Tuesday, 4 October 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) left Australia on 23 September to attend a Commonwealth Health Ministers meeting in Canada and to visit Europe for ministerial discussions. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) is Acting Minister for Health until Dr Blewett returns. I also inform the Senate that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) left Australia on 26 September for discussions in the United States of America and the United Kingdom concerning environmental issues and to address the Third World Wilderness Congress in Edinburgh, Scotland. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) is Acting Minister for Home Affairs and Environment until Mr Cohen returns. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable The President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Great Barrier Reef is unique and is included on the World Heritage List. Although the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act was to create a marine park to provide for the proper protection and management of The Reef, only 14 per cent of the total area defined in this Act as the Great Barrier Reef Region has been declared marine park. The only insurance against an oil drilling blowout in Reef waters is to prohibit oil drilling in the Region and its vicinity. This can only be effected by declaring the whole area of the Region a marine park under the above legislation. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should request the Government to take action to hold a referendum together with the next Federal Elections on the question that: 'The entire area of the Great Barrier Reef and its surrounding waters defined as the Great Barrier Reef Region in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, as amended 1978 be immediately declared a marine park under the provisions of that Act'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McIntosh (from 560 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the 1983 Budget imposition of the excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine places at risk the future of the fortified wine industry in Australia. That the requirement to pay the excise within 7 days of the fortification occurring is inequitable. That the excise will be reflected in increased costs to the consumers of fortified wines of up to 100 per cent and consumer choice will be restricted. That this will cause reduced fortified wine sales which will result in reduced intake of grapes from grapegrowers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider their previous decision and either withdraw this tax or modify its method of application and collection. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 107 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully submits that: Although many occurrences of sexual harassment in the workforce have been reported to various State government authorities, such as the Victorian Commission for Equal Opportunity, the real incidence of sexual intimidation in employment will not be known, or countered, until a national policy towards sexual harassment is determined and implemented. 1. The National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation be commissioned to conduct a nation-wide study of discrimination based on sex, both in the private sector and the Public Service, with a view to advising the Government on the development of national policy. 2. The major priority of such a study should be to determine a legally- enforceable definition of sexual harassment. 3. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations should bring forward in Parliament legislation, arising from such a study, to outlaw discrimination and intimidation in employment based on sex. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robert Ray (from 127 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We urge the Government to declare a moratorium on uranium mining and treatment in Australia; We urge the Government to repudiate any commitment of a non-Labor government to the mining, processing or export of Australia's uranium; We urge the Government to not permit the mining, processing or export of uranium pursuant to agreements entered into contrary to ALP policy, and We urge the Government to discontinue the Roxby uranium mine development. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jack Evans (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That as Mr R. J. L. Hawke has publicly stated: (1) 'The Defence Force Reserves are the backbone of our nation's defence', (2) the Defence Force Reserves are a highly economical and viable means of training men and women to serve Australia in times of emergency, (3) the reserves are composed of volunteers dedicated to Australia. Furthermore, we the undersigned recognise that members of the reserves are required to maintain levels of efficiency at least equivalent to those of the permanent forces, and that members of reserves spend much of their own time and money towards reserve training obligations. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government recognise the role played by the reserves in serving Australia, that reserve pays and allowances are already far below the levels for equivalent work in the general workforce, and that therefore the proposed introduction of taxation to the meagre pays earned by members of the Defence Force Reserves is a poor way of saying thank you. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Missen (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, concerned with the cut in funding to the Brisbane Airport, concerned that this cut means loss of jobs, concerned that this cut could seriously affect the economy of Queensland: Humbly petition the Senate to request the Australian Government to: 1. Reserve its decision to cut funding to the Brisbane Airport. 2. Abide by the guarantee given by the Minister for Housing and Construction that the Airport would receive priority funding. 3. Assure the citizens of Queensland that the Brisbane Airport as the domestic and economic gateway to this State will be fully completed by 1987. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator MacGibbon (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We undersigned citizens of Australia, Believing that men and women are equal but different, Convinced that Australia can provide equal opportunity for all citizens without foreign treaties, Concerned that the U.N. Discrimination Convention would give a Communist- dominated international committee the power to judge Australia's laws, Humbly petition that the Honourable members of the Senate will not support the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 or the Commonwealth laws to achieve its aims. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 21 citizens). Petitions received. Withdrawal of Notice of Motion Senator COATES(Tasmania) —In accordance with notice of intention to withdraw a notice of motion, given on 22 September, I now withdraw Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 1, standing in my name, for the disallowance of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 1982, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 95 of 1982 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. Mr President, I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator COATES —The notice of motion for disallowance was originally given on 1 June on the basis of the concern of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances over section 4 of the Ordinance, which, as I said at the time, appears to remove existing rights and claims with retrospective effect. The Committee has since had quite extensive correspondence with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and has examined the Ordinance in detail in the course of several meetings. It was the majority view of the Committee that, on balance, the motion for disallowance should not be proceeded with. I seek leave to have a fuller statement of the Committee's consideration of this matter incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The aim of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 1982 is to amend the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance 1955 to exclude the estate of a deceased person from recovering damages for loss of earning capacity during the years lost to that person by his or her premature death. The amendment was introduced following the recent decision by the High Court in Fitch v Hyde-Cates (1982) 56 ALJR 260, which alerted the community to the anomaly in the New South Wales counterpart of the Principal Ordinance. Under this anomaly, a defendant may, in certain circumstances, be liable not only to the victim's dependants for their financial loss, but also to the victim's estate for his or her loss of earning capacity during the period of life curtailed by the accident causing premature death-the so-called ''lost years''. Section 4 of the amending Ordinance prevents the bringing of actions under this ''lost years'' rule for fatalities that occurred over the past six years (the applicable limitation period in the Australian Capital Territory). The Regulations and Ordinances Committee has long held the view that extensive retrospective provisions in subordinate legislation-even when they confer a benefit-are prima facie objectionable. In this case, the Committee put its view strenuously to the Attorney-General, demanding an explanation of the importance and necessity of a retrospective provision which removes the right to the additional action identified by the High Court decision in Fitch v Hyde-Cates. The Committee notes that the amending Ordinance does not affect any existing right to damages for actual loss suffered either by dependants of the deceased under the Compensation (Fatal Injuries) Ordinance 1968 or by the estate under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance 1955. The effect of the amending Ordinance is to place on an equal footing all cases under the Principal Ordinance by denying anyone the advantage of the duplication of liability uncovered by the High Court decision. The Committee acknowledges that the aim of the amending Ordinance is to take away what a number of Judges of the High Court and the Attorney-General describe as an unfair advantage. However, the Committee was particularly concerned that the retrospectivity did not penalise financially or otherwise disadvantage those who had already begun legal action under the ''lost years'' rule-particularly those whose claim might be in the course of being enforced in the Court, but also those entitled to enforce a claim who had not yet done so. The Committee has been informed that all actions begun at the time of the introduction of the Ordinance have been settled on the basis of payment of the plaintiff's costs, and that there are now no outstanding claims before the Court. A minority of the Committee is of the view that the circumstances surrounding the introduction of the amending Ordinance do not excuse the reliance on retrospectivity, which is in principle objectionable. The question before the Committee was whether the retrospective operation of section 4 offends the established principles and criteria under which it examines subordinate legislation. Most relevant was the second of the Committee's principles: whether section 4 of the amending Ordinance did ''trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties'' (I emphasise ''unduly''). If the committee were to find that the provision did unduly trespass, it could move for disallowance and perhaps in so doing, suggest a remedy pursuant to principle (d), under which the Committee examines matters of subordinate legislation which go beyond administrative detail and ''amount to substantive legislation which should be a matter for parliamentary enactment''. The Committee has been recently examining principle ( d) as it relates to ACT Ordinances. It entertained the possibility of seeking to have the retrospective provision included in a Bill for parliamentary determination. The Committee appreciated the need to balance claims about the social need for the retrospective provision against its legal effect, particularly the effect on any claims that might be in the course of being enforced in the courts, and on any others where proceedings might be in preparation or contemplation but not yet issued at the time of the making of the Ordinance. The majority of the Committee decided, on balance, not to move for disallowance of the Ordinance. Although retrospective provisions are prima facie objectionable, the majority view was that in this instance the circumstances were such that there was no undue trespass on personal rights and liberties. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I give notice that 11 sitting days after today I shall move: That the Fireworks (Amendment) Ordinance 1983, as contained in the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 8 of 1983 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Mr President, I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator COATES —This notice concerns the Fireworks (Amendment) Ordinance 1983. The Committee has some concern about the reversal of onus of proof on a defendant to establish that he or she acted on reasonable grounds. I seek leave to have a fuller statement of the Committee's concern incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The purpose of this Ordinance, according to the Explanatory Statement, is to bring the law relating to the sale, manufacture and use of fireworks in the Australian Capital Territory into line with that applying in New South Wales. The Committee is concerned at section 4 of the Ordinance which inserts a new section 3 in the Principal Ordinance, containing new sub-sections 3 (2) and (3) which provide as follows: (2) A person shall not sell fireworks (other than caps, confetti bombs, model rocket propellant devices, snaps for bon-bon crackers, sparklers and streamer cones) to a person under the age of 18 years. Penalty: $500. (3) It is a defence in proceedings for an offence against sub-section (2) if the defendant establishes that he believed on reasonable grounds that the person to whom the fireworks were sold was of or above the age of 18 years. The Committee is concerned that the defence provided by sub-section (3) places on the defendant the onus of establishing that he or she believed on reasonable grounds that the purchaser was aged 18 or more. It may be possible to revise this provision so as to minimise the onus placed on the defendant. The Committee has sought the views of the Minister for Territories and Local Government on this matter. As today is the last day in which such notice may be given, the Committee has given notice to preserve its rights while awaiting a reply from the Minister. Notice of Motion Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend laws relating to companies and securities. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(2.06) —I wish to raise a matter of privilege. On 14 September 1983 I was reported in the Australian Financial Review, under the heading 'Caucus query on Government tactics in Hope inquiry', as having questioned the line of cross-examination of Mr David Combe before the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. In the article in question, the journalist, Mr Paul Malone, reported inter alia that: Senator Nick Bolkus said he had seen reports of the Government counsel Mr Michael McHugh, QC, and the ASIO counsel, Mr Stephen Charles, QC, had adopted a line of questioning leading to the suggestion that Mr Combe was disloyal or a traitor because he opposed the previous Government's policy supporting a boycott of the Moscow olympics and the trade sanctions against Russia. Senator Bolkus asked whether this line of questioning was consistent as the Labor Party had also opposed the sanctions. The Attorney-General, Senator Evans said if Senator Bolkus's information was the case, it was more than likely part of a general line of cross-examination. Following this report, and on 15 September, during a public session of the same Royal Commission, a number of references and allegations were made about me which led to my personal explanation in this chamber on 20 September 1983. These allegations were firstly made by Mr McHugh, QC, representing the Government. In part of what can be assessed as an orchestrated passage, he claimed that my comments were those made by 'someone who does not read the transcript'. He was followed by Mr Charles, QC, counsel for ASIO, who alleged that the statements I was reported to have made indicated that I 'had failed to understand the position' that counsel were putting before the Royal Commission. Mr Charles further alleged that I 'was making angry comments according to the Australian Financial Review, demanding that Mr McHugh and I both be pulled into line by the Attorney-General'. The comments were interlaced by some trivial comments from the Royal Commissioner. Any reading of the report in the Australian Financial Review shows quite clearly that the statements of counsel were inaccurate. I showed quite clearly in my personal explanation in this chamber on 20 September 1983 that not only had I not made any angry demands but also that my complaint, as it has been called, was based on an adequate and accurate reading of the transcripts. I am now amazed that counsel were so sensitive to a mere inquiry as to their performance, for which, need I say, the public is paying a high price. In my statement to the chamber I indicated the line of questioning pursued by counsel. The transcripts, as I read them out at that stage-I shall quote some of them again-show the following: On 31 August 1983 Mr Charles, QC, asked Mr Combe: Well, you were doing your best, were you not, to overturn sanctions and their effect on your visit to Moscow? On 7 September 1983, as recorded at page 4724 of the transcript, Mr McHugh asked: You appreciated, of course, that those proposals were not seen by the Liberal- Country Party government as being in Australia's interests? On the next page he asked: Well, whether it was designed for that purpose or not, you appreciated that your proposals would undermine the policies of the elected government of Australia? He went on to ask: Whether you liked them or not, the sanctions were the nation's policies, were not they? On page 4726 Mr McHugh asked Mr Combe: You have used the word 'conflict'. I have used the words 'sap and undermine'. Your proposals were designed to sap and undermine the policies of the elected government of Australia, were they not? It is also quite apparent from the transcripts that the Commissioner understood what counsel were about, and I made that point in this place on 20 September 1983. On page 4728 of the transcript the Commissioner said to Mr Combe: The position is this, is it not, tell me if it is wrong, you disagreed very strongly with those policies? Those policies, of course, were those of the Fraser Government. I went on to assert that my reported statements were accurate and that counsel had reassessed the value of the line of questioning they were pursuing. I concluded by saying: I regret that this explanation has been made necessary by behaviour of counsel, which behaviour I have found not only personally offensive but also offensive to my rights and role as a member of this Parliament. This has then led to the most recent irrational, uncontrolled series of comments made against me in the Royal Commission by Mr Charles, QC. On 28 September 1983, on page 5532 of the transcript-I shall quote the whole paragraph because it is the basis of my claim-Mr Charles is reported as saying: Now, your Honour, there are not, and have not been, many light moments in this case, but Senator Bolkus is to be thanked for producing a high percentage of them. Among other things he was apparently trying to arrange dinner for Mr Combe for last week with chicken kiev on the menu. Now, what is clear, your Honour, is that Senator Bolkus, unfortunately, does not understand court proceedings; still less does he understand the proceedings of this commission, but if he continues to drop the suggestion that Mr McHugh and I are liars, in the wrong place, he may rapidly find out more about legal proceedings. Mr President, I submit that these comments constitute the breach of privilege and I contend they do so for a number of reasons. The comments are a deliberate attempt to discredit me as a member of this Senate, and to bring me into contempt. In the words on precedents in Odgers, at page 648, they constitute an 'offensive and scurrilous personal attack with the purpose of holding me up to ridicule or contempt'. They are, as anyone can see-even members of the Opposition in this instance-misleading; they are a mala fide report of my comments and an inaccurate reading of my comments in this place. They are also a personal attack on my character, not only as a member of the Senate but also as one who is qualified and has practised in law. Coming from counsel in a royal commission, the remarks are intimidatory. This intimidatory nature is of course aggravated by the position held by the person making the comments. In essence, the statements are threats directed at and based on an inaccurate interpretation of my comments in this chamber and are, to quote Odgers once again, 'intended to influence and intimidate me in my conduct in the Senate. They attempt to impute, inappropriately, conduct for the express purpose of discrediting and silencing'. I refer to page 654 of Odgers. At the least, the breach of parliamentary privilege is that they relate to comments I have made in the House or incidental to my functions as a member of this Parliament. I agree that in the world of politics there should be greater tolerance than what is normally available in courts of law. However, these comments, because of the reasons I have described, should not be tolerated. To ignore them in this case is to breed abuse. In summing up, let me quote very quickly from a section of an editorial in the Australian on 1 and 2 October-last weekend. The editorial said: Having denigrated, under privilege, Senator Bolkus' competence as a lawyer, ASIO's counsel, Mr Charles QC, then warned the Senator that he could be subjected to legal proceedings. Whatever their party allegiances, all Australians with some respect for free speech and the parliamentary institution, would trust that this threat would have no more serious consequences than those previously made. I am concerned at these comments. I am further disturbed that they have been allowed in the proceedings of a royal commission and with the acquiescence of the Commissioner. They follow a number of other related incidents which are of concern. I refer to the action against Peter Duncan, a member of the State Parliament in South Australia, the comments made about Mr Richard Hall on 28 September 1983 and the allegations that the film Allies was funded by the KGB. They were all unsubstantiated allegations, and have not been proven since. All these attacks have been allowed to be made under the privilege of the Royal Commissions Act and with the acquiescence of the Royal Commissioner. To me, this personal denigration of individuals in this uncontrolled manner should not be allowed to continue but that, of course, is up to the judgment of His Honour. In closing, Mr President, I contend that the powers of parliamentary privilege vested in this Parliament under the Australian Constitution override whatever protection may be claimed by counsel under the Royal Commissions Act, especially section 73 thereof. I claim that these statements of counsel constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege and, accordingly, I move: That the comments of Mr Charles QC in the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies and especially those comments referring to Senator Bolkus on page 5532 thereof be referred to the Senate Privileges Committee for consideration and report. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(2.14) —I had no notice that Senator Bolkus was going to move this motion but I suppose I should not be taken by surprise; after all, Senator Bolkus's parliamentary leader threatened the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) with breach of privilege proceedings for daring to comment on the proceedings of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies and now a member of the Australian Labor Party is threatening the Commission with breach of privilege proceedings for daring to comment on the Parliament. I think that is the most marvellous demonstration of the devotion to democracy and free debate that exists on that side of the Parliament. I find the whole thing absolutely ludicrous and I think it is a great shame that so much parliamentary time is being wasted on what are essentially arguments caused by the internecine fights of the Labor Party. I now understand why Mr Justice Jim Staples, according to an article in the National Times of 30 September-6 October, had some very unkind things to say about the Labor Party and its carry-on about civil liberties. I will not waste the time of the Senate at this stage by quoting from that article . However, I am sure that many honourable senators opposite will have read it. In listening to their colleague, they might well understand better why this rather unusual article came to be written. I note that Senator Bolkus is a member of the Privileges Committee. Certainly the Opposition would not support this reference unless Senator Bolkus gave the clearest indication to the Senate that he would not seek to participate in any Committee deliberation related to the matters he has raised and which he wishes to refer to the Commitee. It seems to me to be quite absurd to have Senator Bolkus sitting as one of the judges or jurors or hangmen or vigilantes, or however one might like to describe the exercise he would like to conduct. I hope that we would get the clearest possible expression from Senator Bolkus that since he wishes to refer this to the Committee of Privileges-- Senator Macklin —The Committee of Privileges is not a committee of hangmen. That is shameful and absolutely disgusting. Senator CHANEY —He will undertake that he would not wish to participate in this Committee whilst it is dealing with the matters he has raised. Mr President, I hear a very excited interjection from behind me. The point I was making was that I have little doubt that Senator Bolkus wishes it to act in one of the ways which I have described. What I am saying is that for the Committee properly to conduct its deliberations it cannot expect to have as a member the person who is claiming this injury. I would seek an assurance from Senator Bolkus that he will disqualify himself from the deliberations of the Committee. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(2.17) —As Government members and Opposition members have not had time to consider this matter in any detail and in view of the points last raised by Senator Chaney, I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHANEY —I address my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister, who said on Radio 6PR in Perth last Tuesday that the clear and unequivocal policy of the South Australian Labor Party was 'for the development of Roxby Downs and that, of course, is totally consistent with Federal policy'? I ask the Minister: When was the decision taken that the development of the Roxby uranium deposit was consistent with Federal policy, in view of the Minister's statement of 12 September in this place that the Roxby question was part of the comprehensive policy review decision? Senator WALSH —I am not familiar with the radio program, the transcript of which Senator Chaney has quoted or purported to quote. I do not know the context in which those remarks appeared. The whole package of submissions on the uranium question is due for consideration by Cabinet later this month, as I have stated here previously. Since I am not familiar with the other matters I will refer them to the Prime Minister to see whether he has any comment to make on them. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister saying that whether or not the Roxby Downs project will receive approval from the Federal Government for the export of uranium is a matter which is still subject to review within the review that he has mentioned? Senator WALSH —The answer is that no application to export uranium from Roxby Downs has been received by the Government; nor is any application likely to be received for very many years hence. Indeed, the economic feasibility study of the whole project being conducted by the company is not scheduled for completion until the end of 1984. Senator ROBERTSON —I direct my question also to the Minister for Resources and Energy. The Minister will be aware that workers employed at the Ranger uranium plant went on strike last week over a health and safety matter. Can the Minister tell the Senate of the circumstances which led to the strike and give us any information about its resolution? Senator WALSH —I am aware of that strike. Indeed, I was at the Ranger mine site and plant last Thursday. From memory, I believe that the strike commenced on the previous Monday. The reason for the strike in the broadest sense was concern by the work force about health and safety issues, in particular arising from an unfortunate incident last July when the industrial or plant water supply and the potable water supply within the plant were interconnected. There were a number of preliminary steps to that interconnection. The interconnection was by way of a flexible coupling, incidentally, which should not have taken place and which one trusts will not happen again in the future. Last week the company agreed to replace the entire potable water supply delivery system within the plant, following the discovery in a blind T-piece of a small quantity of ammonium diuranate, which presumably had entered the potable water supply system following the interconnection of the plant and potable water supply systems and a higher pressure on the plant side than on the potable water supply side. I understand that the work force returned to work at midnight last night. When discussing this question with people who are employed at the plant and with the mine management, I made the suggestion, which appeared to me to be well received by both sides, that I contact Mr Cohen and suggest that the Supervising Scientist, Mr Fry, visit the area and spend a few days or perhaps even a week on the site discussing this and other issues with management and the work force. Senator Chipp —Make sure that he drinks a bit of the water. Senator WALSH —Senator Chipp has reminded me I am informed that following the discovery of the ammonium diuranate in the blind T-piece, the entire work force was subject to checks to see whether there was any indication that anyone had been contaminated through drinking the water. I understand that the tests were negative. The management has also agreed to employ an additional four or five people, I believe, for general duties in cleaning up the plant and in particular cleaning up dust which accumulates from time to time. Senator ROBERTSON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for that response. I ask him further whether it is not also a fact that one of the causes of the strike was that the workers at Ranger are not satisfied with the monitoring carried out by the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy. What action can be taken to overcome that problem? Senator WALSH —Although I have received no written communication along the lines indicated by Senator Robertson, it was certainly my clear impression when discussing the issue with the work force-Senator Robertson was also present and took part in those discussions-that the work force is apprehensive about the adequacy of monitoring by the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy. I pass no judgment, incidentally, and I do not believe I am in a position to pass judgment, on whether those fears or apprehensions are merited. But, given that they exist, that was the primary reason that prompted me to suggest that the Supervising Scientist-about whom my clear impression is that the work force does not hold those same reservations or apprehensions-be asked, through Mr Cohen and his Department, to visit the mine site and discuss with management and the workers the specific issues which prompted the strike and the ongoing health and safety requirements. Senator DURACK —I ask the Attorney- General whether he has noted a report of a warning given by the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Burke, who delivered the Sir Norman Cowper Oration in Sydney last Saturday, that the federation was under 'severe threat' as a result of the decision of the High Court of Australia in the Franklin Dam case and that 'the federal system is shaping up for a showdown' . Now that the Labor Premier of Western Australia has joined forces with other State leaders in delivering this warning to the Federal Government, will the Attorney-General acknowledge, firstly, that steps need to be taken to redress the balance of power between the Commonwealth and the States in view of the wide interpretation given to the external affairs power and, secondly, that the Commonwealth Government should refrain from further use of the external affairs power while the question of a suitable amendment to the Constitution is being considered by the Australian Constitutional Convention? Senator GARETH EVANS —Premier Burke has his political constituency to attend to, just as Senator Durack has his and others have theirs. My answers to Senator Durack's questions are these: No and no. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Are Commonwealth public servants who are members of the Navy, Air Force and Army reserves granted leave to attend full time training? If so, is this leave granted on full pay? If leave is granted on full pay, what is the maximum period of such leave in each year? Does the reservist collect two pays, that is, his or her pay as a public servant and a pay for the reserve training also? Senator BUTTON —I am totally unable to answer that question. I will refer it to the Prime Minister. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I understand that the Government's position on the package of claims by the building industry unions is that the claims should be pursued through an anomalies hearing of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. As I understand that the Government will not state its view until such a hearing, I ask the Minister: Is he able to explain the grounds upon which Mr Weaven of the Australian Council of Trade Unions is able to state that there should not be any difficulty in processing the increases of existing allowances? Is the Government's opposition limited to the $7.50 building industry recovery procedures allowance? Is the Government set to support the other claims that will be made at the time to an anomalies hearing of the Commission? Senator BUTTON —We have been through this matter a number of times in the Senate. As I have said on a number of occasions, the Government will make known its attitude at the appropriate time in the course of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission hearing. I am quite unable to say, and I am not accountable in any way for, what Mr Weaven of the ACTU says or believes. I am not familiar with the statement which he made. I assure the Senate that I am in no way about to explain what Mr Weaven's view of the world might be. I should add that, insofar as the building industry claim is concerned, the Government has made it clear all along that it is anxious to obtain a resolution of a difficult industrial relations situation in the building industry. The Government also made it quite clear from the beginning that any increase in allowances was not to be a disguised wage increase and that those matters would be taken into account in any submission put by the Government to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. All I can say is that that view will unfold in the course of the proceedings. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Has the Government yet made its views known to the ACTU? Senator BUTTON —I am unable to answer that question precisely but, if I may hazard a guess, I very much believe so. Senator JONES —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations whether it is a fact that a decision by the Queensland Government to award the tender for construction of dam gates for the Wyvenhoe Dam to a Korean company in preference to local tenderers has now cost the jobs of 25 Brisbane steel workers. Is it within the power of the Commonwealth Government to control or limit the extent to which the jobs of Australian workers are exported in this manner, taking into consideration the consequent loss of taxes and associated benefits to the Australian economy that would accrue if local tenderers were given more favourable treatment? Senator BUTTON —It is a fact, as I understand it, that, as Senator Jones pointed out, a Queensland company was unsuccessful in a tender for the dam gates in question and that the work was awarded to a Korean company. It is true that it is within the power of the Commonwealth Government, in the sense that it has the power to control imports, to prevent the letting of a contract to a foreign company in Korea as was done in this case. Of course, however, the exercise of that power, certainly in a random or ad hoc way, would be highly undesirable. It seems to me that two issues are involved. The first is one involving the direct letting of work to overseas firms and the second is the question of the availability or otherwise of overseas technology in the circumstances in which it is introduced into Australia in respect of jobs such as the one Senator Jones referred to. That second matter seems to me to be of much greater importance. It is one, I believe, that the Commonwealth can and should address. The question of the purchasing policies of State governments is, of course, a complex issue. What I find particularly bizarre in the Queensland context is the fact that Queensland operates a very rigorous system of State purchasing preferences as against other States, other Australians and other Australian manufacturing companies. It is all the more regrettable to see a State that does that with such vigour in respect of Australian industry at large pursuing an equally vigorous policy of letting government contracts overseas. Senator MASON —My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, concerns comment made about the likelihood of nuclear attack on the North West Cape, Pine Gap and Nurrungar bases by Dr Desmond Ball in a book published earlier this year and entitled Civil Defence and Australia's Security in the Nuclear Age. I ask the Minister: Is the Government aware that, according to sources quoted in Dr Ball's article in that book entitled 'Limiting Damage from Nuclear Attack', clear and fully documented evidence is given that the United States Government regards the bases in Australia as early and virtually inevitable targets in the case of nuclear war? I ask whether the Minister knows that Dr Ball said, for instance: The American missile launching submarines are undoubtedly the least vulnerable. That is, of course, in comparison with Soviet vessels. Dr Ball continued: The Soviets could be confident of destroying only a very few of these submarines , even in all-out search and destroy mission. On the other hand they could relatively easily immobilise the whole American sea based force by destroying its communications. Does the Minister know that Admiral R. Y. Kaufman, United States Navy, testified 'We have to assume an attack will be made on our communications systems' and that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Communications Command, Control and Intelligence, Dr Gerald Dineen, testified that 'these stations are vulnerable. They are soft targets'? Will the Government make an early informed statement to Australia on these important matters instead of the mishmash of indecision and imprecision we have got so far in answer to this type of question? Senator GARETH EVANS —Returning at the outset to the implied compliment in Senator Mason's question, for any Australian Democrat to refer to anyone else as being engaged in a mish-mash of indecision and imprecision is really to demonstrate chutzpah of academy award dimensions. Senator Mason may recall-I am not sure whether he was here or whether he reads Hansard-that I answered a very similar question on this subject from Senator Chipp on 21 September. I referred then to a statement made by Mr Hayden as Minister for Foreign Affairs on 15 September, in which he said: . . . the contribution made by the joint defence facilities to the deterrence of nuclear war fully justifies any risk that might be seen as arising from our having those facilities in Australia. Whether Senator Mason or anyone else likes that, it is at least a clear and unequivocal statement of the Government's position. I remind the honourable senator of the Government's assessment, which I again reported in that answer to Senator Chipp's question, that a nuclear war is in fact unlikely. The threat of nuclear attack is believed to be a powerful restraint on the super-powers; to state so much is obvious. I have not studied, nor to my knowledge has the Minister, the article referred to by the honourable senator and I am not in a position to comment on the sources he cites. One can doubt that in an area such as this, where there is considerable room for argument among various experts, definitive predictions can be made about the targeting practices of the super- powers and the degree of risk attaching to those joint facilities in particular circumstances. However, if the honourable senator wishes to place on the Notice Paper his question relating to specific remarks by identified United States officials, I will seek an answer for him from the Minister for Defence. Senator MASON —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Can I take it from the Minister's response that in the event of a nuclear war the Government would regard the early destruction of those three bases as an acceptable risk for this country? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Mason demonstrates a congenital incapacity to listen to answers clearly given to him. I believe that if he has an opportunity to read the Hansard-there is not much point in my repeating the answer-and has a question he wants to put on notice or to ask me in this chamber, I will be only too delighted to assist him. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I have received a number of queries about the possibility of class actions in Australian law. Can the Attorney-General advise whether it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation in this Parliament enabling class actions to be instituted? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government's position on class actions is as was stated before the election in the law and justice policy. It was that we would wait essentially on the report of the Australian Law Reform Commission-which is now, I advise the Senate, anticipated some time early to mid-1984-before reaching any kind of definitive conclusion on this. The situation is that at present unless a sufficient private financial interest can be shown an individual has no right to bring a claim in the public interest to restrain damage to the environment or infringement of so-called public rights. The Government will certainly be looking at the report and recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, which is addressed to this whole question, with a view to developing proposals for wider access to courts and tribunals within Commonwealth jurisdiction to enable representative individuals and organisations to argue cases of this kind, and will also, coming closer to the concept of class actions as traditionally understood, certainly be exploring means of ensuring redress for multiple small claimants in the consumer, civil rights, discrimination, welfare and environment fields and matters of that kind, although not necessarily at all along the lines of a root and branch acceptance of the concept of class actions as they developed in the United States. I indicate that, while we are waiting for that fuller review of this issue, in the light of the Law Reform Commission report we are nonetheless concerned to ensure in the legislation we are enacting that proper provision is made for representative actions in appropriate cases. I remind the Senate that one of the provisions in the Sex Discrimination Bill, clause 62, makes provision for a form of representative action in relation to complaints brought under that particular Bill, although a further amendment that is proposed to that will ensure that a complaint brought on a representative or class basis does not give rise to a determination so far as damages are concerned against any putative defendant. The best I can say to the honourable senator is that the matter is under active and continuing review. We will come to a focus of decision on that in the context of the Law Reform Commission report next year. Senator PETER BAUME —My question to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs concerns the Government's announced intention to fund schools on a basis of need . I note that while many government schools operate at below average resource standards, many others operate above such standards, a proposition which is self -evident. I ask the Minister: How does the Government intend to apply a needs based policy in the distribution of Commonwealth funds between government school and government school in the States on the basis of relative need? Senator RYAN —The Government's intention to fund State government schools in a way that will start to overcome some of the gaps between the lower resource government schools and the better off government schools is evidenced in the Budget guidelines. If Senator Baume addresses himself, for example, to capital funding, he will find that $20m has been earmarked for the upgrading and refurbishment of rundown government schools. That decision recognises that some government schools are operating below standard. Similarly, the disadvantaged schools program is directed to government schools which are below standard. Also , the new participation and equity program will bring about reform of secondary schooling to improve participation rates. The details of the implementation of that program are currently being worked out in consultation with State governments, parent organisations, teacher organisations and technical and further education authorities. Priority will be given to those areas and, in the context of this answer, to those government schools which have particularly low participation rates. All of those steps demonstrate that we are aware that some government schools are operating below standard. We are taking those steps appropriate for the Commonwealth to take, it not having the basic responsibility for schools but having the responsibility to ensure that standards are raised and that disadvantages are overcome. We will take such steps as funds permit. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator Ryan' s answer did not address the question-I should have made it clearer-of general recurrent funding of government schools. Would she care to address herself to that part of funding and perhaps in her answer illustrate how in the Australian Capital Territory, for which she has direct responsibility, she might apply the needs based formula as between government school and government school in terms of recurrent funding? Senator RYAN —With regard to recurrent funding, I am sure Senator Baume is aware that it is the intention of our Government to pursue with State governments negotiations concerning desirable resource standards for all schools and to establish with State governments the relative responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the States in the pursuit of those resource standard targets. This is a new approach to the funding of government schools which is designed to ensure that all government schools reach desirable standards and that Commonwealth funds particularly are directed by the States to the schools most in need of them. It will be a very complex process. Negotiations are only just beginning, and will probably take some time to complete. The end result, when the Commonwealth and State governments have agreed on resource standard targets, will be that the Commonwealth will be in a position to fund much more specifically those programs which will raise the current resource standards of needy government schools. It is true that the Federal Government has responsibility for schools in the Australian Capital Territory, although a considerable part of that responsibility has been delegated to the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. Since the provision of education in the Australian Capital Territory is generally high, we would not find in the Territory the large discrepancies in resource standards that are found in States such as New South Wales, where the honourable senator comes from, and where in the inner city region or working class areas in the western suburbs of Sydney there are very clear disadvantages as compared with schools in the middle class communities that have long had the support of affluent communities. We simply do not find discrepancies of that kind in the Australian Capital Territory, although it is true that some of our older schools and those schools serving communities that are not quite as well off as others in Canberra have been able to participate in the disadvantaged schools program and special programs, such as English as a second language, which recognise that some schools take a higher proportion of migrant children than do other schools. The senator has really asked me to use the example of Australian Capital Territory schools to describe how we will set about some sort of needs approach to recurrent funding for government schools, but it is not a very good example because the gaps are not as great as they are in the senator's own State. I think I have given the answer in respect of our negotiations with State governments. Senator FOREMAN —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. I refer the Minister to the most recent indicators of building activity which indicate a significant upturn in the housing market particularly since the announcement of the Government's new housing package in May. Does the Minister agree that these figures show a massive acceptance by home buyers and prospective home buyers of the Government's new housing initiatives? Can we anticipate a lowering of unemployment in the building trades as a result of this renewed activity, particularly in view of the latest drop in interest rates? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I believe that not only the Government but also the housing industry in general anticipate a reduction in unemployment in this industry as a result of increasing activity. I am reminded that prior to the present Government coming to power, housing commencements had reached the lowest level for some 20 years in Australia. Funds for public housing to the States had been drastically cut, and we had about 100,000 people on public housing waiting lists as well as very long waiting lists in some areas for private rental accommodation. Since that time we have had an upturn, I am informed by the Department, of dwelling commencements, which went from 105,000 in 1982-83, which was 20 per cent down on those for 1981-82 and was the lowest for any financial year since 1962-63. Dwelling commencements increased by 5 per cent in the March quarter of 1983 from those in the very low December quarter of 1982, and by 13 per cent in the June quarter. Dwelling approvals and market information suggest that the recovery is being maintained. Similarly, lending for housing has shown strong recovery from the very low levels of that year. Lending by the banks and permanent building societies, seasonally adjusted, increased by 4 per cent in the three months to July 1983 compared with that for the three months to April, and by 30 per cent compared with that for the three months to July 1982. The high level of lending has increased and will increase as interest rates come down. I think that all these factors, plus the way in which the first home owners program was welcomed by the building industry in general and by the real estate industry in general, indicate that there are very good grounds to believe that the present upturn will continue and will probably increase. That is good news not only for the building industry but also for those industries whose job prospects come as a spin-off from increased building activity. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. In a recent interview published in the Australian Pensioner, did the Minister say that under the Government's Medicare arrangements there would be no need to have a pensioner health benefits card? Can the Minister assure all pensioners that they will have the same benefits for health care under Medicare as they now enjoy under the pensioner health benefits card? Senator GRIMES —I thank Senator Messner for the question. No, I did not say that. That answer came up in a discussion about the lesser need for the pensioner health benefits card with Medicare providing basic hospital and medical cover. There will still be a necessity for the presence of the pensioner health benefits card, if for no other reason than that of the pharmaceutical benefits that are attached to that card. At the same time, I am aware that the State governments, some local governments and some private organisations use eligibility for the pensioner health benefits card as a cut-off point for the provision of their own fringe benefits. Whether that should persist or whether it is a satisfactory situation is something that we should resolve between the Federal Government, the State governments and local governments. But in the meantime, the card will be issued. I am sorry if the impression was gained from that interview that that would not be so. Senator BOLKUS —Has the Minister for Veterans' Affairs heard the report on this morning's Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio news regarding the announcement by the British Defence Ministry of a study into the health of British personnel involved in nuclear weapons tests in Australia and the Pacific in the 1950s? Can the Minister advise the Senate whether any action will be initiated by the Australian Government to examine possible increased cancer risks amongst Australian personnel involved in those tests? Senator GIETZELT —Since coming to office the Government has received a number of representations on this matter from serving personnel. Service personnel who were involved in the atomic testings in Australia have written to me and I understand that some of my ministerial colleagues have also had representations made to them. As a result of these representations I have initiated investigations into the matter. It appears that during the period in question, from 1952 to 1958, some 21 nuclear tests were conducted in various parts of Australia; for example, at the Monte Bello Islands off Western Australia, at Emu Field and Maralinga in South Australia and at Christmas Island in the South Pacific. It appears that some 8,000 serving personnel and 8,000 civilians, as well as an unspecificied number of Aborigines, were in the relevant parts of Australia during the actual testing period, although the vast majority of these persons were not actually present during the testing of the atomic weapons. Consequently the Government's view in the past has been that most of these people experienced a minimal risk of exposure. However, the actual question of whether persons in the vicinity during the tests were exposed to unacceptable levels of radiation is of some concern to the Government. We are dissatisfied with the attitude taken by the previous Government in this matter. However, the diversity of evidence available makes it rather difficult to reach conclusions at this stage. It will require much careful and detailed analysis before any initiatives can be taken. I do note that the news report this morning refers to a British university study which claims a disproportionate incidence of leukemia amongst servicemen who took part in the tests. That study, which was conducted by Birmingham University, found that among 330 British serving personnel who were present at the tests the incidence of leukemia was about 60 per cent above the average. There is also considerable concern in the United States of America surrounding recently discovered documents which suggest that radiation safety provisions for Navy personnel present at atomic tests at Bikini Atoll in 1946 were less stringent than they could have been. In conclusion, I can only assure Senator Bolkus that the Government has taken positive steps to determine whether there is a link between cancer risk and the presence of personnel at the test sites. A number of studies have been commissioned, the results of which should be publicly available before the end of this year. Senator TOWNLEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. I refer to an advertisement for Telecom Australia mobile phones which says, in part: Of course, you'll be saving time not having to hunt for Public Phones . . . I ask: Is this advertisement an admission by Telecom that the number of public phones throughout this country is much too low, so much so that one has actually to hunt to find one? Will the Minister ask Telecom Australia to examine the possibility of installing more public phones, particularly in remote areas, now that it has had time to analyse the increased income from such phones due to the present 20c fee? Senator BUTTON —I would not have thought that an advertisement by Telecom advertising mobile phones in cars, containing words like 'you will save time by not having to hunt for a public telephone', would be intended by Telecom to advertise an inadequacy in the number of public phone boxes. However, I concede that that is a question of interpretation and my interpretation might well be different from that of Senator Townley. I have no idea whether that advertisement can be construed as such an admission. I will ask Telecom, through the Minister, to examine and advise me on the matters raised in the honourable senator's question. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. Has the Minister read Press reports that the Federal Council of the Liberal Party has carried a motion supporting means testing of welfare payments? Can the Minister explain to Opposition senators the merits of the Federal Liberal Party policy? Senator Missen —I raise a point of order, Mr President. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Government policy. It deals with Opposition policy and surely is out of order. Senator Robert Ray —Speaking to the point of order, as Federal Liberal Party policy is now coming into line with Government policy, I think it is quite in order to point out the similarities. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to reframe his question and bring it into line with the Standing Orders. Senator ROBERT RAY —I ask the Minister for Social Security to list the approach to social welfare that the current Government has and to compare it with the approaches of other people in the community. Senator GRIMES —I think Senator Robert Ray's question is a pertinent one in view of the fact that there is some debate in the community at the moment about the approaches of the Government and the alternative government-the Opposition-to welfare payments in this community. Quite clearly, the Government believes that there should be a mixture of universal benefits like family allowances and selective benefits like pensions. Where we have selectivity we believe that there should be a means test which is equitable, and therefore it should incorporate not only income but also assets. I note that on the weekend, by coincidence, the Federal Council of the Liberal Party passed a motion saying that it believes in a needs based welfare system and that it therefore believes that benefits should be paid out on the basis of needs, and any equitable basis of needs again should incorporate assets as well as income. Senator Button —Would that be binding on Senator Walters? Senator GRIMES —This would not be binding on Senator Walters or anyone else, but of course it flies a bit in the face of some of the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, who has announced that if his party came to power it would repeal any legislation by the present Government to introduce an assets test. Of course, in a subsequent interview he said that that did not mean he was opposed to an assets test and that it did not mean that the Liberal Party, when it came to power, would not introduce an assets test; it would just repeal the Australian Labor Party's assets test and introduce its own. This was complicated even more on the weekend by the announcement by Mr Peacock that he opposed very strongly the fact that any antiques in the home may be excluded from the assets test. In other words, he wanted the things that he defined as antiques included. Mr Peacock wants the inspectors and the valuers to go into each person's home and to value everything, including all antiques; to really complicate the assets test and interfere with the privacy of the individual. What Mr Peacock is advocating, of course, is that a woman who has a dresser or an item of furniture which was given to her 30 or 40 years before-- Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order. Mr President, you sought a rephrasing of the question to accord with the Standing Orders. That was done. The early part of the answer was also in accordance with the Standing Orders but the Minister is now canvassing what he purports to put as Opposition policy. However, it is not Opposition policy. Since what he is saying is inaccurate as well as outside the Standing Orders, I take a point of order. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator GRIMES —If Mr Peacock is the example that Senator Chaney does not like, perhaps we will make a comparison with the behaviour of Senator Chaney when he was the Minister for Social Security. Senator Chaney frequently made the comment , as did members of his Party, that in fact welfare payments such as pensions should be distributed on a basis of need. Some two years ago he made a Budget announcement that one of the problems was that people in an artificial way were circumventing the income test that his Government had introduced. He announced in the Budget that in fact the Government was going to do something about it. I remember Senator Chaney saying: 'We will limit people to perhaps having $3,000 in an interest free cheque account'. After some months of questioning by me, Senator Giles and others, we found that the Liberal-Country Party Government at the time gave up and would not do anything. It would not do anything, not because it had changed its mind about what it believed should be done, but because its Prime Minister wanted to have an election and it would not do anything unpopular at that time. The vast majority of people in this country, no matter what their political beliefs, believe we should have a needs based social security system and that that system should be based on people's true assets and true income and not just on income alone with the amount of circumvention that we have had. I am glad that the Federal Council of the Liberal Party moved a motion of that type but I have no faith in Liberal Party politicians following that motion through into action should they ever come into government. Senator JACK EVANS —I wish to ask a question about the current airline pilots strike. However, I am having great difficulty in focusing on the appropriate Minister to whom to put my question. I would hope that a number of Ministers-the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the Minister for Aviation, the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations- would be concerned. The PRESIDENT —Order! Would the honourable senator address his question to a Minister? Senator JACK EVANS —I conclude that I should address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. What action does this Government intend to take to prevent the airline pilots of two of Australia's most highly protected corporations from taking unnecessary and provocative strike action simply to publicise the point of view of this privileged minority group? Is the Government willing to allow the potential of the Australian tourist industry to be destroyed as a result of the increased reputation for unreliability, the increases in fares which inevitably follow such strikes and the inevitable further decline of air travel in Australia? Can the Government take positive steps to protect the people who use our monopolistic airline system and who become the innocent victims of individuals who lack any compassion in their irresponsible behaviour? Senator BUTTON —Senator Evans's question contains a number of elements. I would first of all make the point that the Government has on numerous occasions had discussions with the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and has, in the view of the Government, met the legitimate concerns of the air pilots. But even more recently, the Government has offered to meet and discuss the specific application of the new arrangements relating to taxing of lump sum superannuation payments in the aviation industry. However, the Government will not meet and discuss the application of the superannuation arrangements with a privileged group like the air pilots while they are on strike. The Government will not concede to the sort of industrial blackmail which the air pilots are engaging in. Senator Chaney —That is what you said to the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and you complained. I am glad to hear that. That is a very good statement of principle. Senator BUTTON —Mr President, I was interrupted by the Leader of the Opposition. The Government will proceed to have further discussions with the air pilots in relation to matters of detail only in terms of specific application but not while they are engaging in industrial action. Senator Evans asks what action the Government might take if this situation continues; that is to say, if the present industrial action is renewed or prolonged in any way. The precise details of any action that the Government will take will be determined at the time in relation to the particular circumstances which exist at that time. If it is necessary, the Government will take the most stringent action because the air pilots are risking not only their own conditions of employment but also the conditions of employment of other aviation employees, many of whom also enjoy a wellprotected status in the community. The honourable senator is quite right to say that the actions of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots will result in significant damage to both Trans Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia, neither airline being in a position to afford that damage at this point. I add that the Government has very strong doubts about whether the Federation of Air Pilots is communicating with its members to the extent that it might the degree of discussions which the Government has had with the Federation and the precise nature of those discussions. We believe that that lack of communication is being reflected on an increasing basis from day to day throughout the rank and file of the air pilots in both the airlines. Senator CHILDS —I ask the Minister for Social Security: Why has it been necessary to give an immediate warning against the deprivation of assets when the assets test is not to apply for another 12 months? Senator GRIMES —As I have said in previous answers to Senator Sir John Carrick and others in this place, in warning that artificial deprivation of assets will not be counted in calculating the assets test the Government is carrying out what is a normal and reasonable action in this area. Without this, people would have the capacity to deprive themselves artificially of assets-to hand over assets to relatives or others, who could then provide them with an income from those assets, thus getting around not only the income test but also the assets test. However, normal expenditure-expenditure which provides a return for the expenditure of cash-normal gifts to relatives, et cetera, will, as before, not be considered as deprivation. The Government, through the Department of Social Security and, I understand, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, will look only at blatant cases of deprivation to circumvent the tests artificially. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I refer the Attorney-General to statements which have been made by counsel for the Commonwealth in his closing address to the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies, particularly those concerning the credibility of Mr Combe and the degree of culpability of Mr Young. To what extent were these statements made on the instructions of the Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not propose to canvass, in any more detail than I have done since the whole Hope Royal Commission started, questions as to the conduct of the Commission or what was discussed before it or submitted to it, except to say that, as with the conduct of the case generally, counsel have been in discussion obviously with the relevant Government Ministers. There has been general discussion about the nature of the submissions that are to be put and the way in which the case is to be conducted. There are many matters of detail that have been left to counsel's discretion along the way. Short of going into the precise details of the particular matters raised in the course of a long two -day address which Senator Crichton-Browne has in mind and which I do not propose to do, it is impossible to give any more precise an answer than that. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I ask a supplementary question. Is the Attorney-General saying that, whether of either a specific or a general nature, the two matters I raised by way of question were not canvassed between the Government and its Queen's Counsel? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is very little I can add. Questions going to the credibility of Mr Combe are obviously at the heart of the Commission and extend over very many individual matters that are before the Commission for determination and decision. Clearly, many of those matters have been the subject of detailed discussion; other aspects have simply been the subject of general communication. Similarly, the matters involving Mr Young involve a wide range of considerations. My answer, as originally given, stands. Senator WALTERS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's decision granting a 4.3 per cent wage rise to all workers, provided the unions agreed not to press further sectional wage claims. I ask the Minister: What are the parts of the current building industry pay deal that the Government opposes on the ground that they breach the new wage guidelines? Will the Government's objections be raised by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations when he meets with representatives of the building unions this week? Senator BUTTON —The national wage case decision was in accordance with the Government's wishes in the sense that the Government made a submission on these matters to the national wage Bench, which was accepted, and it provides the restraint in relation to sectional claims to which Senator Walters referred. The honourable senator asked: What are the portions of the current building industry agreement under discussion with which the Government disagrees? As I have already answered a question on this matter at Question Time today, I repeat that the Government indicated right from the beginning of this claim that it would not agree with any wage increases which were disguised as allowances. In the course of the proceedings before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission this week, the Government will be putting its position in relation to that matter. Senator Walters asked me whether Mr Willis will explain that view to the representatives of the building industry unions when he meets them this week. I can only say to the honourable senator that I assume so, because I think he is meeting them to tell them that. If he does not explain that to them this week I would regard that as an extraordinary circumstance indeed and a very strange meeting. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I am not quite sure whether the Minister said that the Government considers that those allowances are part of the wage structure. He answered the question very broadly and not specifically, as I had asked, in relation to the builders labourers. Senator BUTTON —With respect, that is a comment rather than a supplementary question. This matter is currently before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I am not going to go through all the elements of the so-called building industry package and identify in the Senate which matters are regarded as legitimate allowances and which matters are regarded as perhaps a wage increase. What I am saying is that the Government will put its view in the course of the proceedings before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which is the appropriate place in which to do it. Senator BOLKUS —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, concerns the report of the Fry Committee of Inquiry into the Recognition of Overseas Qualifications. I ask: When is it envisaged that that part of the Fry Committee report recommending registration of foreign dentists in Australia will be implemented? Senator GRIMES —I am afraid that I do not have that answer for Senator Bolkus today. I had it for him last week and I have mislaid it today. I will refer the matter to the Minister and obtain an answer as soon as possible. Senator MISSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. I draw the Minister's attention to the commitment made by the Australian Labor Party during the recent Federal election campaign that 'if it attained office, it would immediately declare the entire Great Barrier Reef region as marine park to the low water mark on the Queensland coast'. In the light of this firm commitment I ask the Minister: First, why has the Government not taken the necessary steps to declare a marine park over the entire area for which it has legal control, that is, from the low water mark along the coastline to the outer edge of the region; secondly, what negotiations have taken place between the Federal Government and the Queensland Government on the important matter of park boundaries; and, thirdly, when will action be taken by the Government to declare the marine park over the entire Great Barrier Reef region right to the low water mark, so as to ensure that the world's largest system of coral reefs is afforded complete protection at an early date? Senator RYAN —I have consulted the brief on this matter provided to me by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment but it does not seem to contain information which would directly answer the very important matters raised by Senator Missen. I will refer the question to Mr Cohen and seek an early response for the honourable senator. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. My question is prompted by the number of Commonwealth funded road works I have seen in my State in recent times. I ask the Minister: How much extra money is the Government making available for road works in the forthcoming year? Senator GIETZELT —The 1983-84 Budget, which is still to receive the assent of the Senate, provides for a very substantial increase in Commonwealth funding for roads. The sum allocated in the current Budget is $1,233m or $1 1/4 billion in round figures, which represents an increase of some 45 per cent on last year's expenditure. Senator Colston is able to draw his own conclusions about why there would be some improvement in road works in Queensland as a result of funding proposals by the Labor Government. The estimated expenditure on roads is in three different categories: The direct road grants program will provide something in excess of $778m; the bicentennial road program will provide $385m; and the amount allocated for jobs on local roads, which is part of the Commonwealth employment program and in which my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is involved, totals $70m. It is the Government's view that this increase in expenditure will create about 19,000 extra jobs in Australia. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. With respect to the Government's new First Home Owners Bill, does the Minister realise the disadvantages that the scheme's $27, 900 annual taxable income limit-that, of course, includes the individual incomes of a married couple being taken together as one income-will place on people living in remote areas of Australia where the cost of living is much higher than it is in the cities and metropolitan areas? Will the Government review the scheme and, in particular, the means test so that people of the outback who are currently earning more than the income limit will be eligible to receive financial assistance for their first home through the first home owners scheme? Senator GRIMES —I will refer this matter to the Minister for Housing and Construction. I remind Senator Kilgariff that in fact the scheme has received widespread, almost universal, support from the whole of the building industry, the whole of the real estate industry and almost everyone involved in the industry. However, I accept the question as a serious one. I will refer it to the Minister for Housing and Construction and get an answer as soon as possible. Senator BUTTON —During Question Time on 22 September, Senator Missen asked me a question as Minister representing the Prime Minister. In summary, the questions were: Firstly, was the Prime Minister using legal remedies for monetary gain; secondly, was he taking libel actions in order to stifle public criticism; and, thirdly, was this not inconsistent with the Government's claim to making available and supporting a vigorous use of government information by the Australian public? The Prime Minister has provided the following information in response to Senator Missen's questions: The answer to the first question is no, nor does he accept the premise upon which the question is based; the answer to what I identified as the third question is that the Government's commitment to free and informed public discussion does not diminish the right of any individual to pursue a civil action for libel. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Royal Military College of Australia-Annual Report 1982-pursuant to section 147 (2) of the Defence Act 1903. 2. Advance to the Minister for Finance-Monthly Statement of Issues-August 1983. 3. Canberra Planning and Development-Report of the Committee of Review of the Role and Functions of the National Capital Development Commission-together with the text of a statement made in the House of Representatives by the Minister for Territories and Local Government on 21 September 1983. 4. Film Censorship Board-Report of Activities 1982-together with the text of a statement relating to the report by the Attorney-General. 5. Stranded Wire, Cables, Cordage, Ropes, etc., (developing country preferences )-IAC Report. 6. Tableware and Certain Other Goods, of Pottery (developing country preferences)-IAC Report. The PRESIDENT —Before I proceed any further, I note the presence in the gallery on my right of a distinguished former President of the Senate, former Senator Justin O'Byrne. On behalf of all members of the Senate I extend to him a warm and friendly return to Canberra. Report Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(3.21) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report was tabled in the House of Representative the week before last, having been in the hands of the Minister for Territories and Local Government ( Mr Uren) for some considerable time. He received it in July and I think most people conceded that it was reasonable for him to hold on to it for a couple of weeks before responding. Prior to its being tabled I sought a copy of it, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. I must say he did send me a copy and he then tabled it, which meant that it was then available for comment by the whole community. It is an important document. It deals with a number of matters that are important to the future development of the Australian Capital Territory . The Committee of Review of the Role and Functions of the National Capital Development Commission was set up as a result of the Review of Commonwealth Functions. The Canberra Times editorial of 23 September stated: A truly amazing metamorphosis happened somewhere between the intended objective for the Committee of Review of the Role and Functions of the National Capital Development Commission and the recommendations which have actually emerged from the White Committee. Last year the then Government wished 'to reduce the scope and amount of public-sector activity and to transfer financial and operational responsibility to the private sector as much as is practicable or feasible'. A liberal interpretation of terms of reference may be no bad thing, even a positive benefit, particularly when there has been a change of Government-but the transformation of so clear a mandate into more powers and functions for the commission, less interference from the rest of the bureaucracy and for that matter the politicians, and somewhat dubious provisions for community participation, is nothing short of breathtaking. The editorial canvasses other matters but one aspect that I specifically wish to refer to, the role of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory in the future, is covered, I think, in recommendations 3, 4 and 5. The Parliament in a sense keeps an eye on developments and their national aspects through this Joint Committee. In the past it has been the responsibility of reviewing the plan of Canberra. In a sense this relates to varying the road structure, which might not sound very important. Through that the Joint Committee has had an opportunity to keep an eye on the plan and to defer some decisions for varying roads when the proposed planning arrangements were thought not to be in the best interests of the community. The Committee of Review supports the view that the role of the Joint Committee should be wider, and recommends that the National Capital Development Commission 's policy plans should be referred to it for comment. It also states that changes to the gazetted plan should no longer be referred to the Joint Committee . It seems to me that adoption of these suggestions would mean the taking away from the Joint Committee of any power it may have had by being able to comment on the gazetted plan. At the same time it would become yet another community group as far as comment on the plan is concerned. Perhaps I do not really understand what the Committee of Review had in mind or intended by the use of the word 'comment'. Recently the public was asked to comment on some changes in the suburbs of Forrest and Deakin and some 300 submissions were received from interested people. I rather fear that the Joint Parliamentary Committee's comments on changes would be considered merely in the context of the many that would be put forward. If the Review Committee is serious about the role of the Parliamentary Joint Committee this recommendation should be set out in a way that would be meaningful. The Parliament would need to decide eventually whether it wishes to have a say and whether it wishes to have a joint parliamentary committee playing a role at all as far as the NCDC policy plans are concerned. Many aspects of the report are important and will need to be debated by the community. In the time available to me today I have referred to just one aspect. I shall refer to others as the opportunity presents itself in the future, but it is certainly a committee which the Parliament and the community will need to look at closely. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report 1982 Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.26) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Industries Assistance Commission Report Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.27) —On behalf of Senator Peter Rae, who is absent on parliamentary business, I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave for him to continue his remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Industries Assistance Commission Report Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.28) —On behalf of Senator Peter Rae, I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave for him to continue his remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Assent to the following Bills reported: Loan Bill (No. 2) 1983. Income Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy) Bill 1983. Medicare Levy Bill 1983. States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983. Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1983. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.30) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to repeal the Salaries and Wages Pause Act 1982. The Act which took effect on 23 December 1982 suspended the power of various remuneration fixing authorities to make or vary awards or determinations in relation to the remuneration and conditions of employment of Commonwealth employees for twelve months. The Act has also prevented the Remuneration Tribunal and the Academic Salaries Tribunal from holding inquiries or making determinations or reports. Further it has maintained the level of remuneration paid to pharmacists for the dispensing of certain prescriptions and has influenced the income of members of the medical profession by maintaining the level of fees approved for payment of benefits from registered health insurance funds. This action in the public sector was taken by the previous Government prior to its approach to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for a general wages freeze in both the public and private sectors. Such moves resulted from the clear disarray in which they found themselves following the wages explosion of 1982. That wages explosion was due in large part to the policies of the previous Government, especially their successful efforts to undermine the centralised wage fixing system which had existed since 1975. Following the destruction of wage indexation, the former Government found itself bereft of any workable wages policy. The encouragement of market-based negotiations on an industry basis clearly had disastrous results. Consequently they returned to a highly centralised solution in the form of a wages freeze, which depended for its effectiveness on continued high levels of unemployment. After hearing submissions from the parties, led by the Federal Government, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission decided on 23 December last year to introduce a wage pause for 6 months until June 1983 when it would review the situation. At that stage, it was decided by the Commission that its wages pause guidelines would remain in place pending determination of a National Wage claim lodged by the ACTU. Submissions in the National Wage case have now been completed and the Commission has reserved its decision. The Government submitted strongly to the Commission in that case that now was an appropriate time to end the wages pause and to introduce a system of centralised wage fixing based on full, six-monthly, cost of living adjustments. Such a system, the Government argued, is fully suited to the needs of our times and is clearly in the best longer term interests of Australia. It protects the real incomes of wage and salary earners and provides for real increases over time, thus satisfying the basic demands of the unions for an equitable wages policy. It will also enable us to develop a new era in industrial relations, with an end to the bitterness which inevitably results from a decentralised, confrontationist approach. But, most importantly, it is a wages policy which, in conjunction with the broad thrust of other Government policies, is conducive to a sustained economic recovery with greater job opportunities, reduced inflation, greater international competitiveness and improved business profitability. The Government is of the strong belief that, although the economy is only now beginning to emerge from the deepest recession for 50 years, it is the appropriate time to break the wages freeze and establish such a new wage determination system. To attempt to extend the freeze any longer would be a grave mistake. As the economy recovers, during 1983 and beyond, the capacity and determination of an increasing segment of the workforce to seek and obtain wage increases will inevitably increase. Sectional claims would become more and more common, with every prospect of a new wages explosion occurring. Thus any effort to extend the wage freeze during a period of economic recovery would, in all likelihood, catapult the economy right back to where we were before the wage freeze-with wages out of control and rising incompatibly with inflation reduction or sustained economic recovery. Now is the time, therefore, before economic recovery takes off, for a new system of wage determination to be introduced. Although such a system will involve a wage increase at this stage, it will be to the long term benefit to the nation as a whole if it introduces a national policy which is accepted and adhered to by the unions. As the decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the National Wage Case is imminent the Government has decided that the Salaries and Wages Pause Act should be repealed so that Commonwealth employees will once again be subject to decisions of appropriate arbitral tribunals. To do nothing could result in a situation where Commonwealth employees are unfairly treated vis-a- vis State Government employees and the private sector. Repeal of the Act is necessary to ensure that the wage fixation principles determined by the National Wage decision can be applied throughout Commonwealth employment without undue delay. Without prompt action obvious anomalies and inequities will occur which could result in unnecessary industrial problems. Commonwealth employees will thus be treated on the same basis as other wage and salary earners who will be subject to the application of that decision. The Government's industrial relations co-ordination machinery will be used to ensure that Commonwealth employing authorities observe the spirit of the decisions of tribunals in respect of employees not covered by awards or determinations. We will, of course, argue for a consistent application of the Commission's wage fixing principles before those other special tribunals whose powers are restored by the repeal of the Act. To facilitate hearing of the National Wage Case whilst the Act was in place, a regulation under section 10 (2) of the Act has been made to restore power to the Public Service Arbitrator and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in respect to two specific determinations so that the technical opportunity was created for claims covering Commonwealth employees to be referred to the National Wage Full Bench. The Act also had the effect of keeping in operation regulations made under s. 4 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 which would otherwise have automatically ceased to be in force after the period of 12 months and 15 sitting days of the House of Representatives. These regulations set out the professional services in respect of which Commonwealth medical benefits are payable and the appropriate fee for Commonwealth medical benefits purposes, in accordance with which such benefits are determined. The present Bill, while repealing the Salaries and Wages Pause Act, would provide for the continued operation of these regulations for a maximum period of 9 months from the date of commencement of the Repeal Act. This would allow adequate time for any inquiry to be held to determine whether new fees for medical benefits purposes are necessary and for the preparation of new regulations prescribing any such fees. The Act also prohibited the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal from holding any inquiries for 12 months. That Tribunal is a body set up under the National Health Act to determine the manner in which the Commonwealth prices of pharmaceutical benefits are to be ascertained for the purpose of payments to pharmacists. S.98BA (4) of the National Health Act requiries the Tribunal to issue a report of its findings within 12 months of the date of its last report. When the Salaries and Wages Pause Act came into force the Tribunal had commenced hearings for its fourth inquiry and this inquiry was forthwith suspended. The last determination made by the Tribunal was in June 1982 in respect of the third inquiry. With the repeal of the Act the prohibition on the Tribunal's operations will be lifted and it will be free to complete that fourth inquiry or commence a new inquiry. Clause 4 (2) of this Bill provides that a mandatory requirement for the Tribunal to issue a report every 12 months will not apply in respect of the first report after the repeal of the Salaries and Wages Pause Act. The Bill will allow a further 6 months for the Tribunal to issue its next report. After this, the arrangements will revert to those that are provided for in s. 98BA (4) of the National Health Act. Finally may I say that the Government is presenting this Bill of Repeal now so that it will be possible, following passage, to seek Royal Assent as close as is practicable to the date of the National Wage decision which would then be permitted to apply equally to all in the public sector as well as those in the private sector. If, contrary to our expectations, the Commission decides not to award a wage rise at this time, Australian Government employees will, by passage of this Bill, be in no more advantageous position than employees in the private sector. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.32) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of the Bill is to permit increases in Overseas Student Charges which the Government announced in the 1983-84 Budget. Honourable Senators will recall that when the Overseas Students Charge Act was enacted in 1979, the maximum rate of charge was fixed by Parliament at $2,500 for a year in respect of the enrolment of an overseas student in a prescribed course. This maximum level has remained unchanged for the last three years. The rates set in 1979 represented about 40 per cent of the average cost of higher education. To reflect changes in the cost of tertiary education, the Government has decided that the charge will, from the beginning of 1984, be increased by approximately 15 per cent-from a minimum of $2,150 to a maximum of $2,900 a year . The new rate of charge will represent about only one third of the estimated average cost of tertiary education in 1983. It is to be noted that unlike parents of Australian tertiary students, overseas students and their parents do not contribute significantly to the cost of tertiary education in Australia through the taxation system. The charge on overseas students is therefore required to defray part of the cost of their education. The Treasurer has stated in the Budget that the estimated total number of students liable for the charge-excluding those whose liability is met by the Australian Government-was about 8,300 in 1982-83, yielding $16.2m of the total revenue of $19m. The number is expected to rise to about 11,300 in 1983-84 and account for $25.6m of the total revenue of $29.2m in that year, the balance being attributable to Government sponsored students. The Government will continue to meet the charge for private students from Papua New Guinea and other developing countries in the South Pacific Region, and also for students sponsored by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. This assistance is part of Australia's aid program for this region. In the past few years, particularly in 1983, the numbers of overseas students admitted to Australia increased substantially over those of the previous year. The Government is concerned that as a result Australian students may not have been able to obtain places in the course of their choice at tertiary institutions. On the basis of advice from the Department of Education and Youth Affairs, the Government has decided that the number of private overseas students entering tertiary institutions in Australia in 1984 should be limited to approximately 4, 000. This is still an increase of 400 over 1983. Included are 2,500 overseas students who are now completing their secondary education in Australia. This means that the Government must limit the number of overseas students directly entering tertiary institutions in 1984 to 1,500. Further, we have decided that the number of new secondary students to enter Australia will be limited to 2,000 . Thus, the total entry for 1984 will be approximately 3,500 new students-that is, 2,000 into secondary institutions and 1,500 into tertiary institutions. I might refer to the lack of control exhibited by the former Government which has created the necessity to now curtail new entry to both secondary and tertiary institutions even though the total entering tertiary institutions will be increased by 400. For instance, total secondary new intakes from Malaysia surged from 1,100 in 1981 to 2,580 in 1983. If we are to control future intakes into tertiary institutions it necessarily follows that we must now control secondary school intakes. Thus, the Malaysians have been restricted to approximately 1,050 new secondary students for 1984, a big reduction on 1983, but nevertheless equivalent to the 1981 total. Similarly, a total of 1,650 new secondary and tertiary students were admitted in 1981 from Malaysia. This rose to 3,200 in 1983. It will be approximately 1, 640 in 1984, again close to the 1981 figure. I mentioned these facts to show that if secondary school intakes are allowed to increase dramatically over several years, we can expect pressure to reduce new tertiary entry figures so that the total intake of private overseas students to tertiary institutions is commensurate with our ability to absorb them. Any criticism of our need to reduce moderately new entries from overseas should be directed squarely at the previous Government. The Government has decided to conduct a review of the Private Overseas Student Program bearing in mind the large demand for places in Australian educational institutions, some existing inequities, and difficulties in the administration of the existing program. The Government has appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship of Professor John Goldring, Professor of Law at Macquarie University. The Committee of Review has been asked to recommend changes to the Private Overseas Student Program which will achieve Government objectives-that is, to encourage private overseas students to study in Australia without reducing opportunities for Australian residents and without dramatically increasing public sector outlays. This is a complex and important task for the Committee. Many aspects of the current private overseas student policy and procedures will need to be critically examined, including the proportion of costs of training to be borne by the student, whether priority should be given to students from particular countries, and the basis of future selection methods. The Review Committee has already called for submissions from interested Governments, organisations and individuals. It is hopeful of the widest possible consultations and participation in the review. Mr President, the Bill substitutes the new maximum level of charge of $2,900 for the current maximum rate of $2,500 in section 6 of the Principal Act. The actual fees payable will be specified by Regulation as in the past. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That, after the consideration of Business of the Senate for the presentation of a report from the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations , intervening business be postponed until after the consideration of Government Business, Order of the Day dealing with the Salaries and Wages Pause Act Repeal Bill 1983, Government Business, Order of the Day No. 19, Public Service Amendment Bill 1983, and Order of the Day No. 2, Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill 1983. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations I present the Committee's report on the Income Tax Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 111 and made under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(3.34) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Mr Deputy President, these Regulations were referred to the Standing Committee on 24 August last for investigation and report. It was clear that there was considerable concern amongst members of those industries affected by the new prescribed payments system of taxation, which I will refer to as the PPS, that the introduction of the system would involve a marked increase in paperwork and administrative costs. As the Committee had to report to the Senate on the reference within a very short time, the Committee had to abbreviate its consideration. We thank those who made submissions for preparing and delivering them to the Committee expeditiously and for the fact that the submissions were generally succinct. The Committee held a one-day public hearing on 7 September during which the Committee heard evidence from the Commissioner of Taxation and a number of the organisations which had made submissions to the Committee. During the hearing the Committee was able to discuss with officers of the Australian Taxation Office those problems raised by other witnesses during their evidence. This proved a valuable means of clarifying confusing aspects of the PPS and, we believe, allowed the Taxation Office to consider sensible changes to the system to simplify paperwork and administrative requirements. A feature of all submissions and evidence was the general expression of support for moves to eliminate tax evasion in the industries which are covered by the Regulations. Equally, however, all the industries expressed reservations about the system and complained of the difficulties anticipated by their members in complying with the PPS requirements. The Senate might note that the statistics provided to the Committee by the Australian Taxation Office, which are published on page 8 of the report, show a very large number of applications for new file numbers with the Taxation Office. In the short period from mid-August to 19 September, more than 16,000 new file numbers had been issued. It was illuminating to learn that a large numer of applicants apparently informed taxation officers that they had only recently arrived in Australia from New Zealand. The PPS introduces a new form of taxation collection to Australia and an entirely new set of administrative requirements which are to be complied with by taxpayers. These relate not only to compliance with PPS but to those who have sought exemption from making payments under the system or variation of the sum they are obliged to pay. The Committee has diuscussed the requirements in some detail in its report and has made recommendations which, if accepted, should reduce the paperwork required of both payers and payees under the system. Firstly, the Committee recommends that the Income Tax Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 111 made under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 not be disallowed but that the Committee continue to examine the practical operation of the prescribed payments system of taxation which came into effect on 1 September 1983 and that the Committee report its findings and conclusions to the Senate on or before the first sitting day of the Senate in September 1984. Secondly, we recommend that the Government give early consideration to amending the Income Tax Assessment Act in the ways set out in the Committee's second recommendation on page 1 of the report. These amendments, relating to exemption declarations and deduction forms, would simplify the operation of the PPS and reduce the volume of paper and administration involved in it. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Coates)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for examination and report: 'The practical operation of the prescribed payments system of taxation which came into effect on 1 September 1983.' (2) That the Committee report to the Senate on or before the first sitting day in September 1984. Debate resumed. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.40) —The Senate is debating two Bills. I understand that the Government wishes to deal on a cognate basis with the Salaries and Wages Pause Act Repeal Bill 1983 and the Public Service Amendment Act 1983. Is that correct? Senator Button —Yes. Senator CHANEY —And, I think also the statement put down by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, about the expenditure of wages pause moneys under the previous Government's program. The Bills are not Bills which are being opposed by the Opposition. With respect to the statement which has been put down relating to the wage pause expenditure, I merely wish to record the Opposition's regret that there has been rather ineffective use of the moneys which were made available to create employment, moneys which were made available to the States by the Commonwealth Government in the face of a very difficult employment situation and very high levels of unemployment. It would appear that except for the money which was made available for welfare housing the States had great difficulty in utilising the money quickly. I suppose that we must all draw lessons from that with respect to any future need to have moneys expended in this manner. To turn to the legislation, we have before us legislation which is not opposed by the Opposition but which is, nonetheless, very significant. The Opposition welcomes the opportunity to debate the issues which are raised by it. The Salaries and Wages Pause Act Repeal Bill, which is the main Bill we are debating this afternoon, is a Bill which represents the last stage of dismantling the wage pause which was put in place by the Fraser Government. The bulk of that dismantling has already been done. Non-public sector wages have been freed up by the decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission issued less than two weeks ago, a decision which was made by the Commission at the urging of the Hawke Government. The Commission provided, at the request of the Government and with the urging of the trade union movement and over and above the objections of the employers, a 4.3 per cent rise in wages to take into account changes in the consumer prices index for the March and June quarters. That wage increase, which will flow through to non-public sector wages, was, of course, not accessible to the public sector because of the Salaries and Wages Pause Act which the Fraser Government passed and which provided for a 12-months wage pause for public sector employees. This legislation will repeal that wage pause for the public sector and will enable it to take the same rise as the private sector. It is quite clear why we do not oppose the legislation. It was never the intention of the previous Government to freeze solely the wages of public sector employees. We sought and indeed we obtained a generalised wage pause and now that that generalised wage pause has been cast aside by the Hawke Government, we would not wish to oppose the legislation which enables equal treatment to be meted out to the public sector. We take this debate as a very necessary opportunity to mark the depth of our concern at what the Government has done. We are deeply concerned at what the decisions of this Government with respect to the wage pause will do to Australia and what those decisions will do to our already too numerous unemployed. The decision of the Arbitration Commission to grant a general wage increase at this stage, I believe, was greeted with disappointment by all Australians who are concerned about the plight of the unemployed as against the continuing welfare of the employed and their ability to maintain the standard of living that they have achieved. I should like to quote the remarks of Mr Bryan Noakes from the Confederation of Australian Industry. He said, and I endorse what he said: There is no justification for this decision either in economics or in logic. It is almost inconceivable that in the midst of a contracting economy, with unemployment and inflation both at double-digit levels, the commission should once again embark on a wage indexation experiment. To grant a general wage increase of this magnitude in current economic circumstances, and to adopt a system of wage indexation for the future, can only set back recovery, further depress profitability and investment, and further reduce our ability to compete on domestic and overseas markets. I do not think there is any really serious non-political observer who is denying that those facts put forward by Mr Noakes on behalf of the Confederation of Australian Industry are true. It is the very great concern of the Opposition that what has been done by the Government is in the interests of some Australians, namely, those who are employed and who are seeking to ensure that the increases in their real wages obtained over recent years continue to apply and that it will be to the detriment of those many Australians who are unemployed. It is interesting to compare a reporter's version of a government official's response to the decision. I was struck by a report by Mr Gregory Hywood in the Australian Financial Review of 26 September. He said: . . . senior Government people are cock-a-hoop about the decision which not only establishes the prices and incomes accord but severely limits the opportunities for recalcitrant unions to operate outside it. He continued: 'It was as if we wrote it ourselves', a Government official said. The bottle of vintage Veuve Cliquot on his desk was proof enough that, apart from the occasional hiccup, the Government's wages policy has so far gone as smoothly as could be hoped. I think there is some marvellous but rather unhappy symbolism in the picture of that bottle of Veuve Cliquot on the official's desk and hope he enjoyed drinking it. It may well be that French champagne was an appropriate response for an official in secure employment. I do not believe that it would be regarded as a very proper response by the 10 to 11 per cent of Australians who are without jobs. The official was welcoming a decision which will, on the Government's own predictions and on the predictions of its officials, confirm higher and rising unemployment. This Bill, the Bill that we will pass here today, simply confirms that public servants, like other Australians in secure employment, will have to sacrifice nothing in the interests of creating jobs for the unemployed. I return to what Mr Noakes had to say about the effect of the decision of the Arbitration Commission which this legislation will enable to be applied to the Public Service. He said: The annual cost of this increase to industry is the equivalent of the annual wages bill for more than 200,000 full-time employees. The increase will make it even more difficult for employers to maintain existing jobs and will act as a severe disincentive to any increase in employment levels. That is quite simply why the Opposition is concerned by what the Government is doing and why we are concerned that the wages pause has been cast aside. We are not concerned to maintain a differential burden on the part of public servants and that is why we do not oppose this legislation. We are concerned about where the Government purports to be taking Australia and its non-working work force. In fact, I think that the whole of this area and the Government's antics in this area are typical of the Alice in Wonderland air which seems to pervade Australia . We have desperate problems for one in 10 people, we have desperate problems for one in four of our young people. I do not pretend that those problems are the creation of the Hawke Government. Of course they are not. They are very difficult problems which have emerged over the last few years and indeed, I suppose, had their genesis in the middle 1970s. We have very significant difficulties for many in our community and yet we have behaviour by governments and by people in Australia which seems to ignore totally the reality of the disadvantaged. We have just come out of a 10 weeks strike in the Pilbara which erodes our ability to export and has certainly eroded our reputation as a supplier of raw materials. For 10 weeks there was an industrial dispute which certainly damaged Australia in the ways that I have mentioned. That strike has just concluded but the damage has been done. Today well paid pilots are conducting a political strike almost contemporaneously with air fare rises. We find that the Government cannot even get its letters posted. It cannot receive mail or send it because its letters languish in a strikebound post office. All of these things and this breach of the wage pause, this casting aside of the wage pause and this granting of wage rises which will exacerbate the unemployment situation, occur under a government which boasts a special relationship with the trade union movement and which is very proud of its successes in having and forging a special relationship with that trade union movement. In this piece of legislation that we are considering today we complete the Government's wages policy jigsaw and that jigsaw, when put together, clearly presents a picture in which the better off in the community are advantaged at the cost of the unemployed. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations , Mr Willis, had the gall in his second reading speech to describe the 1982 legislation, which is now being repealed, as 'action against the public sector'. I would describe that use of language by Mr Willis as petty misdescription. The fact is that the wage pause was introduced to help redress the balance in Australia. We are a country out of balance in a number of significant respects. It was a contribution to redressing the balance between wages and profits. I do not think any serious person-I am sure that includes Senator Walsh, who is here representing the Government in this very near empty chamber-would for a moment deny the importance of profit share and the importance of profits to industry in ensuring that there is fresh investment and the creation of employment. I do not think Senator Walsh would deny-he cannot deny what is an unarguable fact-that profit share has slipped. Senator Walsh —That doesn't mean that I agree with everything you have said, though. Senator CHANEY —No, but on that aspect the honourable senator would agree that the profit share has slipped, and that is a bad thing for the prospects of investment and the creation of fresh employment. The wage pause was also aimed at doing something to redress the balance between the employed and the unemployed in Australia. Good heavens, if there is a clear distinction in the circumstances of any groups of Australians it is between the employed and the unemployed. I have heard plenty of protestations from honourable senators supporting the Australian Labor Party, both since it has been in government and while is was in opposition. They have made the point about the difficulties of the unemployed. What did this wage pause do? It did nothing more than take projected increases in wages from people in secure employment and direct that that money should be used to provide alternative employment for people who were currently unemployed. So, when Mr Willis describes what we did as action against the public sector, I accuse him of petty politicking and I say that is was a good, honourable and desirable move on the part of government to redress some of the very real imbalances which exist in our community and which I thought Labor governments were about trying to solve. The wage pause was aimed at all wage and salary earners, not just at the public sector. It was the belief of the then Government that all wage and salary earners could make some sacrifice. It started, of course, with holding back our own salaries. I believe that that was a most fitting place to start. It took away from those Australians in employment nothing but the increases they anticipated over the following 12 months. It provided that those moneys would go to provide new jobs for the unemployed. I believe-I think plenty of commentators would confirm this-that that was economically appropriate. I believe that it was idealistic and I believe that it was accepted by the people of Australia. Lastly , Mr Deputy President, I believe that it worked. This Government's throwing aside of something which had all those qualities is very strange politics and in my view very strange leadership. I address myself to the second last point I made: That the pause which the then Government sought and had the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission impose, and which it also imposed through legislation, was accepted by the people of Australia. If we go back to April, to a stage when quite clearly public opinion was not being carried by any favourable view of the outgoing Fraser Government- we had just suffered a very severe political defeat-we find that surveys of opinion in that month showed that 70 per cent of Australians aged 14 years and over approved of a wage freeze for everyone until the end of this year. So the extraordinary public response to the idea that those in work should make some sacrifice for those who were out of work was that 70 per cent of Australians aged 14 years and over went along with it. More recently, after a longer period of the Hawke Government, we find in a public opinion poll published last week that 47 per cent of Australians said that we should not increase wages at all this year. Nearly half of Australians believed that no wage rise was appropriate at this time. We find a very significant number wanted an increase of only $4 and a further significant percentage wanted an increase of only $8. In other words, we had out there in the market place, among the men and women of Australia whom the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is so fond of addressing and claiming for his own, a very strong view that a wage pause was appropriate and should be continued and that this was not the time to be taking money from the economy and putting additional money into the pockets of existing wage earners. As far as the question of whether the wage pause worked to good economic effect is concerned, let me very quickly refer to some of the public statements which have been made over recent months to that effect. We find in the Reserve Bank of Australia report of 30 June 1983 that the Bank says, when talking about 1982-83: More responsible attitudes to wage demands developed and there was widespread support for the 'Pause' in wages from about the middle of the year. This contributed to a lessening of inflationary pressure and a slowing in the loss of jobs. We find that the Bank says later in the same report: Restraint in wages offered, among other things, the enhanced prospect of some recovery in profits. The Bank further says: After increasing by about 4 per cent in the six months to December, award rates were virtually unchanged in the subsequent half year. Later, the report goes on: However, towards the end of the year there may have been some restoration of profitability flowing from the decline in real unit labour costs. We find that the Confederation of Australian Industry, in its submission to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, confirmed the value of the wage pause. On 11 April 1983 at the National Economic Summit Conference the Treasurer, Mr Keating, said . . . devaluation and the slowing of wage increases has placed our international competitive position, for the moment, not far from the best it has been since the early 1970s. We find on page 27 of Treasury Statement No. 1, put down by the Government in the recent Budget, the following words: The rate of increase in the indexes of award rates of pay delcline sharply in the six months following the commencement of the wages pause: over the six months to end-June 1983, the index of average weekly award rates of pay for adult wage and salary earners increased by 0.3 per cent compared with an increase of 4.0 per cent over the six months to end-December 1982. A little later in the same document we find: . . . which suggests that the 'wages pause' was effective during this period. So we had in place a mechanism which had broad public support, a mechanism which was beneficial in respect of inflation and employment. We now have the Government stepping in and sabotaging that and, as part of its great agreement with the trade unions, putting in wage rises which it admits will create greater unemployment. There is a great deal of debate which tends to obscure the simplicity of that case. We found last week, for example that Mr Willis made a great play of the fact that we will have economic growth of five per cent by mid-1984, which will bring an employment growth of 1.5 per cent. I do not wish to attribute bad motives to Mr Willis-I do not think that under Standing Orders I am allowed to, anyway-but I listened to the reports of that and I read the reports of what Mr Willis was saying last week and it all sounded as though it was something new, something which suggested that as the months were going by things were getting better under the economic administration of this Government. But there is an extraordinary sameness about what Mr Willis was putting out as a great boost for the Hawke Government last week and what it has put down in the Budget in August through the mouth of Mr Keating. Of course, the statistics that Mr Willis quoted were exactly the same as the statistics which were put forward by Mr Keating. Sure, the Government expects a 1.5 per cent rise in employment. That is the Budget figure. That is the figure which was so proudly produced by Mr Willis last week as though it was something new. But the Budget also says that the work force will rise by 2 per cent and that there will be rising unemployment. So we get this double talk in a sense, this creation of the impression that because of this accord, because of what the Government is doing, things are getting better when I think for most Australians a situation of rising unemployment does not really fit that description. This debate is taking place at a time when in fact we do not know how badly things are running. The August Australian Bureau of Statistics figures are so bad that everybody, including the Opposition, hopes they are a statistical aberration. Nobody could hope that it is correct that we have had the participation rate drop since the Hawke Government came to power in March. I think there has been a 1.5 per cent reduction in the last few months. Nobody could hope that we could have the sort of massive new unemployment which appears to have been created in the month of August and which suggests that Mr Hawke's Government, far from creating 150,000 jobs, or 90,000 during the year as was predicted in the Budget, has seen a growth in employment of 100 Australians in its first five months in office. So all I would want to say in this debate is that I join, no doubt with the Government, in hoping that the ABS statistics of last month are wrong. But if those figures are right and if September reflects the sort of trend which is demonstrated by the August ABS figures, what has been a mistake to this point- this walking away from wage restraint-ceases to be a mistake and becomes a tragedy. I am sorry, from the point of view of having an accurate and informed debate, that we are not having this debate a week later because I suspect that both the Opposition and the Government would be better placed then so see whether we are in the sort of trouble that the Hawke Budget predicted or whether we are indeed in something far worse. I do not believe that the Government can claim that it is appropriate to raise wages by 4.3 per cent. It cannot claim that it is appropriate to do that because it has restored the profit share. It cannot claim that it is appropriate to do that because Australia has regained its competitiveness. I do not believe, therefore, that there is any logical basis on which it can claim that what it is doing will help employment. I think that a fair bit of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission demonstrates the serious difficulties we are in, that we continue to be in and make the Government's wage stance unacceptable. The following statement is made in the Commission's judgment: As in the case which led to the pause, there was little disagreement on the state of the economy. The ACTU described the economy as being 'in a very dismal state'. The Confederation of Australian Industry said that there is no indicator of economic activity which is not in a worse position . . . The Federal Government submitted that the realities identified at the summit had not changed : the economy was in deep recession and the process of recovery would necessarily be slow. The unemployment rate has risen since December, 1982, the overall profitability of business remains low and interest rates remain relatively high. Our inflation rate is still seriously out of line with those of our trading partners. The Commission then went on to say: But there are signs of improvement in the economy. It dealt with things such as the breaking of the drought and the international recovery which are, of course, matters which are completely outside the hands of the present Government. But after listing what has improved, the Commission made the following important follow up: Both the ACTU and the CAI described the signs of recovery as tentative and both said the improvements must be seen in the context of an economy in deep recession. The Business Council of Australia warned that 'wages policy should be established taking fully into account the deep relevance of the competitive requirements of the trade-competitive sector'. I wish to make one last quote from the judgment. The Commission said: The outlook, according to the Federal Government- that is this Government represented here today by Senator Walsh and his officials- is for a continuing increase in the rate of unemployment during 1983-84, despite the growth in employment, and a further substantial decline in private business fixed investment because of the high level of excess capacity. I hope that I have made clear why the Opposition is concerned at the course the Government has taken in this area, and this legislation is but a small part of the Government's overall approach. However, the only basis on which the Hawke Government can claim that what it is doing is proper, is decent and is in any way in accord with what it promised the Australian people is to get up and argue that it is the least worst option; that it is in fact not possible by any other means to get a better result than the miserable failure it is predicting for the Australian people at the moment. What we are faced with is quite clear and is becoming clearer day by day and week by week. What is quite clear is that something called industrial relations reality requires and indeed dictates that those in jobs must have full indexation. The trade union movement, in its accord with the Government, has succeeded in achieving a position where there is dictation that those who are in jobs, whether one lives perilously as a politican or very comfortably as a permanent public servant, must have full indexation. Seventy per cent of the Australian people supported the pause. That view has been discarded in the name of industrial relations reality. I think this situation is disgusting. I think that for a government to be impotent in the face of that 70 per cent approval is nothing short of pathetic. This legislation is just one part of a pathetic essay in impotence so, I support it with very deep regret. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia)(4.07) -I rise to support the Salaries and Wages Pause Act Repeal Bill 1983. I do so because it is an essential component of our prices and incomes policy and because it represents the end of a very draconian piece of legislation. The Act this Bill seeks to repeal suspended the powers of various authorities to make or vary awards or determinations in relation to the remuneration and conditions of employment of Commonwealth employees for 12 months. In view of the very sensible and realistic decision handed down by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission last Friday week, this Bill is essential if the rights and conditions of Commonwealth employees are to be protected and, above all, if this large group of workers is not to be disadvantaged in any way, especially when compared with State government employees or those in the private sector. As the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) pointed out, unless this Act is repealed quickly, obvious anomalies and inequities would arise which would lead to unnecessary industrial problems. The Bill we are debating is an integral part of this Government's decision to return to a centralised form of wage fixation. Under the wages pause, real income levels fell by more than 11 per cent and those hardest hit were the lower income families and those on average weekly earnings paying off mortgages and so on. If the freeze had continued, enormous pressure would have built up within the economy, so much so that it would have led to excessive wage demands and industrial disputation. That no doubt would have pleased the Opposition. But the Government wants to see a return to an orderly and fair system of wage fixation under which wage demands can be met in a way which will do least damage to economic stability and income distribution. What the Opposition is proposing, or at least what I think it is proposing-it depends on whether we listen to Mr Macphee or Mr Howard-- Senator Walsh —You don't hear Peacock at all. Senator FOREMAN —I will get on to that one. What the Opposition proposes is a continuation of the wages pause for an indefinite period. Under the alternative- or should I say non-alternative-put forward by the Opposition, thousands of Australian families would see their household incomes further eroded and the end result would be a total collapse in consumer confidence and a dramatic turn in retail sales. Of course, what the Opposition will not tell us is exactly how long the wages freeze would have lasted and what precisely it would have done after it had finished. The former Treasurer, Mr Howard, proposes a free-for-all, a return to the so-called free market situation, with a whole range of private deals between employers and unions. In other words, what Mr Howard proposes amounts to a system wherein the strong unions get stronger and richer while the less powerful unions get nothing and their members suffer a severe loss in real wages. At the same time the Opposition would not repeal the Salaries and Wages Pause Act, which would mean that thousands of Commonwealth employees would also suffer a severe loss in real incomes. Quite clearly, the Opposition has no firm policy on prices and incomes. The statements emanating from the Opposition benches are conflicting, naive and totally inappropriate in the present economic climate. Opposition senators are content to sit and criticise this Government for implementing a very thorough and realistic wages policy when they have no alternative to put in its place. The objective of this Bill is to return us to the situation whereby Commonwealth employees will be treated in exactly the same way as everybody else who comes under the jurisdiction of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It is certainly worth pointing out that the vast majority of workers affected by this Bill are earning between $12,000 and $14,000 a year-well below the average weekly earnings. More than half of them are fourth division officers and manual workers who have families to support, mortgages to pay and probably in most cases loans or hire purchase contracts to meet. What the Opposition proposes is to deny these people the right to the recent 4.3 per cent pay increase granted by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It is worth looking at the decision handed down by Sir John Moore on Friday 23 September. In support of the decision to end the wage pause, Sir John said: . . . it is our firm belief that to delay national wage adjustments beyond the time decided by us would not be sustainable industrially and that the immediate economic advantages perceived by the Confederation of Australian Industry could be more than offset by the damage done to the Government's economic policy. In other words, if the wages pause were prolonged, as the Opposition has suggested, the resulting industrial strife would seriously undermine the economic recovery which is now taking place. In the Australian of last Thursday the results of the latest survey of consumer sentiment, carried out by the Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research, showed that Australian consumers are now more optimistic about the nation's economic future than at any time in the past two years. I believe that the return to an orderly system of centralised wage fixing will enhance this feeling in the community and will result in a massive leap in retail sales. This will no doubt flow through to our manufacturing industries and, of course, to our service industries and will result in the creation of more permanent jobs. The alternative is too frightening to contemplate because what the Opposition and people like the Queensland Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, obviously want is more chaos, a total loss of consumer confidence and massive industrial disruption. As Sir John Moore , in his judgment last Friday week, said: . . . we have decided that in the current circumstances, a return to a centralised system of the kind we have provided offers the best prospects for industrial stability and economic recovery. I think it is worth pointing out to the Senate that since we came to power the number of industrial disputes has fallen considerably and our attempts to bring about a climate of conciliation and co-operation have largely been successful. The unions for their part have given a commitment to act with restraint. The fact that there has been very little disputation throughout the period of the wages pause is a credit to the trade union movement in this country. But to ask them to endure any further drop in real wages or income levels, given the fact that they have already fallen by 11 per cent or more over the last 12 months, is really asking too much. I seriously doubt whether the wages pause has been successful in achieving the massive increase in the number of jobs that it was supposedly meant to achieve. The wages pause was merely a gimmick initiated by a very desperate government with no long term goals or economic strategy. Last December when I asked Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, the then Minister representing the Treasurer, a question relating to what would occur after the proposed wages freeze, she said: If there is a wages pause that is to be effective for a period of, say, up to 12 months, then it would be in the light of the experience of that that future policy decisions would need to be made. In light of this experience, what has the Opposition decided? The fact is that it does not know. It is in a state of total confusion and in effect has not decided a single thing in relation to future wages policy. If it really wants to return to the Howard formula of a free-for-all, it should look closely at what happened in 1981 upon the abandonment of wage indexation. The number of industrial disputes in the following six to 12 months rose dramatically. Indeed, the wages explosion which occurred in 1981-82 can be directly attributed to the adoption of the free market arrangement. The Opposition would do itself a favour by listening to Mr Macphee who seems to support the notion of centralised wage fixation. The Opposition is not only out of step with the reality of the present economic problems confronting us but also is quite clearly out of step with the nation's business leaders. At the National Economic Summit Conference held in the national Parliament in April, Sir Peter Abeles, among others, gave his support to the decision at the Summit to endorse the Australian Labor Party's prices and incomes accord. He said: The third achievement which has come out of this Summit and which is so very vital for our economic future, particularly after the first two achievements I have described, is that we have unanimously agreed, even though some of the delegates have reservations, to return to centralised wage fixing by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which has served this country so well over the years since Federation. He went on to say: At this very late stage, Prime Minister, I wish to point out that the prices and income accord was initiated by the ACTU and your party when it was in Opposition and was finalised before the election. It is an initiative which basically has been confirmed not only by an election but by the parties to this Summit. Therefore, to formalise what we have experienced and agreed over the past four days I challenge you, Sir, I challenge the Government and the ACTU to make a bilateral agreement into a trilateral agreement. I make this challenge as the private sector provides 75 per cent of employment in Australia. Therefore, it would be only an extension of the spirit of this Summit if business were incorporated as the third party of this accord, as an equal partner. I am sure that you, Sir, would not like to feel, as most of us felt during the early days of this Conference, as though we have been invited to play single tennis against a championship doubles combination. I hope that you and the Government and our friends in the ACTU will take up this challenge urgently. The Government is well aware of the problems which could be created by a massive leap in wages, especially in the current economic climate. That is why we support a return to a centralised wage fixation system under which increases such as the one granted by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission last week can be controlled in a manner which is fair for all Australians. Under the Howard formula of free market wage agreements, the recovery that is now under way in Australia would be seriously threatened and could create another 1981- style wages explosion. I think it is worth noting paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the final communique from the National Economic Summit, and I will read those paragraphs for the benefit of honourable senators opposite: 17. Union participants have emphasised the role that maintenance of real wages has in job created through the stimulation of consumer demand and the maintenance of a sound industrial relations environment. 18. The trade union movement also recognises that while the maintenance of real wages is a key objective, in a period of economic crises, as now applying, it will be an objective over time. 19. All parties believe that the principles of wage fixation should be such, as to provide wage justice to employees whilst seeking to ensure that wage increases do not give added impetus to inflation or unemployment. 20. It is believed that a centralised approach to wage fixation is the most equitable means by which the objectives can be met. It is recognised that if a centralised system is to work effectively as the only way in which wage increases are generated, a suppression of sectional claims is essential except in special or extraordinary circumstances proved before the centralised wage fixing authority. 21. This Summit therefore proposes that the parties should as a matter of priority develop the option of a return to a centralised system under the auspices of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The arguments which have been put forward by the Opposition on this Bill clearly show a lack of direction and certainly a lack of experience in respect of industrial relations matters. Over the weekend we had the spectacle of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, explaining to his Federal Council that the shadow Ministry's approach to wage fixation was that the system had to be more flexible and had to maximise opportunities for employment growth. Unfortunately, he would not elaborate. Quite clearly, he could not elaborate because that is all the Opposition's policy on wages consists of. As I said previously, this Bill is an essential part of the Government's prices and incomes policy and will result in a fairer system of wage determination for thousands of Australians. I am proud to support the Bill and commend it to all all honourable senators. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(4.25) —The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, has expressed to the Senate the Opposition's view with regard to the repeal of the wages pause legislation. He has stated on our behalf that the Salaries and Wages Pause Act Repeal Bill is not opposed by the Opposition. It will be recalled that the introduction of the wages pause was an act of the former Government at a time when there was rising unemployment and considerable concern at the relationship between the profitability of enterprises and their capacity to provide employment. It will be recalled that all State governments joined with the then Federal Government in instituting the wages pause. It was at the instigation of State governments in particular that the funds released from the wages pause as they related to Commonwealth Government employees were for employment creation programs. It was said, I think by Senator Foreman, that we were not able to give a catalogue of the numbers of jobs that were able to be provided through the wages pause. I would point out that the State governments, with some of their own funds, were at liberty to create the programs for which they had been pressuring the Commonwealth Government for funds. Arising from those plans at the State level, and in some cases at the local government level, as I understand it, a number of activities were able to be undertaken. It seemed to me that some of the proposals that came from the State governments that more funds would be the answer to more jobs were not as easily fulfilled as they might have expected. However, all the funds that were saved in the Commonwealth Government sector were released to the States and the Territories for their use in employment creation programs. Of course, the largest benefit that was to come from the wages pause was to be measured not only in terms of job creation programs but also in the effect on the wages level generally and the way in which that affected the capacity of employers to provide real and permanent jobs and increased numbers of jobs. We were pleased that in the June quarter the measurement of the average weekly earnings showed that there was a rise of only 0.9 per cent. That was one of the strongest measures we had of the effectiveness of the wages pause that had been accepted not only in the Commonwealth Government sector but also in many other parts of employment throughout Australia. That 0.9 per cent rise in average weekly earnings in June was the lowest quarterly increase in male total earnings for four years. I think it could be claimed that it was very largely able to be attributed to the wages pause and the attitude in the Community at that time with regard to understanding the relationship between wage levels and employment opportunities. Whilst we were able to say that that low rise in the June quarter was welcome, it did mean that we still had wage levels at roughly double the rate of those of our major trading partners. So although we had achieved a very low increase in that quarter our wage levels were still dangerously high at that time. We were still uncompetitive in comparison with those with whom we were trading. If we are to receive the full benefit from any increases in activity that come from overseas or through our own economic recovery following the breaking of the drought and so on, it would seem to me that what is important is the level of our wages, the capacity of employers to provide employment, and return on investment. I would have thought that that was what we would all be seeking. I think that what has been said, and in some cases it was outlined by Senator Chaney, with regard to attitudes of employers is something that ought to be said again. The Confederation of Australian Industry quite frankly put foward its view that the wages pause should extend at least to the end of 1983. Of course, that organisation was talking about our competitiveness and our capacity for employment. The Confederation's submission to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission preceding the recent wages case outlined, in particular, its attitude to the wages pause and to the extension of the wages pause. This afternoon I want to spend a little time looking at some of the submissions made by the employer bodies. The Australian Industries Development Association in its last publication, the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Institute of Public Affairs have all drawn attention to wage levels and in most cases have addressed themselves also to the on-cost of labour on wage levels. Whereas we might recognise that there was a 4.3 per cent increase in wages granted by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission we need to recognise that , in addition there are the flow-on costs of the on-costs for every dollar that is spent in wages. Firstly, the submission made by the Confederation of Australian Industry and secondly in the recent publication of the IPA we see that anything between 35 and 40 per cent is the additional cost of labour following any payments that are made. The IPA booklet that addresses itself to the costs of labour shows us that, on the figures it was using in its summary of a payment of, say, $354 per week, which would include some overtime and some shift allowances and things of that sort, a very considerable amount is added to every dollar paid-for annual leave and loading, public holidays, long service leave, sick and compassionate leave, allowances, non-productive paid time, superannuation, workers compensation, payroll tax, employee amenities and other costs. The figures that the IPA gives show that there is an increase of about 44 per cent on wages for these additional costs. I think the salutary thing is that when we look at our wage level per hour we should look also at the other amounts that need to be found by any employer as he looks at the wages levels. The figure given by the IPA is about 44 per cent. I think the CAI gives a figure closer to about 35 per cent on its survey of major employers. If we do not quibble about the detail in fine point we can look at something like 35 to 40 per cent as an on-cost on labour whenever we are seeking to measure whether we are productive or what our costs per hour are in those industries where it is crucial to be competitive in a unit cost. These are the things that I would draw attention to at this time as we are looking at repealing the legislation which relates to the wages pause. It is not just a matter of talking about the fact that our Commonwealth employees have had the wages pause applied to them but rather to look at our attitude, in general, to employment, to opportunities for widening employment and to look at the reason why it is so difficult for employers to provide greater employment opportunities in the foreseeable future. If we have, as we undoubtedly do have, an attitude from the Government that full indexation is the approach to wages policy and that full indexation is to be applied from the March quarter of this year in accordance with that policy, then it stands to reason that there is considerable cost per head for employers as they seek to provide employment in the coming months. There is the additional on-cost that comes to them on every dollar that they expend. I think there are difficulties ahead of us in overtaking the enormous number of people who cannot find employment or who are in employment which is at great risk. It seems to me that it is timely for us to look at some of these matters as we address a Bill related to the wages pause that had, during the time it was applied, some benefit. I think it certainly has had the effect of dampening down that rate of increase that had been running through 1981 and 1982. The employment figures given to us in any of the Budget Papers or in any of the documents of the National Economic Summit Conference make us very concerned indeed about our capacity to employ, or to give opportunities for growth in the economy through productive employment. I think it is time that we looked at the responsibilities of all those seeking wage increases and those who have to provide them and governments which have to put the public interest point of view quite firmly and to look at what occurred with a pause in wages and what could be the objective of a longer wages pause had it been able to continue at least until the end of this year. The State governments which supported the wages pause now have the effects of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission increase flowing through their Budgets. State charges in the budgets will increase, in many instances, those on -cost figures which I mentioned. It is a spiral that was broken for a short time by the Salaries and Wages Pause Act. I think it was a very useful exercise in what we were able to do. The Government's policy is to support full indexation at a time when our major trading partners have reduced their cost of living increases to about half of what our increases have been. The inflation rates of most of our trading partners have been very much lower than ours. So, if we embark upon a system of full indexation we will not be competitive with our trading partners in the near future. The recent economic survey by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development confirmed that if Australia is to take advantage of the benefits of the economic recovery of the United States of America which is now spreading through some of the industrialised world there must be a much quicker pick-up in our international competitiveness. I fail to see how we can reach a greater level of competitiveness than we have at present with our inflation rate and full wages policy. Although the Budget predicts that our inflation rate is likely to fall significantly over the next 12 months, it will still be higher than the rates of our trading partners. The excessive wage growth in recent years has been part of that disability. If that is now to continue with full indexation at a higher level of inflation than the levels of our partners then I think the argument for a wage pause continuation has already been made through that OECD survey. The benefits that we felt, I think, have been one advantage that we cannot ignore. But if we look at any surveys of international levels of either inflation or activity and compare them with our own we will see that we still have a very great distance to go. I was interested recently to read the booklet from the Legislative Research Service entitled The CPI and Wage Indexation in which it again draws attention to, I suppose, the relevance of the CPI and wage levels or wage adjustments. It draws attention to the fact that we have sometimes had taken into account and sometimes not, the effect of the terms of trade on wage submissions, the taxes on goods and services and the effects of devaluation of our currency. I think that, as the unions press for their wage adjustments, they need to look at some of the changes that will flow through from the present Budget and from the general economic decisions that will be taken. If we have pressure for full indexation on CPI measurement, I can only think that we may have more difficulties ahead of us in arguing these cases before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission than people may predict through believing that we have a central system with full indexation and, ergo, industrial harmony. It is of interest to see the outstanding claims that are before the Government and the Commission at present, notably the claims of the building industry that are before an anomalies commission and could affect the wage levels of about 130 ,000 people. That could lead to pressures for a flow-on into other industries, which would require a decision on whether these sorts of figures, ranging up to something like $20 a week, are to be regarded as proper claims within the terms of the prices and incomes accord. There is also, of course, the most recent Arbitration Commission decision on its conditions for the acceptance of a 4.3 per cent increase across the board. I believe that in the public interest the building industry agreement ought to be subjected to the strongest opposition by the Government. I raised with Senator Button today questions with regard to statements by the Australian Council of Trade Unions that it can expect not to have a great deal of trouble with some of its claims. It makes me wonder just what will be the outcome of the matter that is before the Commission and how that will affect the other wage levels, in addition to the 4.3 per cent increase that has been awarded through the national wage decision. If the Government does serve the public interest in the way that I think we all hope it will, it will give strong opposition to those sectional claims which not only endanger its own wages policy but certainly also endanger the capacity of Australian industry to employ and the capacity of the Australian economy to show some signs of recovery and to provide increased opportunity for all. It is with these thoughts in mind that I join with Senator Chaney in his comments on the repeal of the Salaries and Wages Pause Act at this time. Whilst it may be thought that some sort of industrial peace can be achieved with full indexation, it could be achieved at the cost of those who have no opportunity for employment; it could be achieved at the cost of those who are at present in jobs which will not be able to be sustained if there is not a sense of reality- not just industrial reality but economic reality-in terms of looking at the capacity to employ, the capacity to produce and the capacity to sell those things that will give us some economic recovery as soon as it can be achieved within Australia. It is with these comments that I join with Senator Chaney in saying that the repeal of this Act is not opposed by the Opposition. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.43) —The Australian Democrats support the Salaries and Wages Pause Act Repeal Bill 1983. Perhaps it was a misnomer to call it the Salaries and Wages Pause Act because it did not make all wages and salaries pause. What it did was limit its effect to the salaries and wages of the Public Service. I think that should be remembered: This was not a blanket stop to wage and salary increases throughout the country; it paused or froze wages in the Public Service at both the high level and the very low level. One must remember that, while a First Division or Second Division permanent head or assistant secretary would not be too badly affected by such a wage pause, there are thousands of employees in the Commonwealth Public Service who do represent the lower paid sections of the community. To them this Act represents hardship. I do not know of the extent to which this wage pause worked. The Australian Democrats supported the legislation when it was debated in the Senate on 16 December 1982. We pleaded then that a moratorium on government charges should accompany it. The Fraser Government of the day rejected the Democrats' request to bring in supplementary legislation to give some relief to people whose wages and salaries were frozen. We requested that at least government charges should be frozen during the time of the pause. The Fraser Government introduced the wages freeze to attempt to undo some of the damage that had been wrought by the wages explosion of 1982. I think all of us last year were alarmed by that explosion. That explosion followed-I make these comments in view of the remarks of Senator Chaney and Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle-the Fraser Government's success in undermining and destroying the centralised wage fixing system. A mad scramble for wage increases followed its collapse. I hope that a future government will attack the centralised wage fixing system at its peril. The aim of the wage pause was to save jobs, to redirect the money saved into job creation projects, to reduce the wages component of Australia's inflation rate, to make Australian products more competitive on the world market and to set an example. I give credit to the previous Government for the fact that it did set an example. There was a slow down in wage increases or applications for wage increases generally during the wage pause. However, it is hard to tell whether the freeze saved jobs. We do know, unhappily, that unemployment continued to rise during the wage pause and Australia still has a problem of high inflation. The wage pause had no palpable effect-by that I do not mean it had no effect-on inflation. Essentially the wages freeze was a dramatic and simplistic over-reaction to a problem that the previous Government had helped to create. It certainly was not a thought-out wages and prices policy concentrated entirely on wages while ignoring price increases. At the same time the Government adhered to its obsessive addiction to monetarist policies. Over the seven years of its tenure those policies proved disastrous, yet with the persistence of the stupid the former Government stuck to monetarism as a doctrine, almost as a dogma. Although, quite properly, we heard criticism in the time leading up to and during the last election campaign from the Australian Labor Party and from Mr Hawke about the philosophy of monetarism, it now appears that the Labor Party is embracing that philosophy as passionately and as vigorously as did the Liberal Party. One wonders what further examples of failure this Government and the previous Government need of this stupid, ridiculous policy of monetarism before they see the light. This legislation has affected only public servants and within that broad category of employees it made no distinction on equity grounds between low income and high income government employees. Many low income earners will as a result of this legislation have had no increases for some nine months, while increases in Commonwealth and State government charges have severely eroded their living standards. We in the Democrats say it is time this legislation was repealed. It penalised groups indiscriminately, without any sense of reason or justice. For example, it effectively penalised pharmacists by freezing their dispensing fees, but the Fraser Government obstinately and consistently refused the request of the Democrats to peg the incomes of lawyers, accountants and doctors. It left them to charge exactly what they pleased. The present Government at least seems to be approaching the problem by looking at both sides , both wages and prices-at not only the incomes of public servants and other wage earners but also the incomes of professionals such as doctors, lawyers and accountants. We hope that the repeal of this legislation might be accompanied by expansionary measures. Unemployment has two facets. It is not only a human problem that brings misery and suffering to hundreds of thousands of human beings but it is also self-defeating in budgetary terms. For the last five, six or seven Budgets we have seen unemployment have this effect. As more and more people become unemployed because of restrictionist monetary policies, the less income the Government collects through taxes and the more it has to pay out in unemployment benefits. The diminution of incoming revenue through lost taxes and the additional expenditure on increased dole payments has one effect: It increases the deficit. Sheer logic demands the acknowledgement of that as an inescapable result of restrictionist monetary policies. Increased deficits put pressure on interest rates, leading to inflation. A restrictionist monetary policy has the extraordinarily clever feature of increasing unemployment at the same time as it increases the rate of inflation. One wonders when government and those in the ivory tower of the Treasury Department will wake up to themselves and realise that the only way out of the recession in which Australia finds itself is through a consumer led recovery. That will not be brought about by the kinds of restrictionist policies we have seen in this country for the last seven years. The Democrats support this legislation but we say in passing that we are not enamoured of the kinds of policies being followed by this Government. There seems to be no long range indicative planning with respect to the high tariffs that prevail in this country, or towards the advance of technology and the preparation of Australia to cope with the massively increasing rate of unemployment that will be caused by the silicon chip, automation and so forth. We seem to be drifting through a group of ad hoc policies without the application of any visionary concepts in the long term. We support the legislation. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.53) —As my colleagues Senator Chaney and Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle mentioned earlier, the Opposition does not oppose the repeal of the Salaries and Wages Pause Act. However, a number of the matters that have been discussed in the course of this debate need attention. I will first consider some of the remarks made by Senator Chipp, who has just resumed his seat. He concluded his remarks by saying that the answer to Australia's recessionary problems lay in a consumer led recovery. I agree that that is certainly one aspect of the recovery that must come in this country, but I fail to see what benefits that will bring to Australian industry and therefore to Australian job seekers if consumers buy imported goods. That is a natural consequence of Australian goods being too expensive on world markets. Imported goods become relatively cheaper and people in Australia choose to buy them rather than Australian goods. That point must be recognised as being at the core of the faults of our present economic situation. The cost of labour in this country is very high compared with that in other countries. As a result our goods are not easily saleable on world markets and goods reach the Australian market from overseas manufactured sites in such a way as to force Australian goods off the shelves. That is one of the major causes of unemployment. While our labour costs remain relatively high it will be absolutely impossible to put back to work the 700,000 people who are presently unemployed. Senator Chipp drew our attention to the need to do something for the unemployed. It was very significant that the wages pause provided moneys for State governments to spend on job creation programs. There was also, of course, some direct expenditure by the Federal Government in this area. As a result of the wages pause, approximately $300m was made available last financial year to extend job opportunities for the unemployed in the States . That money was made available as a direct result of the savings in wages which would otherwise have gone to public servants who were already in employment. It was a direct attempt to alleviate the position of the unemployed by creating jobs for them without necessarily adding to the further wage benefit that would have been received by people already in employment. The fundamental point was totally missed by Senator Chipp in his remarks. I do not know his real reasons for supporting the repeal of this legislation, because clearly he was unable to tell us precisely what was his understanding of the wages pause. I make that point because it seems that he sought to wander into areas of economics and debate very broad questions of economics which were not relevant to the immediate questions arising from the legislation before us. A number of those matters are important to an understanding of the present economic recession, but they are certainly not critical to the most fundamental issue before us and that is the relative cost of labour in this country compared with the rest of the world. That is the reason that we have unemployment. There is only one way we can improve the unemployment situation. We have to improve our methods of production, sell our goods more cheaply on world markets, and get wages relatively lower than those in the rest of the world. One other point needs to be made. One need look only to the United States to provide an example of a country whose economy has significantly improved as a result of wages being brought under control and inflation reduced. In the last two years when policies have been adopted to promote a free flow in the market place there has been a significant reduction in the cost of labour and hence a drop in the inflation rate, from 20 per cent to under 5 per cent. Consequently, there has been a revival in the economy. All the indicators are that the growth rate in the American economy is of the order of 5 or 6 per cent. Some commentators put it even higher at 8 per cent. Thus, there is a direct relationship between the control of inflation and the creation of jobs. That is exactly what the wages pause legislation was about in the first place. I remind the Senate that the legislation was introduced by the Fraser Government with the objective of using the Budget funds saved by not increasing wages for public servants directly on assistance to the unemployed. I believe that was a most significant and worthwhile objective; one that was supported, albeit equivocally , by the then Opposition. I very well recall the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden, last December hopping from foot to foot trying to find a position to stand on with respect to that question; it seemed that he changed his mind every couple of minutes. Finally, a gallup poll decided the matter for him. The poll came out just before Christmas, I think, and demonstrated that most people in Australia supported the wages pause. Consequently, Mr Hayden changed his mind and went in that direction. One can only wonder how it was that he succeeded in staying in office as Leader of the Opposition for a least another month after that performance. It might be significant to note, too, that given the support in the community for this scheme in the first place, during the period of the wage pause the proportion of people who supported it, as measured by the gallup poll, actually rose to a high level of about 70 per cent, I think, in about July of this year. That was the number of people who wanted to see the pause continued. That coincides directly with those critics of the wage decision brought down a week or two ago by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission who are saying that the wage pause ought to continue until at least the end of December so that the benefits can be fully wrought from that very significant decision. That is obviously a failing on the part of the present Government. It has abandoned that policy and has gone, instead, for a policy of appeasement of the trade union movement by granting and supporting a 4.3 per cent wage increase, as granted by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the last few weeks, and throwing overboard the whole principle of keeping labour costs under control . The result of any decision on indexation along the lines of that announced by the Commission in recent times is only to build into future costs the cost of inflation as it is at present. No one can see how that can possibly assist in the creation of job opportunities in Australia. I call it an act of appeasement because that is simply what it is, and that so-called accord between the unions and the Government on matters of wages and inflation control is just so much hot air. One has to say that also in regard to that much vaunted special relationship that the Government is supposed to have-perhaps it is only the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who has it-with the trade union movement. That is now absolutely recognised as having been a total failure. Clearly the Government is falling over backwards to appease the trade union movement in any way that it possibly can. Those effects will have their presence felt in the year ahead, as we look down towards the outcome of the 1983-84 Budget, and it is those things which will give little comfort to the unemployed as they view the prospects in the year ahead. We have recently heard the Prime Minister telling us that we are looking forward to growth rates in this economy of about 5 per cent and 6 per cent. I wish the Prime Minister well with that calculation, but if he persists in building into policy the kinds of wage increases the he is now doing by virtue of his special relationship with the trade unions, we shall see a failure ever to achieve anything like such a growth rate, and we can look forward to higher rates of inflation as well. There is only one other matter to which I wanted to advert in regard to this legislation. That was the choice that has been made by this Government, in its so-called rush to job creation, by changing the previous Government's policies in regard to the creation of national assets. I refer to the proposed Alice Springs-Darwin railway, which is of very great concern to the Northern Territory and, of course, to my State of South Australia. It is of vital importance to the development of the country from the point of view of defence and the extension of the very worthwhile uranium mining prospects in South Australia and the Northern Territory, in which, of course, the Government has no interest whatsoever and is determined to defeat. In that regard, the railway would open enormous opportunities for future development. I want to bring this point clearly to the attention of Government senators who just do not understand that the dollar that one spends today on creating a job is just fine, and it keeps people in work for that day; but the dollar that one spends on creating something that will generate more jobs in the future is the dollar that will multiply as the years go by and generate enormous potential growth in this economy and provide jobs not only for those who are unemployed now but for those who will be coming on in the decades ahead. That is what Liberal policies were about. I mention the railway as being one example of that. Another very significant example was the water development program, which this Government has scrapped in favour of short term time-filling operations, such as filling in holes in roads and digging them out again to refill them, such as are being proposed under the community employment program. One finds that the kind of prospect of job creation in that area is somewhat negative when one talks to local government bodies which, in very general terms, are quite well off with funds these days. One finds that they are applying for benefits and for parts of the Commonwealth employment program as a matter of course to receive funds for particular projects knowing that they will probably get them because the money is being poured out through that program as if by men with no arms, and local government really does not know what to do with the money. That kind of silliness will not generate long term job opportunities in the future but, rather, it will be wasted on programs and projects that are of no lasting benefit to the community. Whilst the Government's approach in this area contains that element of compassion and humanity which all of us in this Parliament share in regard to the unemployed, it certainly does not offer long term opportunities for people to be sure that their future in this world of ours will be assured in the years ahead. The Government will have to face those questions further down the track when the results of its misguided policies become evident. However, in regard to the repeal of this legislation, whilst the Opposition does not oppose the repeal , it is clear that the wage pause has not yet gone far enough to redress the imbalances between the cost of labour in this country and that in the rest of the world. The best solution for the future lies in continued restraint and the exercise of that restraint by the Government and by all parties in our community in such a way as we can limit wage increases generally. That will certainly not be enhanced by the Government's policies of supporting wage increases such as we have seen recently. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(5.08) —I support the Government in the repeal of the Salaries and Wages Pause Act. In doing so, I support the decision last week by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to grant a 4.3 per cent wage rise to Australian workers, under certain conditions-namely, signification by the union concerned or those participating in an award that they will abide by the rather stringent guidelines which were promulgated by the Commission. I support that return to centralised wage fixing for the Australian work force as carrying into effect not only the principles of the accord, which were scorned by Senator Messner, but the decision of the National Economic Summit Conference, which comprised much more than the unions and the Government and had the support of the employers within the Australian system at that time, in any case. I particularly want to comment on some aspects of Senator Messner's speech. He said that there is a relationship between the control of inflation and the creation of jobs. I do not think that any honourable senator would disagree with that. But what he missed was the very obvious point that there is also a relationship between the sustaining of jobs within the economy, the creation of new jobs, and the possible level of industrial disputation. The Arbitration Commission, in bringing down the decision in favour of the 4.3 per cent wage rise, said this, amongst other things: . . . it is our firm belief that to delay national wage adjustments beyond the time decided by us would not be sustainable industrially and that the immediate economic advantages perceived by the CAI could be more than offset by the damage done to the Government's economic policy . . . It went on: while it is useful to distinguish between industrial relations and economic considerations, in practice there is close connection between them-the costs of industrial disputes and industrial instability have a bearing on the economy and its capacity to advance the interests of employers, employees and the community generally. I believe that that is actually the kernel of the decision by the Commission. The Commission's decision, which in accord with the prices and incomes accord and along the lines indicated by the National Economic Summit Conference, creates a situation-with those stringent conditions which the Commission requires of those participating in an award before it is indexed-where those who conduct trade and commerce in the various public and private business enterprises throughout our economy, create the wealth, create the jobs, can operate in a much more stable atmosphere than would be the case if we tried to hold down the legitimate expectations of Australian employees that they should obtain an increase in wages to deal with the ravages of inflation, which increase they have forgone during the period of the wages pause. It would be quite unreasonable to expect that there would not have been massive industrial disputation over the next few months as the stronger sections of the trade union movement used their muscle to grab what they could. Of course, that would always be at the expense of those less well organised or less powerfully positioned associations of workers who could not get what they ought to in order to sustain the living standards of their members. I will come to that in a moment also. Senator Messner raised the question, although it was somewhat irrelevant, of the failure of the Federal Government to generate jobs by using its scarce tax dollars wisely. He talked about railways and job creation schemes. He is living in the nineteenth century. Senator Chipp said that this Government lacked vision as to the long term possibilities of creating wealth within the Australian economy and the sorts of jobs which we will need to create. The answer to both of them lies in the high technology summit conference which was conducted in Canberra last week. The Government clearly organised a very successful occasion which was attended by the high technology industries that will provide the new wealth, be export oriented and create new jobs within our economy. All of these matters were discussed in a very fruitful and productive manner under the charismatic, one might say, in the best sense of the word, leadership of Mr Barry Jones, the Minister for Science and Technology. Indeed, only a couple of weeks ago, we put our scarce tax dollars into a scheme which will encourage high risk venture capital into those new industries. We are doing things in that regard, but I am being a little diverted in replying to some of the remarks made by Senator Messner and Senator Chipp. I know, Mr Acting Deputy President, that you are waiting for me to explain why the Government supports the centralised system of wage fixing as strongly as it does. We do so, firstly, because it is part of the prices and incomes accord understanding, and secondly, because the National Economic Summit endorsed the acceptance of the principles of wage fixation such as to provide wage justice while seeking to ensure that wage increases do not give added impetus to inflation or unemployment. The National Economic Summit supported a centralised approach to wage fixation as the most equitable means by which such objectives can be met. That stands in great contrast to the reports of the weekend meeting of the Federal Council of the Liberal Party, where Mr John Howard, who has been making the running on this matter over the past two or three weeks, claimed to have the full support of all members of the shadow Cabinet for a set of objectives in relation to wage fixing. He said: . . . They rest upon a number of principles which include a recognition that our wage fixation system must be more sensitive to market realities than it has been in the past and that it must also recognise the wide variation in capacity to pay not only of different industries in Australia, but also of different firms within individual industries. All of that is verbiage camouflaging what he is really saying, which is that the law of the jungle should prevail and the strong unions and the strong associations of employees should grab what they can from the very profitable industries and firms within industries and sections of industries operating in the very rich resource areas of Australia, the successful exporters of Australia , perhaps, whilst the weak associations of workers are continually ground down and have their living standards diminished during that process. What it further signifies is that Mr Howard has won out over the more reasonable counsel of Mr Macphee and Mr Peacock, interestingly both former holders of the portfolio of industrial relations in this country. Mr Howard, who has never held that portfolio, who has never been responsible for industrial relations in Australia, has dominated the new formulation of Liberal policy in relation to this matter and has come out with a line which is appropriate to his thinking as the former Treasurer of this country but which does not pay sufficient regard to the industrial relations aspects which, as I have explained, lie at the kernel, the centre, of the decision by the Arbitration Commission last week. There is no doubt that a centralised system provides stability and the National Economic Summit endorsed the idea, because it allows for some confidence in planning. It is the best forum, too, in which overall economic factors in the economy can be considered, rather than individual industries or firms arriving at deals between employers and employees, which apparently is what Mr Howard wants, and which, of course, has no regard to the overall impact of such piecemeal decisions on the operation of the economy as a whole. Indeed, there is a deeply ingrained notion of fairness throughout the Australian community generated over the years since Mr Justice Higgins inaugurated our system of conciliation and arbitration. There is this deeply ingrained feeling about wage relativities and a general conviction that advances for Australian workers ought to be across the board. That it why Ms Gail Cotton of the Food Preservers Union of Australia found to her astonishment that almost all the unions right across the spectrum of so called political allegiance at the recent Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress condemned her union for its sectional approach in bringing pressure to bear on what was seen as an employer who could make certain adjustments to the wages of those employed at a particular plant, I think in that case H. J. Heinz Co. Australia Ltd. What was seen as important by the trade union movement was this notion of fairness that all Australian workers ought to be advanced over the broad spectrum rather than sectional claims being allowed to be pursued by those who have an advantage because of market place conditions for their labour in any particular instance. The Government is supporting centralised wage fixing and it has been very heartening for us to see the ACTU taking that strong line against sectional claims. Of course, that provided the atmosphere within which the Arbitration Commission made its decision. We will continue to support centralised wage fixing and, in particular, we will put in place supporting mechanisms that will encourage the trade union movement to adhere to the undertakings it will be giving to the Commission in order to obtain the indexed awards by that public undertaking it has to give about not going outside the guidelines. We are taking steps to cover other matters which were contained in the accord. We have established the Economic Planning Advisory Council, EPAC, which includes employer and union representation, to broaden the provision of economic information, to provide a forum for community participation, and to assist the Government in its medium and long term economic assessment. Perhaps that is something Senator Chipp would be pleased to hear. We also intend to establish a prices surveillance authority, and the legislation for that is being undertaken. But just as important are those other measures which this Government is taking in support of the so-called social wage which allows unions to moderate their actual cash wage claims against employers and which also may have a beneficial effect on the consumer price index. Of course I refer in particular to the passage of the Medicare legislation through this chamber only two weeks ago, to come into effect on 1 February 1984. Senator Janine Haines played a sterling and sensible part during the negotiations in relation to the passage of that legislation and I think she will agree that the executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions played no small part in affirming that it was part of the understanding it had reached with the Government in the prices and incomes accord that the social wage should incorporate this Medicare program. As I say, the ACTU Executive was very supportive of the Government's bringing that particular measure to pass. Of course not only does it moderate wage demands by lessening the impact of accident of illness on the financial resources of Australian employees but also it means they do not have to pay out so much for health insurance premiums. It will also moderate demands overall by bringing about a reduction in the CPI. It is that sort of supportive activity by this Government which I know is appreciated by the trade union movement and which will help that movement to adhere to the guidelines demanded of it by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Mr Deputy President, I do not intend to take much more of the time of the Senate in supporting this return to centralised wage fixing, except to say that we have to hope that industrial relations practitioners in Australia, whether they be within the trade union movement or amongst management, will prepare themselves for a situation where, whilst industrial disputation in relation to wage fixing will diminish, other matters will be the focus of industrial unrest. I am confident that industrial disputation will diminish because that has been the pattern. Prior to the introduction of the last indexation system industrial disputation reached an all-time high, in 1974, when 6.3 million working days were lost. Following the introduction of indexation, disputation fell to a level , in 1977-78, some 65 per cent lower than in 1973-74. Then, with the collapse of indexation and the establishment of the post-indexation wage round in the second half of 1981, the number of working days lost reached an even higher level than in the corresponding period in 1974. So there is a very clear relationship between the diminution of industrial disputes and loss of working days through the introduction of wage indexation. One would say it is an inverse relationship, I think. So whilst I am confident that that will be the case as a result of the decision of the Arbitration Commission last week, it will mean, of course, that other matters going perhaps to hours of work per week, general safety, health and welfare and technological change questions, will be the focus of industrial unrest and of seeking to modify or change situations at the work place. It is in regard to these matters that we must encourage industrial relations practitioners to be aware that that is where the focus of their efforts must lie. Mr Deputy President, I support the Government's repeal of this legislation and, as I say, warmly commend the Arbitration Commission for its very sensible decision of last week. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.24) —I too support the passage of the Salaries and Wages Pause Act Repeal Bill and the Public Service Amendment Bill. This legislation will have particular impact on the constituents whom I represent. It was the previous Federal Government's legislation which brought about the wage pause, but of course that did not apply just to Commonwealth public servants but generally throughout the community. Honourable senators will remember that it was welcomed by State governments at the time. They all supported it and were glad to have the benefit of it. But given that there is a change in wage policy and there are to be increases throughout the community generally, it would be totally unacceptable for this legislation to remain operative as far as Commonwealth public servants are concerned. I believe there have been benefits from the legislation and I think the issues have been put quite adequately this afternoon by those Opposition senators who have already spoken. I wish to refer briefly to the impact that it had as far as the program was concerned in the Australian Capital Territory. An amount of $3. 2m was allocated to the Territory as part of the wage pause program and the distribution of this money was administered by a committee set up for that purpose. I understand that 220 jobs were provided from the $3.2m allocated, and that all of that money has in fact been allocated-and had been before the end of June. I am not certain of the total number of jobs that have been filled but I understand it is over 200 at the present time, with a high expectation that all of them will be taken up. I personally wish to commend the officers of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations who worked with the committee and on the committee for the contribution they made to analysing the schemes put forward and in particular for very diligently looking for suitable people to fill these 220 jobs. I have met a number of people who have been employed under the wage pause program, many of them in jobs which will very likely give them the sort of experience-for example in research-which will enable them to apply for jobs and say that they have had experience, because they will have had experience. It has given many people an opportunity that they could not otherwise have had. I will not this afternoon go through the various examples that I know of, but I think it has been of tremendous benefit to a number of people. The fact that the jobs were for a period of 12 months duration was part of the real benefit. It is a long enough time for people to get to know the job, to learn something and to be a more likely person to obtain employment in the future. It is a pity that the community employment program presently being embarked upon says that jobs will be for a period of six months. I do not believe that that is an adequate period for people without experience to get sufficient experience to be able to present themselves to an employer in a meaningful way and I hope that that aspect of the program can be changed so that real benefits can flow. Of course the pity of all this is that none of it is leading to real jobs and real careers and that is what the unemployed are particularly looking for. We need to devise ways of making sure that programs which are put into effect do lead to careers and permanent jobs. The wage pause committee to which I referred, which allocated the funds that came into the Australian Capital Territory, presented a report to the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) in early April of this year. It was a most comprehensive report with a great deal of factual information which had been ascertained in the course of the committee's deliberations, and it contained 70 recommendations relevant to employment. It is with a great deal of sorrow that I report to you, Mr Deputy President, that the Minister for Territories and Local Government has not responded to those recommendations. He must at least have had a look at the report because he has implemented one of the recommendations. He has established the permanent advisory committee which was recommended, which is the committee now dealing with the community employment program funds. The other 69 recommendations do not seem to have got very far at all. One of them, of particular interest in the Australian Capital Territory, concerns permanent part time employment in the Public Service and the recommendations of the committee to the Minister that he use his influence with the Government and with the Public Service Board to get permanent part time employment brought in, not as some fancy means of casual employment but as a regular part of employment . It deals also with shared employment and a number of other recommendations that are significant if one is to take the question of jobs seriously. I ask the Minister to take the time to look at these recommendations and respond to the report. There are some other matters relating to jobs that I hope the Minister will be working on as well, including the question of the White Industries Ltd development. Prior to the election of this Government a decision was made that the project should go ahead. However, from that time until now little has been heard of it. The development would provide some 600 jobs at the construction stage and about 1,200 jobs would be provided on completion. This community needs those jobs. I believe community employment program funds could be spent perhaps more wisely in other areas to create jobs which would be of benefit. I commend the Minister on the $1.5m that he obtained and added to our share of community employment program funds on the basis of our entitlement as a State. We have had to fight frequently for that portion of funds which relates to State-type contributions. I was glad so see that the Minister recognised that and saw to it that his colleagues agreed that the money should go to the Australian Capital Territory. However, I believe that the money could have been better spent in the area of tourism and on incentives to attract business and industries to the Australian Capital Territory which will create more permanent jobs and careers for the young people of our community who are presently not able to find employment. The community employment program will be of undoubted great benefit to many community projects and as such the community will benefit from it. But I think in terms of real jobs the money perhaps could have been spent differently. Perhaps even now some changes can be made to see that it is spent differently and in a way that is meaningful in this community. The proposals I suggest may not necessarily be appropriate in all communities. But let us look at each case individually and do what is best for the communities we are talking about. I think that in the Australian Capital Territory tourism in particular is the light at the end of the tunnel. I urge the Government to consider putting some of the community employment program funds into developments in that area. In particular I ask the Government to get on with allowing the White Industries project to go ahead. I support the repealing of this legislation, not because I think it was wrong in the beginning-it was clearly right-but because, given that there are to be wage increases throughout the community, it is appropriate and proper that Commonwealth public servants and others affected by this legislation should be in the same position as the rest of the community. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.33) —The Senate is debating the Salaries and Wages Pause Act Repeal Bill 1983 which, as its name implies, in effect terminates the salaries and wage pause legislation initiated and introduced during 1982 by the last Government, the Government of Mr Fraser. I would like to raise some matters at the very beginning. Firstly, I refer to a short article in volume 32, No. 3 of the spring 1983 edition of Facts, which is published by the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne. This publication, which should be read by all honourable senators, is published four times a year and contains informed information. The article states: In the endless discussions about budget deficits, interest rates, taxes, wage determination, some simple economic truths are forgotten. These are: Our standards of living depend on how much, as a nation, we produce. Private business enterprise, not government, produce most of the wealth and provide most of the jobs (3 out of every 4). . . . More welfare, and better educational and health facilities, depend on more production, not on trying to redistribute wealth that hasn't been produced. Higher real incomes for all can only be achieved out of more production. I adopt each one of those paragraphs. I also want to quote something that was said by Mr P. P. McGuinness in an article on the economy published in the Australian Financial Review of 12 September 1983. Mr McGuinness is, of course, the editor of that publication. He said: There is a strange reluctance among many members of the community, and indeed even among professional economists, to accept that there is a relationship between wage rates and levels of employment. Having discussed that sentence he went on to say: This is not to say that wages are the only determining factor in employment, or even always the major factor. No one would assert that the present high unemployment in Australia was created solely by wage increases. But very few would assert that in the circumstances of declining per capita national income and declining international competitiveness, the sharp increases in real wages of 1981-82 had nothing to do with the increase in unemployment. Of course, they had so very much to do with the massive increase in unemployment in the last 12 months. I might remind the Senate that Senator Hamer and I made our positions very clear when the legislation was first introduced. We believed that the legislation did not go far enough. We put to the Government the argument that in fact there ought to be an across the board cut in the salaries of senior public servants and a cut in our salaries and Ministers' salaries and that, those cuts being put into effect by legislation, we should then go to the community and ask various people within the community to take a salary cut and not just accept a freeze. Nevertheless the then Government introduced legislation which, as I shall mention in due course, proved to be very successful. The then Opposition-the present Australian Labor Party Government- attacked and most severely criticised the legislation we introduced. In support of that allegation I quote from the prices and incomes accord, that infamous agreement made in February this year. The document stated: . . . the short sighted political expediency which the Fraser Government has sought to impose in the form of a wages freeze. Later on it stated: Such one sided inequitable wages policies are completely repudiated by the parties to this statement as manifestly unfair; And again: In contrast to the Fraser Government's assertion that a wage freeze will make more funds available for employment, the reality is that a reduction in demand, through severely reduced real incomes for most of the population, is bound to accentuate economic recession and increase unemployment. Of course, as soon as the Labour Party got into government that nonsense was treated as nonsense. The Government in fact adopted the wage freeze which the Liberal-National Party Government had introduced. I congratulate the Government on its ability to extend that wage pause for a period longer than I suspect that the Liberal-National Party would have been able to persuade the unions to accept . By dint of a very clever public relations summit conference and some clever manipulation of dates, in fact the Government has managed to maintain the pause right up until this month. I congratulate the Government on that cleverness. It certainly has been of advantage to the economy of this country that the Government was able to maintain that pause right through until this month. I think it was a great pity that it has not been able to maintain the pause right through until the end of the year. Of course, the pause has now been recognised as being meritorious, notwithstanding the Labor Party's criticism of the legislation when it was introduced. In the course of the last election campaign there was continued criticism of it and references by Senator Walsh to discredited governments, discredited Treasurers and discredited policies. In fact, not only has the Australian Labor Party in government adopted the policy but also, as I mentioned, it has now been recognised as a meritorious piece of legislation. In support of that, I quote from a briefing for the National Economic Summit Conference prepared by the National Institute of Labour Studies at Flinders University which stated that 'wage rises averaging 16.4 per cent were agreed to in an atmosphere of optimism about the economy which was now known to be unfounded'. Professor Richard Blandy and Dr David Harrison of the Institute said that the combined effects of inflation and the wages pause could only be expected to redress the balance if no wage catch-up was permitted. Of course, it was very important that there be no wage catch-up, but this government seems to have succumbed to the pressure of unions to accept at leat some partial catch-up by agreeing to indexation. In support also of my claim that the pause is recognised as meritorious, I quote from the Reserve Bank of Australia's annual report for the year ending 30 June 1983. It states: In the preceding couple of years Australia, against the tide of events in other industrial countries, had performed quite strongly. Unfortunately, increases in wage incomes in those years had been based on excessive confidence that Australia's good fortune would continue. Later it states: More responsible attitudes to wage demands developed- That is throughout the year- and there was widespread support for the 'pause' in wages from about the middle of the year. Of course, as my colleague Senator Messner pointed out, when the Labor Party discovered that there was widespread support for the pause-the discovery being made as a result of certain polls conducted around the nation-it decided to adopt the previous Government's policy. Again in support of that statement I quote from this year's Budget Papers presented by this Government. On page 25 of Budget Paper No. 1 it states: Average award rates of pay increased only marginally-by 0.3 per cent-between January 1983 and June 1983, which suggests that the 'wages pause' was effective during this period. The pause was aimed at helping redress the balance between wages and profits and between the employed and the unemployed. It was aimed firstly at ourselves and all wage and salary earners. It took nothing away except increases. It did not cut back; it just provided that there would be no increases. The legislation provided that the moneys thus saved would go to provide new jobs for the unemployed. I suggest to the Senate that it was economically appropriate at the time. It was idealistic, it was accepted by the people of Australia and, in fact , it worked. Now, under pressure from this Government, non-public sector wages have been freed up by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's granting a 4.3 per cent rise for the March and June quarters. Of course, the Opposition parties will not oppose this legislation repealing the previous Salaries and Wages Pause Act because they do not wish that the public sector should continue to make a sacrifice while this Government believes that the non-public sector should have its increase. It is clear that the decision of the Commission is certainly fraught with grave danger and has been subjected to much criticism by those who apply their minds to the results of these things within the community. I return to the Australian Financial Review and this time quote from its editorial of Monday 26 September 1983 which states: The Arbitration Commission has a real talent for getting things wrong. It introduced indexation under the last Labor Government and insisted on maintaining it through the worst of the recession of the mid-1970s, thus impeding labour market adjustment. Then, when the resources investment boom came along, wages took off from this high maintained base. This time around it has reintroduced full indexation at a time when the economy is in the depths of a severe recession and overall would tend to fall in real terms. It has promised to maintain indexation for two years, which should be just sufficient to ensure that the take-off in wages once again commence from a high base. This hardly seems the most intelligent approach to economic policy. . . . Industrial peace is a major consideration. Of course, one cannot blame the Commission. It did what the Government asked it to do and that will be the result. We are now back on the same merry-go-round as under the last Labor Government. Inflation will continue to rise, prices will rise and wages will rise. As a result of wages rising, prices will rise and wages will rise again. In its editorial of Saturday 24 September of this year the Canberra Times stated: . . . the decision- this refers to the decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to increase wages by 4.3 per cent- should be recognised as a political thing. Of course it is a political thing. It was brought down by this Government which, as Senators Tate and Foreman have already admitted to the Parliament, is more concerned about maintaing industrial peace and harmony-that is what it has said the whole purpose of this is, it has praised the Commission for its decision- than endeavouring to increase jobs for those who are unemployed. That Canberra Times editorial continues: The documentation presented to the national economic conference in April this year made absolutely clear that the lower the rate of growth of wages, the faster would be the rate of growth of the economy and employment and subsequent declines in rates of unemployment. However, the editorial points out: The unions made clear that they would not have tolerated a continuation of the wages freeze. In other words, they expressed a preference for increased money wages and higher unemployment instead of reduced money wages and reduced unemployment. The cost to the community of such a wage increase is really quite enormous, not only in the amount of actual money which seems to be paid out for the wages but also the on-cost of the wages. I seek leave to incoporate in Hansard a table detailing the cost of labour. Leave granted. The table read as follows- The cost of labour The cost of employing labour is much more than the wages paid; an increasing proportion is in the form of benefits, other than wages. For an employee on a wage of about $354 a week (including overtime and shift allowance), the employer must find another $155 to cover costs associated with his or her employment. A study for a group of large companies which paid, on average, $8.85 an hour showed additional outlays of $3.89 an hour. The costs can add an average of 44 per cent to the wage bill. Additional items the employer has to pay for are: Dollars per week Annual leave and loading 28.28 Public holidays 10.72 Long-service leave 5.24 Sick and compassionate leave 8.20 Allowances 14.72 Non-productive paid time 16 .16 Superannuation 11.96 Workers compensation 16.16 Payroll tax 21.16 Employee amenities 10.92 Other costs 12.16 155.68 Senator LEWIS —I thank the Senate. The Australian Industries Development Association in its bulletin for August 1983 referred to a recent survey by it of some 100 of Australia's largest manufacturing and mining companies. It states: The results of that survey . . . include the following: the direct wage cost of labour in 1982 in the companies surveyed was $8.85 per hour worked but the total cost to employers was in fact $12.74 per hour. This is similar to the table which I have had incorporated in Hansard. The survey also provided the following information: Total labour costs over the period 1974-82 have, in the companies surveyed, risen at a rate some 13 per cent faster than direct labour costs due to the on- cost component growing at an average of 19 per cent over the same period. If this trend continues, the on-cost component of total wage cost will comprise over 50 per cent of the total labour costs by the end of this decade, compared to 33 per cent in 1974. In other words, if this trend continues, by the end of this decade every time the employees receive an increase of, say, $10 a week the employers will have to fork out $15 a week to pay for it. What will all that do to the unemployed and those whose jobs are at risk in this country? Clearly, employers cannot keep paying increased wages on the basis of increases in the consumer price index. Employers can pay their wages only if there is an increase in production and profits to enable them to meet the expense. If they cannot meet the expense of the increased wages they will have no choice but to shed labour. That is what employers have been doing for the last 18 months or two years at an ever- increasing rate and under this policy which this Government has foisted upon the people of Australia they will continue to do so. After the wage case decision, the Director-General of the Confederation of Australian Industry, Mr Bryan Noakes, said: There is no justification for this decision either in economics or in logic. . . . . The annual cost of this increase to industry is the equivalent of the annual wages bill for more than 200,000 full-time employees. The increase will make it even more difficult for employers to maintain existing jobs, and will act as a severe disincentive to any increase in employment levels. I understand the problems of this Government endeavouring to maintain industrial peace, but it is clear that it has abandoned the unemployed. The Government has abandoned those people who are at risk of being unemployed, because there is no doubt that as a result of the policies adopted by this Government unemployment will increase instead of being reduced. The continuation of this pause to the end of this year would have helped the unemployed of this nation. As a result of the legislation which the Parliament now has before it, public servants, like other Australians in secure employment, will have to make no sacrifices in the creation of jobs for the unemployed, notwithstanding the desperate problems of the one in 10 in this community who are unemployed and the one in four of our young people who are unemployed. No sacrifices will be made by those who are in secure employment. They will continue with their jobs. They will maintain the level of real wages that they have managed to squeeze out of this economy in the past and the unemployed will make the sacrifice. The people who are really in need in this country are the people who will be making the sacrifice, not those people who can make a sacrifice. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.54) —in reply-I thank the Senate for its vigorous support of this legislation and the contributions made by honourable senators. I do not want to take up the time of the Senate, but I wish to mention a couple of matters which were referred to by one or two contributors. Senator Messner expressed the view that the community employment program was a waste of time and that perhaps some money should have been devoted to building the Darwin-Alice Springs railway line, which is currently the subject of an inquiry to see whether it is, in fact, a waste of time. All sorts of suggestions can be made and have been made over the years in terms of dealing with the unemployment problems and the creation of jobs. I want to dissent from Senator Messner's view that the community employment program was designed for people to dig potholes and fill them again and things of that kind. All sorts of so-called 'make work' contributions have been tried in various countries, including Australia, over the years. The CEP seeks to provide employment for those who have been disadvantaged by long periods of unemployment. There has been a good response to the initiatives from State and local governments. Many contributions have been made which have been helpful to the development of the program. Local government authorities have been particularly good in submitting proposals and have been given assistance to do so. Some of the projects which are coming forward for employment creation under the Commonwealth community employment program are very innovative and worth while. Senator Reid expressed the view that the CEP offered employment for only six months, as if that were a defined period; it is not. There is a range of duration job opportunities which can be provided under the program varying, I think, from three months to 12 months. It is not quite as rigid as the honourable senator suggested. I do not say that that detracts in any way from the validity of other observations she might have made; it is just a matter of factual error. I think that all the issues have been canvassed in the course of this debate. Senator Lewis summarised the most neanderthal view of the Opposition's position on this question. I want to make a couple of comments about the things which he said. In quoting from Paddy McGuinness of the Australian Financial Review, Senator Lewis used the expression 'no one would pretend that sharp increases in 1981-82 had nothing to do with unemployment'. It is precisely because the Government agrees with the view that a centralised wage fixation system has been adopted and the system of regular indexation of wages has been advocated by the Commonwealth Government. The wage increases of 1981-82, coupled with such things as the collapse of the resources boom, which sustained the former Government for a number of years, were undoubtedly contributing factors to unemployment at that time. It is precisely to avoid that problem of a sharp increase in wages that the centralised wage fixation system to which I referred has been advocated by this Government. The other problem which Senator Lewis raised concerned the duration of the wages pause, freeze, or whatever one likes to call it. This question has been debated a lot in the Senate. I found Senator Lewis's view strange in that somehow he thinks that if the wages pause were extended to the end of this year it would provide some magical formula for recovery. I say quite unequivocally that if the wages pause existed forever it may assist with the competitiveness of Australian industry, but we happen to live in a society in which a number of matters have to be taken in consideration. For example, none of the State governments agreed with the view that Senator Lewis put in the Senate today. They realised, being closer to the people-as it is sometimes said by conservative senators-that the wages pause had to end and that it had to be substituted with a system of the kind which the Government has advocated and further that it was inevitable that there would be a wage increase in the latter half of 1983. All those things have happened. What Senator Lewis is really doing is going back to the old suggestion which is that the sole factor in determining competitiveness and so on is wages. Of course, a large number of factors go to determine that question. Senator Lewis —Rubbish! I did not say that at all. Senator BUTTON —I did not say that Senator Lewis said that; I said he was advancing that argument, and he is. Do not let us escape from that. All sorts of rhetoric embellished the debate, such as that the Government responded to pressure by unions and all those things. As I said earlier, it is precisely to avoid the situations we have suffered in the past that this legislation abolishing the wages pause has been introduced, in conjunction with the submissions made to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It exemplifies government policy in relation to this matter. I do not think that in a chamber in which there are differently held views but agreement about this legislation that there is any point in discussing it further. I commend the legislation to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Consideration resumed from 13 September 1983, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 21 September 1983, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(6.05) —The Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill is supported by the Opposition. It puts into effect agreements that were entered into between May 1982 and 1983. The details of these agreements were made available when they were signed. The legislation involves new comprehensive double taxation agreements with countries such as Ireland, Italy, Korea and Norway and a revised comprehensive double tax agreement with the United States of America. Another provision relates to a limited airline agreement with India. The Opposition was involved, when in government, in most of the negotiations relating to these agreements. The Bill is supported by the Opposition and we wish it a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Excise on Grape Spirit Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(6.07) —I again raise the question of the wine excise, which I have raised on three previous occasions during adjournment debates. The Senate knows that the Budget proposed a wine excise of $2.61 per litre of alcohol to apply to grape spirit introduced to fortified wine. I am sure that when this excise was proposed the Government did not appreciate the full ramifications of its effects on the grape growing and wine industries. I am sure also that the Government had no appreciation of the impact of the new tax and of the fact that it would fall upon parts of Australia, and particularly South Australia, in an inordinately disproportionate way. The new tax is designed to attach itself only to grape spirit, and it is very clear that it does not touch the wide range of wines, a tax which it was rumoured might be introduced just before the Budget finally came down. I point out to the Senate that even though no broad wine tax was in fact introduced, the effect of a tax such as the excise on grape spirit is much the same in that it restricts the growth of the whole wine industry. It is well known in the wine and grape growing industry that when there are surpluses in grape production in good years wine makers buy in substantial quantities of grapes which they make into spirit and store away so that it can be drawn upon in bad years to catch up the shortfall. This not only has a very important and significant effect for the wine maker himself in levelling out the supply of grape spirit for various purposes but also has the effect of providing income for the small grape growers and block owners in years when there is a surplus rather than having their quota for grapes cut off in such a way as to lose the income from that. Of course that tends to provide them with a levelling effect over the years in which they might have shortages or when because of seasonal factors they are unable to produce enough grapes for production when the wineries really need it. In that way the wine industry over the years has sought to even out its problems of production and in fact has looked after itself. That has been a very significant feature of the industry, in particular to the brandy industry, which is very closely related to the grape spirit industry. The impact of this new wine excise tax is to reduce the capacity of wine makers to buy in grapes and make them into spirit because at the point at which they actually turn that spirit into a product or add it to ports or something else then it is immediately taxed. That tax of course has to be found in terms of cash within seven days of production, yet the product may lay dead for some eight, 10 or 15 years before the cash from its sale is finally realised. That amounts to a very substantial investment which will cost, at today's interest rates, significant amounts on top of the original outlay. Indeed it is very easy to imagine a circumstance in which a fairly large operator, who makes high quality ports, for instance, would be up for several million dollars in extra outlays over the next eight or 10 years while the product is maturing and until it is finally sold on the market. The impact of that is very significant and will obviously lead to a reduction in the capacity of the industry to absorb grapes and crush them for spirit, to the point where the industry itself has estimated that the impact of the excise will decrease the possible market for the product of fortified wines-that is, sherries, ports and wines of that kind-by up to 40 per cent in the next financial year. As we all know that would be absolutely disastrous for the industry and would have very significant effects for regional parts of South Australia. I mention particularly the Riverland districts of South Australia, the Murrumbidgee areas around Griffith in New South Wales and the Sunraysia districts around Mildura in Victoria. Those matters are of great significance to my State in particular and I rise to bring again to the Government's attention the problems relating to that industry. It is true that the Government has recognised the force of this argument which has been put by members of parliament-I instance Mr Neil Andrew, the member for Wakefield who has spoken on this matter in the House of Representatives and myself amongst other senators from South Australia-who have constantly brought these problems to the attention of the Government. It is true that the Government has acknowledged those problems and in fact has taken some action in recent weeks to alleviate them. The way the Government chose to do that was to reduce the rate of excise from $2.61 per litre of alcohol to $1.50. While that certainly is welcome it does not alleviate the problem of financing the cost of excise over the long period of maturation of fortified wines, which is the basis of the industry's complaint. It certainly does not attempt in any way to look at the problems of the industry looking after itself, and in fact will make the industry more dependent upon government in due course. I conclude by seeking to incorporate in Hansard a telex which has been forwarded to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) by the Wine and Brandy Co-operative Producers of Australia, particularly from South Australia, which sets out the argument quite clearly and which seeks further Government reconsideration of this problem, not so much towards the reduction of the rate of excise but rather a reconsideration by the Government of the manner in which it collects the tax which does and will have disastrous consequences upon the industry. I have had no time to show the telex to the Minister at the table, the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). Leave granted. The telex read as follows- GA 61616 PRIMIN AA61616 LXWIN AA80305 Telex to R. J. Hawke Prime Minister. Subject-1983 Federal Budget, excise on fortifying spirit, and recent announcement by Federal Treasurer in regards revised level of excise. My Dear Prime Minister, The announcement by the Federal Treasurer on Wednesday night last (21.9.83), advising that the Federal Government has reduced the excise on fortifying spirit : Does nothing at all to remove the threat of imminent financial ruin for a significant number of Australian independent wine grape growers. Earlier this year, the Australian wine industry made positive planning responses for the 1984 vintage, based upon the pre and post election promises made by you, and members of your government, 'That during the life of your government you would not impose a sales tax or an excise upon the Australian wine industry.' Your broken promise, in the form of the 1983 Budget Excise, not with standing the Treasurers amendment, will create an additional surplus of grapes (around 80,000 tonnes) and will send a significant number of independent wine grape growers into bankruptcy. If your government saw the 1983 Budget Excise as a way of generating additional revenue, then your government was ill advised. The Australian wine industry will simply react to the massive liquidity problem imposed on it, by not manufacturing fortifying spirit or fortified wine in 1984. The Government will be legitimately denied access to the proposed revenue. A grape surplus of massive proportions is all that your government will create. It has been stated by members of your government, that the inclusion of the excise in the 1983 Federal Budget, was upon the advice of the Auditor-General, and responding to an unsubstantiated claim in a recent Departmental efficiency audit, that 2J spirit (non-excisable spirit) was finding its way into a process that 'stretched' the marketable volumes of other potable spirits, after excise had been paid on the original and lesser volume. Within the membership of the Wine and Brandy Co-operative Producers of Australia Inc., there are two of Australia's major brandy and grape spirit manufacturers (Consolidated Co- operative Winery and Loxton Co-operative Winery). We find such an accusation to be grossly offensive-we have been found guilty without trial-our immediate response is to invite an investigation, as soon as possible into all of our records, to disprove the claim contained within the efficiency audit. Further, we challenge the morality of a Government that proposes an excise as the short term method of propping up departmental inadequacies. Surely it is the responsibility of the appropriate Goverment Department to put in place appropriate investigations, that will seek out those who may be responsible for the losses, rather than throw a blanket penalty over an entire segment of an industry. We would also ask, why has not the Government extended the excise to imported fortified wine? Surely imported product is equally deserving of a like penalty. Irrespective of all that we have thus far said, could you please advise us as to why your governments imposition has been made so selective and so discriminatory? Why is it that independent wine grape growers, all from already disadvantaged horticultural regions, have been chosen to bear the total impact of the excise? Our association represents about 20 per cent of the Australian wine industry and some 1600 independent wine grape growers and in an endeavour to assist our shareholders, we bring to your attention again the substance contained within the following telexes addressed to you personally: 1. Consolidated Co-operative Wineries Limited-dated 24.8.83; 2. Loxton Co-operative Winery and Distillery Limited-Tlx No. OTN2034 dated 30.8.83, in which we entreated you to re-examine the problems associated with excise on fortifying spirit but if your chosen policy to tax our industry was unshakable, to at least examine another form of taxation that might spread the burden equitably. Our position in this respect remains unchanged. Representatives of our association seek a meeting with you, at your earliest convenience, in the hope that together we can save a major part of a primary industry that at the moment faces certain ruin. W. J. HARRIS President Wine and Brandy Co-operative Producers of Australia. OTN2058 23.9.83 PRIMIN AA61616 LXWIN AA80305 Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.15) —I wish to raise in the adjournment debate tonight a matter similar to that raised by Senator Messner. However, it refers to far fewer producers and it is a problem of much longer standing. Indeed, Senator Messner, in his capacity as the then Minister Assisting the Treasurer, appears in the story that I am about to relate yet again. On 23 September last year I raised the problem of those few producers in Australia who produce wine made from fruits other than grapes. Coupled with that is the problem of the five producers only in that category and the other five who produce wine made from Australian honey. This problem dates back a long way, to a decision of the Commissioner of Taxation that the definition of Australian wine is that it is wine made from grapes. The problem with that definition is, I think, evident since no dictionary and no encyclopaedia makes such a stipulation. In the latest edition of the handbook of the industry, The Technology of Wine Making, no distinction is drawn; all are considered to be wine. The Macquarie Dictionary definition of wine states: . . . the juice, fermented or unfermented, of various other fruits or plants, used as a beverage . . . The fruit juices are looked after in relation to the sales tax provisions. There is an exemption from sales tax for Australian wine but the interpretation given by the Commissioner has meant that those few producers, particularly the ones in my State-of course I am concerned for all-who produce from Australian fruits that are produced nowhere else in the world suffer from this massive disadvantage which is currently at 20 per cent. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I have pursued this matter for some time with the Minister in the previous Government and Senator Messner, in his capacity as then Minister Assisting the Treasurer, wrote last year that the granting of sales tax exemption must be taken account of in the overall economic strategy. Presumably the letter that was written was meant to be a joke inasmuch as the amount we are looking at is some few thousand dollars only in the totality of what is going on . Senator Peter Baume, who was the Minister at the table at the time of that adjournment debate, said that he would take this matter to the then Treasurer. Senator Peter Baume —And indeed did so, Senator. Senator MACKLIN —He may very well have done so. He assures me that he did, and I am sure that was the case. However, the then Treasurer failed to give any response. Following that, on 5 July this year I wrote again to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of the new Government, raising the matter yet again. Again there was no response, not even an acknowledgment that the letter had been received. Senator Walsh —Was that this year? Senator MACKLIN —That was on 5 July 1983 to the Treasurer, Mr Paul Keating. I then raised a question in the Senate on 8 September with the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Walsh, who said that he would: . . . convey the question to the Treasurer for consideration by the Government at some future time. Presumably, that consideration has not yet taken place. At some stage quite shortly we will discuss the sales tax legislation again. Certainly, I will not give up the fight on behalf of these few producers who have been discriminated against in the most unjust way for some inordinate amount of time. I add a further reason for my belief that the exemption from sales tax which this Government has now determined ought to be given to producers of Australian wines made from grapes ought to be given to these particular producers. They are happy to have their products included in whatever provision is made for Australian wines, whether they be taxed and at whatever level, as long as they are taxed in the same way as wines made from grapes. They are not looking for any special consideration. They are merely looking for equality of consideration . Furthermore, these 10 producers are positioned to take advantage of and contribute to the tourist industry. They have tourist potential. The major ones, in particular, operate in that way. They take advantage of the revenue earning tourist dollar in the areas in which they are positioned. Many tourists, when in those vicinities, are happy to take advantage of a product which is not readily available throughout the rest of Australia and, when they return home, to use that product as part promotion. I support this Government in its high profile attempt to stimulate the tourist industry, as would all Australians. Indeed, when one looks at the balance of payments in relation to tourism one sees that we are currently suffering an enormous loss in that area. Many more tourists leave Australia than visit Australia. I am quite sure that every honourable senator would support the Government in what it is attempting to do to promote internal tourism. I stress that the companies about which I am talking are small companies; they are not big league operations. Only a few thousand dollars would be involved in the totality of Australia if they were to be exempted from sales tax. While that may seem a small matter to raise in the Senate, I believe that those small businessmen need this type of support. It is interesting that they are not coming to the Government asking for a special handout. They are not coming to the Government to plead for massive protection support. They are merely asking to be treated on the same basis as companies producing other wines made from Australian fruits. I believe that that is a reasonable request. I had hoped that we would by now have had a reasonable response from the Government on this issue of including such companies, because it is one of equity and nothing else. There have been some mutterings of other ramifications, such as the problem with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I believe that this Government has an obligation to support those industries to the extent of the amount they would stand to lose. After looking at the amount forwarded to the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, I am quite sure that an amount of $3,000 or $4,000 would not break the bank, but it would restore equity in this area. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.24) —I am sorry that I did not hear the beginning of Senator Messner's speech. I thought that the debate was to start at 6.30 p.m. However, he has informed me that the substance of his speech was virtually the same as the telex he had incorporated in Hansard and covered the same points. I will say something about those in a moment. Senator Macklin asked me a question on this matter a couple of weeks ago , to which I said I would try to get a response. I apologise for having been unable to get one as yet. If I remember correctly I also said at that time that there were a number of anomalies in the Sales Tax Act, some of which were corrected by the previous Government in its last couple of Budgets and some of which were adjusted by the present Government in the recent Budget. I believe that there is a prima facie case for making some adjustment, but I would not like to make any commitments as to the direction in which such adjustment should be made. With regard to Senator Messner's comments, it is certainly arguable that if a tax is to be imposed on wine of any sort a sales tax type of tax is both more equitable in income distribution consequences and also less distorting at the production end than a tax related to the alcoholic content of the wine or fortified wine. I can certainly see that the argument that sales taxes would have been preferable to an excise has some validity. However, excises have existed for a very long time on whisky and brandy. Until 1970 excises were imposed on fortifying spirit at a level of $2 a litre which, converted into present day values, is about $8 a litre. Thus, the excise on fortifying spirit reimposed in this Budget and subsequently adjusted to $1.50 a litre is very much lower in real terms than the level of excise that applied until 1970. I observe also that it is extremely low compared with the excise applied to what is almost an identical product, brandy, which is, from memory, about $16 a litre of alcohol. Therefore, although that is an argument to be put, I think the tone of the telex that Senator Messner has incorporated is certainly exaggerated and, in parts, goes close to being hysterical. I will deal with a couple of specific points made in that telex. In one paragraph it was stated: We would also ask, why has not the Government extended the excise to imported fortified wine? Surely imported product is equally deserving of a like penalty. The fact is that imported fortified wine attracts sales tax of 20 per cent, which has been increased substantially in the 1981 and 1982 Budgets as a result of other sales tax changes. In those two Budgets it was increased from 15 per cent to 20 per cent. As Senator Macklin indicated, there are GATT implications associated with the imposition of a general sales tax on wine. Indeed, the interpretation of the legal position under GATT which has been given to me is that if a general sales tax were to be introduced on Australian wine the rate of sales tax applied to imported wine would have to be identical. That, of course, would put the Australian industry in a disadvantaged position vis-a-vis imports relative to where it is now. It is difficult to reconcile with the facts the assertion in the telex that the 'Government's imposition has been made so selective and so discriminatory'- discriminatory, allegedly, against producers of fortifying spirits and fortified wines. The facts are: First, until 1970 an excise of in present value dollar terms $8 a litre was applied; secondly, an almost identical product, namely brandy, carries excise at the rate of, I think, $16 a litre; and thirdly, imports are in fact subject to a sales tax of 20 per cent whereas the Australian product is free from sales tax. Moreover, if it is accepted-and I do not necessarily pass judgment in this direction-that a product containing a higher concentration of alcohol ought to be subject to a higher rate of tax than a product containing a lesser concentration of alcohol, then, of course, the case for applying some form of taxation on fortified wines has to be stronger than the case for applying some form of taxation on wine in general. Finally, to put the final effects of the tax in perspective, with a 10 per cent rate of fortification-that is, 10 per cent by volume of alcohol added to the product-at this present level the excise amounts to something less than 15c for a 750 millilitre bottle. It is likely to impact in ad valorem terms. Unfortunately, it tends to fall more heavily on the lower priced bulk product than the higher priced products. But it may well be that whatever tax is imposed on this industry ought to be imposed in a different way from the way that was chosen at this time. That is a question to which I would expect that the Government will address itself at some future time. But the assertion that this is a particularly selective and discriminatory tax against this particular section of the wine industry is, I say again, somewhat difficult to reconcile with the low level of the excise being imposed relative to that which has applied to the same product in recent years, relative to that which applies to an almost identical product, brandy, and relative to that which is applied to imported wines, fortified or otherwise. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 6.33 p.m. The following papers were presented pursuant to statute: Appointments under the Public Service Act; By-laws under the Postal Services Act; Determinations under the- Public Service Act; and Seat of Government (Administration) Act; Ordinances under the- Australian Antarctic Territory Act; Heard Island and McDonald Islands Act; and Seat of Government (Administration) Act; Regulations under the- Air Force Act; Australian Capital Territory (House of Representatives) Act; Commonwealth Electoral Act and Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act; Companies (Acquisition of Shares-Fees) Act; Companies (Fees) Act; Dairy Produce Act; Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Act; Dried Fruit (Export Inspection Charge) Act; Edible Oils (Export Inspection Charge) Act; Eggs (Export Inspection Charge) Act; Extradition (Foreign States) Act; Family Law Act; Fish (Export Inspection Charge) Act; Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Act; Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Act; Navigation Act; Northern Territory Representation Act and Commonwealth Electoral Act; Public Accounts Committee Act; Securities Industry (Fees) Act; Student Assistance Act; and Wool Industry Act; Statements- Of land acquired under the Lands Acquisition Act; and Of particulars of ministerial determinations under the Health Insurance Act; and Statutes under the Australian National University Act. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 79 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , upon notice, on 21 April 1983: For each State and Territory, what radiotelephone circuits allow eavesdropping of telephone conversations by persons using FM receivers or certain types of television receivers as is possible on the Aurukun-Weipa telephone circuit. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: Number of Radiotelephone State/Territory Circuits New South Wales 90 Victoria 41 Queensland 140 South Australia 30 Northern Territory 20 Western Australia 105 Tasmania 76 These radio circuits are used for connections to individual, or groups of, subscribers and are not to be confused with radio trunk circuits used extensively in the Australian trunk network. Question No. 115 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Has Australian aid been provided for the development of a major airport at Wewak in Papua New Guinea; if so (a) what was the total aid provided, and (b) what was the objective to be achieved. (2) Who planned the airport development work. (3) Who supervised the said work. (4) How successful has the said planning and work been in achieving the objective. (5) What is the length and width of runway necessary for operation to (a) Australian, and (b) general international standards for the types of aircraft envisaged in the objective 1 (b) above. (6) What is the actual length and width of the runway constructed. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (6) I am not aware of any Australian aid provided for the development of a major airport at Wewak in Papua New Guinea. Question No. 128 Senator Martin asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 5 May 1983: (1) Has the Attorney-General read the February 1983 issue of Matchbox the journal of the United States of America section of Amnesty International in which on page 14 the Executive Director, Mr John G. Healey, writes, 'I believe that worldwide attention, as well as Amnesty International pressure, should focus on a United States company's recent sale of 'flash-light' shock batons to South Africa. More than 2,000 of these instruments-which look very much like police night sticks, carry a battery capable of producing 3,500 volts of electricity, and have a flashlight mechanism-were marketed as flash-lights and shipped to South Africa . . . in clear violation of United States Department of Commerce regulations. United States Government officials later said they had approved the export licence ''owing to administrative inadvertance''.' (2) Under what Federal, State and Territory laws, if any, is the manufacture, sale and export of items of torture equipment prohibited. (3) Have any persons, organisations or companies in Australia or with Australian principals and funds, been involved with such activities during the last five years; if so, who are they and where are their places of operation. (4) Will the Attorney-General take whatever immediate action is necessary to make the manufacture, sale and export of instruments specifically produced for torture illegal; if so, what means does he intend to employ. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) to (4) I am not aware of goods of the kind mentioned in the Amnesty article being manufactured in Australia. If they were and it came to notice that such items were being exported from this country, then serious consideration would be given to regulating their export by the inclusion of an appropriate item in the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations. Question No. 273 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: Does the Federal Government intend changing food and drug regulations so that orange juice containers will list: (a) the percentage of pure orange juice in the same size print as the word orange; (b) if it is made from freshly squeezed oranges or from concentrate; (c) if it is from concentrate, where was it made; (d) the amount of preservatives used and their names; and (e) the sugar content. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Regulation of food, including the information provided on labels, is essentially the province of State and Territory Governments. In practice, such regulations are based on Model Food Standards Regulations developed by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). A working party of the National Health and Medical Research Council is currently reviewing the standard for fruit juices, with initial emphasis on orange juice, largely because of State dissatisfaction with current practices in the industry. The points raised by Senator Bolkus will be brought to the attention of the working party as items for specific attention. Question No. 264 Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Has the Government finalised the regulations needed to implement the abolition of the pharmaceutical benefits declaration, if not, when will this take place. (2) When will the Department of Health issue guidelines on how the new system will be phased in and what arrangements are being made with respect of the use of the existing stationery. (3) Are delays in finalising the regulations causing difficulties within the industry and do many beneficiaries believe that the abolition of the form has already been implemented. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) New arrangements to replace the patient declaration took effect on 18 July 1983. (2) Letters were sent on 15 July 1983 to doctors, pharmacists and participating dental practitioners explaining the new procedures. In my letter I told doctors and dentists that national health service prescription forms in the new format will be supplied when doctors and dentists re-order further supplies. In the meantime existing NHS prescription forms are to be used until supplies of the new forms are obtained. (3) The regulations were finalised prior to 18 July 1983. Most beneficiaries using the pharmaceutical benefits scheme should be aware that the patient declaration arrangements are no longer in effect. Question No. 287 Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Is the new Trident class of United States Navy submarine operative in the Indian Ocean or Pacific Ocean close to Australia. (2) Has the United States Navy's Trident submarine a shorter period of patrol time away from base, some 60 to 90 days, than other submarines. (3) Has the United States Government made any approaches to Australia concerning the possibility of establishing a support base for Trident in Australian territory or water. (4) Have the facilities at HMAS Stirling at Cockburn Sound in Western Australia the capability for providing a support base for Trident submarine. (5) If HMAS Stirling has the capability, was it designed or altered specifically for the Trident submarine. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The United States of America does not, for obvious security reasons , disclose in any detail the operating areas or capabilities of its ballistic missile submarine force. (3) No. (4) No. (5) No. See (4) above. Question No. 288 Senator Martin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 24 August 1983: What are the names and offices of persons who currently hold official Australian diplomatic passports who are not employees of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs or employees of one of the Australian Government's official security or Law enforcement agencies. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The categories of persons to whom diplomatic passports may be issued are as follows: PART A (i) The Governor-General (ii) The Prime Minister (iii) The President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, an Australian Government Minister (iv) The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (v) The Chief Justice and Justices of the High Court of Australia, Chief Judge of the Federal Court of Australia (vi) The Chief of the Defence Force Staff and the Chiefs of the Australian Naval, General and Air Staffs, when proceeding overseas on official business (vii) A First Division Officer of the Australian Public Service proceeding overseas on official business (viii) The following Statutory Office holders: Chairman of the Public Service Board Director-General, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Governor of the Reserve Bank Commissioner, Australian Federal Police Director General, Office of National Assessments Director, Joint Intelligence Organisation Director-General, Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ix) An Ambassador, High Commissioner or other Head of a Diplomatic or Consular Mission of Australia (x) An Officer of the Australian Public Service who is the leader of a delegation on behalf of the Australian Government or its sole representative, attending an international conference or undertaking formal bilateral or multilateral negotiations (xi) A member of Her Majesty's Australian diplomatic service (not including 'a member of the administrative and technical staff' or 'a member of the service staff' or 'a private servant' as defined in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations) (xii) A member of the staff of any Australian Government Department or instrumentality assigned to a diplomatic mission overseas and notified to the Receiving Country as holding a recognised diplomatic rank (xiii) An Australian Government diplomatic courier PART B (i) A Governor of a State and former Governors (ii) A Premier of a State (iii) A State Government Minister proceeding overseas on official business (iv) The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory proceeding overseas on official business (v) A permanent head of a State Premier's Department accompanying the State Premier overseas on an official visit PART C (i) One member of the staff of any person covered by category (i) to (iv) of PART A and (i) of PART B above, accompanying that person overseas on official business (ii) a person in respect of whom the Minister for Foreign Affairs considers that exceptional circumstances apply (iii) the spouse of a person granted a diplomatic passport provided: (a) the spouse is an Australian citizen or possesses the status of a British Subject; and (b) the cost of the spouse's fare to the overseas destination is to be met from Australian or State funds. The issue of each diplomatic passport must be approved by an appropriate officer (or the Minister under Part C (ii) of the categories listed above). My Department does not maintain detailed information on the office held by each holder of a diplomatic passport, because this information changes in detail frequently and would be of limited value. I regret that staffing constraints make it impossible for me to deploy the extensive resources that would be required to extract all the information requested by the honourable senator. There is also, of course, a question of privacy involved. Question No. 298 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Has the Government taken any new initiatives since achieving office in increasing Australia's volume of trade with Pacific Island nations. (2) What are the most recent balance of trade statistics between: (a) Australia and the Cook Islands; (b) Australia and Fiji; (c) Australia and Kiribati; (d) Australia and Nauru; (e) Australia and New Caledonia; (f) Australia and Niue; (g) Australia and Papua New Guinea; (h) Australia and the Solomon Islands; (i) Australia and Tonga; (j) Australia and Tuvalu; (k) Australia and Vanuata; and; (l) Australia and Western Samoa. (3) Does the Department of Trade maintain a representative in each of the above Pacific Island nations; if so, at what level. (4) Does the Minister for Trade foresee an improvement in the level of Australian trading in this region during the next two financial years. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government is increasing Australia's trade promotion activity in the Pacific Islands. In particular, the Department of Trade is planning an increase in the number of major displays of Australian products to be held in the area and greater emphasis is to be placed on other promotional aids. As a measure to assist Forum Island countries develop their exports, the Australian Government has introduced a program of technical and marketing assistance for export industries. This program is designed to assist the Islands in taking full advantage of duty free access into Australia offered for a wide range of Forum Island products under the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement (SPARTECA). It will be funded under the Australian aid program. The program will assist these countries in their trade promotion and marketing activities and encourage the development and subsequent export of products that have a place on the Australian market. Australia has also responded positively to requests from Forum Island countries for improved access into the Australian market by providing additional duty concessions under SPARTECA. (2) Australian Trade with South Pacific Nations ($A'000) 1981-82 1982-83(p) Excess Excess Country Exports Imports of exports Exports Imports of exports Cook Islands 1,347 122 +1,225 809 18 +791 Fiji 159,775 20,494 +139,281 175,334 23,347 +151,987 Kiribati 7,011 165 +6,846 8,632 26 +8,606 Nauru 12,267 86,285 - 74,018 12,849 63,388 -50,539 New Caledonia 38,161 1,424 +36,737 47,699 793 +46, 906 Vanuatu 10,571 236 +10,335 15,397 222 +15,175 Niue 229 20 +209 119 28 +91 American Samoa 2,667 1,055 +1,612 2,755 1,765 +990 Tonga 8,222 2,230 +5,992 5, 880 1,144 +4,736 Tuvalu 1,623 27 +1,596 1,263 9 +1,254 Western Samoa 5,762 597 +5,165 5,273 1,662 +3,611 Solomon Islands 18,421 822 +17,599 35,927 823 +35,104 Papua New Guinea 420,126 69,909 +350,217 508,516 69,040 +439,476 Total 686,182 183,386 502,796 820,453 162,265 658,188 (3) The Department of Trade maintains trade commissioner posts in Suva and Port Moresby. The Post in Port Moresby is responsible for Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands and is staffed by a senior trade commissioner and a trade commissioner. The Suva Post handles all other South Pacific Islands and is staffed by a senior trade commissioner and two trade commissioners. In addition, a locally engaged marketing officer is employed in Noumea and a trade correspondent is located in French Polynesia. (4) Australia's exports to the countries of the South Pacific increased in 1982 -83 by $A134,271,000 or 19.6 per cent over the previous year. However these countries are facing depressed economic conditions due to the current world trading situation and low prices for their export commodities. For that reason, it would be difficult to record similar increases in export performance over the next two financial years. Competition from third countries is becoming intense and many of the Islands are developing import replacement industries. Nevertheless, Australia's position as a major supplier to these markets should be maintained in future years. Question No. 301 Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Is a high percentage of the decisions of the Repatriation Boards and Commission set aside by the Repatriation Review Tribunal (RRT); if so, why. (2) Are many genuine claims being disallowed at the earlier hearing by the Boards or the Commission delegates; if so, why. (3) Has the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, or the Department of Veterans' Affairs, requested the Repatriation Advisory Committee to ascertain, or comment on, why such a high percentage of valid repatriation claims are rejected at Board and Commission hearings; if not, does the Minister intend to undertake such investigations. (4) Is the recent Departmental policy of opposing appeals, before the RRT, with highly qualified and trained advocates, the only positive action taken to reduce the extremely large number of successful appeals. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) In the 12 months to 24 June 1983, the Repatriation Review Tribunal set aside 89.2 per cent of the decisions which it reviewed where the Commission had refused a claim for pension. In addition, during the same period, the Repatriation Review Tribunal set aside 69.8 per cent of the decisions it reviewed concerning the assessment of the rate of pension and service pension eligibility. Several factors contributed to the high percentage of decisions on claims for pensions being set aside. In many cases, material evidence is not introduced until the matter comes before the Tribunal. In other cases, the refusal of the claim by a Repatriation Board and the Repatriation Commission had been without the benefit of subsequent decisions by the High Court, Federal Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The mean time taken to process entitlement applications in 1982-83 was 737 days. This means that most of the appeals decided were lodged before the High Court handed down its decision in the Law case. There has also been a difference between the Tribunal and the Commission in the interpretation of certain legislative provisions as they apply to cases where the aetiology of the incapacity is unknown. Three decisions recently handed down by the Federal Court have supported the Commission's views. When the Tribunal sets aside a decision concerning the assessment of a rate of pension, it may substitute either a lower rate of pension or a higher rate. (2) For the reasons set out in the answer to (1), the answer is no. The beneficial provisions of the legislation are designed to facilitate acceptance of claims where there is some evidence of fact which might fulfil the conditions of eligibility. All determining authorities are fully aware of their responsibilities under the legislation. The acceptance rate for entitlement claims at the Repatriation Board level in 1982-83 was 70.1 per cent and for appeals to the Repatriation Commission 49.1 per cent. The acceptance rate for applications for increase in existing pensions at the Repatriation Board level in 1982-83 was 76.3 per cent. These acceptance rates demonstrate that a generous approach is being taken at these primary determining levels. (3) The Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review is concerned with the major task of reviewing the repartiation legislation for the purposes of consolidation and simplification. This question has not been specifically referred to it. The Administrative Review Council has reviewed the determining structure. It is expected that its report will be available in the near future. (4) The Repatriation Commission is charged with the administration of the Act and does not see its role as one of trying to reduce successful applications but , in this area, as one of ensuring that correct decisions are made within the meaning of the law. The Commission has appeared in a small number of Tribunal cases, but has not had the resources available to it to appear in any great number of cases. As mentioned in the reply to question (1), the Commission has successfully pursued appeals to the Federal Court. The decisions handed down to date are in accord with the principles the Commission has adopted in the determination of matters before it. A good deal of effort has gone into ensuring that Repatriation Boards and Repatriation Commission delegates reach decisions in accordance with the law. The following table shows acceptance rates for claims and appeals since 1978 and gives a good indication of the results of the approach adopted by the Repatriation Commission. Percentage Acceptance rates-Repatriation Claims and Appeals, 1977-78-1982-83 Repatriation Board Repatriation Repatriation Application Commission Review Tribunal New claims for increase- and now disability S. 28 Entitlement Assessment Year ending 30 June disabilities pension appeals application application 1978 29.2 47.6 11.0 13.9 39.0 1979 30.6 51.6 10.3 14.9 40.7 1980 32.0 51.9 14 .2 22.3 39.1 1981 43.0 57.3 28.4 48.0 54.9 1982 51.1 67.7 30.2 73.0 69.9 1983 70.1 76.3 49.1 89.2 70.2 1984 (to date) 70.5 75.1 54.8 87.4 67.3 Question No. 304 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Which manned lights have been demanned by the Commonwealth since the Commonwealth assumed responsibility for lighthouse affairs. (2) What were the years in which each light was demanned. (3) Which lights have been discontinued over the same period. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2) and (3) The following are those manned lights which have been unmanned , discontinued or transferred back to the particular State, and the year in which this was carried out, since the Commonwealth assumed responsibility in 1915 for coastal navigational aids: Trans- ferred Un- Discon- to Station manned tinued State Queensland Goode Is 1973 Piper Is (Lightship) 1917 Claremont Is (Lightship) 1918 Piper Is Reef 1915 Grass Hill 1927 Archer Point 1957 Rocky Islet 1920 Port Douglas 1920 North Barnard Is 1919 Bay Rock 1920 1977 Cape Bowling Green 1920 Flat Top Islet 1920 North Reef 1977 Little Sea Hill 1933 1975 Gatcombe Head 1924 Burnett Heads 1932 Caloundra Head 1942 1979 North Point Hummock 1939 Yellow Patch 1939 1939 New South Wales Fingal Head 1920 Richmond River 1920 Clarence River 1920 South Solitary Island 1975 Tacking Point 1919 Crowdy Head 1920 Point Stephens 1973 Nobbys Head 1916 Barranjoey Head 1932 Macquarie 1977 Kiama 1920 Warden Head 1920 Victoria Cliffy Is 1971 Point Lonsdale 1921 1932 Split Point 1919 Tasmania Iron Pot 1920 1925 Tasman Is 1977 Goose Is 1931 Mersey Bluff 1920 Emu Bay 1918 1918 Table Cape 1920 Cape Wickham 1918 Circular Head 1924 Cape Sorell 1971 South Australia Cape Northumberland 1980 Cape Banks 1928 Penguin Is 1918 1966 Cape Jaffa 1973 Cape Jervis 1927 Troubridge Shoal 1981 Cape Couedie 1957 Corny Point 1920 Tipara Reef 1920 Lowly Point 1973 Cape Donnington 1915 Northern Territory Pt Charles 1933 Cape Don 1983 Western Australia Breaksea Is 1926 Busselton (Vaase) 1933 1933 Bathurst Pt 1920 Cape Inscription 1917 Cloates Point (re-established 1966) 1936 1936 North West Cape (Vlaaming Hd) 1917 1967 Jarman Is 1917 Gantheaume Pt 1917 Eclipse Is 1976 Question No. 308 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) Why did the management arrangement with the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences, referred to in the Department of Transport and Construction 1981-82 annual report, terminate. (2) Was this at the request of the Department or the Institute. (3) What was the management fee paid by the Institute in: (a) 1979; (b) 1980; ( c) 1981 and (d) 1982. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The management arrangement was terminated because the Institute considered that it would be preferable for the vessel to be operated and managed by a private contractor. (2) The arrangement was terminated at the request of the Institute. (3) The total fees paid by the Australian Institute of Marine Science to the Department of Transport for managing and operating the 'Lady Basten' were: (a) 1979-80-$446,000, (b) 1980-81-$533,000, (c) 1981-82-$633,000. Question No. 307 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) What is the location of all navigational aids along the coast of Tasmania. (2) How many times has each of these aids been out of service in each of the last 10 years. (3) How long did it take to restore the aid to service in each case. Senator Geitzelt-The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Number of Days to Outages over restore Station Location Last 10 years Each outage Low Rocky Pt 42 59.5'S 145 30.8'E 4 4,3,1,1 Cape Sorell 42 11.8'S 145 10.5'E 6 2,4,1,1,2,1 Sandy Cape 41 25.2'S 144 44.7'E 1 1 Bluff Hill Pt 41 01.2' 144 37.2'E 2 1,6 West Point 40 56.6'S 144 36.9'E 7 2,1,1,1,1,1,1 Highfield Pt 40 44.3'S 145 17.4'E Nil Nil Rocky Cape 40 51.3'S 145 30.8'E 4 2,1,1,1 Table Cape 40 56.9'S 145 43.8'E 3 1,1,1 Round Hill 41 04'S 145 57.7'E 2 1,1 Mersey Bluff 41 03.4'S 146 21.3'E 7 1,1,1,1,1,1,1 Low Head 41 03.4'S 146 47.3'E 9 (including auxiliary) 1,1,1,1,1,1,1, 1,1, Eddystone Pt 41.00.0'S 148 21.0'E 1 1 Cape Tourville 42 07.4'S 148 20.8'E 7 1,1,1,1,2,2,1 Point Home Lookout 42 33.2'S 147 57.2'E 1 1 Question No. 305 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: Is it proposed to build a light at Cape Queen Elizabeth in Tasmania, if so, (a) when will the light be commissioned; (b) what is expected construction cost; (c) which organisation or individual requested the light; and (d) who will be the major user of the light. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Commonwealth currently has no proposal to build a light at Cape Queen Elizabeth. Question No. 306 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: What is the updated data for 1981-82 for each of the following, which arise from the differences in reporting between the Department of Transport 1980-81 Annual Report and the Department of Transport and Construction 1981-82 Annual Report: (a) cape class vessel utilisation (see Department of Transport, annual report 1980-81, appendix 52, page 175), (b) marine navigational aid costs (see page 123), and (c) contract services to Marine Navigational Aids (see appendix 54, page 1975). Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) Cape class vessels utilisation-days-for 1981-82 Navaids steaming 534 Port time 121 Out of commission 98 Drydock, refit, repairs 84 Hire 257 Surveillance 1 Total 1,095 (b) Marine navigational aid costs 1981-82 $000 Salaries-including overtime 11,244 Administration expenses 6,238 Repairs and maintenance 309 Rents 253 Support costs 3,628 Depreciation of assets 2,066 Interest on capital 2,103 Superannuation liability 1,719 Total costs 27,560 (c) Cost of contract services to Marine Navigational Aids for 1981-82 follows: Qld NSW Vic./Tas. SA/NT WA Total $ $ $ $ $ $ Helicopter Ops 38,720 31,299 184,280 33,735 87,878 375,912 Fixed Wing Ops 19,087 . . 39,160 30,305 5,374 93,926 Launch Ops 99,065 19,075 . . . . 29,176 147,316 156,872 50,374 223,440 64,040 122,428 617,154 Other information on contract services is contained in table 16, page 110 of the Department of Transport and Construction's 1981-82 annual report. Question No. 338 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 7 September 1983: For what project or purpose was Blanche D'Alpuget given a fellowship grant of $ 6,250 by the Literature Board of the Australia Council during the year 1981-82. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I am advised by the Australia Council that in the years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981- 82 Blanche D'Alpuget received three fellowship grants totalling $22,500, including $6,250 in 1981-82 to write the biography of R. J. Hawke. Question No. 341 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 September 1983: (1) Has the Overseas Telecommunications Commission ever handed over transmission materials, that is, customers' messages to the Defence Signals Directorate or the Defence Signals Division as it was known; if so, over what period of time did any such event occur. (2) What quantity of transmission materials or messages were handed over. (3) Whose messages were handed over. (4) Who authorised the handing over of this material. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (4) This allegation was made in the National Times of 20-26 May 1983. It is the practice of this Government, as of its predecessors, neither to confirm nor deny allegations concerning the activities of intelligence or security agencies. The activities of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission are the responsibility of the Minister for Communications who, on 13 September 1983, replied to a question on this matter from the honourable senator. Question No. 352 Senator Sir John Carrick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 13 September 1983: (1) What steps has the Government taken to ensure that errors in navigation, such as are presumed to have occurred in the Korean Airlines Flight 007 disaster , cannot happen in aircraft flying under Australian flags or in international aircraft. (2) Are sufficient fail-safe mechanisms installed with adequate back-up systems . (3) Has a procedure been enforced to ensure that only a correct course can be placed in the inertial navigation system and does the procedure entail cross- checking by other crew members. (4) Do Qantas and major domestic aircraft carry Omega navigation aids and is there an adequate procedure established for cross-checking the correct course and bearings. (5) What international conferences have been held since the Korean Airlines disaster to tighten navigation procedures; if so, what role has Australia played . (6) What compensation is available to the estates of the Australian victims either from claims upon the Korean airline or from any other source apart from any request to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for compensation. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Department of Aviation checks the operations manuals of each Australian airline for the acceptability of its prescribed cockpit procedures. In addition, periodic checks for adherence to these procedures are conducted by departmental officers during in-flight inspections of the airlines. The manuals of international operators seeking to operate to Australia are also submitted to the Department for checking prior to the issue of licences to those operators. It is believed that steps additional to these are not necessary. We cannot influence the way in which international operators conduct their activities outside Australian airspace although the procedures specified by airlines, both here and abroad, are very similar. (2) The inertial navigation systems-INS-installed in airline aircraft usually consist of two or three separate inertial units to provide redundancy. The systems are not of themselves fail safe, but failure warning is provided and crew checks are designed to ensure the early detection of discrepancies so that alternative procedures or systems can be implemented to ensure the safe completion of a flight. (3) Although it is possible to insert incorrect information into an inertial navigation system, crew procedures around the world are designed to prevent such an incorrect input remaining undetected. These procedures require the global position of waypoints and the details of tracks and distances to be fully verified prior to departure and re-checked on each route segment during flight by at least two pilots. (4) Only the Ansett B727 and B737 aircraft carry VLF/Omega equipment for navigation purposes. The crew procedures in respect of this equipment are similar to those used with inertial navigation systems and also rely on formal crew cross checking and verification requirements. (5) The Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization met in an extraordinary session on 15 September 1983 and passed a resolution directing the Secretary-General of ICAO to instigate an investigation into the disaster. The Council directed its subsidiary body, the Air Navigation Commission, to examine ways in which a recurrence of such a tragic accident might be prevented. Australia and a number of other countries jointly sponsored this resolution. The ICAO triennial Assembly is currently being held in Montreal, and the Australian delegation to the Assembly will support fully any initiatives to strengthen the security of international civil aviation. (6) Any claim for compensation from the Korean airline, insurance companies, employers and sources other than the Soviet Union is a private legal matter. I am informed that the Department of Foreign Affairs advised the families of the Australian victims to seek legal advice and I understand that they have done so. The Government's priority is to obtain prompt and adequate compensation from the USSR for a grave violation of international law and to ensure through appropriate action in international forums that such incidents are never repeated. Question No. 379 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 22 September 1983: (1) What are the present uncertainties about the performance and unreliability of the present Landsat series of satellites, referred to in Answer to Question No. 323, Hansard, 15 September 1983, page 750. (2) For what reason or reasons, is the upgrading of the resources satellites unjustified. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Science and Technology has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Of the four earth resources satellites launched by the United States of America only Landsat 4 remains operational and only partly so. I am informed that it has experienced a failure of half of the solar cell array which provides electrical power to the satellite. Problems with the remaining power capacity are becoming evident and could cause the satellite to become unserviceable at any time. In addition the capability to transmit the high resolution thematic mapper data to ground stations failed shortly after launch. (2) I assume that the honourable senator is referring to upgrading the Australian Landsat station-not the satellites. As I said in answer to the honourable senator's previous question, the Government decided that, in view of more pressing demands for funding in the recent Budget context, the upgrade could not be justified at that time. However, it could be considered at a later date depending upon the availability of satellite data and the cost recovery performance of the station. Senator Button —On 8 September 1983, (Hansard, page 526) Senator Sibraa asked Senator Gareth Evans a question, without notice, concerning the cost of businessmen's luncheons, attended by Mr Malcolm Fraser after the announcement of the 1983 election. He undertook to provide Senator Sibraa with further information. The Prime Minister has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: A Cabinet meeting was held in Brisbane on Tuesday, 8 February 1983, and associated with that meeting Mr Fraser gave the following functions: Date Function Cost $ 7 February Dinner for 28 businessmen 1,155.13 8 February Luncheon for 160 businessmen 6,197.36 8 February Reception for 524 representatives of community organisations 6,187.80 Arrangements for the above functions had been made and most invitations had been issued prior to the announcement of the election on 3 February. No other similar lucheons, dinners or receptions were arranged or paid for from government funds after the announcement of the election. Senator Grimes —On 2 June 1983, (Hansard, page 1166), Senator Walters asked Senator Walsh, the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, a question without notice concerning the ordering of computer equipment by the Health Insurance Commission. This matter has been taken up by the Minister for Health who has provided the following information: The Health Insurance Commission has placed orders for computer equipment to perform its public (Medicare) function, i.e. to plan and establish the organisation required to administer the payment of Medicare benefits in respect of medical optometrical, dental and pathology services. The major contract was awarded to IBM Australia for the central processor and associated equipment at a cost of $10.3m. Raytheon International Data Systems was the successful tenderer for visual display unit terminals at a cost of $3.6m . These costs are exclusive of sales tax. Payments are planned to be made from parliamentary appropriations.