and programs, when will the Minister tell the community what the financial impact of the assets test policy will be? In particular, when will he tell the people his Government's estimates of the following: How many pensioners will lose their pensions in whole or in part? How much revenue will be raised? How will various assets, such as shares in private companies, be valued? What effects will the proposal have on the valuing and legal professions of Australia? How many and what additional public servants will be required to handle the scheme? How many additional staff will the Commonwealth Ombudsman need to deal with anticipated disputes? I remind the Minister that the question was: When will he tell the community the answers to these questions? Senator GRIMES —The degree of confusion that Senator Lewis alleges is occurring in the community is very much less than the degree of confusion that he demonstrates. First of all, the financial impact statement which will be introduced with the legislation will, as I understand it following the statement of the Minister for Finance and the decision of the Government, be introduced when the second reading speech is made. That will be done with all legislation which has a financial impact on the community. We have given a statement of intent that we will introduce an assets test of the type that was in vogue before 1976 when it was abolished. The details of that assets test will result not only from government and bureaucratic considerations but also from consultation with various pensioner and other interested groups in the community. Of course, the fine details obviously will be announced when the legislation is introduced in the Parliament. As I said in answer to a question asked by Senator Crichton-Browne, the estimated revenue, for both the Department of Social Security and the Department of Veterans' Affairs, is between $200m and $300m. We do not pretend to be able to make a more accurate estimate because we have no exact measure of the assets held by pensioners in the community. There has been no need since 1976 to measure those assets. The number of people who will be employed initially by the Department of Social Security to introduce the assets test is estimated to be from 2,000 to 2,500. In fact, most of those will be temporary employees. Ultimately about 300 people will be needed to supervise the assets test. Senator Lewis —When will the legislation be introduced? Senator GRIMES —The legislation will be introduced, I expect, by the time this session of Parliament finishes; that is, in November or perhaps early December. Senator Lewis —Next year? Senator GRIMES —This year. If Senator Lewis has any genuine concerns about how the assets test should operate or about how it should be approached, I will listen to him as I will listen to everybody else. I am concerned that people like Senator Lewis and Senator Crichton-Browne are trying to frighten pensioners in the community. However, I point out that the majority of pensioner organisations to which I have spoken have said in fact that they agree with the introduction of an assets test, just as the Combined Pensioners Association of Australia violently opposed the removal of the assets test in 1976. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to recent reports on the situation of Palestinian refugees in the Lebanon. I ask: Has the Australian Government made any response to reports of recent attacks? Has the Australian Government received requests for assistance for educational and humanitarian aid for Palestinians living in camps in Lebanon since the slaughter one year ago today? What has been the Australian Government' s response to any such requests? Senator GARETH EVANS —The recent deterioration in the situation in Lebanon is obviously a matter for very grave concern. The Australian Government has been monitoring that situation very closely. In relation to the position of refugees within that unhappy country, the Commissioner General of UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees in the near East, Mr Oluf Rydbeck, by letter and also during his recent visit to Australia from 6 to 9 September, expressed concern for the safety of Palestinian refugees in the area. While in Australia Mr Rydbeck outlined his organisation's needs in respect of reconstruction of facilities destroyed and ongoing educational and humanitarian assistance. In recognition of the gravity of the situation, the Australian Government has recently increased its contribution to UNRWA and will in the very near future, if it has not already, contribute a further $400,000 in food aid. I also refer the honourable senator to a recent statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr West, in which he announced a series of special arrangements to give priority to temporary and permanent visa applications to Lebanese with relatives in Australia. The Government is doing as much as it reasonably and possibly could to respond to the situation as it now exists in the Lebanon. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Is it a fact as reported in today's Australian Financial Review that a consultant retained by the Department of Trade was endeavouring to encourage Australian manufacturers to 'close their operations in Australia and go to Singapore'? Has any inquiry been made to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the claim made by the Secretary of the New South Wales Branch of the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation, Mr Thompson, that he has documentary proof of the situation? If it is a fact, how does that square with the stance on protection that has been adopted by the Minister for Trade? I refer in particular to Mr Lionel Bowen's rejection of public statements advocating freer trade which were made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs at a book launching on Monday. Can the Minister confirm that the Department of Trade is acting in the way which was advocated by Mr Thompson, and how does that square with the position of the responsible Minister? Senator WALSH —The first part of the question Senator Chaney asked was whether I had seen the report in today's Australian Financial Review. The answer is no. I had a very early meeting this morning. I have had a quick glance at one newspaper. I am not aware of any of the matters which he has raised in the question, but I will refer them to the Minister for Trade and provide a response as quickly as I can. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in yesterday's Australian Financial Review headed 'Protest funds tax allowance'? Can the Minister confirm that donations to the Professional Freedom Fund are tax deductible? If this is true, are these doctors who so fanatically support private enterprise using the public purse to pursue their vendetta against Medicare? Senator WALSH —The central part of Senator Robert Ray's question is whether I can confirm, as alleged by the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Medical Association, that donations to the Professional Freedom Fund are tax deductible. I cannot confirm that because it is not correct. The New South Wales Branch of the AMA is misrepresenting the facts, a phenomenon which is not unknown in the New South Wales branch or other branches of the AMA. Nor are they noted for their consistency. The Australian Medical Association which is now lobbying heavily for gap insurance under Medicare is the same organisation which asserted over many decades that patients must actually make some contribution out of their own pockets for the provision of medical services, otherwise they would overuse them. I have a letter from the Commissioner for Taxation which says, with respect to the claims by the New South Wales Branch of the AMA and the so- called Professional Freedom Fund which I observe parenthetically if not newspeak is close to it: No advice has been given by this Office that contributions in terms of the circular would be allowable as income tax deductions. As a practical matter it would not be possible to say whether the contributions made to the Professional Freedom Fund in this instance would be allowable deductions until such time as the trustees of the fund had spent the moneys. It is only then that the purposes for the contributions could be ascertained. If, as is clearly the intention of the New South Wales Branch of the AMA, the contributions to this fund were misused to mount a political campaign, I would anticipate that, although this would be a matter for the Commissioner and not the Government to decide, the Commissioner would judge that as being not a proper use of funds by any organisation which was claiming a tax deduction for contributions made to it. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, concerns local government's general revenue sharing. The Australian Labor Party's policy on this matter says: Labor will allocate at least 2 per cent of Federal personal income tax as a general revenue grant to local government, the allocation in any year to be not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation. Does the Minister now agree that the Labor Party promised 839 local government authorities throughout Australia a maintenance of real values in the grant in accordance with the consumer price index increases of 11.2 per cent? As the grant has not maintained real values-and many local government authorities including the Local Government Association in Queensland assert that this is so- is this yet another broken promise of this Labor Government? Does it mean that each local authority in Australia has been shortchanged by an amount of $15,000? Senator WALSH —That question, I observe, was answered last week, but apparently the substance of the answer has not penetrated the consciousness of members of the National Party. It is well known that the National Party has a great deal of difficulty handling numerical matters. The plain fact is that no promise has been broken. The distribution of funds to local government in this financial year is 2 per cent of the income tax receipts of the previous year, as it has been I think for the last two or three years. The forecast increase in the consumer price index for 1983-84, that being the year in which the funds will be actually spent, is 7.5 per cent. So the consumer price index will increase by 7.5 per cent and the funds actually paid to local government will increase by 8.2 per cent. That is an increase in real terms, something which I would have thought even members of the National Party would comprehend. If Senator Bjelke-Peterson is genuinely concerned about the fate of local government in Queensland, I suggest that her time would be better employed lobbying her husband on its behalf because the record shows that, as the Commonwealth over the last eight or nine years has progressively increased funding to local government, the States have reduced their share. They have done this to varying degrees. It happens to be a matter of record that the State which has done it to the greatest degree is Queensland, governed by Senator Bjelke-Petersen's husband. All States have done this to some extent, but Queensland has done it the most. So I suggest to Senator Bjelke-Petersen that, instead of tiresomely repeating questions which were answered in this place last week, her time would be more fruitfully employed lobbying her husband to give local government authorities in Queensland a fair deal, something which he has conspicuously failed to do. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I ask a supplementary question. Has not the Minister seen the announcement by the Queensland Government this week that it is going to give $30m to local government authorities in Queensland? Senator WALSH —It would not surprise me what the Queensland Premier would announce in the last month of the run-up to his most desperate election campaign , any more than it surprised me when the discredited former Prime Minister, with the support of the discredited former Treasurer, ran amok with the cheque book in the run-up to his terminal election campaign on 5 March this year. There are a couple of other pieces of information which I should like to add. One is that payments from the Commonwealth Government to local government authorities in total-this is payments under the tax sharing arrangements plus the others-have been increased in money terms this financial year over last year by 45 per cent. That is an increase in real terms of about 37 per cent in total payments to local government. The relevant Commonwealth Minister, Mr Uren, has announced an inquiry into the funding of local government on a national basis. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to a most welcome innovation announced in the Budget, namely, the spouse carers pension due to be introduced in December. Will recipients of the spouse carers pension be eligible for fringe benefits and supplementary assistance if they meet the normal conditions of eligibility? Senator GRIMES —Yes, recipients of the spouse carers pensions will in fact be eligible for all the fringe benefits and supplementary assistance that are provided to other pensioners, provided they meet the criteria that other pensioners have to meet. The spouse carers pension is an important addition to the social security benefits in this country. As Senator Colston knows, its purpose is to provide assistance for husbands who have to look after wives in difficult circumstances. The need for such a pension, incidentally, was first pointed out to me as shadow Minister for Social Security some three years ago. The person who pointed it out to me was Senator Colston, so I can understand his interest in the matter. Senator JACK EVANS —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health become aware of the removal or dramatic reduction of the warning against tobacco as a health hazard in many cigarette advertisements recently, particularly in women's magazines? Does this indicate that the voluntary code on advertising given as the industry's justification for the absence of laws to maintain this practice is no longer relevant? Will Senator Grimes ask the Minister for Health to convey to the States' Ministers for Health a proposal that all States and the Commonwealth Government should now legislate to oblige tobacco advertisers to draw the public's attention in all their advertisements to the harmful effects of their product? Senator GRIMES —It has been drawn to my attention that in newspaper advertisements, but particularly in magazine advertisements, the standard warning about cigarettes being a health hazard, which is agreed to by every honourable senator except one, has in recent times not been appearing in many instances. I am afraid that on the surface this seems to represent, as Senator Jack Evans says, a breakdown of the voluntary code which has governed the advertising of cigarette products in the last few years. It is all too common, I am afraid, that such voluntary codes which have existed in areas of tobacco and alcohol advertising in fact do break down. I know that it was a recommendation to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare and is a recommendation of most knowledgeable authorities in the area that there should be a ban on the advertising of cigarette products in the written media as well as the electronic media, where a ban already exists at the moment. I believe there should also be a provision to prevent the cigarette companies from getting around this ban on the electronic media, as they do, by large placards strategically placed at various televised events. I think also, to be consistent, we should do something about it in the print media; but, as Senator Jack Evans has intimated, at the moment that is a matter for State parliaments. I will certainly refer to the Minister for Health Senator Jack Evans's views, and perhaps at the next meeting of the State and Commonwealth Ministers for Health the Minister can bring this matter up. I think it is a bit disturbing that in fact the removal of this warning seems to be occurring most often in women's magazines. Whereas the incidence of smoking among men is decreasing, unfortunately, cigarette smoking by young women seems to be increasing. This is unfortunate. I hope that the use of advertising against smoking, the restriction on advertisements for smoking plus an education policy in the future will help to overcome this problem and assist those of us who are unable to give up this dreadful habit. Senator Walters —You are being a bit pious. Senator GRIMES —I accept Senator Walters's remonstrances. When I speak in this fashion, I am reminded of the old song about a cigarette being something with fire on one end and a fool on the other. I accept that several times a day I am a fool. Senator JONES —Has the Attorney-General noted the Press reports this morning quoting the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Sir Billy Snedden, as saying that Australia should establish its own monarchy with one of Prince Charles's younger brothers as king of Australia thus eliminating the problem of appointing a Governor-General? Does the Attorney-General foresee the interesting possibility of Australia being ruled by King Andrew and Queen Koo in the near future? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen Press clippings from this morning's Brisbane Daily Sun under the heading 'Call for Oz King' and a similar clipping from the Courier-Mail in which Sir Billy Snedden is quoted as suggesting that an Australian hereditary monarchy be established by one of Prince Charles's brothers. I recall that Sir Billy once described himself as 'on the wavelength of his generation'. His current contribution to public debate prompts one to ask : Which generation? While opinions differ as to the value of the monarchy as an institution it can undoubtedly be argued that it has advantages in a parliamentary system such as our own as symbolising the continuity of the state and its elevation above considerations of sordid partisan strife. It is also true that the United Kingdom has had far fewer problems with its hereditary constitutional monarchy than we have had with our appointed Governor-General exercising delegated powers from the Queen, but exercising them, on at least one notorious occasion in 1975, in a way that manifestly would never have been contemplated by any reigning British monarch. Might I say just this: If Australia were ever tempted in an attempt to emulate in some way the British success with this institution and established a home-grown hereditary monarchy of our own, I am sure-- Senator Chaney —An autochthonous monarchy? Senator GARETH EVANS —An autochthonous monarchy indeed, as Senator Chaney helpfully adds. I am sure that in those circumstances the overwhelming majority of Australians would want such a monarchy to be constituted by and from the citizens of this country. Senator MESSNER —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Does the Government acknowledge that the Opposition's statement to repeal the proposed assets test and superannuation legislation referred to by Senator Grimes in answer to a question last Tuesday was in the context of a total review of retirement income by the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare-something that the Government has demonstrably failed to do? Is he aware of reports in various newspapers which state that the Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress believes that the Government should not have tampered with superannuation but should have developed an overall retirement plan? Does he agree that his Government's proposed assets test is widely acknowledged as discriminating in favour of the sophisticated investor and against the frugal and thrifty? I ask him whether his opinion is the same as the one expressed in the following pensioner's letter to the Launceston Examiner last Friday: What is a poor pensioner, according to the PM, Mr Hawke. Answer: One who pours money into a luxury home and car, and supplements the spending spree with a boat, caravan, jewels and world trip. What is a comparatively rich pensioner according to the self-confessed economist , Mr Hawke? Answer: One who supplements a part pension with superannuation (on which he pays tax) thereby cutting out free medical and other entitlements, which could easily be worth over $1,000 per annum. Senator BUTTON —The first part of the question asked whether the Government acknowledges that the Opposition's statements about repealing legislation were made in a certain context. I cannot speak for the Opposition and I am sure the Prime Minister cannot either. I think the expression 'invisible' was used of the Opposition in a recent editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald. Perhaps it meant that the Opposition was silent or inarticulate in explaining its position. But certainly the Government cannot speak for the Opposition on the first matter raised in Senator Messner's question. Secondly, I was asked whether I acknowledge that the ACTU Congress passed a resolution in relation to lump sum superannuation. I have seen Press reports of that. Yes, I acknowledge that that has happened. The Government is enjoined to consider the longer term situation with respect to superannuation and it is doing that. Thirdly, I was asked whether proposals of the Opposition are more frugal and thrifty than those of the Government. Senator Grimes has already dealt with the third part of the question on a number of occasions in the course of answers in the Senate. Insofar as I understood the point of the question, it was directed in that way. Fourthly, I was asked whether I am familiar with a passage in a pensioner's letter, I think it was, in Launceston. Try as I may, I cannot keep abreast of pensioners' letters in every town in Australia. I was asked to comment on a lengthy quotation from that pensioner's letter. I have not read it and decline to comment unless it is before me. I do not regard it as a function of Ministers to comment at Question Time on views of that kind which are put in the way they were in the course of the question. Senator Chaney —I take a point of order. Mr President, in raising a point of order, I ask you to note the early part of the reply by the Leader of the Government in the Senate in which he indicated that it is not open to him to speak on behalf of the Opposition. I raise this because in earlier points of order raised, including during this week, I have raised the propriety of questions which seek from Ministers statements on behalf of the Opposition and comments on Opposition policy rather than the administration of their port- folios. I simply seek some consistency in this chamber. Senator COOK —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations whether he has seen reports that the June figures just released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that the number of working days lost through industrial disputes fell for the third successive month while in April 235,900 working days were lost, 174,500 were lost in May, a figure which declined to 100,500, or less than half the April level, in June. Would the Minister number among the significant reasons for the reduction in these figures the superior handling of industrial relations by the Government, the prices and incomes accord and the spirit of national reconciliation kindled by the Hawke Government, which stands in stark contrast with the confrontationist, union bashing approach of the Fraser Government? Senator Chaney —Or the 52,000 more unemployed in that month. The PRESIDENT —Order! I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Chaney —Employment dropped by 52,000 and the participation rate dropped by 72,000. Senator BUTTON —That is not more unemployed. If Senator Chaney wants to get his interjections straight, let us start there. Senator Cook asked me a question about the level of industrial disputation in the Australian community. The number of days lost as a result of industrial disputes over the last three months has dropped. I would not seek to attribute any great art by governments at any time in relation to the levels of industrial disputation. I want to draw attention to the possible alternatives with which this country might have been inflicted in terms of the levels of industrial disputation had the accord with the trade union movement not been reached and had agreement not been reached in relation to wage fixation processes. It is now 15 months since most workers in Australia have had a wage rise. In the light of that fact the level of industrial disputation is, in my view, significant. I make the point that there are a number of areas which have been sources of high levels of industrial disputation in the past. The Government has made special and, I think, quite unique endeavours to reach agreement in those particular industries. The building industry is one such example which, of course, is at the eye of the storm in public controversy at the moment, prior to the building industry agreement being dealt with by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It is one area in which the Government has made very strong and significant efforts in order to try to reconcile a very difficult industrial relations situation. I think there is a limit to the extent to which governments can claim success in lowering levels of industrial disputation in a time of high unemployment. I think that is a reality. Nonetheless, I believe this Government has made some very positive endeavours in particular areas which have been successful and are reflected in the figures to which Senator Cook referred. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I think it is an appropriate follow-up question to the one that has just been addressed to him by Senator Cook. I notice that the Leader of the Government has had time to read the Australian Financial Review this morning. I refer to the reported disquiet of Conciliation Commissioner Walker that, while the union leadership paid lip service to the prices and incomes accord, the membership of the unions was going its own way in demanding sectional wage claims. I was fascinated with the response that the Leader of the Government has just given to Senator Cook's question. In view of the breakdown of the prices and incomes accord, how does the Goverment propose to act to salvage the accord now that there are so many industries either in dispute or which have made sectional claims which the Commissioner finds himself unable to deal with in terms of considering union leadership and union membership? I would like to know what the Government proposes to do about the prices and incomes accord in its present state. Senator BUTTON —I say to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle at the beginning of my answer and without offence that I regard that as a filthy question because I am not able to say that I have not read Australian Financial Review, which is a device often engaged in by Ministers of various political persuasions in this chamber. In regard to my reading of the Australian Financial Review, I point out first that I do not think Commissioner Walker said that union officials were paying lip service to the accord. I do not think he said that at all. What I read the article as saying was that Commissioner Walker said that, while union leaders were saying to the Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress that they were adhering to the accord, in various establishments, the rank and file had a different approach and were not accepting that view. He was drawing attention to a very real problem. I would like to draw Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's attention to the extent of the problem. As the Australian Financial Review article points out, there were increases in the chemical industry in spite of the existence of the wages freeze legislation which was the previous Government' s solution to this problem. In spite of the existence of the wage freeze legislation chemical companies early this year paid increases of up to $30. That comes back to the question of whether we can deal with these issues legislatively and whether we can prescribe these matters in legislative terms. This illustrates the difference of approach between the two major political parties on these questions. As I said in answer to Senator Cook, it is some 15 months since most wage earners in Australia had a wage increase, in spite of continual high levels of inflation in this country. There are bound to be generated problems and pressures of the kind reflected in the article in the Australian Financial Review today. The question is: How do we deal with those pressures? Do we legislate for a wage freeze and thereby abolish the pressures or do we try to reach agreement about these issues, as the Government has done in terms of centralised wage fixation and the proposal for six-monthly adjustments to wages? I do not know what the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will do, but I believe that if it grants an increase, as sought by the ACTU and as supported by the Commonwealth Government in the course of the Commission hearings, it will go a very long way towards alleviating some of those pressures . As I have indicated in answers to various questions which have been put to me by Opposition senators in relation to various sectoral claims in the building industry, in the Heinz company case and others, the Government will intervene and will put a position to the Arbitration Commission when it is determining those matters, but it cannot decide the position that will be put until it sees what the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission does in the national wage case and what it says about the Government's submission which argued before the Commission that sectoral claims should not be allowed and that there should be a disciplinary mechanism built into the system to stop them. When the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission responds to that argument the Government will be in a position to say what submissions it will make in respect of particular sectoral claims. Senator REYNOLDS —I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy whether his attention has been drawn to the following statement made by the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen: The Bradfield concept of turning the river flow of coastal rivers inland is technically feasible. Will the Minister inform the House whether the Bradfield concept is in fact technically feasible? Senator WALSH —I am aware of that statement by the Queensland Premier, which was published in the Townsville Daily Bulletin on, I think, last Friday. The answer is yes, it is technically feasible. It is also technically feasible to grow pineapples in Antarctica. However, the question is: At what cost? The cost of the Bradfield scheme has been assessed by Cameron McNamara Pty Ltd, Brisbane engineers, in a study commissioned by the Government of Queensland. The results of that study showed that the cost of delivering water to the area proposed to be irrigated by the Bradfield scheme would be 20 times as high as the delivery cost of water from the Burdekin scheme-20 times as high. If the Premier is permitted to proceed down this, to say the least, eccentric path there is no doubt that the consequences will be either a $1,500 up-front capital contribution from every Queensland taxpayer plus $120 to cover the operating losses in perpetuity or that money which would otherwise have been spent on the Burdekin scheme will be transferred to the Premier's latest eccentric scheme. If he is serious about the Bradfield proposal, he now proposes to apply the same mixture of caprice, eccentricity and irresponsibility which has produced in Queensland-as Senator Button has already said today-the lowest per capita income in the country, the highest rate of unemployment, to which can be added, the highest per capita debt of any State, and a collapsing economy. The same report in the Townsville Daily Bulletin, I might add also, described me as a typical Australian Labor Party anti-achiever. I note for the record the achievements of some people who have been sponsored by the Queensland Premier. Milan Brych, for example, achieved a conviction on a criminal charge. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order. Mr President, I draw your attention to standing order 100. You, yourself, have drawn the Minister's attention to it several times in the recent past. Opposition senators are anxious to ask questions on matters of substance. I suggest that the Minister is clearly debating the question and is wasting the time of the Senate. The PRESIDENT —I suggest that the Minister is exceeding the provisions of standing order 100. I ask him to bring his answer to a conclusion. Senator WALSH —Very well, I will be very brief, Mr President. The achievements of the Queensland Premier, for example, have been to sponsor Milan Brych, Stephen Horvath and his hydrogen car, and Dr Shrian Oskar-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chaney —I raise a further point of order. Clearly the Minister is replying in complete defiance of your ruling, Mr President. Mr PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to take heed of the point of order. Senator WALSH —I had completed my answer, Mr President. Senator WATSON —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Acknowledging the anguish and internal division within the Government over its uranium policy, I ask: What research is being done in Australia into utilising hydrogen as a source of energy as a clean fuel? What incentives is the Government offering to encourage such research? Senator WALSH —One thing we will not be doing is providing Stephen Horvath with a research grant. If Senator Watson wants someone to provide a research grant for Stephen Horvath so he can improve upon that fusion reactor which the Premier of Queensland said he had in the boot of a motor car to produce hydrogen which provided the fuel for the engine, he had better approach the Premier of Queensland. Such a proposition might be sufficiently eccentric to attract the support of the Premier of Queensland. So far as I am aware, the Commonwealth is not providing any funds for research into the use of hydrogen as a fuel unless they are being provided indirectly through general research grants to universities. I will have the matter checked and provide Senator Watson with an answer. Senator MAGUIRE —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that in some States, such as South Australia, accounts issued by electricity and other public authorities can be paid through State banks and some private banks? Will the Commonwealth Government examine the feasibility of allowing accounts issued by its authorities, such as Telecom Australia, to be payable through the many branches of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, in addition to post offices and Telecom offices as at present? Senator WALSH —Yes, I did know that in at least one State, South Australia, State authority bills and charges may be paid through branches of various banks. I will refer to the Treasurer the suggestion from Senator Maguire that similar arrangements be made for the payment by customers of accounts rendered for Commonwealth services. Senator PETER RAE —My question is addressed to Senator Button as Minister representing both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Does the Minister agree with the claim by the Secretary of the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia, Mr Thompson, that Australia has 'a national government which is attempting to destroy its own manufacturing industry'? Does the Minister, as well as distancing himself from his former leader, Mr Hayden, as he did here on Tuesday, support the more express repudiation of Mr Hayden made yesterday by the Minister for Trade, Mr Lionel Bowen? Further, is it a fact that the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, said on 22 April last that the downturn in employment in manufacturing industry was 'permanent, structural and irreversible'? In the light of the foregoing, will the Minister representing the Prime Minister now answer the question: Who speaks for this dismal and divided Government on manufacturing industry policy? Senator BUTTON —That is the most stroppy question I have had from Senator Rae since he last launched a matter of public importance on industry policy in this place. Let me deal with the questions one by one. Yes, I have seen Joe Thompson' s views which he expressed at the Congress of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I am quite aware of Mr Thompson's views; I have discussed them with him. We are not in agreement about the matters which he raised at the ACTU Congress. In relation to the comments made by Mr Lionel Bowen, I do not in general terms agree with many of Mr Bowen's views on the topic of industry policy in Australia . We have differences of emphasis in the discussions which take place within this Government on the question of industry policy. Just as the Opposition had a group called the dries and a group called the wets, we have views expressed by Mr Hayden and Mr Bowen, views expressed by the Government and the reactions and actions of the Government to various situations. My position between the two protagonists might fairly be described by some eloquent politican such as Senator Chipp as medium-cool. I said yesterday or the day before in answer to a question that of course there are differences of views within the Government and within this society about these issues. I guess that if any view was identified from the Opposition on these issues it would be much easier to debate these issues in public. But, of course, there is no identification of view on these issues from the Opposition because it does not have a clear view on these issues as it does not have a clear view on a wages policy. To say that this Government is divided on this issue as if it were some cataclysmic split on an issue of such importance is, of course, sheer rubbish. I want to reveal a Cabinet secret to the Senate. The most heated debate that I have seen in Cabinet occurred this morning when Ministers were trying to decide which new type of chair should be obtained for the Cabinet room. There was a split about that issue this morning, I don't mind telling you! This Government discusses issues in a way in which it recognises that there are differences of views which have to be accommodated. To describe this Government, on the basis of these newspaper reports about particular views, as a dismal and divided government is a counsel of despair on behalf of the Opposition because it is not so. If the Opposition wants to identify who speaks for the Government on these matters, the important thing to do, if I may make a suggestion to Senator Rae, is to look at the policy pronouncements and decisions made by the Government in relation to industry policy issues. That is what counts, not the views that are expressed in esoteric debate. Senator PETER RAE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can we summarise the answer to my question about who speaks for the Government in relation to manufacturing industry as being: It depends on whether one follows the buttons or the bows? Senator BUTTON —I do not think that requires an answer. Senator CROWLEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. As he understands, the allocation of funds for vacation care programs is vital for the well being of families, particularly those from lower socio-economic areas and immigrant families. It has been drawn to my attention by the South Australian vacation care workers that funding for such programs enables no more than baby-sitting or child minding programs to operate. Quality educational and re- creational programs cannot be offered on the funds available and only limited alternative funding is available from other sources. Does the Minister foresee more funds being allocated for quality vacation care programs so as to allow the inclusion of educational and recreational components? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Crowley says, vacation care programs and, if I may add , after-school programs, although an important part of the children's services program, are areas where there has been probably inadequate funding in the past. In the future I would be looking, as part of a review of the whole children's services program, at perhaps improving the assistance available in these areas, particularly in regions where lower socio-economic groups live or where there is a high component of children with two parents in the workforce. However, the children's services program is a very broad one. There is a very great division in the community in general about the direction in which funding should go in this area. As a part of this we are having a meeting next week with some of the deliverers of children's services. In future we hope to have other meetings so that we can come to a rational view about the distribution of funds in this area as a result of consultation between government and those who need the funds, rather than by decree from the top. Senator BUTTON —At Question Time yesterday, Senator Jones asked me a question regarding the coverage of the America's Cup yacht race on the Channel 10 network . He asked whether that network had exclusive rights. I have sought to obtain information in relation to that question. No information is currently available regarding Network 10's arrangements for covering this event. I was also asked whether any arrangements had been made to feed this telecast beyond the areas covered by the Channel 10 network via the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I am informed that the ABC considered providing live coverage of this event and rejected it for a number of reasons, the major one being that the race is held between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m., eastern standard time. In view of today's result, one might add that not so many people may be watching it as might once have been thought. The second reason is that the ABC does not believe that the event offers good live television viewing. The third is that there are immense technical problems in providing live coverage and in the ABC's judgment these cannot be satisfactorily overcome. I understand that the ABC is providing live radio coverage but will confine its television coverage to selected interviews and news highlights. Notice of Intention to Withdraw Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-I give notice that it is my intention, at the giving of notices of motion on the next day of sitting, to withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 2, standing in my name for the next day of sitting, to disallow the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rule 1983 No. 38 and made under the Customs Act 1901. I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator COATES —The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances was concerned about notification of rights of appeal to persons affected by a decision to refuse to waive the requirement for censorship examination of films in certain circumstances. The Committee has sought an assurance from the Minister that a notification of such rights will routinely be made in all cases. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a detailed statement on the matter and on notification of appeal rights. Leave granted. The document read as follows- When giving notice, on 1 June 1983, for the disallowance of the Customs ( Cinematograph Films) Regulation (Amendment) Regulations, I advised the Senate that the Committee was concerned with Regulation 34 (4) which provides that the validity of a decision of the Minister to refuse to waive the requirement for censorship examination of films in certain circumstances is not to be affected by a failure to include a notification of appeal rights. It is now common for a number of similar provisions to be before the Committee for its examination. The Committee is generally concerned that the effect of the 'saving clause' might be to nullify the legislative provision which should ensure that notification of rights is automatically made to persons affected by decisions which may be subject to appeal. In all such cases, including the present one, the Committee has sought and received an assurance from the relevant Minister that notification of appeal rights will be routinely given. The Committee is aware that the usual appeal body, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, is granted the discretion to entertain late applications. However, the Committee is concerned at the increased use of the standard 'saving clause' and at the effect this might have on the decision-maker's performance of the apparent statutory obligation to notify persons of their appeal rights. The fact that the appeal body can entertain late applications should not be used as an excuse for the failure by decision-makers to notify persons of appeal rights. The important requirement is that aggrieved persons be notified at an early stage of the rights of appeal. In the present case, the Attorney-General has satisfied the Committee of the statutory obligation upon decision-makers to notify appeal rights, and has assured the Committee that such notices shall routinely be given. Postponement of Notice of Motion Motion (by Senator Coates)-by leave-agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in my name for the next day of sitting and relating to the disallowance of the Law Reform ( Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 1982 be postponed till four sitting days after today. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Family Law Act 1975 to provide for grants to the States and to the Northern Territory for legal aid to be made subject to conditions, to provide for payments for legal aid to be made subject to conditions and to provide for the making of regulations with respect to fees payable to legal practitioners by bodies providing legal aid. Bill presented, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.15) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Notwithstanding the importance of this matter and the normal courtesies of this place, I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This is a Bill to amend the Family Law Act 1975 to enable regulations to be made prescribing a scale of costs, which I shall refer to as the new legal aid costs scale, regulating payments to private legal practitioners acting in legally-aided matters arising under the Family Law Act 1975 and the Family Law Regulations. The Bill also enables the Commonwealth to make payments to the States and the Northern Territory, and to relevant legal aid bodies, subject to certain conditions, being conditions relating to the provision of legal assistance in respect of matters under the Family Law Act and regulations that are referred by legal aid bodies after 1 November 1983. I will more fully explain the operation of the Bill later in this speech. The Bill is a Budget measure designed to enable steps to be taken by the Commonwealth to contain the substantial increases in legal aid expenditure that are being experienced. Honourable senators will be aware that, on numerous occasions since this Government assumed office, I have made public statements expressing my very real concern at how expensive legal aid is proving to be. While Commonwealth payments to private legal practitioners acting in legally aided matters have risen from $14.679m in 1979-80 to $32.426m in 1982-83, which represents a cumulative increase of 64.0 per cent in real terms, the cumulative increase in the number of legal aid cases referred to private legal practitioners has been only 28 per cent in the same period. The actual figures for expenditure in 1982-83 have only just become available, and I acknowledge that the 64.0 per cent increase in cost is less than the figure of 80.2 per cent which I foreshadowed earlier this year, based on the then estimated expediture for 1982-83. Nevertheless, the amount of $40.144m appropriated in the present 1983-84 Budget for payments to private legal practitioners does represent an estimated cumulative increase in payments in real terms of 82.1 per cent since 1979-80, notwithstanding that this year there will be no further increase in the number of legal aid matters able to be referred to private legal practitioners. In short, while the number of referrals has not increased by much in the past 3 years and is not now increasing at all, expenditure on referrals continues to grow. In the light of these trends, and against the background of the pre-eminent role that family law matters play in Commonwealth legal aid expenditure, I bring forward this Bill with the express intention of restraining the rapid increase in that expenditure. It is an essential measure. Without it, the Commonwealth will very soon confront an impossible task in even being able to sustain the funding for the existing number of legally-aided matters handled by private legal practitioners and for which it is responsible, let alone being able to meet the ever-growing need for legal aid. Honourable senators may be aware that under the agreements that exist between the Commonwealth and the States of Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, the Commonwealth has a continuing obligation to provide funding that will enable the legal aid commissions in those States to provide a level of legal aid activity equal to that carried out by the Australian Legal Aid Office (ALAO) in the respective States prior to the operations of the Office being taken over by the commissions . In the present Budget, the Government has increased legal aid funding by 15 per cent in real terms in order to meet an expected growth of 12.5 per cent in the level of demand for legal aid in 1983-84. In making this increase, the Government has managed to maintain at its existing level the number of legal aid referrals that may be made this year to private legal practitioners. Provision has also been made for the appointment of extra salaried staff in the ALAO and legal aid commissions. Preliminary figures indicate that approximately 54 extra salaried lawyers may be able to be employed throughout Australia, together with approximately 43 support staff. These initiatives reflect the Government's commitment to ensuring that within available resources opportunity is given to as many persons as possible to obtain access to the law. They also reflect a redressing of the balance in the proportion of legal aid work done by private and salaried practitioners respectively, while clearly recognising the central and continuing role of the private legal profession in the delivery of legal aid services. The Government's problem is simply and starkly this: the demand for legal aid is outstripping the capacity of the Commonwealth to fund legal aid in the Federal area. In these circumstances, the spotlight inevitably falls on the cost of family law matters. In 1982-83, when $32.426m was expended by the Commonwealth in payments through the ALAO and the legal aid commissions to private legal practitioners, $20.3m or 63 per cent of those funds was expended in connection with family law matters. Family law is the biggest single consumer of legal aid and as such necessarily becomes the first priority in a review of legal aid expenditure. While this Bill will enable the Commonwealth to restrain the growth of legally aided family law expenditure, it should not be thought that this represents the sole response to the critical burdens placed on the legal aid budget. Since assuming this portfolio, I have initiated a general review of legal aid and the role of the Commonwealth in the delivery of legal aid services. As announced following the Budget, the Government has approved the establishment of a small legal aid task force to explore cost-effective methods of legal aid delivery throughout the country. One important question to be addressed is whether all the family law cases which currently receive legal aid funding really require lawyers and legal advice for their resolution, or whether instead there is not a more cost- effective method of resolving family law disputes. In seeking answers to this question, I have set in train an examination of the various options available for possible alternative advice and dispute resolution facilities. I have asked the Family Law Council and the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council to assist with this examination. I have asked the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council in particular to examine various methods of providing legal advice and assistance more efficiently and economically in minor family law matters. There is evidence that a significant proportion of family law referrals to private legal practitioners are in connection with what, in expenditure terms, might be regarded as minor matters involving expenditure of the order of $500 or less per matter. I believe that there is considerable scope for the legal aid commissions and the Australian Legal Aid Office to adopt certain uniform practice guidelines that would lead to the provision of more cost-effective advice and assistance in minor matters, particularly in the early stages of matrimonial difficulties. For instance, it might be possible to provide that grants of legal aid in certain types of family law matters are not to be approved within a certain period of time following the separation of the parties or alternatively that grants will cover only the institution of proceedings in courts of summary jurisdiction in the first instance. In line with the emphasis that is very properly placed on the availability of counselling and reconciliation facilities by the Family Law Act 1975 and by the Family Court, consideration is also being given to requiring legal aid bodies, as a matter of practice, to be satisfied before granting aid that in the circumstances all possible attempts have been made to achieve resolution of the issues by conciliation. I have also asked the Family Law Council to examine certain non-legal services that might be introduced, particularly in connection with minor family law matters and particularly in the early stages. This could involve family law clinics, mediation services and the more extensive use of community education and the counselling facilities of the Family Court of Australia. I have raised the possibility of specialised trained conciliators being attached either to the Family Court or to legal aid commissions or both, to undertake the pre-trial interview, case-evaluation and negotiation work. All these proposals will require careful consideration, but by initiating them the Government has demonstrated its desire to explore every available means-not just legal aid-to assist those persons in the community who are involved in family law matters. I hope to be in a position to announce some of the findings of the two councils, which are working together on these matters, by the end of this year. Returning to the cost of legally-aided family law matters, material provided to my Department by the various branches of the ALAO and by the legal aid commissions, shows a clear discrepancy between the average cost of a family law referral depending upon which body has funded the matter. For instance, in 1982- 83, the average cost of a family law referral funded by the ALAO was $469 in New South Wales and $429 in Tasmania. By contrast, the average cost of a family law referral funded by the Legal Aid Commission of Queensland was $593, while matters funded by the Legal Aid Commission of Western Australia had an average cost of $858. From information provided by the Legal Aid Commission of Victoria the relevant figure is estimated to be $834. Most of the State commissions have adopted family law costs scales based on the scale of costs payable for family law matters under the Family Law Regulations, with the rate of payment set at 80 per cent of that scale. Practitioners in Queensland and Western Australia also have the alternative of submitting lump sum accounts to the commissions. The implication of these figures is strong and clear: one method of restraining legal aid cost increases in the family law area is for all relevant legal aid bodies in Australia-and not just those in the 'ALAO' jurisdictions, namely New South Wales, Tasmania and the Northern Territory-to apply the ALAO family law legal aid costs scale. It has been estimated that, if the ALAO scale were to be adopted by all Commonwealth funded legal aid bodies, savings to the Commonwealth would be at least $4m per annum after 3 years operation of the scale. Honourable senators may be aware that earlier this year I gave notice that I was considering such a move to a uniform scale. I wrote to the State Attorneys- General, the legal aid commissions, the Law Council of Australia and associated legal professional bodies seeking their comments on the proposal. In response, I have received extensive comments, both written and oral, from those persons and bodies and also from a number of private legal practitioners. In addition, officers of my Department attended a meeting with the Law Council's Family Law Committee in July 1983 to facilitate discussion of the proposal. All comments received have been carefully examined and considered by me and by my Department. I should like to record my appreciation of the thorough and detailed way in which submissions have been presented, enabling the process of consultation and deliberation to proceed on the basis of the fullest available information. The New Scale This Bill will enable the incorporation of the ALAO costs scale, with certain modifications, into the Family Law Regulations. The new scale is to apply to all family law matters referred by legal aid bodies on and from 1 November 1983, but not to work done after 1 November in relation to matters referred before that date which will be subject to the pre-existing scale. For the benefit of honourable senators, I will outline the basic differences between the ALAO scale and the scale of costs currently payable under the Family Law Regulations. The first noticeable difference is that the ALAO scale has a broader definition of the 'basic composite amount' that covers all work ordinarily involved in the preparation of an application for hearing. This includes all attendances, preparation of documents, perusing relevant documents furnished by the solicitor's client or documents in reply, all necessary attendances at court or at the office of the court, including attendance at court on the hearing of the matter for one hour, and furnishing the solicitor's client with copies of any decree or order obtained. The ALAO scale allows payment for additional work not included in the 'basic composite amount' to be made where that work has been reasonably and necessarily performed for the purpose of the conduct of the matter. Other essential respects in which the ALAO scale differs form the Family Law Regulations scale are that it: provides for payment of a basic composite amount of work done in courts of summary jurisdiction; applies an hourly rate of payment for professional work, with no regard to Schedule 3 of the Family Law Regulations (under the Regulations scale, it can happen that solicitors achieve a rate of costs far in excess of the prescribed nominal $62 per hour); does not ordinarily allow for payment for the first two hours waiting at court; does not allow for payment in respect of time spent travelling to and from court; and provides for reduced hourly rates when the solicitor is instructing counsel. I point out to honourable senators that I have closely examined the ALAO scale and I have approved certain modifications to it. The first modification will enable a clearer definition to be given of the scope of work covered by the term 'basic composite amount', as it is defined in the legal aid scale, when assessing whether additional fees might be payable in a particular matter. Secondly, the fees payable to solicitors appearing in court as advocate, but not when instructing counsel, will be calculated now at the standard rate of $56 per hour instead of the reduced rate which operates at present. Thirdly, in those instances where the legal aid body would otherwise approve the briefing of counsel and the solicitor representing the legally aided person chooses to appear as advocate in lieu of counsel, the higher rate of $70 per hour will be payable in respect of the time the solicitor appears as advocate. Response to Submissions A number of arguments against the proposed scale were put forward by bodies and individuals who commented on the proposal. I believe it would be helpful if I were to deal with each of the more frequently recurring arguments in turn. Insufficient evidence. It has been claimed that the Commonwealth has insufficient evidence on which to support the estimated savings to be achieved by introduction of the legal aid scale, and that use of the ALAO scale will, in some cases, lead to increased expenditure. As to the first point, the evidence clearly shows that in those States where the ALAO scale is not used, the average account in family law matters is generally much higher. A table setting out the average cost of family law referrals is set out below. Cost of Average Family Law Referrals 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 $ $ $ $ New South Wales (ALOA) 292 338 398 469 Victoria 445 556 621 834 Queensland 382 380 523 593 South Australia 372 419 470 476 Western Australia 486 705 789 858 Tasmania (ALAO) 331 376 461 429 Australian Capital Territory 507 467 520 571 Northern Territory (ALAO) 355 341 351 397 Many of the responses to the proposal commented on a table showing expenditure on legal aid referrals in family law matters which I attached to my original notification of the proposal to move to a uniform scale. The information contained in that table showed that family law expenditure was increasing much more quickly than the number of referrals able to be allocated in family law matters, and that this divergence was considerably greater in those States where the ALAO scale was not operating. As the expenditure set out in the table related principally to referrals to private legal practitioners made in previous years, there was no attempt to relate the numbers of referrals in a particular year directly to the expenditure for that year, but rather to demonstrate the clear trend emerging. As to the claim that the ALAO scale will, in some cases lead to higher expenditure, it should be understood that while the basic composite amounts and the basic hourly rate payable under the ALAO scale may in some instances be higher than the comparable amounts payable by some of the legal aid commissions, the overall effect of the ALAO scale is to contain expenditure, as evidenced in the table that I have provided. In summary, while it is possible that in certain types of matters, use of the new scale will not result in savings in each and every instance, on balance, taking family law legal aid as a whole, use of the ALAO scale will result in significant savings to the Commonwealth. Different scales not responsible for different average costs: It has been claimed that the marked differences between States in the average cost of family law referrals arise not from the different scales that are applied by the commissions and the ALAO but from different practices and procedures in the various States. For instance, it has been pointed out that the Melbourne Family Court Registry is the busiest in Australia, and that the practices of the registries in Brisbane and Perth may require more preliminary work than at Sydney and Parramatta Family Court registries. It is acknowledged that certain aspects of this argument have substance, but the discrepancies in average cost of referrals are too great to be explained by reference to these practices. The above table reflects the direct relationship which exists between the increases that have occurred in the average cost of family law matters in the relevant commission States and the effects of the 1979 and 1980 amendments to the scale of costs payable under the Family Law Regulations in those States. ALAO scale is inadequate remuneration: It has been claimed that payment at 80 per cent of the costs payable under the Family Law Regulations scale only provides legal practitioners with remuneration on a break-even basis, and that payment under the ALAO scale will mean working at a loss, with the result that many practitioners will cease to accept family law legal aid referrals. While it is true that payment under the ALAO scale will not ordinarily exceed 80 per cent of the amount that would be payable under the Family Law Regulations scale, there is a more fundamental issue to be addressed. What must be appreciated is that payment out of public funds of costs in legally-aided matters is providing remuneration to private practitioners where formerly they would have received no remuneration at all. The extent of this publicly-funded legal practice is now enormous. In 1983-84 it is estimated that in excess of $40m of Commonwealth funds alone will be paid to private legal practitioners, and 63 per cent of that amount, in excess of $ 25m, will be payable in family law matters. What the present crisis in legal aid signifies is that we are moving into an era when the level of fees payable out of the public purse will simply not keep pace with the fees paid by private clients. As I have been saying to lawyers' organisations around the country, whatever else legal aid may be about, it is not a form of industry assistance to the legal profession. Rather the Government's legal aid policy is aimed at providing legal assistance to the maximum number of Australians within the obvious budgetary constraints. In return for the very large infusion of funds into the profession via legal aid, legal practitioners will simply have to accept that a lower fee is preferable to no fee at all. If the private legal profession is unwilling to continue to be involved in the delivery of legal aid services there will obviously be a need to increase the number of salaried lawyers able to represent needy persons. I repeat, however, that the number of referrals able to be made to the private legal profession in 1983-84 has not been reduced, and that the profession will continue to enjoy a very sizeable share of the legal aid care. ALAO-type scale will result in inferior legal representation. For years, it has been claimed that competent, experienced and efficient legal practitioners will choose not to accept legal aid work and that legally-aided persons will therefore only be able to secure representation from incompetent and inefficient practitioners. Such an argument casts unwarranted aspersions on the private legal practitioners who accept legal aid work from the ALAO and commissions generally. While I deplore the fact that many large firms decline to take on legal aid work, there is no monopoly on competence or efficiency merely by virtue of the size of a firm or the age and experience of its practitioners. Many of the competent family law practitioners are camparatively young lawyers who are committed to assisting persons with family law problems. These young practitioners quickly develop the expertise required to handle complex family law matters and acquire the skills necessary to direct their clients towards an appropriate settlement. I am confident that the introduction of the new scale will make no significant difference to the quality of representation afforded to legally-aided persons in family law matters. The ALAO scale is arbitrary and unworkable. It has been claimed that, to base a uniform scale on the ALAO scale which, it is said, is vague and arbitrary, will present complications and difficulties in its application. Many of the difficulties associated with the earlier ALAO scales and referred to in the comments received have been overcome by the amendments to the scale made with effect from 1 November 1982 or will be covered by the modifications I referred to earlier which are to take effect from 1 November 1983. It is acknowledged that all scales of this kind will have some unavoidable difficulties and anomalies, and we shall monitor the operation of the new scale to ensure that these are kept to a minimum. As to the argument that the lump sum basic composite amount is inappropriate to the variety and complexity of family law matters, the ALAO scale provides-as explained earlier-for payment of additional amounts for any further work which is assessed as being reasonable and necessary . Applied with care, this should ensure that the scale is properly adaptable. Other methods are available to achieve savings: The Law Council, in particular, has suggested that rather than introduce the ALAO scale there are alternative methods of reducing the overall legal aid budget. The principal suggestion in this regard is that greater attention should be given by legal aid bodies to the opportunity to obtain increased contributions from legally-aided persons. I readily acknowledge that increased contributions from legal aid clients must reduce net expenditure and therefore I have asked the legal aid task force to address this suggestion. It is not, however, anything more than a partial solution and it carries its own administrative problems. Moreover, such a proposal is not appropriately covered by a costs scale but is a matter for administrative implementation. At this stage I am able to say that the legal aid bodies do currently make an assessment of the contribution to be levied based on the circumstances of each case and that all moneys recovered by way of contribution are taken into account by the Government when determining the allocation of funds for the legal aid budget. I take this opportunity to assure the Law Council that this and its other suggestions will be closely examined by my Department. Simpler court procedures will reduce legal aid costs. This suggestion has been made as an alternative to the adoption of the ALAO scale. It is, obviously, a most sensible and attractive proposition but, unfortunately, does not lend itself to speedy implementation. As I have mentioned previously, the Government has already initiated an urgent examination of all possible methods of simplifying procedures or adopting alternative methods of resolving disputes. In the meantime, there is an urgent need to restrain the rapidly increasing expenditure on legal aid. In summary, I believe that the new legal aid scale will provide a cost- effective means of continuing the delivery of legal aid services in family law matters to needy persons. In itself, it will allow for reasonable remuneration to be made to private legal practitioners who are providing their skills and services to assist those persons involved in matrimonial difficulties. I also believe that the specialist family lawyers throughout Australia will continue to contribute their services to legal aid and will not opt out of this valuable community service. Perhaps at this moment I should assure the Senate that, in focusing my attention on the spiralling cost of legal aid I have not been turning a Nelsonian eye towards the special need for proper and adequate legal representation in family law matters. Some honourable senators will recall that in the debate in this place last year on the Family Law Amendment Bill 1981 I spoke of the demands placed on family lawyers. As I made clear then, I am fully aware of the complexity and difficulty of family law matters and of the enormous variety of skills which are necessary if a practitioner is to handle family law cases sensitively and effectively. It is a most demanding jurisdiction. I am a firm supporter and admirer of family law practitioners, whose dedication, patience and understanding are a hallmark of that sector of the profession. This proposal, and the other aspects of the review of legal aid in family law matters , imply no criticism whatsoever of the practitioners involved. I also wish to assure honourable senators that this element of the review of the Commonwealth's involvement in legal aid is not intended to amount to an attack on the private legal profession. This is not an underhand reduction of lawyers' fees but rather a response to the growing gap between the demand for and the available supply of legal aid funds. I fully recognise the important and valuable contribution to the provision of legal aid that for many years has been made by the private legal profession and I acknowledge that there will always be a need for it to play a significant role. If, as sometimes may appear, private practitioners are seen as bearing the brunt of legal aid reviews, it should be remembered that for years, many publicly salaried lawyers and support staff have endured working conditions and work loads that would not be tolerated by many members of the private legal profession or indeed by the community generally. These decisions have been made on the basis of all evidence and comments available to date. In particular, we have evaluated the experience of the ALAO scale as it is currently applied, and have made an assessment of the likely impact that the new legal aid scale will have in the commission States and in the Australian Capital Territory. I am aware that introduction of the new legal aid scale may give rise to unforeseen difficulties and it is in any case desirable that a new scheme be reviewed once it has been in operation for some time. In the case of legal aid referrals, a clear picture of new trends does not become apparant until at least two years after commencement of operation of a new scale, due to the time that must elapse before a sufficient number of accounts are rendered. Accordingly, it is proposed that a review of the operation of the new scale be commenced at about 1 November 1985, when approximately 70 per cent of accounts will have been rendered. This review will, of course, be facilitated by the ability of the national legal aid computer system to provide comprehensive information in relation to all legal aid matters . As to the specific provisions of the Bill, it will amend the Family Law Act 1975, but has been introduced separately from the Family Law Amendment Bill 1983 , which may still require a good deal of time for its parliamentary passage: the present Bill is a Budget measure and the Government is obviously concerned to ensure that the estimated legal aid savings are achieved as soon as possible. This Bill does not provide for any new amounts to be appropriated, as the relevant funds are contained in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1983-84 currently before the Parliament. The Bill effectively contains three parts. First, (in proposed new section 116A ) it enables the Commonwealth to make payments to a State, or the Northern Territory, by way of financial assistance for the provision of legal assistance in connection with matters arising under the Family Law Act 1975 or Regulations, on conditions specified by the Attorney-General that relate to the provision of legal assistance in connection with family law matters. This is the legislative framework that would enable the Commonwealth to make section 96 grants to the States for family law legal aid purposes. If the specified condition is not fulfilled, the Attorney-General may require repayment to the Commonwealth of a specified sum: this is the usual provision accompanying tied section 96 grants. Secondly, in proposed new section 116B the Bill enables payments made by the Commonwealth in connection with the provision of legal assistance under the Family Law Act 1975 or the Regulations to be made to legal aid bodies subject to conditions determined in writing by the Attorney-General relating to the provision of legal assistance in family law matters. The reliance here is on the section 81 appropriation power of the Constitution. The Bill also provides that where a legal aid body pays to a legal practitioner acting in a family law matter an amount in excess of that permitted by the legal aid scale, or where a specified condition attached to funding from the Commonwealth has not been fulfilled, the Attorney-General may determine that the relevant legal aid body or other person, authority or body to whom the payment was made is liable to pay or repay to the Commonwealth a specified amount. Thirdly, the Bill enables Regulations to be promulgated that prescribe the amounts that shall be paid by Commonwealth funded legal aid bodies to private legal practitioners acting in legally-aided matters arising under the Family Law Act 1975 and the Family Law Regulations. The constitutional heads of power primarily relied on here are those which support the Family Law Act itself, namely, sub-section 51 (21) and (22) relating to marriage and divorce. The amounts will, of course, be those contained in the new scale which I have already described. The Government believes there is ample constitutional power to support the implementation of the new scale by means of the Regulations. If, however, this were to be the subject of a challenge, the Government would move immediately to the section 96 mode of funding to ensure that the new scale was enforced. More generally, funding by means of conditional payments to the State has been sought by the legal aid commissions as a means of reducing the administrative inconvenience of the present system, which requires a series of advances and adjustments to be made quarterly each financial year. Although the format of section 96 grants has not yet been finalised and will not be introduced at this stage, the Government will be considering a move in the 1984-85 Budget to the funding of the commissions by way of section 96 grants. I will be giving further consideration to the mechanics of the funding process and procedures under which the grants would apply, prior to the next financial year, should that course be adopted. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) relating to membership of the Standing Committee on Social Welfare. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-proposed: That Senator Haines, having been duly nominated in accordance with the Resolution of the Senate dated 13 September 1983, be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Social Welfare. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.18) —I wish briefly to intervene to make the position of the Opposition clear. The Opposition supports the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). The request was made to me by the Australian Democrats, through Senator Chipp, that the additional position which was created for Opposition representation when the Standing Committee on Social Welfare was expanded from six members to eight members be available to Senator Haines, the Democrats spokesperson on social security. There was considerable interest in the official Opposition in taking that additional place, and I simply want to be on the record that the Opposition parties, after consideration, took the view that in light of the importance of the inquiry and the desirability of our seeing common ground developed in this area if possible it would be fair and reasonable to accede to the Democrat request on this occasion even though it bears no relation to the proportions in the Senate and the other factors which we took into account in trying to arrive at some agreement between us as to fair distribution of committee positions. I simply want the Senate to be aware that although a number of Opposition senators-I refer to Senator Baden Teague in particular-were very interested in participating, they have forgotten that opportunity in the broader interests of the Senate. The Opposition supports the motion moved by the Leader of the Government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Sales Tax on Concentrated Fruit Juices Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —To enable Estimates committees to meet, I move: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.19) —I will take the time of the Senate for only a brief time. I was delighted to hear the response from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) to Senator Archer's question this morning regarding the possible review by the Government of the abolition of the sales tax that now applies to concentrated fruit juices imported from New Zealand and manufactured in Australia. As I have already indicated, the situation now is that item 36A of the Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill allows for sales tax to apply to concentrated fruit juices which are imported from New Zealand and manufactured in Australia, mainly by the cordial industry. The abolition of that sales tax while New Zealand still has an export subsidy on fruit would be very detrimental to the industries, particularly in Tasmania, not only the berry fruit growers but also the apple growers. The berry fruit industry is in the process of restructuring. Many of the berry fruit growers have outlaid large amounts in the purchase of harvesters at a cost of $40,000. They are indeed pulling themselves together and feel that they will have several years in which to do so if this amendment is delayed until 1987 when the subsidy from the export market in New Zealand will be abolished. I plead with the Minister to support our contention and allow us to make an amendment in the Senate when the Bill comes before it. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of Government in the Senate)(11.21) —in reply-I will certainly take the opportunity of drawing Senator Walters's remarks to the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). I think that is largely the spirit in which the remarks were offered. That will be done. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committees D, E and F will meet at approximately 11.40 a.m. Estimates Committee D will meet in committee room 6, Estimates Committee E will meet in the Senate chamber and Estimates Committee F will meet in 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 Tuesday next at 2 p.m. Senate adjourned at 11.23 a.m. The following papers were presented: Defence Act- Determinations 1983- No. 15-Recreation Leave. No. 16-Linguists Bounty. No. 17-Fiji Living Allowance. Navigation Act- Marine Orders-1983- No. 8-Part 43 (Cargo and Cargo Handling -Livestock). No. 9-Part 44 (Convention Containers). Telecommunications Act-By-Laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 37. Telecommunications (Community Calls) Amendment No. 30. Telecommunications (General) Amendment No. 37. Telecommunications (Staff) Amendment No. 42. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 266 Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Are the majority of nuclear veterans ineligible for cover of any kind from the Department of Veterans' Affairs; if so, is this because most BCOF members were in Japan after hostilities had ceased, as were members of the first fleet who went ashore within days after the surrender of Japan. (2) Are most British nuclear test veterans ineligible for benefits because experimentation with atomic bombs is not considered 'active duty'. (3) Does the Government intend to look into these anomalies; if so, what action do they intend implementing. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Australian members of the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces-BCOF- qualify for the disability pension for any incapacity which is considered by a Repatriation determining authority to be related to their service, either because they qualify as members of the forces of the 1939-45 war as defined in section 100 of the Repatriation Act or because they are members of the 'Interim Forces' as defined in section 3 of the Interim Forces Benefits Act. The fact that members of the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces did not arrive in Japan until after hostilities had ceased has no bearing on their eligibility to apply for disability pension. In respect of Service pension, service in Japan was not considered to be service in a theatre of war after the cessation of hostilities as there was no longer any danger from enemy forces. Thus those personnel whose sole service was in Japan are ineligible for Service pension. Others, however, could qualify because of earlier theatre of war service in some other area during the 1939-45 war. (2) Servicemen involved in the nuclear testing program at Emu, Monte Bello and Maralinga do not qualify as members of the forces under Repatriation legislation in respect of that period of their service. Peacetime service in the Defence Force has attracted compensation under the Repatriation Act only since 7 December 1972. (3) The Government is considering the need for special arrangements for dealing with claims arising from the British atomic tests in Australia. An important part of that consideration will be the findings of the studies of morbidity and mortality of former test personnel being conducted by the Department of Health. Question No. 323 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 7 September 1983: (1) Was provision made in the Budget for the upgrading of Australia's Landsat Station to receive high resolution data from the Landsat series of satellites; if not, is this reconcilable with the Government's commitment to new technology and the development of effective techniques for monitoring the Australian Landmass. (2) Was $15m expended on systems over the last 2 years to process satellite data from the present Landsat station with the expectation that there would be a continuity of data during the 1980s; if so, has the Government effectively excluded Australia from receiving data from all future resource satellites in the 1980s. (3) Will the loss of this facility retard Australia's capacity to monitor its natural resources. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Science and Technology has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government fully recognises the benefits that can be obtained from high resolution data from the Landsat series of satellites but, in view of some present uncertainties as to the performance and the reliability of the present satellites and the extremely difficult budgetary constraints it was unable to fund the upgrade this year. The Government is still committed to new technology and the development of effective techniques for monitoring the Australian Landmass. (2) The Government is aware that users of remote sensing data have, over several years, provided funds for systems to process satellite data. The Government is still providing data presently available. However it has, at this time, decided that the upgrade could not be justified against more pressing demands for funding. (3) The Government has fully funded the Australian Landsat Station to process data available to us from the current generation of satellites at the present level. At the same time it is concerned at the level of recovery of operating costs and has directed that the Department of Science and Technology, in conjunction with the Department of Finance, develop a plan for progressively increasing the level of cost recovery. This may lead to further consideration by the Government of an upgrade to the station.